As Cohen rivets Washington, White House announces Kushner met with Saudi crown prince
I'm pretty sure these guys, none of whom should even have a minimal security clearance, are selling US policy or diplomatic favors in return for financial benefits.
These guys really are a crime family.
That ultra-secret backchannel they wanted to the Kremlin, impervious to snooping by US agencies, was just supposed to make the corruption, conspiracy, and collusion work more smoothly.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
They could actually have a point
Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury
You do have to wonder if he's actually a compulsive liar.
The criminal referral -- sent by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, and North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows -- outlined several areas of testimony they urged the Justice Department to investigate, including Cohen's claims Wednesday that he did not seek a job in the Trump White House, his denial of committing bank fraud, as well as his assertion that the did not have any reportable contracts with foreign entities.
See this.
And yet much that he said pointed the Dems at new possible witnesses.
You do have to wonder if he's actually a compulsive liar.
The criminal referral -- sent by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, and North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows -- outlined several areas of testimony they urged the Justice Department to investigate, including Cohen's claims Wednesday that he did not seek a job in the Trump White House, his denial of committing bank fraud, as well as his assertion that the did not have any reportable contracts with foreign entities.
See this.
And yet much that he said pointed the Dems at new possible witnesses.
The defining trait of the Age of Trump
Stupidity determined to take charge.
Anti-vaxx 'mobs': doctors face harassment campaigns on Facebook
Networks of closed Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members have become staging grounds for campaigns that victims say are intended to silence and intimidate pro-vaccine voices on social media.
The harassment only exacerbates an online ecosystem rife with anti-vaccine misinformation, thanks in part to Facebook’s recommendation algorithms and targeted advertising.
Anti-vaxx 'mobs': doctors face harassment campaigns on Facebook
Networks of closed Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members have become staging grounds for campaigns that victims say are intended to silence and intimidate pro-vaccine voices on social media.
The harassment only exacerbates an online ecosystem rife with anti-vaccine misinformation, thanks in part to Facebook’s recommendation algorithms and targeted advertising.
Stupid voters elect stupid candidates to office
The Republicans most conspicuously.
TEXAS: Anti-Vax Republican State Rep Claims Measles Can Be Treated With Antibiotics (It Totally Cannot)
Texas state Representative Bill Zedler doesn’t understand the fuss over the resurgence of infectious diseases.
“When I grew up, I had a lot of these illnesses,” he said, listing measles, mumps and chickenpox.
“They wanted me to stay at home. But as far as being sick in bed, it wasn’t anything like that,” said Zedler, an outspoken anti-vaxxer and longtime member of the House Public Health Committee who has worked in the health-care industry.
“They want to say people are dying of measles. Yeah, in third-world countries they’re dying of measles,” Zedler said, shaking his head.
“Today, with antibiotics and that kind of stuff, they’re not dying in America.”
TEXAS: Anti-Vax Republican State Rep Claims Measles Can Be Treated With Antibiotics (It Totally Cannot)
Texas state Representative Bill Zedler doesn’t understand the fuss over the resurgence of infectious diseases.
“When I grew up, I had a lot of these illnesses,” he said, listing measles, mumps and chickenpox.
“They wanted me to stay at home. But as far as being sick in bed, it wasn’t anything like that,” said Zedler, an outspoken anti-vaxxer and longtime member of the House Public Health Committee who has worked in the health-care industry.
“They want to say people are dying of measles. Yeah, in third-world countries they’re dying of measles,” Zedler said, shaking his head.
“Today, with antibiotics and that kind of stuff, they’re not dying in America.”
And he got absolutely nothing for it
He always believes horrible people who deny doing bad things.
Trump: I took Kim at his word over Otto Warmbier's torture
At times like this it is some consolation that it was the Electors who chose him; the voters chose Hillary.
Donald Trump has said he took Kim Jong-un “at his word” when he denied any responsibility in the imprisonment and torture of Otto Warmbier that led to the US student’s death in 2017.
“Some really bad things happened to Otto,” Trump said.
“But Kim tells me that he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word.”
Although Kim wields tremendous power in one of the world’s last totalitarian regimes, Trump said he believed the North Korean leader was not aware of Warmbier’s imprisonment in January 2016 and torture in jail until it was too late.
“I don’t believe he knew about it. He felt very badly about it, I did speak to him. He knew about it, but he knew about it after,” Trump said.
North Korea, he went on, was a “big country” with “a lot of people in those prisons and the camps – there are some bad people”.
Trump: I took Kim at his word over Otto Warmbier's torture
At times like this it is some consolation that it was the Electors who chose him; the voters chose Hillary.
Donald Trump has said he took Kim Jong-un “at his word” when he denied any responsibility in the imprisonment and torture of Otto Warmbier that led to the US student’s death in 2017.
“Some really bad things happened to Otto,” Trump said.
“But Kim tells me that he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word.”
Although Kim wields tremendous power in one of the world’s last totalitarian regimes, Trump said he believed the North Korean leader was not aware of Warmbier’s imprisonment in January 2016 and torture in jail until it was too late.
“I don’t believe he knew about it. He felt very badly about it, I did speak to him. He knew about it, but he knew about it after,” Trump said.
North Korea, he went on, was a “big country” with “a lot of people in those prisons and the camps – there are some bad people”.
Why Republicans love the Electoral College
OK, but why do some Democrats still defend it?
Paul LePage Says National Popular Vote Will Silence White People
Speaking to the hosts of the WVOM morning show this week, former Governor Paul LePage lambasted a bill being considered by Maine’s legislature to join with other states to essentially bypass the Electoral College and ensure that the President is elected by the national popular vote.
“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” said LePage.
The former governor, calling into the show from his home in Florida, also labeled the proposal “an insane process” and warned that “we’re gonna be forgotten people.”
The proposal would actually, if adopted by a sufficient number of states, ensure that every voter, regardless of race, has the same say in electing the president.
. . . . .
Commenters on Twitter after LePage’s remarks were shared on Wednesday noted that while he’s wrong about the particulars, race is an instructive lens through which to view the current presidential electoral system.
The power of white voters is significantly magnified by the Electoral College, which itself is a product of the nation’s history of slavery.
And it is magnified much, much more in the senate in which a state with fewer than 600,000 people, 93% whites, has the same number of senators as a state with 40 million people, some 27% nonwhite (10.8 million) among whom are 2.6 million blacks.
Some Democrats to this day resist the idea that representation in the senate should be proportionate to population, like representation in the house, as both Madison and Hamilton desired.
Why?
Paul LePage Says National Popular Vote Will Silence White People
Speaking to the hosts of the WVOM morning show this week, former Governor Paul LePage lambasted a bill being considered by Maine’s legislature to join with other states to essentially bypass the Electoral College and ensure that the President is elected by the national popular vote.
“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” said LePage.
The former governor, calling into the show from his home in Florida, also labeled the proposal “an insane process” and warned that “we’re gonna be forgotten people.”
The proposal would actually, if adopted by a sufficient number of states, ensure that every voter, regardless of race, has the same say in electing the president.
. . . . .
Commenters on Twitter after LePage’s remarks were shared on Wednesday noted that while he’s wrong about the particulars, race is an instructive lens through which to view the current presidential electoral system.
The power of white voters is significantly magnified by the Electoral College, which itself is a product of the nation’s history of slavery.
And it is magnified much, much more in the senate in which a state with fewer than 600,000 people, 93% whites, has the same number of senators as a state with 40 million people, some 27% nonwhite (10.8 million) among whom are 2.6 million blacks.
Some Democrats to this day resist the idea that representation in the senate should be proportionate to population, like representation in the house, as both Madison and Hamilton desired.
Why?
Trump walks away with no new agreement with NK
No new agreement at all reached.
In his version of events, Trump said the deal had broken down because Kim wanted complete sanctions relief for dismantling the main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, but the US wanted other nuclear facilities, including covert sites, disabled as well.
“It was about the sanctions basically,” Trump said at a press conference in Hanoi.
“They wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn’t do that ... Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”
. . . .
Trump made clear that the status quo will continue, with North Korea continuing to suspend nuclear and missile tests, while the US will not take part in joint military exercises with South Korea, which the US president is opposed to anyway.
“I gave that up quite a while ago because it costs us $100m to do it. I hated to see it. I thought it was unfair,” Trump said, adding that South Korea should shoulder more of the costs.
“Exercising is fun and it’s nice they play their war games. I’m not saying its not necessary. On some levels it is. On other levels it’s not.”
Should have started them up, again.
But, otherwise, looks to me like he did the right thing.
In his version of events, Trump said the deal had broken down because Kim wanted complete sanctions relief for dismantling the main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, but the US wanted other nuclear facilities, including covert sites, disabled as well.
“It was about the sanctions basically,” Trump said at a press conference in Hanoi.
“They wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn’t do that ... Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”
. . . .
Trump made clear that the status quo will continue, with North Korea continuing to suspend nuclear and missile tests, while the US will not take part in joint military exercises with South Korea, which the US president is opposed to anyway.
“I gave that up quite a while ago because it costs us $100m to do it. I hated to see it. I thought it was unfair,” Trump said, adding that South Korea should shoulder more of the costs.
“Exercising is fun and it’s nice they play their war games. I’m not saying its not necessary. On some levels it is. On other levels it’s not.”
Should have started them up, again.
But, otherwise, looks to me like he did the right thing.
Bernie answers the question on CNN Town Hall: What is socialism?
On You Tube, he said it's about economic rights including the right to health care, to free secondary education, to a healthy and inhabitable planet.
That's what he said he understands democratic socialism to be, and why he feels socialism is much better than capitalism.
Socialism is the AOC/Bernie agenda.
Zero reference to public ownership of means of production.
Gene Debs, his idol, is spinning in his grave.
Bernie Sanders knows perfectly well what actual socialism is, and it's not capitalism with a human face.
And he knows that Americans overwhelmingly reject it, and that is why he always lies when asked that question.
That's what he said he understands democratic socialism to be, and why he feels socialism is much better than capitalism.
Socialism is the AOC/Bernie agenda.
Zero reference to public ownership of means of production.
Gene Debs, his idol, is spinning in his grave.
Bernie Sanders knows perfectly well what actual socialism is, and it's not capitalism with a human face.
And he knows that Americans overwhelmingly reject it, and that is why he always lies when asked that question.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
OK, if your boss is a gangster, probably so are you
Sounds like Cohen committed a lot of crimes on his own hook, because he's a crook who wanted to enrich himself.
It also seems that he may have lied in our faces about not wanting a job with the administration but instead already had the job he wanted, as personal attorney for Donald Trump.
It also seems that he may have lied in our faces about not wanting a job with the administration but instead already had the job he wanted, as personal attorney for Donald Trump.
Are these Republicans from Earth?
Everybody lies.
Nobody lives an entire life without lying.
Cohen is an articulate and skilled witness.
And he's no pushover for people who attack him.
So much Kavanaugh rage.
Faux or real?
Probably a mix.
Nobody lives an entire life without lying.
Cohen is an articulate and skilled witness.
And he's no pushover for people who attack him.
So much Kavanaugh rage.
Faux or real?
Probably a mix.
The Consigliere rats out the Don
Cohen is talking, says Trump is a racist, liar, and cheat.
And so much more.
He confirms Trump did not want or expect to win the primary or the general.
The campaign was an infomercial for the Trump brand.
(But then why commit illegal acts to protect the campaign? Why pay off Stormy Daniels?)
Trump knew about the Wikileaks document dump before it happened.
Stone called and told Trump and Cohen on speakerphone that he had just talked to Assange, who told him it was coming.
Jordan is getting admissions from Cohen to numerous crimes not done to protect the president, but all on his own and for his own benefit.
The Republicans are accurately insisting that Cohen is himself a man who has committed crimes that rely on deception and lies.
When you turn a mobster to testify against the Don you are relying on testimony from one criminal about another.
Yup.
And so much more.
He confirms Trump did not want or expect to win the primary or the general.
The campaign was an infomercial for the Trump brand.
(But then why commit illegal acts to protect the campaign? Why pay off Stormy Daniels?)
Trump knew about the Wikileaks document dump before it happened.
Stone called and told Trump and Cohen on speakerphone that he had just talked to Assange, who told him it was coming.
Jordan is getting admissions from Cohen to numerous crimes not done to protect the president, but all on his own and for his own benefit.
The Republicans are accurately insisting that Cohen is himself a man who has committed crimes that rely on deception and lies.
When you turn a mobster to testify against the Don you are relying on testimony from one criminal about another.
Yup.
All of them are Kavanaugh
Republicans are stalling and raging and interrupting and behaving like . . . well, like Republicans.
Saying everything to discredit Cohen, the Democrats, the Mueller investigation, the Clinton campaign of 2016, and so on.
Watching Cohen testimony, if they ever get to it.
Saying everything to discredit Cohen, the Democrats, the Mueller investigation, the Clinton campaign of 2016, and so on.
Watching Cohen testimony, if they ever get to it.
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
When did we lose "actress"?
