Ninth Circuit Rules Against Trump

The Ninth Circuit issued a ruling on Trump’ immigration EO, maintaining a nationwide suspension of the order.

While I think that Trump’s ban was poorly reasoned and executed with the skill of a brass band falling down a flight of stairs, I’m a bit bothered by this decision for reasons David French gets into here:

Finally, and crucially, the court made a statement near the end of its opinion that is deeply, deeply troubling. In discussing the evidence before the court, the panel says this:

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

Putting aside, for the moment, the administration’s inexplicable failure to include in the executive order or the record the extensive documentation and evidence demonstrating the threat of jihad from the seven identified countries (including terror attacks in the U.S., plots in the U.S., and a record of plots and attacks abroad), whether an attack has been completed in this country is not the standard for implementing heightened security measures. The president doesn’t have to wait for completed attacks to protect the U.S. from dangerous immigrants. He can see the deteriorating security situation on the ground, evaluate the intentions and capabilities of the enemy, and then act before the enemy can strike. Indeed, that’s the goal of national defense — to prevent attacks, not respond after the carnage.

I’ve been hearing versions of this argument over and over again. “No refugee has launched a terror attack against the US!” “No one from those seven countries has attacked the US soil!” “Since 9/11, more people have been killed by Right Wing terrorism than Jihadists!” For a while, I was swayed by these arguments. But I’ve come to realize that they are complete horse manure.

First, as French notes, the job of the federal government is to prevent attacks, not close the barn door after the horse has been stolen. If they have credible intelligence of an attack or a danger, they are supposed to act (within Constitutional limits).

Second, terrorist attacks are, by their very nature, stochastic. They are thankfully few and when you try to do any analysis of them, you are immediately swallowed by small number statistics. This is obvious when you think about it. Any sentence that starts with, “well, excluding 9/11 …” is just silly. 9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack in American history. It completely dominates the discussion. Our entire anti-terrorism policy is designed around preventing another 9/11. You simply can not exclude it from consideration and act like you’re clever for doing so.

It would take only one successful Jihadist attack to upset those numbers (indeed, the numbers changed dramatically after San Bernardino and Orlando). It would take only one attack by a refugee from, say, Somalia, to make those arguments completely moot. When your argument can be rendered useless by a singular event, it’s a terrible argument.

Think about where we were on 9/10. At that point, the most successful attack on American soil was the Oklahoma City bombing. Should Bush have therefore ignored the threat of Jihadists? On the contrary, many liberals slammed him for paying insufficient attention to the “Al-Qaeda determined to strike in US” memo.

Just to be clear: I think the danger presented by people coming into this country with visas or as refugees is low. But it is not zero. Can we quit pretending that it is?

(I would note, in passing, that deciding on the wisdom of a policy is not the Court’s job. Antonin Scalia used to note that the Courts were required to uphold laws that were ill-advised but passed Constitutional muster. He joked that he wished he had a stamp: “Stupid but Constitutional.” I’m not quite familiar enough with this case to opine on whether Trump’s order is legal or Constitutional. It may be dumb. I know many on this blog disagree. But even if we assume it’s dumb, it’s not the Court’s job to stop stupidity.)

129 comments:

  1. stogy

    The choice of countries seems arbitrary and not backed by any kind of reasoning. It just doesn’t make much sense to me that Iran is on the list while Saudi Arabia is not. Sunni extremism is a far greater threat to the US than Shia extremism – none of the 9/11 attackers were Shia. Most terrorism outside of the Middle East is committed by Sunnis, and even in the ME, Shias are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

    My feeling is that anti-Iranian pro-Israel hawks are driving decision-making on this, and trying to ramp up pressure on Iran, rather than an actual need to protect Americans.

    Thumb up 1

  2. CM

    I love how Donald tweets ‘see you in court’….like this wasn’t in court already. Muppet.

    BTW I see your idiotic wall will actually cost $21 billion. LOL

    Thumb up 1

  3. West Virginia Rebel

    My understanding is that this was Rudy Giuliani’s idea. Either way, if they’re not challenging its actual legality, SCOTUS will probably reverse the Court.

    As for the Wall…I hear it’s in the “design stage” right now.

    Thumb up 1

  4. CM

    I imagine Trump will pull it, rework it, and try again.

    The wall you’ll actually pay for twice (the second time with higher prices for anything from Mexico), and if it depresses the Mexican economy then you’ll get more illegals as a result.