Maybe somewhere around the time some (not all) women in authority decided they wanted to be called "Sir" rather than "Ma'am".
Anyway, the Guardian seems no longer to use "actress".
The Times used to have a style guide for all its writers.
Does the Guardian?
Anyway, the Guardian seems no longer to use "actress".
The Times used to have a style guide for all its writers.
Does the Guardian?
Monday, February 25, 2019
John Oliver slaughters psychics
Last Week Tonight on You Tube.
Doctor Oz and Doctor Phil regularly pretend this shit is real.
Update.
The man is living proof Europeans don't care a fig for cosmetic dentistry.
Doctor Oz and Doctor Phil regularly pretend this shit is real.
Update.
The man is living proof Europeans don't care a fig for cosmetic dentistry.
John Oliver is right
When the Tories decided to let so momentous and difficult an issue be decided by a simple majority in a single plebiscite they tossed the burden of decisions from those who know most about how horrendously difficult it is to those who know pretty much nothing.
It is because responsible and informed political choice is a full time job and a hard one that the modern "democracies" are actually representative governments in which the people do not make such choices but choose representatives to make them for them.
And on this one those representatives just irresponsibly and stupidly funked it.
Go watch his Brexit III on You Tube.
At last, Jeremy. Now Labour’s mission must be to prevent any Brexit.
Brexit is proof that too democratic an approach to a crucial political issue is stupid and dangerous.
So is Donald Trump.
No smoke-filled room would ever have nominated him.
It is because responsible and informed political choice is a full time job and a hard one that the modern "democracies" are actually representative governments in which the people do not make such choices but choose representatives to make them for them.
And on this one those representatives just irresponsibly and stupidly funked it.
Go watch his Brexit III on You Tube.
At last, Jeremy. Now Labour’s mission must be to prevent any Brexit.
Brexit is proof that too democratic an approach to a crucial political issue is stupid and dangerous.
So is Donald Trump.
No smoke-filled room would ever have nominated him.
The agenda sounds attractive. But it's still the angry, not really a Democrat Bernie
Obama wanted to make the world safe for "democratic capitalism".
I cannot imagine Bernie saying such a thing.
It's time to complete the revolution we started
I cannot imagine Bernie saying such a thing.
It's time to complete the revolution we started
You would not expect Bibi and his ministers to be this politically inept
Israeli Leaders’ Nazi Comments Derail European Summit
Bibi wanted this summit.
So then he stepped on his dick and then his Foreign Minister dragged it through glass for him.
Bibi wanted this summit.
So then he stepped on his dick and then his Foreign Minister dragged it through glass for him.
Pence's "freedom loving" bullshit fronts for his officious Christianism
He must have referred to Venezuelans as "freedom loving" more than 6 times.
I listened to bits of his speech live on BBC World Service.
And then he told us about the freedom loving Lord.
It is in some degree because of the sanctions that the Venezuelan economy is a mess and there are critical shortages of food and medicine.
We are squeezing the shit out of the people.
Ours is a government of hostage takers
In Colombia, Vice Pres. Pence announces more sanctions against Venezuela
Vice President Mike Pence announced from Colombia on Monday new sanctions against allies of embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and said the U.S. is sending another $56 million to its neighbors to help them cope with the influx of migrants fleeing Venezuela's crisis.
Pence traveled to the Colombian capital, Bogotá, to meet with members of a regional coalition and Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó to discuss the next steps aimed at ousting Maduro.
The $56 million for Venezuela's neighbors is in addition to $139 million the U.S. has already provided, according to Pence.
. . . .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in interviews on "Fox News Sunday" and CNN's "State of the Union," did not rule out U.S. military force but said "there are more sanctions to be had."
But any additional sanctions will increase the suffering of the Venezuelan people and may lead to more political violence, said Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who advocates a negotiated end to the political crisis.
"The 'humanitarian aid' this weekend was a public relations stunt, since the aid was just a tiny fraction of the food and medicine that they are depriving Venezuelans of with the sanctions," Weisbrot said.
"As the Trump administration admitted, it was an attempt to get the Venezuelan military to disobey Maduro. It was a farce, and it failed."
I listened to bits of his speech live on BBC World Service.
And then he told us about the freedom loving Lord.
It is in some degree because of the sanctions that the Venezuelan economy is a mess and there are critical shortages of food and medicine.
We are squeezing the shit out of the people.
Ours is a government of hostage takers
In Colombia, Vice Pres. Pence announces more sanctions against Venezuela
Vice President Mike Pence announced from Colombia on Monday new sanctions against allies of embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and said the U.S. is sending another $56 million to its neighbors to help them cope with the influx of migrants fleeing Venezuela's crisis.
Pence traveled to the Colombian capital, Bogotá, to meet with members of a regional coalition and Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó to discuss the next steps aimed at ousting Maduro.
The $56 million for Venezuela's neighbors is in addition to $139 million the U.S. has already provided, according to Pence.
. . . .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in interviews on "Fox News Sunday" and CNN's "State of the Union," did not rule out U.S. military force but said "there are more sanctions to be had."
But any additional sanctions will increase the suffering of the Venezuelan people and may lead to more political violence, said Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who advocates a negotiated end to the political crisis.
"The 'humanitarian aid' this weekend was a public relations stunt, since the aid was just a tiny fraction of the food and medicine that they are depriving Venezuelans of with the sanctions," Weisbrot said.
"As the Trump administration admitted, it was an attempt to get the Venezuelan military to disobey Maduro. It was a farce, and it failed."
Saturday, February 23, 2019
The GOP: lying fucking hypocrites
As the price for their ability to remove restrictions on the power of capitalists - regulations - that defend consumers, workers, the environment, or the general public against them and throw the tax burden off the rich, the Republicans let Pence and Trump do all they can to undo the sexual revolution in the law that began with Griswold.
Griswold and the decisions flowing from it expanded the area of liberty protected by the constitution from intrusion by the state, which had been acting in service Christian clerics to forbid and punish violations of the traditional Christian sexual morality.
The same sort of clerics who during the Cold War inserted "under God" (1954) into the originally secular pledge, put the motto "in God we trust" (1956) on our coinage, and created the "National Prayer Breakfast" (1953) and bullied presidents into attending it (every one since Eisenhower),
The party that brags its chief value is liberty is willing to throw both sexual liberty and disestablishment to the wolves to do the job the plutes insist upon.
And so is Trump, in particular.
This, and guns, and racism is how the Republican Party enlists stupid people who are not plutes to aid the plutes to screw them to the wall.
Griswold and the decisions flowing from it expanded the area of liberty protected by the constitution from intrusion by the state, which had been acting in service Christian clerics to forbid and punish violations of the traditional Christian sexual morality.
The same sort of clerics who during the Cold War inserted "under God" (1954) into the originally secular pledge, put the motto "in God we trust" (1956) on our coinage, and created the "National Prayer Breakfast" (1953) and bullied presidents into attending it (every one since Eisenhower),
The party that brags its chief value is liberty is willing to throw both sexual liberty and disestablishment to the wolves to do the job the plutes insist upon.
And so is Trump, in particular.
This, and guns, and racism is how the Republican Party enlists stupid people who are not plutes to aid the plutes to screw them to the wall.
Always enough for him.
Trump On Robert Kraft's Prostitution Charges: 'He’s Proclaimed His Innocence Totally'
Not just Kavanaugh.
Not just Putin.
Anybody.
Because it's his own move.
R. Kelly screaming they're all lying, all looking for the payday.
And who is surprised that the man who broke the law to protect billionaire Epstein is Secretary of Labor for the sex criminal in the White House?
Not just Kavanaugh.
Not just Putin.
Anybody.
Because it's his own move.
R. Kelly screaming they're all lying, all looking for the payday.
And who is surprised that the man who broke the law to protect billionaire Epstein is Secretary of Labor for the sex criminal in the White House?
Bozo wants yes men. For Putin. For Kim. For MBS.
Not people who say yes to him.
People who say yes to us, who echo his bullshit every time.
Bobbleheads like Pompeo and Lindsey Graham, only more so.
Much more so.
Bobbleheads instead of people actually heading up our national security apparatus firmly focused on defending our national security.
Bobbleheads who will nod when he says "I don't see why the Russians would do that. President Putin says they didn't and I believe him" rather than, utterly aghast, contradicting him not only privately but in public, as often as they feel the need and whenever they are asked what is going on.
This is worse than it looks.
This is an attempt to cut off the balls of our national security establishment to the profound advantage of Russia and other bad actors and enemies of America.
Fyodor is getting increasingly dangerous to all of us.
White House braces for shakeup after Trump privately complains about Coats
Sen. King warns against dismissing intelligence director for disputing Trump
People who say yes to us, who echo his bullshit every time.
Bobbleheads like Pompeo and Lindsey Graham, only more so.
Much more so.
Bobbleheads instead of people actually heading up our national security apparatus firmly focused on defending our national security.
Bobbleheads who will nod when he says "I don't see why the Russians would do that. President Putin says they didn't and I believe him" rather than, utterly aghast, contradicting him not only privately but in public, as often as they feel the need and whenever they are asked what is going on.
This is worse than it looks.
This is an attempt to cut off the balls of our national security establishment to the profound advantage of Russia and other bad actors and enemies of America.
Fyodor is getting increasingly dangerous to all of us.
White House braces for shakeup after Trump privately complains about Coats
Sen. King warns against dismissing intelligence director for disputing Trump
Pig pile on Beto
He has been attacked by one black woman writer at the Guardian for being the candidate of white privilege.
He has just been ordered by a black panelist on MSNBC to get out of the race and stay out.
Both women are cheerleaders for Kamala Harris, whom one of them labeled the front runner, demanding media celebrate her as such, and saying it is only because of racism and sexism that they are not doing that.
Are they trying to be repulsive, these women?
He has just been ordered by a black panelist on MSNBC to get out of the race and stay out.
Both women are cheerleaders for Kamala Harris, whom one of them labeled the front runner, demanding media celebrate her as such, and saying it is only because of racism and sexism that they are not doing that.
Are they trying to be repulsive, these women?
They want to sell papers
OK, it's obsolete taken literally, but still a valid metaphor.
The media from dead tree to cable news and all points surrounding need to be clickbait (to use a different metaphor).
This is probably why they tend to focus a lot more on identity stuff than tax proposals, education proposals, proposals to support Medicare for All and how to pay for it, the push to raise the minimum wage and proposals to support unions, and all that, you know, progressive stuff.
So Joe Shmo thinks the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats are a national association for the advancement of anybody who isn't white while the Republicans are the opposite.
Instead of that the difference between the two parties is that the Republicans are stooges for selfish plutocratic sociopaths for whom the immiseration of the working class and the trashing of the planet are conscious goals, while the Democrats are trying their best to tame capitalism for the rest of us and prevent it from running the planet into the ground.
The media from dead tree to cable news and all points surrounding need to be clickbait (to use a different metaphor).
This is probably why they tend to focus a lot more on identity stuff than tax proposals, education proposals, proposals to support Medicare for All and how to pay for it, the push to raise the minimum wage and proposals to support unions, and all that, you know, progressive stuff.
So Joe Shmo thinks the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats are a national association for the advancement of anybody who isn't white while the Republicans are the opposite.
Instead of that the difference between the two parties is that the Republicans are stooges for selfish plutocratic sociopaths for whom the immiseration of the working class and the trashing of the planet are conscious goals, while the Democrats are trying their best to tame capitalism for the rest of us and prevent it from running the planet into the ground.
Reparations for Indians?
Oh, well, now they'll stop bashing her, for sure.
Warren: Native Americans should be 'part of the conversation' on reparations
So many Children of Zinn, whether they know it or not.
Warren: Native Americans should be 'part of the conversation' on reparations
So many Children of Zinn, whether they know it or not.
Not everybody plays the identity card to dismiss Bernie
How Bernie Sanders Already Won
She gives him all the credit he so deserves.
And does it from the position of a progressive, someone who says we need a version of capitalism that works for all of us, not the version that just works for the capitalists.
She gives him all the credit he so deserves.
And does it from the position of a progressive, someone who says we need a version of capitalism that works for all of us, not the version that just works for the capitalists.
Amy Klobuchar, a boss from hell
OK, I do hold that against her.
Over the years several of my bosses have been from hell, and usually they get away with it forever.
Just like bosses who are sexual harassers.
Such people are bullies and sadists, and those are not desirable traits in a president or indeed anyone else.
Except maybe a professional torturer.
She can try all she wants to tough it out and turn this into some kind of plus.
Sort of what Trump does with all his ugly character traits.
I'm not biting.
And I am really not buying the poor picked on powerful woman bullshit.
People do hold such behavior against powerful men, too.
It is just a lie that they don't.
Mitt Romney the high school bully, remember?
Amy Klobuchar Staffers Describe a Hostile, Dehumanizing Boss
Over the years several of my bosses have been from hell, and usually they get away with it forever.
Just like bosses who are sexual harassers.
Such people are bullies and sadists, and those are not desirable traits in a president or indeed anyone else.
Except maybe a professional torturer.
She can try all she wants to tough it out and turn this into some kind of plus.
Sort of what Trump does with all his ugly character traits.
I'm not biting.
And I am really not buying the poor picked on powerful woman bullshit.
People do hold such behavior against powerful men, too.
It is just a lie that they don't.
Mitt Romney the high school bully, remember?
Amy Klobuchar Staffers Describe a Hostile, Dehumanizing Boss
Friday, February 22, 2019
Trevor Noah doesn't go there
Pretty much everybody on MSNBC talked about the Jussie Smollett revelations in the "Yes, but . . . " style.
You know, to "He faked a hate crime to get a raise" they replied "Yes, but gays and blacks really are victims of lots of hate crimes", for example.
Not Trevor Noah.
Anyway, not in the clips I have seen.
He condemned and deplored and mocked, and that was all.
OT, what sense does it make Smollett wanted the fake attack to be videoed?
The two guys he paid to attack him were dark skinned black men, but he described it as a racist and homophobic attack by whites.
And he paid them by check!
You know, to "He faked a hate crime to get a raise" they replied "Yes, but gays and blacks really are victims of lots of hate crimes", for example.
Not Trevor Noah.
Anyway, not in the clips I have seen.
He condemned and deplored and mocked, and that was all.
OT, what sense does it make Smollett wanted the fake attack to be videoed?
The two guys he paid to attack him were dark skinned black men, but he described it as a racist and homophobic attack by whites.
And he paid them by check!
Why it matters who is on the court
Conservative US Supreme Court to US sick and dying: Drop dead!
The New York Crank.
And they really don't get it that their absurd and cruel intransigence is why more and more people say they would rather have socialism, thanks.
The New York Crank.
And they really don't get it that their absurd and cruel intransigence is why more and more people say they would rather have socialism, thanks.
The quantity of slime is just overwhelming
White House ‘looking into’ Acosta’s role in sex abuse plea deal
The White House says it’s “looking into” Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s handling of a secret plea deal with a wealthy financier accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls
A federal judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in Florida violated the rights of victims by reaching the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta was the Miami U.S. attorney who oversaw the arrangement.
President Donald Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, on Friday called it a “complicated case.”
“My understanding is that’s a very complicated case,” she said, adding that it was “something we’re certainly looking into, but that they made the best possible decision and deal they could have gotten at that time.”
Asked if Trump still had confidence in Acosta, Sanders said: “Again, we’re looking into the matter. I’m not aware of any changes.”
Acosta has called the deal appropriate.
The White House says it’s “looking into” Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s handling of a secret plea deal with a wealthy financier accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls
A federal judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in Florida violated the rights of victims by reaching the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta was the Miami U.S. attorney who oversaw the arrangement.
President Donald Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, on Friday called it a “complicated case.”
“My understanding is that’s a very complicated case,” she said, adding that it was “something we’re certainly looking into, but that they made the best possible decision and deal they could have gotten at that time.”
Asked if Trump still had confidence in Acosta, Sanders said: “Again, we’re looking into the matter. I’m not aware of any changes.”
Acosta has called the deal appropriate.
Why did the Duce not speak out a lot sooner and more helpfully about Lt. Hasson?
The Duce did not hold a press conference on the matter or bring it up before journos or tweet about it, but when asked late today by a journo he tersely said it was terrible and he was due for a "final briefing" on the matter later today.
He did not say more than two or three sentences and did not express relief the man had been caught before he could act.
When asked whether his own language might have encouraged an atmosphere in which such loonies plan such things he rejected the idea and insisted his language was just fine.
Right now on MSNBC Michael Steele, former chair of the RNC, is saying the president did not come out to say the right thing right away because Bozo was not pleased to see law enforcement nail him.
And somebody else is pointing out no Republican leader has said a word about the Coast Guard terrorist.
He did not say more than two or three sentences and did not express relief the man had been caught before he could act.
When asked whether his own language might have encouraged an atmosphere in which such loonies plan such things he rejected the idea and insisted his language was just fine.
Right now on MSNBC Michael Steele, former chair of the RNC, is saying the president did not come out to say the right thing right away because Bozo was not pleased to see law enforcement nail him.
And somebody else is pointing out no Republican leader has said a word about the Coast Guard terrorist.
Anti-democratic Democrats and how they will choose their candidate
If we Democrats are doing this with primaries at all - and the Duce refutes the claim that of course that's the best way to do it (he would never have got the nod from a bunch of old white guys in a smoke-filled room) - why not a single national closed primary on a nationwide primary day with instant runoff voting?
Or we could follow the French and if no one had a majority on the first ballot an actual runoff election could be held with the top two vote getters of the first the only candidates.
Either would shorted and cheapen the nomination process a lot.
And, sure, we could still allow early and absentee ballots and make voting day a paid holiday.
[And, yes, why don't we do the actual presidential election that way, eh?]
[And adopt proportional representation in the senate?]
[After all, there is absolutely no good reason to adopt electoral or representational arrangements intentionally in order to enhance the power of white conservative hillbillies vis-Ã -vis other Americans.]
[So when somebody starts blathering that it is essential to ensure political candidates campaign in flyover country to keep up hillbilly confidence that they count too and deliberately giving them insanely disproportionate power in the government is the right way to do that, shout "Nooooooo" in his face just as loud as you can.]
But, no, the Democrats are doing it this way.
Or we could follow the French and if no one had a majority on the first ballot an actual runoff election could be held with the top two vote getters of the first the only candidates.
Either would shorted and cheapen the nomination process a lot.
And, sure, we could still allow early and absentee ballots and make voting day a paid holiday.
[And, yes, why don't we do the actual presidential election that way, eh?]
[And adopt proportional representation in the senate?]
[After all, there is absolutely no good reason to adopt electoral or representational arrangements intentionally in order to enhance the power of white conservative hillbillies vis-Ã -vis other Americans.]
[So when somebody starts blathering that it is essential to ensure political candidates campaign in flyover country to keep up hillbilly confidence that they count too and deliberately giving them insanely disproportionate power in the government is the right way to do that, shout "Nooooooo" in his face just as loud as you can.]
But, no, the Democrats are doing it this way.
About Bernie, identity, and the agenda
Not my first choice, though not my last, if Bernie gets the nomination I will certainly vote for him.
Actually, I will vote for whoever wins the nomination.
But I am not sure Colbert feels that way, so much did he mock Bernie for being old, white, and male, quite as though these would not be his own personal failings in not all that many years.
Unless of course he dies soon.
Meanwhile, several of the people of color who share their opinions on MSNBC have expressed feelings from annoyance to anger at Bernie's candidacy.
Why on Earth black voters and black commentators liked Hillary but never Bernie is just an utter mystery.
Sometimes these critics attacking Bernie just seem far too like Republicans attacking Hillary.
But lately they have criticised him for urging Democrats to choose their candidate based not on identity but on what the candidate stands for, what he will fight for, who he will fight for.
The women among them want to vote for a woman because she's a woman and the nonwhites want to vote for a nonwhite because he's a nonwhite.
Always assuming the woman or nonwhite supports the Bernie/AOC agenda, an agenda these same critics generally seem to support.
So, yes, they like his flag.
But they just don't want him to carry it for them.
Perfectly understandable, actually.
I think I agree that there is a solid case to chose a nonmale nonwhite over a white or a male, assuming the people in question support more or less equivalent agendas, or even if the agenda of the nonmale nonwhite is not quite as good.
And the case is even better if the nonwhite nonmale's agenda is maybe more sensitive specifically to concerns of nonmales and nonwhites - concerns whites and males are generally less apt to even know about.
Or preferable in other ways.
After all, to Democrats generally and including whites Barack Obama's race was, all by itself, a point in his favor, and a potent one at that.
If Bernie is asking for identity not to count at all he is not only running in the wrong party but maybe in the wrong decade.
I voted for O twice and would again, despite Rev. Wright, "palling around with terrorists", and the small but not nonexistent racial chip on his shoulder that showed once or twice.
And I definitely counted his being black as a point in his favor.
And I was very happy with the passage of the ACA at the time.
That was an excellent step forward.
The effectiveness of Obamacare and Republican attacks on it have done more than anything to shift public opinion so far that a clear majority is now ready for Medicare for All.
It did not do the whole job, but it did a lot and it got people to see the whole job needs to be done.
Actually, I will vote for whoever wins the nomination.
But I am not sure Colbert feels that way, so much did he mock Bernie for being old, white, and male, quite as though these would not be his own personal failings in not all that many years.
Unless of course he dies soon.
Meanwhile, several of the people of color who share their opinions on MSNBC have expressed feelings from annoyance to anger at Bernie's candidacy.
Why on Earth black voters and black commentators liked Hillary but never Bernie is just an utter mystery.
Sometimes these critics attacking Bernie just seem far too like Republicans attacking Hillary.
But lately they have criticised him for urging Democrats to choose their candidate based not on identity but on what the candidate stands for, what he will fight for, who he will fight for.
The women among them want to vote for a woman because she's a woman and the nonwhites want to vote for a nonwhite because he's a nonwhite.
Always assuming the woman or nonwhite supports the Bernie/AOC agenda, an agenda these same critics generally seem to support.
So, yes, they like his flag.
But they just don't want him to carry it for them.
Perfectly understandable, actually.
I think I agree that there is a solid case to chose a nonmale nonwhite over a white or a male, assuming the people in question support more or less equivalent agendas, or even if the agenda of the nonmale nonwhite is not quite as good.
And the case is even better if the nonwhite nonmale's agenda is maybe more sensitive specifically to concerns of nonmales and nonwhites - concerns whites and males are generally less apt to even know about.
Or preferable in other ways.
After all, to Democrats generally and including whites Barack Obama's race was, all by itself, a point in his favor, and a potent one at that.
If Bernie is asking for identity not to count at all he is not only running in the wrong party but maybe in the wrong decade.
I voted for O twice and would again, despite Rev. Wright, "palling around with terrorists", and the small but not nonexistent racial chip on his shoulder that showed once or twice.
And I definitely counted his being black as a point in his favor.
And I was very happy with the passage of the ACA at the time.
That was an excellent step forward.
The effectiveness of Obamacare and Republican attacks on it have done more than anything to shift public opinion so far that a clear majority is now ready for Medicare for All.
It did not do the whole job, but it did a lot and it got people to see the whole job needs to be done.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
So, imagine Charles I got away with it
MSNBC had on a legal expert who says the law concerning national emergencies is so broad and empowering and unconstitutional that all a president needs to do to invoke all those special powers is say, hey, there's an emergency.
It's a very, very, very bad law, he said, and probably unconstitutional, and Trump will win in court unless the Supremes strike down the law as unconstitutional.
And if they don't then the Congress needs to change the law.
And a Republican senate will be glad to do that when a Democrat wins the presidency.
It's a very, very, very bad law, he said, and probably unconstitutional, and Trump will win in court unless the Supremes strike down the law as unconstitutional.
And if they don't then the Congress needs to change the law.
And a Republican senate will be glad to do that when a Democrat wins the presidency.
Republicans stole the election
North Carolina board orders a new election in U.S. House race tainted by fraud accusations
Harris was personally involved in the criminal "vote harvesting" undertaken by operatives of his campaign.
His own son testified he warned his dad it was a serious crime and not to do it.
Harris was personally involved in the criminal "vote harvesting" undertaken by operatives of his campaign.
His own son testified he warned his dad it was a serious crime and not to do it.
A case of the loonies
U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant allegedly plotted mass terror attack targeting Democrats, journalists
A U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant and self-identified white nationalist has been arrested after allegedly plotting a massive domestic terrorist attack targeting several Democratic politicians and prominent media personalities.
Christopher Paul Hasson stockpiled weapons and maintained a hit list of people he wanted to kill, according to court documents shared with Global News by Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, who first noted the case.
FBI agents found 15 firearms and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in his basement apartment in Silver Spring, Md.
Hasson’s alleged hit list appeared to name an array of high-profile Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 2020 presidential contenders Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
It also appeared to include CNN anchors Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo as well as MSNBC anchors Joe Scarborough and Ari Melber.
“The defendant intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country,” read a motion for detention filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland.
“[He] is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect governmental conduct.”
A U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant and self-identified white nationalist has been arrested after allegedly plotting a massive domestic terrorist attack targeting several Democratic politicians and prominent media personalities.
Christopher Paul Hasson stockpiled weapons and maintained a hit list of people he wanted to kill, according to court documents shared with Global News by Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, who first noted the case.
FBI agents found 15 firearms and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in his basement apartment in Silver Spring, Md.
Hasson’s alleged hit list appeared to name an array of high-profile Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 2020 presidential contenders Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
It also appeared to include CNN anchors Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo as well as MSNBC anchors Joe Scarborough and Ari Melber.
“The defendant intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country,” read a motion for detention filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland.
“[He] is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect governmental conduct.”