    Thumb up 2

  5. CM

    So what ‘credible intelligence of an attack or a danger’ do they actually have from these countries that would justify such a measure, given the inevitable blowback (particularly given Trump’s repeated call for a Muslim ban)? People are already screened. What is it that the screening has been missing? What is it that the torturous refugee screening system has missed? Where are all the examples? Instead we get told about attacks that are invented and a ridiculous list that Trump doesn’t think have been reported on enough (almost none of which feature Muslims as victims). How does this measure actually prevent anything? I thought conservatives railed against ‘feel good measures’ that aren’t grounded in fact, particularly where they may potentialy lead to other or more problems i. e. provide a great terrorist recruitment tool. I’m also not at all convinced by the ‘singular event’ argument. There can always be exceptions that aren’t necessarily fatal to an argument. That’s the kind of argument that is used to justify anything. That’s the kind of example that makes it even more difficult for a Somalian refugee. It also tells the people doing the screening that the job they’re doing year after year would all be for nothing if one of the refugees does something. Hell even the fact that they could is bad enough. Who on earth is suggesting, or has suggested, ignoring the threat of jihadits? Very clearly it hasn’t remotely been ignored since 9/11 (although invading Iraq was alays going to have terrible long term consequences in that respect). Certainly not in terms of them coming into America from elsewhere.

    The fact that people are screened carefully, refugees to the nth degree, demonstrates exactly that “the danger presented by people coming into this country with visas or as refugees is low, but it is not zero, and nobody is pretending that it is”.

    Not sure how you turned around on this Hal.

    Thumb up 1

  6. Hal_10000 *

    BTW I see your idiotic wall will actually cost $21 billion. LOL

    As with with any large government projects, triple that and you’ll be close to what it will actually cost.  See California’s high-speed rail.

    So what ‘credible intelligence of an attack or a danger’ do they actually have from these countries that would justify such a measure, given the inevitable blowback (particularly given Trump’s repeated call for a Muslim ban)? 

    TBF: they may have classified info they can’t disclose.  To be really fair, I doubt it.

    Thumb up 2

  7. Iconoclast

    Hillary would have been so dull.

    Are you kidding?  The world would have waited with baited breath every time she stumbled into a van, or passed out at a function, or every time she had a coughing fit, wondering if this would be the time she hacked up a lung and died right there on the spot.

    Thumb up 1

  8. AlexInCT

    I find it hilarious that the left claims as a victory a clearly political ruling by the one court in the country better know as the “9th circus”. The court that has an over 80% of the judgement they have rendered that are challenged, overruled.

    I hope for their sake there is no attack this by adherents of the religion of peace before this issue is resolved, because what follows will be really ugly for the left.

    The constitution is clear that the executive controls immigration and security. And more importantly, the court’s ruling was weak on law and huge on social justice shit, leaving no doubt that it was a political verdict. I bet you this court would have found it OK that Obama dronestriked a US citizen without due process.

    My advice to team Trump is to rewrite their EO, making sure the language clearly defines the exceptions for green cards and citizens, and then put it into effect. I expect the left to challenge it again regardless, because with these tools it is all about pretending like they are fighting Trump-Hitler.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!

    By you being a douchebag? Always.

    If you had only had the same level of commitment and had watched the guy that spent 8 years shitting over the country, the constitution, and the world in general, I might even call you consistent, instead of a useless hack trying to make mountains out of molehills.

    Don’t let this stop you though. Keep it up. Not sure what you think you are gaining from it though, because it is neither here nor there and certainly doesn’t affect my opinion that America won because Hillary lost.

     

    Thumb up 0

  10. stogy

    Bwahahahahahah!!

    “As you know I approved two pipelines that were stuck in limbo forever. I don’t even think it was controversial. You know, I approved them and I haven’t even heard one call from anybody saying, ‘oh, that was a terrible thing you did,’” he told members of the media on Tuesday.

    As usual, I have to temper my laughter through the recognition that this will have human and environmental consequences, but yes…. the lack of perspective (aka complete disconnect from reality) on this is enormously entertaining. It’s like watching a pantomime mashup of King Canute, Don Quixote, and the emperor’s new clothes….

    Actually, scratch Canute from that list. King Canute was actually attempting a lesson in humility. Completely not appropriate here.