Bail set at $ 100 K
'Empire' Actor Jussie Smollett Arrested On Charges Of Filing False Police Report
He staged a fake hate crime.
His lawyers are bullshitting and they haven't got a prayer.
A spokesperson for the Chicago prosecutors gave a pretty detailed account of how it all went down, citing a ton of proof.
Hilariously, MSNBC invited Rev. Al Sharpton to comment on a fake hate crime.
Tawana Brawley, much?
Sort of like inviting Mengele to deplore anti-Semitism and the kidnapping of people to be used in horrific medical experiments.
And they invited in a black, gay guy to paper over the fraud story with about ten minutes of complaining that hate crimes happen all the time and when reported the victims are brushed off.
And then he droned on for another ten minutes, accusing the Chicago police of lying and deceptive practices and homophobia and racism and on and on.
The MSNBC newswoman just let him let fly.
Fox says it's 'considering our options' after 'Empire' star's arrest
The studio and network behind Fox's "Empire" say they are considering their options, following the arrest of television actor Jussie Smollett.
"We understand the seriousness of this matter and we respect the legal process," 20th Century Fox Television and Fox Entertainment said in a statement to CNN on Thursday.
"We are evaluating the situation and we are considering our options."
The company's statement came hours after Smollett was arrested on suspicion of filing a false report.
. . . .
Early on Wednesday, before official charges had been made against Smollett, Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox TV stood by Smollett saying he continued "to be a consummate professional on set" and assuring that "he is not being written out of the show."
He staged a fake hate crime.
His lawyers are bullshitting and they haven't got a prayer.
A spokesperson for the Chicago prosecutors gave a pretty detailed account of how it all went down, citing a ton of proof.
Hilariously, MSNBC invited Rev. Al Sharpton to comment on a fake hate crime.
Tawana Brawley, much?
Sort of like inviting Mengele to deplore anti-Semitism and the kidnapping of people to be used in horrific medical experiments.
And they invited in a black, gay guy to paper over the fraud story with about ten minutes of complaining that hate crimes happen all the time and when reported the victims are brushed off.
And then he droned on for another ten minutes, accusing the Chicago police of lying and deceptive practices and homophobia and racism and on and on.
The MSNBC newswoman just let him let fly.
Fox says it's 'considering our options' after 'Empire' star's arrest
The studio and network behind Fox's "Empire" say they are considering their options, following the arrest of television actor Jussie Smollett.
"We understand the seriousness of this matter and we respect the legal process," 20th Century Fox Television and Fox Entertainment said in a statement to CNN on Thursday.
"We are evaluating the situation and we are considering our options."
The company's statement came hours after Smollett was arrested on suspicion of filing a false report.
. . . .
Early on Wednesday, before official charges had been made against Smollett, Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox TV stood by Smollett saying he continued "to be a consummate professional on set" and assuring that "he is not being written out of the show."
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Embracing the baloney
For a reality appetizer video, go here.
After which, read on.
'This primary is going to be a choice between socialism and a more just form of capitalism'
Chris Cillizza surrenders to the rhetorical strategy that emerged during the campaign of 2016, draining "socialism" of its actual meaning and using it as a label not only for the more progressive candidates for the Democratic nomination - actual and self-professed democratic socialists - but also for their more progressive agenda.
Some talking heads on MSNBC back then decided that owning the word and insisting it refer to any public ownership of any organization providing any good or service, at all, rather than public ownership of all the means of production, was the best way to deal not only with resurgent and false right wing denunciations of Democrats, their current agenda, and all the achievements of more than a century of progressive politics, as socialists and socialism but with Bernie's open profession of socialism.
They repeatedly cited public ownership of schools, hospitals, fire departments, police forces, bridges, and roads, calling each of these instances of socialism.
In this way they explained politics could be thought of as in part a matter of quarreling over what means of production ought to be in public hands rather than private, "all" and "none" being at the communist and libertarian opposite ends of a spectrum representing differing ratios or mixtures of the two - differing dosages of socialism and capitalism.
This move was dishonest then and is so now in that both Bernie and AOC have a well-known history with the DSA and routinely claim to be democratic socialists, meaning by that the real thing, and definitely not meaning the watered down Marxism and even post-Marxism of European Social Democracy, nowadays just a more advanced progressivism than our own, that both have urged America needs a greater dosage of.
And most actual socialists historically have referred to any economy featuring anything much less than public ownership of all the means of production as capitalist and sometimes to those in which some of the means were publicly owned as "mixed economies".
Democrats in general, whether or not they embrace all or part of the Bernie/AOC agenda and however appalled they might be at Republican projects of privatization of schools, roads, and prisons, overwhelming are not socialists and reject both socialism and "socialism".
The increasing acceptance of "socialism" among the young, including young Democrats, is doubtless due in some part, perhaps entirely, to the increasingly widespread use of "socialism" as those MSNBC talking heads used it.
And while those talking heads consistently endorsed the spreading tendency they had themselves helped to create to understand "socialism" in that way, they also agreed with Bernie's and AOC's assertions that America needs a significant dose of European Social Democracy.
Though apparently accepting their usage of "socialism", Chris Cillizza does not seem quite on board for Social Democracy or the Bernie/AOC agenda.
Actually, the environmentalist parts aside, the Bernie/AOC agenda itself is not much different from what TR ran on in 1912.
TR was not the Socialist Party candidate, nor was his the socialist agenda, of that year.
That distinction belonged to Bernie's professed political mentor and personal idol, Gene Debs, who advocated actual socialism, public ownership of all the means of production, or at the very least what was then called "the commanding heights" of the economy, including but not at all limited to the entire financial, transportation and steel industries.
But neither Bernie nor AOC is running on that agenda, nor have they said a word about it, though last time out Bernie did often give angry vent to his evident and sincere loathing of capitalism, in that way at least revealing his continued adherence to the real socialism of his mentor, usually at the same time denouncing the Democratic Party and the American political "system" with equal fervor.
TR flat out rejected socialism, and did so by its name, and was probably the most progressive of the other three candidates that year, and Taft the least.
In any case, since nobody is actually running on an agenda of flat out socialism, the primaries will not be a choice for Democrats between socialism and "a more just form of capitalism".
It will be, so far as the agendas go, a choice among different visions of the latter, with differing doses of concession to feasibility in a divided country and a divided congress.
But so far as candidates go, yes, it will be a choice between supporters, at least in their hearts, of out and out socialism on the one side and supporters of capitalism - "a more just form of capitalism" - on the other.
No, it's not President Donald Trump.
(You probably figured that out from the "more just form of capitalism" part of it.)
It's actually from former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, who has been running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination since, approximately, 1991.
And while Delaney is a long shot to be a long shot in this race, he's not the only one who is thinking about the two lanes of the Democratic primary fight that way.
"I will tell you I am not a democratic socialist," California Sen. Kamala Harris said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Monday.
And in a CNN town hall on Monday night, another Democrat, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, was careful to make her skepticism of things like "Medicare for All" and the "Green New Deal" very clear.
What you see in all of that is a clear line being drawn between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who announced his presidential bid formally on Tuesday, and the looming figure of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on one side, and the likes of Klobuchar and, assuming he runs, former Vice President Joe Biden on the other.
All the other candidates in the race fall somewhere along that spectrum -- roughly like this:
Sanders Warren Gabbard Castro Gillibrand Booker Harris Klobuchar Biden
Actually, with her wealth tax and her idea of putting workers on corporate boards, Warren's agenda is as aggressive as theirs and maybe in some ways more so.
And given she has shown as much as or more rhetorical heat denouncing "the system", it's possible she deserves the label "socialist" as much as Bernie does.
I don't know enough about the others from Booker leftward on the list to say.
What about Sherrod Brown?
From Booker leftward, the candidates are, broadly speaking, in favor of the "Green New Deal" and "Medicare for All."
. . . .
From Harris rightward, there is a healthy skepticism of the practicality (and political savvy) of backing those massive government programs.
Still, the Republicans and the conservative movement did invite this, what with their endless denunciations of all things progressive as socialism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, and even communism since the days of the New Deal.
The young and the ignorant for whom the actually existing Communism is ancient history were perfectly set up by the revival of that sort of rhetoric during the campaign of 2016.
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the others had an easy time of it selling their redefinition.
MSNBC just now talked about how thousands of Bernie supporters in key states Hillary lost went for Trump instead of her.
Not really a surprise, considering how both of them yelled about the rigged economic system, the evils of free trade, the rigged political system, and the stagnation of the working class.
And how much both of them claimed the two major parties were corrupt and in cahoots with a free trade loving plutocracy that cared only for itself.
Too, it was during his visits to Pennsylvania that Trump promised to strengthen both Medicare and Social Security, and denounced the Democrats for wanting to subvert them.
PS.
Of course, even the two most popular items on the original Bernie agenda, tuition free education at public colleges and universities and Medicare for All, are impossible without undoing pretty much all of the Republican tax cut, removing the cap on the Social Security tax (or is it the Medicare tax?), and boosting way up the marginal income tax rate for the higher and highest brackets.
And all of it is impossible without getting rid of the filibuster.
Politicians and the voters at large have to learn that elections have consequences, for real.
As for the wealth tax, all of the good it might do and less of the harm can be accomplished by putting the government back into breaking up too large corporate entities into smaller entities less willing or able to extravagantly reward their executives or their owners.
And just say no to worker-control.
After which, read on.
'This primary is going to be a choice between socialism and a more just form of capitalism'
Chris Cillizza surrenders to the rhetorical strategy that emerged during the campaign of 2016, draining "socialism" of its actual meaning and using it as a label not only for the more progressive candidates for the Democratic nomination - actual and self-professed democratic socialists - but also for their more progressive agenda.
Some talking heads on MSNBC back then decided that owning the word and insisting it refer to any public ownership of any organization providing any good or service, at all, rather than public ownership of all the means of production, was the best way to deal not only with resurgent and false right wing denunciations of Democrats, their current agenda, and all the achievements of more than a century of progressive politics, as socialists and socialism but with Bernie's open profession of socialism.
They repeatedly cited public ownership of schools, hospitals, fire departments, police forces, bridges, and roads, calling each of these instances of socialism.
In this way they explained politics could be thought of as in part a matter of quarreling over what means of production ought to be in public hands rather than private, "all" and "none" being at the communist and libertarian opposite ends of a spectrum representing differing ratios or mixtures of the two - differing dosages of socialism and capitalism.
This move was dishonest then and is so now in that both Bernie and AOC have a well-known history with the DSA and routinely claim to be democratic socialists, meaning by that the real thing, and definitely not meaning the watered down Marxism and even post-Marxism of European Social Democracy, nowadays just a more advanced progressivism than our own, that both have urged America needs a greater dosage of.
And most actual socialists historically have referred to any economy featuring anything much less than public ownership of all the means of production as capitalist and sometimes to those in which some of the means were publicly owned as "mixed economies".
Democrats in general, whether or not they embrace all or part of the Bernie/AOC agenda and however appalled they might be at Republican projects of privatization of schools, roads, and prisons, overwhelming are not socialists and reject both socialism and "socialism".
The increasing acceptance of "socialism" among the young, including young Democrats, is doubtless due in some part, perhaps entirely, to the increasingly widespread use of "socialism" as those MSNBC talking heads used it.
And while those talking heads consistently endorsed the spreading tendency they had themselves helped to create to understand "socialism" in that way, they also agreed with Bernie's and AOC's assertions that America needs a significant dose of European Social Democracy.
Though apparently accepting their usage of "socialism", Chris Cillizza does not seem quite on board for Social Democracy or the Bernie/AOC agenda.
Actually, the environmentalist parts aside, the Bernie/AOC agenda itself is not much different from what TR ran on in 1912.
TR was not the Socialist Party candidate, nor was his the socialist agenda, of that year.
That distinction belonged to Bernie's professed political mentor and personal idol, Gene Debs, who advocated actual socialism, public ownership of all the means of production, or at the very least what was then called "the commanding heights" of the economy, including but not at all limited to the entire financial, transportation and steel industries.
But neither Bernie nor AOC is running on that agenda, nor have they said a word about it, though last time out Bernie did often give angry vent to his evident and sincere loathing of capitalism, in that way at least revealing his continued adherence to the real socialism of his mentor, usually at the same time denouncing the Democratic Party and the American political "system" with equal fervor.
TR flat out rejected socialism, and did so by its name, and was probably the most progressive of the other three candidates that year, and Taft the least.
In any case, since nobody is actually running on an agenda of flat out socialism, the primaries will not be a choice for Democrats between socialism and "a more just form of capitalism".
It will be, so far as the agendas go, a choice among different visions of the latter, with differing doses of concession to feasibility in a divided country and a divided congress.
But so far as candidates go, yes, it will be a choice between supporters, at least in their hearts, of out and out socialism on the one side and supporters of capitalism - "a more just form of capitalism" - on the other.
No, it's not President Donald Trump.
(You probably figured that out from the "more just form of capitalism" part of it.)
It's actually from former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, who has been running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination since, approximately, 1991.
And while Delaney is a long shot to be a long shot in this race, he's not the only one who is thinking about the two lanes of the Democratic primary fight that way.
"I will tell you I am not a democratic socialist," California Sen. Kamala Harris said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Monday.
And in a CNN town hall on Monday night, another Democrat, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, was careful to make her skepticism of things like "Medicare for All" and the "Green New Deal" very clear.
What you see in all of that is a clear line being drawn between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who announced his presidential bid formally on Tuesday, and the looming figure of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on one side, and the likes of Klobuchar and, assuming he runs, former Vice President Joe Biden on the other.
All the other candidates in the race fall somewhere along that spectrum -- roughly like this:
Sanders Warren Gabbard Castro Gillibrand Booker Harris Klobuchar Biden
Actually, with her wealth tax and her idea of putting workers on corporate boards, Warren's agenda is as aggressive as theirs and maybe in some ways more so.
And given she has shown as much as or more rhetorical heat denouncing "the system", it's possible she deserves the label "socialist" as much as Bernie does.
I don't know enough about the others from Booker leftward on the list to say.
What about Sherrod Brown?
From Booker leftward, the candidates are, broadly speaking, in favor of the "Green New Deal" and "Medicare for All."
. . . .
From Harris rightward, there is a healthy skepticism of the practicality (and political savvy) of backing those massive government programs.
Still, the Republicans and the conservative movement did invite this, what with their endless denunciations of all things progressive as socialism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, and even communism since the days of the New Deal.
The young and the ignorant for whom the actually existing Communism is ancient history were perfectly set up by the revival of that sort of rhetoric during the campaign of 2016.
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the others had an easy time of it selling their redefinition.
MSNBC just now talked about how thousands of Bernie supporters in key states Hillary lost went for Trump instead of her.
Not really a surprise, considering how both of them yelled about the rigged economic system, the evils of free trade, the rigged political system, and the stagnation of the working class.
And how much both of them claimed the two major parties were corrupt and in cahoots with a free trade loving plutocracy that cared only for itself.
Too, it was during his visits to Pennsylvania that Trump promised to strengthen both Medicare and Social Security, and denounced the Democrats for wanting to subvert them.
PS.
Of course, even the two most popular items on the original Bernie agenda, tuition free education at public colleges and universities and Medicare for All, are impossible without undoing pretty much all of the Republican tax cut, removing the cap on the Social Security tax (or is it the Medicare tax?), and boosting way up the marginal income tax rate for the higher and highest brackets.
And all of it is impossible without getting rid of the filibuster.
Politicians and the voters at large have to learn that elections have consequences, for real.
As for the wealth tax, all of the good it might do and less of the harm can be accomplished by putting the government back into breaking up too large corporate entities into smaller entities less willing or able to extravagantly reward their executives or their owners.
And just say no to worker-control.
Yes. Impeach him.
Obstruction of justice
Even if they never get to the bottom of his role in Russiagate they've got obstruction of justice a dozen times over.
Steyer aims to impeach Trump by targeting Democrats
A public-service billionaire.
Even if they never get to the bottom of his role in Russiagate they've got obstruction of justice a dozen times over.
Steyer aims to impeach Trump by targeting Democrats
A public-service billionaire.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Well, this is really stupid. And also mendacious.
Well, who says liberals cannot be lying idiots?
Um, probably no one, come to that.
Samantha Bee Calls Out Medical Fat-Shaming
In case you missed this week's "Full Frontal," Sam Bee took on the medical profession regarding their hatred and shaming of fat people.
Medical bigotry leads to doctor's failure to diagnose other issues unrelated to weight. And it doesn't help anybody.
Um, probably no one, come to that.
Samantha Bee Calls Out Medical Fat-Shaming
In case you missed this week's "Full Frontal," Sam Bee took on the medical profession regarding their hatred and shaming of fat people.
Medical bigotry leads to doctor's failure to diagnose other issues unrelated to weight. And it doesn't help anybody.
Agenda driven interpretation of the law as well as the constitution is the norm, people
So candidates seeking senate confirmation should not be allowed to be coy.
Of course, they will lie then, and claim later they just "saw the light".
One fact among many that count against life tenure.
Appeals Court Rules Key Anti-Age Discrimination Protections Don’t Apply To Job Seekers, Only Employees
Of course, they will lie then, and claim later they just "saw the light".
One fact among many that count against life tenure.
Appeals Court Rules Key Anti-Age Discrimination Protections Don’t Apply To Job Seekers, Only Employees
The invisible ink portion of the constitution
It doesn't just contain nice stuff, and sometimes it flat contradicts the visible ink portion.
The power to suspend habeas corpus is expressly assigned by the visible ink portion to the Congress.
Lincoln fibbed the power was his in the invisible ink portion during the Civil War, and FDR repeated the lie for the utterly unnecessary and cruel purpose of throwing Americans of Japanese origin into illegal concentration camps.
Oh, and the list of emergency powers conferred by blatantly unconstitutional legislation on the presidency is downright terrifying.
Especially with Fyodor Karamazov in the White House.
The power to suspend habeas corpus is expressly assigned by the visible ink portion to the Congress.
Lincoln fibbed the power was his in the invisible ink portion during the Civil War, and FDR repeated the lie for the utterly unnecessary and cruel purpose of throwing Americans of Japanese origin into illegal concentration camps.
Oh, and the list of emergency powers conferred by blatantly unconstitutional legislation on the presidency is downright terrifying.
Especially with Fyodor Karamazov in the White House.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Syfy cancelled this?
Then I'm delighted Amazon snapped it up.
The Expanse
The first three seasons are at Amazon now, and they are excellent.
I hadn't realized the TV series was using a series of books, in order, with each season based on one book.
Or anyway it looks that way.
And the show is so good I had assumed it was Canadian.
It's not.
It's American.
The Expanse
The first three seasons are at Amazon now, and they are excellent.
I hadn't realized the TV series was using a series of books, in order, with each season based on one book.
Or anyway it looks that way.
And the show is so good I had assumed it was Canadian.
It's not.
It's American.
Why people hate the PC Police - aka Social Justice Warriors
Could it be that, to this day, though maybe not much longer, most American boys are both straight and white?
So if you're going to do a story on one to illustrate circumstances common to many, most, or all?
And what if you're going to do several stories, each focusing on one?
So, if one is white and straight, that's not OK?
So many people with shitty, hateful opinions write them up and the Guardian gives them a megaphone - if they're the right sort of shitty, hateful opinions.
Was the backlash to Esquire’s 'An American Boy' cover story deserved?
As everyone jumps to censure Esquire for its perceived racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia for deciding to use a straight, white boy to represent what it means to be an American right now, they are missing that the idea to check in on the state of boys – even white boys – in a landscape that is quickly shifting for men, is sound.
Much of the outrage centered on the choice of the teenage boy.
Despite Esquire’s announcement that this would be the first in a series of profiles, and that the series would include boys of different races and sexualities and genders, leading the series off with a particularly Aryan-looking lad was a tactical mistake.
The angry response was inevitable.
And utterly deplorable, racist, misandrist, and full of shit.
So if you're going to do a story on one to illustrate circumstances common to many, most, or all?
And what if you're going to do several stories, each focusing on one?
So, if one is white and straight, that's not OK?
So many people with shitty, hateful opinions write them up and the Guardian gives them a megaphone - if they're the right sort of shitty, hateful opinions.
Was the backlash to Esquire’s 'An American Boy' cover story deserved?
As everyone jumps to censure Esquire for its perceived racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia for deciding to use a straight, white boy to represent what it means to be an American right now, they are missing that the idea to check in on the state of boys – even white boys – in a landscape that is quickly shifting for men, is sound.
Much of the outrage centered on the choice of the teenage boy.
Despite Esquire’s announcement that this would be the first in a series of profiles, and that the series would include boys of different races and sexualities and genders, leading the series off with a particularly Aryan-looking lad was a tactical mistake.
The angry response was inevitable.
And utterly deplorable, racist, misandrist, and full of shit.
Trump's plan is to usurp the power of the purse
Trump to declare national emergency as Senate passes border security spending deal
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Trump declares a national emergency, he is "doing an end run around Congress" and Democrats will consider legal action to stop him.
McConnell says he nevertheless will support the president in doing that, and speculation has been that Trump insisted on that in return for his accepting the deal.
Nancy Pelosi suggested some future Democrat might declare some sort of gun violence emergency, though how that would be at all comparable I do not know.
Trump thinks declaring illegal immigration a national emergency enables him to use money appropriated for other purposes to build a wall he claims is the only effective way to stem the tide, though it doesn't and doing that is blatantly unconstitutional.
So some Democrat declares gun violence is a national emergency and then does what?
Newsies are speculating that it's more likely the supposed future Democratic president would declare a climate change emergency and then freely legislate carbon limits, gas price hikes, expanded subsidies for electric cars, and so on to deal with it.
Trump and the Republicans were right, by the way, to complain that Obama's creation of DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the power to make law, done when the congress refused to legislate DACA for him.
And this, but the way, is really "how democracies die".
Actual office holding political parties decide their agendas are much more important than the integrity of their political institutions, and so they bring out the wrecking balls.
And at least some of their popular supporters agree with them.
Oh, and if you think we can or should count on the courts to defend the constitution against agenda driven subversion when the court shares the agenda you should consider how courts have dealt with the Duce's efforts to discontinue DACA on the entirely legitimate ground that it was unconstitutional for Obama to put the program in place after the congress had refused to do it.
Far too many office holders consider the constitution less important their their party's agenda.
I am not saying agenda driven interpretation of the constitution or the law is always pernicious.
It is in place when there really is damn all other basis to decide among plausible but importantly different competing interpretations that best serve different or opposing agendas.
But this is just not that.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Trump declares a national emergency, he is "doing an end run around Congress" and Democrats will consider legal action to stop him.
McConnell says he nevertheless will support the president in doing that, and speculation has been that Trump insisted on that in return for his accepting the deal.
Nancy Pelosi suggested some future Democrat might declare some sort of gun violence emergency, though how that would be at all comparable I do not know.
Trump thinks declaring illegal immigration a national emergency enables him to use money appropriated for other purposes to build a wall he claims is the only effective way to stem the tide, though it doesn't and doing that is blatantly unconstitutional.
So some Democrat declares gun violence is a national emergency and then does what?
Newsies are speculating that it's more likely the supposed future Democratic president would declare a climate change emergency and then freely legislate carbon limits, gas price hikes, expanded subsidies for electric cars, and so on to deal with it.
Trump and the Republicans were right, by the way, to complain that Obama's creation of DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the power to make law, done when the congress refused to legislate DACA for him.
And this, but the way, is really "how democracies die".
Actual office holding political parties decide their agendas are much more important than the integrity of their political institutions, and so they bring out the wrecking balls.
And at least some of their popular supporters agree with them.
Oh, and if you think we can or should count on the courts to defend the constitution against agenda driven subversion when the court shares the agenda you should consider how courts have dealt with the Duce's efforts to discontinue DACA on the entirely legitimate ground that it was unconstitutional for Obama to put the program in place after the congress had refused to do it.
Far too many office holders consider the constitution less important their their party's agenda.
I am not saying agenda driven interpretation of the constitution or the law is always pernicious.
It is in place when there really is damn all other basis to decide among plausible but importantly different competing interpretations that best serve different or opposing agendas.
But this is just not that.
The deal is off
Manafort bombshell deepens mystery in Russia probe
Paul Manafort's latest legal debacle deepened the core intrigue underlying special counsel Robert Mueller's probe: Why have so many of President Donald Trump's associates been caught lying about contacts with Russians?
In a significant new twist in the 2016 election saga, a judge ruled Wednesday that Trump's ex-campaign chairman "intentionally" lied to investigators, breaking a deal he had reached as a cooperating witness.
The lies, including about meetings with a suspected Russian intelligence asset, were about issues intimately linked to Mueller's wider inquiry, which includes a look into whether there were any links or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian election interference effort.
The deal wasn't good enough.
He would still serve some time.
He doesn't want to serve any time at all.
So he's holding out for a pardon that he would not get if he "turned rat" on the crime boss in the White House.
Paul Manafort's latest legal debacle deepened the core intrigue underlying special counsel Robert Mueller's probe: Why have so many of President Donald Trump's associates been caught lying about contacts with Russians?
In a significant new twist in the 2016 election saga, a judge ruled Wednesday that Trump's ex-campaign chairman "intentionally" lied to investigators, breaking a deal he had reached as a cooperating witness.
The lies, including about meetings with a suspected Russian intelligence asset, were about issues intimately linked to Mueller's wider inquiry, which includes a look into whether there were any links or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian election interference effort.
The deal wasn't good enough.
He would still serve some time.
He doesn't want to serve any time at all.
So he's holding out for a pardon that he would not get if he "turned rat" on the crime boss in the White House.