     

    Thumb up 3

  11. AlexInCT

    Americans overwhelmingly oppose discriminating against Muslims in immigration

    Must be why when you get polls that are not rigged, you know like the ones before the election predicting Clinton walking away with that or the the approval rating ones that are biased to the point of being ludicrous, they show results like this.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    you know like the ones before the election predicting Clinton walking away with that

    The problem there wasn’t the polls at all, but how they were interpreted. Within margin of error in the right places and it doesn’t matter what else is going on. Which is what places like 538 kept pointing out, over and over.

    Thumb up 0

  13. stogy

    This is worrying….

    In light of this, and out of worries about the White House’s ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.
    Since NSA provides something like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what’s being kept from the White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the IC, and NSA doesn’t appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration out of security fears.
    What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

    Thumb up 1

  14. blameme

    I wonder how they would’ve handled information on a private server that had been hacked by the Russians. It seems no one, on either side, takes security seriously. Of course, other than their personal information.

    Thumb up 1

  15. CM

    Mnuchin confirmed as Treasury Secretary:

    Goldman Sachs FTW!

    Flynn gone. So they couldn’t make it 3 weeks before the first resignation.

    Thumb up 0

  16. stogy

    Hmmmm…. I’m wondering whether it is worth signing up for Mar-a-Lago so I too can join in on WH “mobile situation room” dinner time crisis conversations.

    Is it worth the $100,000 membership fee?

    Ah, I just checked… it’s gone up to $200,000 in the past few weeks. Probably because of everyone else trying to get in on the action and brown nosing (Who said being president was not profitable, eh?).

    And then there’s fact that I don’t play golf unless under extreme duress.

    Still… tempting…

    Thumb up 1

  17. CM

    One night in early December, a Goldman Sachs partner walked out of the Pierre hotel in Manhattan with a big grin on his face. He’d spent the evening at the bank’s annual alumni dinner, and there was a lot to celebrate. For starters, shares of Goldman Sachs were on a tear, having rallied about 30 percent in the month since Donald Trump was elected president. Trump had also restarted an age-old tradition of presidents naming Goldmanites to top spots in their administration.
    Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin served as Trump’s national finance chairman and is now Trump’s nominee for U.S. Treasury secretary. Trump has also tapped Goldman Sachs President (and the bank’s de facto No. 2) Gary Cohn to be his top economic adviser in the White House. Other Goldman alums in Trump’s inner circle include Anthony Scaramucci, a former Goldman banker and a member of the Trump transition team’s executive committee, as well as Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager.
    After eight years as the face of Wall Street greed and the target of public scorn, the bankers at Goldman Sachs can be cheerful again. Not only has Trump’s election stoked hopes for looser regulatory policies that will make it easier for banks to take bigger risks and book fatter profits, but Goldman also appears to have regained its place at the nexus between Wall Street and Washington. After being largely cut out of the federal government during the Obama years, with few of its alums tapped for big jobs, Goldman is starting to live up to its former nickname, Government Sachs. If confirmed, Mnuchin will be the third former Goldman partner to lead the Department of the Treasury in the past 25 years, joining Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/goldman-is-back-on-top-in-the-trump-administration

    Those rust-belt voters will be partying all night in celebration.

    Thumb up 2

  18. Iconoclast

    Those rust-belt voters will be partying all night in celebration.

    Attribute it to the general selfish nature of humanity if you must, but if those rust-belt voters get to go back to work and become productive members of society again, they won’t give a flying fuck about Goldman Sachs.  Only you leftist snobs will.  Same old same old.  Go ahead and laugh.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Balthazar

    you mean the 9th circuit court, the one that has 80%+ of its cases that are reviewed by the SCOTUS overturned or modified?

     

    That 9th circuit court….

     

     

    HAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAH

    Thumb up 0

  20. richtaylor365

     they won’t give a flying fuck about Goldman Sachs

    They (the triggered whiny loser crybabies) would rather have a tax cheat. For some reason, a successful businessman in any field scares the shit out of them, subservience is preferred over competency, go figure.

    Thumb up 0

  21. stogy

    a successful businessman in any field scares the shit out of them

    I think it would depend on how you define “successful.” If it means screwing over contractors on agreed rates, racially profiling investors, or loading up poor performing investments with other debt and dumping it on your investors in the bankruptcy courts, then yeah. I am likely to not call that as successful as someone who er…. didn’t do those things.

    Thumb up 3

  22. richtaylor365

    I think it would depend on how you define “successful.”