Panic in the henhouse
McCabe details central role in Russia probes, DOJ meetings on whether to oust president
When Comey was fired McCabe freaked and launched an investigation into whether Trump was obstructing justice and acting as a Russian agent.
Yes, of course he was obstructing justice and trying to sabotage the investigation.
That's why all these guys freaked.
And McCabe now says he and Rosenstein and others had meetings - two, I think, and both on the same day - and tried to figure out who in the Cabinet would be for and who against invoking the 25th amendment to get rid of Trump.
This does no more than confirm old news.
Except that Rosenstein's earlier denials that he now is repeating seem less credible than they did when this story first emerged.
There is not now and was not at any time since the election any case for invoking the 25th, anyway.
And there is not now and has never been any shred of credibility that the cabinet or the enough people in the Congress would support it.
[CBS News’ Scott] Pelley detailed other portions of his sit-down with McCabe on CBS' "This Morning.”
Pelley said McCabe described meetings at the Justice Department after Comey's firing to discuss “whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president under the 25th Amendment.”
In September, Fox News reported details about a meeting on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters, where the same topic was discussed.
Sources told Fox News that McCabe, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, and Rosenstein, who was tasked with oversight of the Russia investigation after Sessions’ recusal, were in the room.
Rosenstein reportedly told McCabe that he might be able to persuade Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary and now-former chief of staff John Kelly to begin proceedings to invoke the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein adamantly denied the claims at the time.
Andrew McCabe: FBI Gamed Out How To Remove Trump Under 25th Amendment
McCabe stood firm that the discussions of Rod Rosenstein wearing a wire to the White House were not a joke, that it came up more than once, and he took it to FBI lawyers to discuss it.
When Comey was fired McCabe freaked and launched an investigation into whether Trump was obstructing justice and acting as a Russian agent.
Yes, of course he was obstructing justice and trying to sabotage the investigation.
That's why all these guys freaked.
And McCabe now says he and Rosenstein and others had meetings - two, I think, and both on the same day - and tried to figure out who in the Cabinet would be for and who against invoking the 25th amendment to get rid of Trump.
This does no more than confirm old news.
Except that Rosenstein's earlier denials that he now is repeating seem less credible than they did when this story first emerged.
There is not now and was not at any time since the election any case for invoking the 25th, anyway.
And there is not now and has never been any shred of credibility that the cabinet or the enough people in the Congress would support it.
[CBS News’ Scott] Pelley detailed other portions of his sit-down with McCabe on CBS' "This Morning.”
Pelley said McCabe described meetings at the Justice Department after Comey's firing to discuss “whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president under the 25th Amendment.”
In September, Fox News reported details about a meeting on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters, where the same topic was discussed.
Sources told Fox News that McCabe, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, and Rosenstein, who was tasked with oversight of the Russia investigation after Sessions’ recusal, were in the room.
Rosenstein reportedly told McCabe that he might be able to persuade Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary and now-former chief of staff John Kelly to begin proceedings to invoke the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein adamantly denied the claims at the time.
Andrew McCabe: FBI Gamed Out How To Remove Trump Under 25th Amendment
McCabe stood firm that the discussions of Rod Rosenstein wearing a wire to the White House were not a joke, that it came up more than once, and he took it to FBI lawyers to discuss it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Looks like a bum rap
Her tweet that American politicians' support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins [slang for a hundred dollar bill, or for money in general]" was cynical and (one hopes at least largely) false, but not anti-Semitic.
She is noted for her anti-Israel positions, sometimes expressed in tweets.
NO American politician, and perhaps especially not a Muslim, can publicly express opposition to Israel without being smeared as an anti-Semite.
Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America
And, yes, for Trump, that fat sack of lies and hates and bigotries, to demand she resign for her comments is truly disgusting.
I tried to message her at her congressional page on the web, but it allows messages only from people in her district.
She is noted for her anti-Israel positions, sometimes expressed in tweets.
NO American politician, and perhaps especially not a Muslim, can publicly express opposition to Israel without being smeared as an anti-Semite.
Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America
And, yes, for Trump, that fat sack of lies and hates and bigotries, to demand she resign for her comments is truly disgusting.
I tried to message her at her congressional page on the web, but it allows messages only from people in her district.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Nobody believes him but the faithful third of the country comprising his idiots
More Americans have confidence in Mueller than Trump
More Americans would be more confident in facts presented by special counsel Robert Mueller than President Donald Trump, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School.
The poll, conducted Feb. 6-10, showed 56 percent of respondents were more inclined to accept a version of the facts from Mueller, while 33 percent put more trust in Trump's accounts.
Respondents were selected randomly; 32 percent identified as Democratic, 39 percent as independent and 26 percent as Republican.
. . . .
57 percent of respondents said Mueller is interested in finding the truth, while 36 percent said he is trying to hurt Trump politically.
. . . .
Respondents were nearly unified, however, on wanting to see the results of the Mueller investigation, with 81 percent saying they believed Mueller's entire report should be made public.
More Americans would be more confident in facts presented by special counsel Robert Mueller than President Donald Trump, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School.
The poll, conducted Feb. 6-10, showed 56 percent of respondents were more inclined to accept a version of the facts from Mueller, while 33 percent put more trust in Trump's accounts.
Respondents were selected randomly; 32 percent identified as Democratic, 39 percent as independent and 26 percent as Republican.
. . . .
57 percent of respondents said Mueller is interested in finding the truth, while 36 percent said he is trying to hurt Trump politically.
. . . .
Respondents were nearly unified, however, on wanting to see the results of the Mueller investigation, with 81 percent saying they believed Mueller's entire report should be made public.
When does the Duce tell his believers that the wall is finished?
They seem to believe his ludicrous claims that it's being built and he just needs to finish it.
So?
Hell, he could tell them Mexico did pay for it, after all.
So?
Hell, he could tell them Mexico did pay for it, after all.
Why is Nicole Wallace calling fence money "wall money"?
Right now on MSNBC.
OK, later in the show she did point out that it's just fence money, and less than was in the December bill Bozo vetoed.
OK, later in the show she did point out that it's just fence money, and less than was in the December bill Bozo vetoed.
Let's be clear. He has no constitutional options.
Anybody who says otherwise is just sharing in his own lying bullshit.
Trump 'not happy' with deal, weighing options for building wall
Only Congress has the power to appropriate any money to be spent on any thing.
Reporting him and his lackeys telling the lie he can repurpose money the Congress has provided expressly for other things is one thing.
But it is quite another for the reporter to share in the lie.
Here's a thought.
If the Duce is determined to spend $ 5.7 B on something, it should be something worthwhile.
So, maybe on subsidies for Obamacare coverage?
On Medicaid expansion?
On a raise for Social Security or to close that donut hole in Medicare drug coverage?
Just a few thoughts.
Update:
MSNBC is right now calling it wall money and explaining the White House is planning to repurpose other money appropriated for other purposes through a series of "executive actions".
And that it utter hoseshit.
Any such thing is unconstitutional.
He can't just spend money out of his ass.
And Mitch McConnell is saying he would be OK with that?
Right.
That's exactly how much these Republicans give a shit about the constitution and constitutional government.
Trump 'not happy' with deal, weighing options for building wall
Only Congress has the power to appropriate any money to be spent on any thing.
Reporting him and his lackeys telling the lie he can repurpose money the Congress has provided expressly for other things is one thing.
But it is quite another for the reporter to share in the lie.
Here's a thought.
If the Duce is determined to spend $ 5.7 B on something, it should be something worthwhile.
So, maybe on subsidies for Obamacare coverage?
On Medicaid expansion?
On a raise for Social Security or to close that donut hole in Medicare drug coverage?
Just a few thoughts.
Update:
MSNBC is right now calling it wall money and explaining the White House is planning to repurpose other money appropriated for other purposes through a series of "executive actions".
And that it utter hoseshit.
Any such thing is unconstitutional.
He can't just spend money out of his ass.
And Mitch McConnell is saying he would be OK with that?
Right.
That's exactly how much these Republicans give a shit about the constitution and constitutional government.
Trump still threatening a shutdown
Trump claims responsibility for first shutdown, blames Democrats in advance if he does it again
Let's see how this is supposed to go.
In December, the Congress put a bill on his desk to fund the government and he chose to veto it, shutting down the government.
At the time, he and every living Republican said it was the Democrats' fault, it was their shutdown.
Only his lying supporters played along, and everybody else knew and said it was his doing and the doing of the senate Republicans who stood by his side.
So now he says, yeah, that was me, actually.
And now he says if the Congress puts a bill on his desk to fund the government and he again chooses to veto it, that will somehow not be him again shutting down the government, just as he did in December.
Nope.
He and the Republicans will again tell the world the Democrats made them do it.
Figure that'll work?
Did it work the first time?
This is an exceptionally slow president learning he is not, in fact, the Decider.
Let's see how this is supposed to go.
In December, the Congress put a bill on his desk to fund the government and he chose to veto it, shutting down the government.
At the time, he and every living Republican said it was the Democrats' fault, it was their shutdown.
Only his lying supporters played along, and everybody else knew and said it was his doing and the doing of the senate Republicans who stood by his side.
So now he says, yeah, that was me, actually.
And now he says if the Congress puts a bill on his desk to fund the government and he again chooses to veto it, that will somehow not be him again shutting down the government, just as he did in December.
Nope.
He and the Republicans will again tell the world the Democrats made them do it.
Figure that'll work?
Did it work the first time?
This is an exceptionally slow president learning he is not, in fact, the Decider.
$ 1.4 B for fencing is not $ 5.7 B for a wall
No matter how some media try to save the Duce's and the Republicans' faces.
Budget deal allows far less money than Trump wanted for wall
The story below this absurd headline says the money is for conventional fencing.
Not a penny for wall.
The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December.
The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
It's not just AP.
Others, too, are calling it "wall money" in their lying headlines, and fencing money in the stories themselves.
But not everybody is playing around with fig-leaves.
Trump Likely to Accept Defeat on Wall Funding – and Claim He’ll Get His Money Elsewhere
After a brief moment when it looked like negotiations were breaking down as the deadline for avoiding a second government shutdown approached, a deal seems to be falling into place.
And by any normal measure, it represents a humiliating defeat for Donald J. Trump, as the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observes:
Budget deal allows far less money than Trump wanted for wall
The story below this absurd headline says the money is for conventional fencing.
Not a penny for wall.
The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December.
The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
It's not just AP.
Others, too, are calling it "wall money" in their lying headlines, and fencing money in the stories themselves.
But not everybody is playing around with fig-leaves.
Trump Likely to Accept Defeat on Wall Funding – and Claim He’ll Get His Money Elsewhere
After a brief moment when it looked like negotiations were breaking down as the deadline for avoiding a second government shutdown approached, a deal seems to be falling into place.
And by any normal measure, it represents a humiliating defeat for Donald J. Trump, as the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observes:
The deal as laid out does include some border fencing — $1.375 billion worth, or 55 miles.
That’s well shy of the $5.7 billion and 200 miles in wall funding he demanded that led to the shutdown, but it’s not nothing.
Trump could argue that he got something out of the 35-day government closure.
But only if you ignore two very important things.
One is that this compromise includes a concession to Democrats, too: a reduction in the number of detention beds …
But the bigger issue is this:
The amount of funding is actually shy of the original deal Republicans and Democrats reached last year that Trump rejected.
At that time, the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security included $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing, both slightly more than the current tentative deal.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
The frayed pretense that judges aren't chosen precisely on that basis
Judicial nominees are changing their approach to the 'Brown v Board' question at Senate hearings
They all have wide ranging and extensive opinions on these things.
Law students, legal scholars, lawyers, and sitting judges harbor detailed and numerous opinions as to what was rightly or wrongly decided.
That is how they form themselves into legal genera, Democrats or Republicans, soi-disant partisans of strict or broad construction, of historic understanding or answerability to contemporary social needs, of the black letter document or invisible but inherent whatnots and penumbras.
So why be so coy when everybody knows it is on exactly the basis of what they are pro or con that they are chosen for nomination and supported by one party or the other?
It is perfectly true that Republican jurists are rather likely to think Brown, Roe, and lots of other cases where liberal views were affirmed to have been wrongly decided, and it is because Republicans want those decisions overturned that they want these judges on the bench.
And it is perfectly true that these preferences and views are as far from the American political center as are all the other aspects of the conservative war on what progressives have made of our government, laws, and society over the last hundred plus years.
A point that cannot be made often enough.
None of the conservative agenda is centrist.
And especially not the parts espoused by Schultz.
They all have wide ranging and extensive opinions on these things.
Law students, legal scholars, lawyers, and sitting judges harbor detailed and numerous opinions as to what was rightly or wrongly decided.
That is how they form themselves into legal genera, Democrats or Republicans, soi-disant partisans of strict or broad construction, of historic understanding or answerability to contemporary social needs, of the black letter document or invisible but inherent whatnots and penumbras.
So why be so coy when everybody knows it is on exactly the basis of what they are pro or con that they are chosen for nomination and supported by one party or the other?