    How about this,  someone in any avocation that rises  to the top and distinguishes himself from the rest of the pack while playing by the same rules as everyone else, and reaches that pinnacle of prominence as recognized by his peers, does that work for you?

    This hypocritical aversion to anything Wall Street (even though the dems get more Wall Street money and are more beholden). What, no mention of Mnuchin working for Soros or donating more of his money to dems in elections, doesn’t fit the narrative?

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    So they couldn’t make it 3 weeks before the first resignation.

    So you gloat when he does resign, and would have no doubt belly-ached if he hadn’t.  So yeah, score one for your team.

    (That’s just a figure of speech.  I’m not actually keeping score.  I’m telling you this because you have a gift for being obtuse, and often need to be led by the hand to that which is normally obvious.)

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    You mean like how you completely missed the subject of my sarcasm? Those voters won’t be getting jobs as a result of appointments like this. Everything suggests Trump will make life harder for these voters, not better. Assuming Trump lasts long enough for any of this to matter of course.

    There are no winners from that situation Icon. But it’s all so woefully predictable. How was this going to be anything other than a three ring shit-show of a circus.

    Still clinging grimly to “triggered whiny loser crybabies” Rich? More LMAO.

    Thumb up 1

  25. CM

    This hypocritical aversion to anything Wall Street

    That was Trump during the campaign. You know, before he was elected and provided Goldman Sachs with a White House branch. But I’m sure that’ll be the branch that looks out for the little guy.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    Those voters won’t be getting jobs as a result of appointments like this. Everything suggests Trump will make life harder for these voters, not better.

    Spell it out.  In excruciating detail.  Show us how hiring a businessman from Sachs will automatically and inevitably lead to people not getting jobs and their lives getting harder.  Show us the cause and effect relationship.

    For the record, I am not claiming that they will get jobs because of this appointment, so I am under no obligation to prove anything.  All I am saying is if Trump gets the economy going to the point where they can get jobs, they simply won’t care about your “three ring shit-show circus”.

    Nobody will.  Except you,  and radical leftists who will simply not stop throwing tantrums for the next 4 (8) years.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    Show us the cause and effect relationship.

    Simple basic economics tells you that those manufacturing jobs won’t be returning to the rust belt. Globalisation took care of that and can’t be undone by Trump. Ideology and their work history tells you that the Goldman Sachs team at the White House will certainly not even try – it would be anathema to them. You don’t appoint an array of Wall Street bankers in order to help unemployed people in the rust belt. Those are the people who get screwed over by a ‘free market’ controlled by those same Wall Street bankers. Always has been the case, and always will be. Which is exactly why Trump campaigned AGAINST his appointees through the campaign, in order to appeal to those voters. He didn’t do it by accident.

    This is not rocket surgery Icon.

    All I am saying is if Trump gets the economy going to the point where they can get jobs, they simply won’t care about your “three ring shit-show circus”.

    I dunno, Russian isn’t an easy language to pick up later in life. ;-)

    It’s Halliburton all over again……..

    Spell it out.  In excruciating detail.  Show us how noting the utter hypocrisy and obvious lies of a campaign will automatically is like an American multinational oil services company. 

    simply not stop throwing tantrums

    Yes, I know, unless it’s World War 3 or a pro-choice Justice is appointed then literally every single complaint or criticism will be a “tantrum”. There are only so many ways you can push back given the situation you’re in (all of them terrible), and that is the one you’ve chosen.

    Thumb up 1

  28. stogy

    Simple basic economics tells you that those manufacturing jobs won’t be returning to the rust belt. Globalisation took care of that and can’t be undone by Trump.

    That’s it in a nutshell. The very wealthy (including a great many Democrats and Republicans) have spent the last couple of decades remaking the system to benefit themselves – including offshoring and outsourcing, and increasing mechanization and digitization of work, sham privatizations that shift wealth in their direction, ensuring lack of proper oversight, slaps on the wrist when they break the law…

    Many people in the rust belt are now surplus to global capitalization. The next surplus group will be middle and upper management, as more AI comes online. The jobs in old industries are not coming back.

    Trump was supposed to be payback, to throw the system on its end. Through his appointments and his policy pronouncements, Trump has shown himself to be one of the people he railed against. And it is clear that the wealthy have thrown support behind Trump because they want a massive tax cut, which will just centralize more wealth in their hands. In other words, they’ve learnt nothing. When you forget that it’s the people who are ultimately in control, you end up with a revolution, or a coup, or a civil war. That’s almost always a bad thing for everyone.