It is perfectly true that Republican jurists are rather likely to think Brown, Roe, and lots of other cases where liberal views were affirmed to have been wrongly decided, and it is because Republicans want those decisions overturned that they want these judges on the bench.
And it is perfectly true that these preferences and views are as far from the American political center as are all the other aspects of the conservative war on what progressives have made of our government, laws, and society over the last hundred plus years.
A point that cannot be made often enough.
None of the conservative agenda is centrist.
And especially not the parts espoused by Schultz.
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Chris Christie and Stacey Abrams are in the same boat
I think you know what boat that is.
They both need to lose a hundred pounds, at least.
I didn't realize how big CC is until I saw him on You Tube on a Trevor Noah clip, being interviewed about working for Trump.
They were sitting on opposite sides of something like a card table on chairs as revealing as simple folding chairs, and the camera was far enough back to show them both, facing each other and talking.
And that was a very revealing view of CC.
They both need to lose a hundred pounds, at least.
I didn't realize how big CC is until I saw him on You Tube on a Trevor Noah clip, being interviewed about working for Trump.
They were sitting on opposite sides of something like a card table on chairs as revealing as simple folding chairs, and the camera was far enough back to show them both, facing each other and talking.
And that was a very revealing view of CC.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Good film
Agatha and the Truth of Murder
On Netflix.
The Francophone Belgians are the Walloons, by the way.
Not the Flemings.
Hard to believe Conan Doyle would make that error, apparently alluding to Poirot.
So, the screenwriter?
On Netflix.
The Francophone Belgians are the Walloons, by the way.
Not the Flemings.
Hard to believe Conan Doyle would make that error, apparently alluding to Poirot.
So, the screenwriter?
This is exactly right. Career over? Probably.
Neeson still doesn't even seem to get it.
Love his action movies.
Especially the dark Walk Among the Tombstones.
Cold Pursuit is probably in trouble.
(In Order of Disappearance was excellent.)
Liam Neeson laid bare the logic of lynching, in all its horror
The actor’s admission echoes 19th-century mob murders of black people – committed under the pretence of protecting white women.
Gary Younge's fine piece is well worth the time.
Love his action movies.
Especially the dark Walk Among the Tombstones.
Cold Pursuit is probably in trouble.
(In Order of Disappearance was excellent.)
Liam Neeson laid bare the logic of lynching, in all its horror
The actor’s admission echoes 19th-century mob murders of black people – committed under the pretence of protecting white women.
Gary Younge's fine piece is well worth the time.
Why would anyone be sucker enough to believe him?
And has anybody even asked him whether he would at least reverse the Trump tax cuts for corporations and the rich?
Has anybody pointedly remarked to him that the huge deficit he of course is wringing his hands about is mostly a production of Republican tax-cutting?
His proposed cures so far are to cut the hell out of the earned benefits Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid.
And as this article points out, candidate Trump also urged that the rich, including himself, pay more.
And then gleefully signed the obscene Republican tax cut.
Former Starbucks CEO Schultz Calls for Higher Taxes on Wealthy
Has anybody pointedly remarked to him that the huge deficit he of course is wringing his hands about is mostly a production of Republican tax-cutting?
His proposed cures so far are to cut the hell out of the earned benefits Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid.
And as this article points out, candidate Trump also urged that the rich, including himself, pay more.
And then gleefully signed the obscene Republican tax cut.
Former Starbucks CEO Schultz Calls for Higher Taxes on Wealthy
Leaving it in the ground
Those in the best position to estimate the damage of continuing use of fossil fuels generally urge leaving as much of them as possible unused, in the ground, forever.
But all those reserves are owned by amazingly powerful and frequently utterly unscrupulous interests.
Remember what happened to Khashoggi and how abject Trump has been and remains toward the utterly tyrannical and murderous Saudi Kronprinz (prince héritier) Mohammed Bin Salman.
It is those interests, way more powerful globally and in America than the tobacco industry ever was, I would guess, that created global warming denial and made it a key part of the toxic sludge that is the ideology of today's Republican Party.
All those interests really don't give a shit about what happens to everybody else.
They figure they can run the planet into the ground and they and their descendants will always be able to shift all the costs and damage onto us hoi polloi.
The only way we win is for some at least of the rich and super-rich who are not themselves on the fossil fuel gravy train to make common cause with the rest of us.
And that might not be enough, either.
Particularly since it seems to be uncontroversial that, the more we leave unused in the ground, the poorer all of us collectively will be, especially in the short run.
Update.
But I may never know.
I'm 70 and not in totally good health.
So, there's that.
But all those reserves are owned by amazingly powerful and frequently utterly unscrupulous interests.
Remember what happened to Khashoggi and how abject Trump has been and remains toward the utterly tyrannical and murderous Saudi Kronprinz (prince héritier) Mohammed Bin Salman.
It is those interests, way more powerful globally and in America than the tobacco industry ever was, I would guess, that created global warming denial and made it a key part of the toxic sludge that is the ideology of today's Republican Party.
All those interests really don't give a shit about what happens to everybody else.
They figure they can run the planet into the ground and they and their descendants will always be able to shift all the costs and damage onto us hoi polloi.
The only way we win is for some at least of the rich and super-rich who are not themselves on the fossil fuel gravy train to make common cause with the rest of us.
And that might not be enough, either.
Particularly since it seems to be uncontroversial that, the more we leave unused in the ground, the poorer all of us collectively will be, especially in the short run.
Update.
But I may never know.
I'm 70 and not in totally good health.
So, there's that.
This sounds right, for sure
One question I have long had is whether investigators looking at the Russian element in the election of Trump are not unduly downplaying a United Arab Emirates and Saudi angle.
That is, did those two oil monarchies help put Trump in power in the first place, and is there a prehistory to their entanglements with his circle?
AMI, Bezos, and so on.
Didn't Schiff say his committee would look for a Saudi connection?
That is, did those two oil monarchies help put Trump in power in the first place, and is there a prehistory to their entanglements with his circle?
AMI, Bezos, and so on.
Didn't Schiff say his committee would look for a Saudi connection?
Did she give Herring permission to not resign?
NYT Editor Knows 'We Keep Avoiding The Conversation We Need To Have On Race'
This, as so much of today's news, has unraveled so quickly, it's been rare to see a person cut right to the heart of Gov. Northam's colossal failure and how to heal.
Mara Gay did that when she visited Andrea Mitchell's show on Thursday.
It was immensely instructive and frankly, a bit of a relief.
Primarily, she outlined the vast difference in the ways Gov. Northam and AG Herring handled their respective histories of having worn Blackface, and why Herring's was the example for people to follow.
This, as so much of today's news, has unraveled so quickly, it's been rare to see a person cut right to the heart of Gov. Northam's colossal failure and how to heal.
Mara Gay did that when she visited Andrea Mitchell's show on Thursday.
It was immensely instructive and frankly, a bit of a relief.
Primarily, she outlined the vast difference in the ways Gov. Northam and AG Herring handled their respective histories of having worn Blackface, and why Herring's was the example for people to follow.
Of course there's nothing acceptable about blackface, it's horrible.
But you know what, he said in his statement it was the most painful, shameful moment in his life.
And he talked about having to spend the past 40 years to make up for that and do so genuinely by taking responsibility publicly and by working toward racial justice.
That's what you want to hear, because I will tell you right now there is not a single American who does not have some share in an inheritance we all have of our country's painful racial history.
So the question is, what do we do about that, how do we ask for forgiveness, how do we forgive.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Second thoughts
The BBC 2018 version of The A.B.C. Murders, now showing on amazon video, fundamentally misleads viewers from the very beginning as to who is doing what.
Still, it's a fine bit of work, anyway, that production.
And all the same in the first episode it's openly acknowledged that the killer is someone who knows Poirot well.
And that's a kind of correction for the misdirection.
Japp's fate, and Poirot's fall from grace with the police and the public, are the work of rising xenophobia.
Very topical.
The sense of Poirot's Catholicity is presented perhaps not altogether consistently.
In the first episode he has, and of course uses, a prie-dieu (a kneeler) in his apartment before a framed photo of the Virgin, provided with a shelf for a burning candle.
In the last it is revealed that in Belgium, before he went to England as a refugee in 1914, he was a priest and not a gendarme.
And in the first we are shown that even his name, "Hercule Poirot", is an invention of his, made up as a refugee in that year.
These are major departures from Christie.
But in the middle it is shown that while he attends masses he has not confessed since he fled Belgium in 1914 (it's 1933) and has not taken communion since then because he cannot forgive either God or the Boche, it's not clear which, for the atrocities of the invasion of his country.
To be clear, the introduction of malignant xenophobia as a serious source of evil in this production does not so much depart from Christie as make a theme already always present in her Poirot stories stronger.
She always used him to point up and tweak British insularity and anything that looked like the old "the wogs begin at Calais" attitude.
You know, mocking Colonel Blimp.
This BBC production just sharpens the tone of the rejection, and darkens the evil, of xenophobia.
But it's more than that.
The production repeatedly flashes back to tragic and violent events during the German invasion of Belgium, depicting the murder of civilians by German troops on the express orders of their officer, witnessed by the man we know as Hercule Poirot.
And the European war of 1914, like the one of 1939 in which it led to even worse and more devastating crimes, originated in malignant nationalism, especially German malignant nationalism.
Those repeated flashbacks put the xenophobia in England of 1933 in the broader context of the rampant, malignant nationalism of which it was a feature.
Well done, I say.
Update.
This is absurd.
If the eggs are soft boiled the toast cannot have jam.
It's for dunking, of course.
And I often have that very breakfast, sometimes with 8 ounces of V8, sometimes with a half strip of bacon.
Always with black coffee, though, like any good continental of Western Europe.
Or any American, North, Central, or South.
Never his disgusting tisane.
Oh, Sergeant Yelland's use of "choice Anglo-Saxon" for English profanity is a delightful and entirely correct departure from the offensive and lying label found in the stupid but common remark, then as now, "Pardon my French".
Still, it's a fine bit of work, anyway, that production.
And all the same in the first episode it's openly acknowledged that the killer is someone who knows Poirot well.
And that's a kind of correction for the misdirection.
Japp's fate, and Poirot's fall from grace with the police and the public, are the work of rising xenophobia.
Very topical.
The sense of Poirot's Catholicity is presented perhaps not altogether consistently.
In the first episode he has, and of course uses, a prie-dieu (a kneeler) in his apartment before a framed photo of the Virgin, provided with a shelf for a burning candle.
In the last it is revealed that in Belgium, before he went to England as a refugee in 1914, he was a priest and not a gendarme.
And in the first we are shown that even his name, "Hercule Poirot", is an invention of his, made up as a refugee in that year.
These are major departures from Christie.
But in the middle it is shown that while he attends masses he has not confessed since he fled Belgium in 1914 (it's 1933) and has not taken communion since then because he cannot forgive either God or the Boche, it's not clear which, for the atrocities of the invasion of his country.
To be clear, the introduction of malignant xenophobia as a serious source of evil in this production does not so much depart from Christie as make a theme already always present in her Poirot stories stronger.
She always used him to point up and tweak British insularity and anything that looked like the old "the wogs begin at Calais" attitude.
You know, mocking Colonel Blimp.
This BBC production just sharpens the tone of the rejection, and darkens the evil, of xenophobia.
But it's more than that.
The production repeatedly flashes back to tragic and violent events during the German invasion of Belgium, depicting the murder of civilians by German troops on the express orders of their officer, witnessed by the man we know as Hercule Poirot.
And the European war of 1914, like the one of 1939 in which it led to even worse and more devastating crimes, originated in malignant nationalism, especially German malignant nationalism.
Those repeated flashbacks put the xenophobia in England of 1933 in the broader context of the rampant, malignant nationalism of which it was a feature.
Well done, I say.
Update.
This is absurd.
If the eggs are soft boiled the toast cannot have jam.
It's for dunking, of course.
And I often have that very breakfast, sometimes with 8 ounces of V8, sometimes with a half strip of bacon.
Always with black coffee, though, like any good continental of Western Europe.
Or any American, North, Central, or South.
Never his disgusting tisane.
Oh, Sergeant Yelland's use of "choice Anglo-Saxon" for English profanity is a delightful and entirely correct departure from the offensive and lying label found in the stupid but common remark, then as now, "Pardon my French".
Birds of a feather
Jeffrey Epstein: US opens inquiry into light sentence for wealthy sexual abuser
“Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist and there’s not a single mom or dad in America who shouldn’t be horrified by the fact that he received a pathetically soft sentence,” Sasse said in an email.
“Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist and there’s not a single mom or dad in America who shouldn’t be horrified by the fact that he received a pathetically soft sentence,” Sasse said in an email.
“The victims of Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring deserve this investigation and so do the American people and members of law enforcement who work to put these kinds of monsters behind bars.”
Jeffrey Epstein: inside the decade of scandal entangling Prince Andrew
Epstein, now 66, reached a non-prosecution deal in 2008 with the office of the then-Miami US attorney, Alexander Acosta, to secretly end a federal sex abuse investigation involving at least 40 teenage girls that could have landed him behind bars for life.