    Unless the US changes direction, Chavez 2.0 is next. Trump isn’t clever enough to be a Chavez.

     

    Thumb up 0

  29. Iconoclast

    Simple basic economics tells you that those manufacturing jobs won’t be returning to the rust belt.

    So?  I don’t recall stipulating that they had to get their old jobs back. Is that the limit of your thinking?

    One of Trump’s campaign promises is to roll back regulations that have been strangling small businesses, which are the driving force of our economy.  If small businesses can be freed from bureaucratic red tape, they can spend their energy and money on innovation and growth, which could include hiring people.  I ‘m not saying it absolutely will happen.  I am saying it’s too early to proclaim that it absolutely cannot happen.

    And you have yet to explain how “Goldman Sachs” prevents it from happening.

    Spell it out.

    Oooh.  Clever…..

    All I’m saying is that Halliburton was the big evil poster boy bogeyman corporation that the left bellyached about during the Bush Administration, and now it looks like Goldman Sachs fulfills that role for the Trump Administration.

    This ain’t rocket surgery, CM.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    Yes, I know, unless it’s World War 3 or a pro-choice Justice is appointed then literally every single complaint or criticism will be a “tantrum”. 

    Nope.  I simply observe how the professional protesters are in full swing, and how riots, fires and breaking windows has become the new norm.  The problem is that even if they have a valid complaint, they have been crying “WOLF!!” so long and so hard that nobody pays attention any more.  And they are continuing to divide the country.

    They could very well provoke a civil war.

    I don’t recall anyone ever proclaiming that Obama was “not their President”.  If anyone did, they were recognized by all sides as being loons.  But it’s a standard rallying cry now.  And I don’t see anyine on the left denouncing the violence, the fires, the broken windows and general defacing of private property.  It’s as if Trump is soooooooo evil that these things are justified.   “Resist” is also the current battle cry. “Resist” what, exactly?  Well, pretty much everything Trump does.

    And is.

    You can drone on and on about “every single complaint or criticism will be a ‘tantrum'”, but then again, they are complaining about every single thing, aren’t they?  So yeah, tantrums.

    There are only so many ways you can push back given the situation you’re in (all of them terrible), and that is the one you’ve chosen.

    Irrelevant, per the above.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Iconoclast

    Pretty much everyone on this blog seems to agree that Gorsuch is a decent choice for SCOTUS, but the professional agitators on the left are “resisting” even that.  I read somewhere that the goal of the leftist agitators is to make this country ungovernable.  If that doesn’t qualify as trying to incite all-out war, I don’t know what does.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    I don’t recall stipulating that they had to get their old jobs back. Is that the limit of your thinking?

     Donald Trump won the White House promising to bring back manufacturing jobs and railing against Wall Street (and how they’re in charge). His whole ‘bad trade deal’ riff was a key part of this promise. He was specifically targeting those rust-belt voters, and it worked perfectly. He energised them, with pure nonsense. But be obtuse if you wish.

    I am saying it’s too early to proclaim that it absolutely cannot happen.

    Of course. ANYTHING is theoretically possible. However as stogy and I have pointed out, the people he’s appointed have spent their careers doing things that harm the people Trump targeted (in the rust belt).

    And you have yet to explain how “Goldman Sachs” prevents it from happening.

    Both stogy and I have explained it. The appointment of so many from Goldman Sachs is simply an excellent indication of how he’s sold out those who won him the Presidency (putting aside outside factors like Russian involvement, Comey’s letter etc).

    All I’m saying is that Halliburton was the big evil poster boy bogeyman corporation that the left bellyached about during the Bush Administration, and now it looks like Goldman Sachs fulfills that role for the Trump Administration.

    Except in this case a big part of Trump’s appeal and support was because He held up his Goldman Sachs boys as the big evil poster boy bogeymen (even though Obama did’t in fact have them as his economic advisors – he looked far more towards academia). And then as soon as he’s President they’ll all back in the White House. The distortion and deceit really is breath-taking.

    This ain’t rocket surgery, CM.

    I’m glad we can agree on something. ;-)

    Nope.

    Sure seems that way from all the comments here.