Jeffrey Epstein: inside the decade of scandal entangling Prince Andrew
Epstein, now 66, reached a non-prosecution deal in 2008 with the office of the then-Miami US attorney, Alexander Acosta, to secretly end a federal sex abuse investigation involving at least 40 teenage girls that could have landed him behind bars for life.
He instead pleaded guilty to state charges, spent 13 months in jail, paid settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender.
Acosta, now Donald Trump’s labor secretary, has defended the deal as appropriate but has not commented since the recent round of stories.
Acosta, now Donald Trump’s labor secretary, has defended the deal as appropriate but has not commented since the recent round of stories.
Trump echoes Ronald Reagan
In 1965, Reagan and Goldwater and everybody who was anybody in movement conservatism denounced Medicare as socialism and, for preference, outright communism.
It didn't work in 1965.
And in yesterday's SOTU, there was this.
"America will never be a socialist country"
President Donald Trump wants to make a familiar political bogeyman part of his 2020 re-election bid.
Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night sounded a lot like a stump speech.
He listed what he considers his accomplishments and repeated his campaign promise to build a border wall.
Trump also derided what he cast as a drift toward "socialism" in the Democratic Party.
"Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. ... Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," the president said, prompting applause from congressional Republicans who stared toward the Democratic side of the House chamber.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sitting behind Trump, also applauded.
[Fox News reports indicate many other Democrats did not.]
In the Democratic-held House, more members have embraced largely popular policies such as Medicare for all, free public college and tax hikes on the wealthy.
Trump and the GOP have tied the party to an economically ravaged Venezuela, despite the fact that lawmakers have not called for majority or full state ownership of companies like in the South American country.
Facing low approval ratings, various probes and a failure to accomplish some of his key campaign goals ahead of his November 2020 re-election bid, the president appears intent on stirring fears about the political ideology.
A Trump campaign spokesman said that the rhetoric about socialism "resonates with the vast majority of hard working Americans who recognize that Trump's patriotic capitalism is benefiting all Americans nationwide."
. . . .
A few lawmakers such as freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., identify as democratic socialists.
They have become favorite targets for Republicans as the GOP tries to cast all Democrats as too radical for mainstream America.
In Ocasio-Cortez's mind, Trump's criticism shows concern about the popularity of policies embraced by the left.
"I think he's scared," the representative told reporters Tuesday night, according to The Hill.
"He sees that everything is closing in on him and he knows that he's losing the battle on public opinion."
Indeed, a Hill-HarrisX poll this month found 53 percent of registered voters would be more likely to back a presidential candidate who supports Medicare for all.
Even Trump has called for universal health care in the past.
. . . .
Republicans have tied Democratic lawmakers to socialism for decades.
Critics have cast expansions of state power, from the New Deal to the Affordable Care Act, as moves toward government control of just about everything.
For decades, Russia was the socialist bogeyman.
Now, it's Venezuela.
Before the 2018 midterms, the White House issued a 72-page document warning that policies such as Medicare for all would turn the U.S. into "the next Venezuela."
The House Republican campaign arm also rejected its foes as too radical for the U.S. public.
Democrats went on to gain a net 40 House seats, largely focusing on protecting health-care coverage in an election marked largely by Trump's poor approval rating.
It didn't work in 1965.
And in yesterday's SOTU, there was this.
"America will never be a socialist country"
President Donald Trump wants to make a familiar political bogeyman part of his 2020 re-election bid.
Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night sounded a lot like a stump speech.
He listed what he considers his accomplishments and repeated his campaign promise to build a border wall.
Trump also derided what he cast as a drift toward "socialism" in the Democratic Party.
"Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. ... Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," the president said, prompting applause from congressional Republicans who stared toward the Democratic side of the House chamber.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sitting behind Trump, also applauded.
[Fox News reports indicate many other Democrats did not.]
In the Democratic-held House, more members have embraced largely popular policies such as Medicare for all, free public college and tax hikes on the wealthy.
Trump and the GOP have tied the party to an economically ravaged Venezuela, despite the fact that lawmakers have not called for majority or full state ownership of companies like in the South American country.
Facing low approval ratings, various probes and a failure to accomplish some of his key campaign goals ahead of his November 2020 re-election bid, the president appears intent on stirring fears about the political ideology.
A Trump campaign spokesman said that the rhetoric about socialism "resonates with the vast majority of hard working Americans who recognize that Trump's patriotic capitalism is benefiting all Americans nationwide."
. . . .
A few lawmakers such as freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., identify as democratic socialists.
They have become favorite targets for Republicans as the GOP tries to cast all Democrats as too radical for mainstream America.
In Ocasio-Cortez's mind, Trump's criticism shows concern about the popularity of policies embraced by the left.
"I think he's scared," the representative told reporters Tuesday night, according to The Hill.
"He sees that everything is closing in on him and he knows that he's losing the battle on public opinion."
Indeed, a Hill-HarrisX poll this month found 53 percent of registered voters would be more likely to back a presidential candidate who supports Medicare for all.
Even Trump has called for universal health care in the past.
. . . .
Republicans have tied Democratic lawmakers to socialism for decades.
Critics have cast expansions of state power, from the New Deal to the Affordable Care Act, as moves toward government control of just about everything.
For decades, Russia was the socialist bogeyman.
Now, it's Venezuela.
Before the 2018 midterms, the White House issued a 72-page document warning that policies such as Medicare for all would turn the U.S. into "the next Venezuela."
The House Republican campaign arm also rejected its foes as too radical for the U.S. public.
Democrats went on to gain a net 40 House seats, largely focusing on protecting health-care coverage in an election marked largely by Trump's poor approval rating.
Why does Bozo want an arms race?
What is good for the arms makers like Boeing and others is very bad and very dangerous for the world.
Donald Trump plans a nuclear arms race in his State of the Union
Donald Trump’s nuclear diplomacy was on full display in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, which included the revelation of an upcoming meeting between Trump and North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un in Vietnam on February 27 and 28.
Contemplating his recent decision to withdraw the US from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia, Trump mused that “perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can’t—in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.”
Donald Trump plans a nuclear arms race in his State of the Union
Donald Trump’s nuclear diplomacy was on full display in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, which included the revelation of an upcoming meeting between Trump and North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un in Vietnam on February 27 and 28.
Contemplating his recent decision to withdraw the US from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia, Trump mused that “perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can’t—in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.”
Presidential harassment
Oh, boo hoo.
Schiff announces expanded scope of House Intel Russia probe
A day after President Trump made an appeal to Congress to limit what he called "ridiculous partisan investigations," the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, announced new parameters of the panel's Democrat-led Russia investigation, calling the president's discouragement of appropriate oversight a "nonstarter."
. . . .
In remarks to the press following the newly constituted committee's first organizational meeting on Wednesday, Schiff fired back.
"We are not going to be intimidated or threatened by the president to withhold any legislative advancement if we do our proper oversight — we're going to do our proper oversight," he said.
. . . .
One addition to the committee's newly established five lines of inquiry includes "[w]hether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates."
"The American people have a right to know — indeed, a need to know — that the president is acting on their behalf and not for some pecuniary or other reason," Schiff said.
"That pertains to any credible allegations of leverage by the Russians or the Saudis or anyone else."
The committee will also investigate whether any of the president's policy decisions were the result of foreign exploitation and whether any foreign actors are attempting to impede congressional or other investigations into those topics.
Schiff said his committee would work with other House panels that "share a like interest and a concern."
The Democratic chairs of the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees have previously indicated their committees would investigate some of the administration's policy choices.
Schiff also said the panel's first act had been to authorize the transmission of all of the transcripts of witness testimony as part of the House Russia investigation to the special counsel.
Trump blasts Schiff as 'political hack' over new investigation
President Trump on Wednesday denounced House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as a “political hack” for opening a sweeping investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.
“He has no basis to do that. He’s just a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself,” Trump told reporters at the White House after announcing his pick to lead the World Bank.
“It’s just presidential harassment and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country,” Trump said of the probe.
Schiff hits back at Trump: He’s ‘terrified’ of House Russia probe
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday fired back at President Trump after the president accused him of being a "political hack," saying that he could understand why Trump was scared of congressional oversight.
The comments from Schiff came just minutes after Trump denounced the California Democrat for opening a sweeping committee probe into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.
Schiff announces expanded scope of House Intel Russia probe
A day after President Trump made an appeal to Congress to limit what he called "ridiculous partisan investigations," the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, announced new parameters of the panel's Democrat-led Russia investigation, calling the president's discouragement of appropriate oversight a "nonstarter."
. . . .
In remarks to the press following the newly constituted committee's first organizational meeting on Wednesday, Schiff fired back.
"We are not going to be intimidated or threatened by the president to withhold any legislative advancement if we do our proper oversight — we're going to do our proper oversight," he said.
. . . .
One addition to the committee's newly established five lines of inquiry includes "[w]hether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates."
"The American people have a right to know — indeed, a need to know — that the president is acting on their behalf and not for some pecuniary or other reason," Schiff said.
"That pertains to any credible allegations of leverage by the Russians or the Saudis or anyone else."
The committee will also investigate whether any of the president's policy decisions were the result of foreign exploitation and whether any foreign actors are attempting to impede congressional or other investigations into those topics.
Schiff said his committee would work with other House panels that "share a like interest and a concern."
The Democratic chairs of the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees have previously indicated their committees would investigate some of the administration's policy choices.
Schiff also said the panel's first act had been to authorize the transmission of all of the transcripts of witness testimony as part of the House Russia investigation to the special counsel.
Trump blasts Schiff as 'political hack' over new investigation
President Trump on Wednesday denounced House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as a “political hack” for opening a sweeping investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.
“He has no basis to do that. He’s just a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself,” Trump told reporters at the White House after announcing his pick to lead the World Bank.
“It’s just presidential harassment and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country,” Trump said of the probe.
Schiff hits back at Trump: He’s ‘terrified’ of House Russia probe
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday fired back at President Trump after the president accused him of being a "political hack," saying that he could understand why Trump was scared of congressional oversight.
The comments from Schiff came just minutes after Trump denounced the California Democrat for opening a sweeping committee probe into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.
What if Idris Elba played Macbeth?
He's a hell of an actor, so why not?
If Elba played Macbeth, would you make him look white?
Whiteface?
But is any such stage convention really necessary, though that sort of thing was the rule for many decades of the past?
Who does not know Macbeth is a Scottish noble with too much ambition and a too pushy wife?
If Idris Elba played him without any cosmetic effects, we could all just agree the excellent black actor on the stage, who looks like an excellent black actor on the stage, is all the same playing a white character.
And I guess that would be our new stage convention.
If a person of race X plays a character of race Y (and why not?) the audience just needs to be otherwise apprised of the fact than by cosmetic effects.
Damn few nonwhite characters in Shakespeare.
But lots of juicy roles that could open up for excellent nonwhite actors, if only we humans were adult enough to do it.
Lucy Liu as Lady Macbeth?
It makes me smile.
Lucy Liu as Macbeth might be too much of a stretch, without costume and cosmetic effects.
Still, not as hard as playing a Wookie or C3PO, I suppose.
If Elba played Macbeth, would you make him look white?
Whiteface?
But is any such stage convention really necessary, though that sort of thing was the rule for many decades of the past?
Who does not know Macbeth is a Scottish noble with too much ambition and a too pushy wife?
If Idris Elba played him without any cosmetic effects, we could all just agree the excellent black actor on the stage, who looks like an excellent black actor on the stage, is all the same playing a white character.
And I guess that would be our new stage convention.
If a person of race X plays a character of race Y (and why not?) the audience just needs to be otherwise apprised of the fact than by cosmetic effects.
Damn few nonwhite characters in Shakespeare.
But lots of juicy roles that could open up for excellent nonwhite actors, if only we humans were adult enough to do it.
Lucy Liu as Lady Macbeth?
It makes me smile.
Lucy Liu as Macbeth might be too much of a stretch, without costume and cosmetic effects.
Still, not as hard as playing a Wookie or C3PO, I suppose.
Some secrets you take to the grave
Should Liam Neeson be cancelled?
When I first heard he had told of this I could not believe it.
I could not believe that he had felt that way and done what he did.
And I could not believe he made it public.
Bear this in mind when people stupidly ask why Northam didn't tell all before he was outed.
When I first heard he had told of this I could not believe it.
I could not believe that he had felt that way and done what he did.
And I could not believe he made it public.
Bear this in mind when people stupidly ask why Northam didn't tell all before he was outed.
Humans causing mass extinction
The killing of large species is pushing them towards extinction, study finds
The vast majority of the world’s largest species are being pushed towards extinction, with the killing of the heftiest animals for meat and body parts the leading cause of decline, according to a new study.
The vast majority of the world’s largest species are being pushed towards extinction, with the killing of the heftiest animals for meat and body parts the leading cause of decline, according to a new study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)