     I simply observe how the professional protesters are in full swing

    Yeah, brilliant, they’re all just being paid. Really? Have you gone that far off the deep-end already? Delegitimizing public protest is a key authoritarian plank.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/18/how-a-hoax-website-about-paid-protesters-came-crumbling-down-live-on-tv/?utm_term=.35013b0ed88b

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/17/tucker-carlson-slams-hoax-protester-group-dom-tullipso-demand-protests-manning

    how riots, fires and breaking windows has become the new norm

    What a ridiculous claim. How many marching on Washtington in the Women’s March? 500,000? And how many arrests were there?

    Geez, it’s like you get your ‘news’ from the same place as your President, which is why you end up with such narratives. I guess it’s like John Oliver pointed out, you and Trump legitimize each other.

    They could very well provoke a civil war.

    You honestly think this is likely? And you would place 0% blame on a guy who spent the last year abusing and threatening people, and showing how unfit he is for office, before getting the most powerful job in the world? Based on a campaign with almost zero truth involved, and very likely help from Russia, who very recently those on the right were agreeing was “the biggest geopolitical threat facing America”?

    I don’t recall anyone ever proclaiming that Obama was “not their President”.  If anyone did, they were recognized by all sides as being loons. 

    There’s another one of those LMAOs. Trump spent consider time and effort trying to delegitimatize the President, and now he’s President. And the birther thing (the ultimate expression of ‘he’s not my President’ went far far beyond Trump). Hannity said it directly – is he recognised as a loon by the right? Certainly not. Clint Eastwoood said it directly. Loon? Former Congressman Joe Walsh. Etc etc etc.

    Such short memories.

    And I don’t see anyine on the left denouncing the violence, the fires, the broken windows and general defacing of private property. 

    It might be all you see at Breitbart, but the reality is that it’s not ‘the norm’ and where it does happen it’s by a distinct minority. There are anarchists and similar types, who always want to take the violence and damage route, and they love to take advantage of protests. Fuckwits are fuckwits.

    It’s a classic way to distract though, to concentrate on a few incidents and try to make them seem meaningful.

    they are complaining about every single thing, aren’t they? 

    Haven’t seen anything, let alone protests, in relation to the US dropping out of the TPPA. So, no.

    It’s interesting how you’re seemingly ignoring the year of abuse and threats issued by Trump during his campaign. It’s completely ridiculous to suggest that significant numbers of people wouldn’t want to make it clear that they will resist him putting the worst of his rhetoric into action. Yeah I know, they need to wait until it’s too late…..

    Pretty much everyone on this blog seems to agree that Gorsuch is a decent choice for SCOTUS

    Pretty much everyone on this blog is conservative, so why would that be a surprise. Obviously pro-choice people (and even people that hate abortion but recognise reality and just don’t like government interfering in personal health decisions) will be worried.

    but the professional agitators on the left are “resisting” even that.

    Can you provide some examples of this? Who are being paid to specifically resist Gorsuch? Presumably by setting more cars and buildings on fire?

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    One of Trump’s campaign promises is to roll back regulations that have been strangling small businesses, which are the driving force of our economy.  If small businesses can be freed from bureaucratic red tape, they can spend their energy and money on innovation and growth, which could include hiring people. 

    I look forward to seeing the detail. In particular I look forward to looking at how the regulations being aren’t actually there to protect/benefit the low-wage earner and currently unemployed. Because those are the regulations that are always targeted. And any benefits to the companies from the roll-back don’t go to those people. That’s why the argument is always so vague – it’s because its more deceit. It’s tricking people into supporting and agreeing with things that are against their interests.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Iconoclast

     Donald Trump won the White House promising to bring back manufacturing jobs…..

    But I wasn’t talking about that.  This was all about “Goldman Sachs” being the bogey man.  I simply noted that if people could get jobs and put food on the table, they won’t care about “Goldman Sachs”.  And in all of your lecturing, you have yet to even touch on that.  You are a master of misdirection.

    If people get back to work, they won’t care about “Goldman Sachs”.  You have yet to refute that.  You have yet to even come close.

    Thumb up 2

  35. Iconoclast

    It’s tricking people into supporting and agreeing with things that are against their interests.

    Funny how you don’t seem to recognize it when it’s the Dems doing it.  Is this one of those LMAO moments?  Or memory hole moments?

     

    Thumb up 0

  36. Iconoclast

    For the record, some of my reading includes things like the Facebook timelines of self-described radicals, who share nothing but hate and agitation on their timelines.  And when I follow the links, I encounter more timelines that are the same way.

    It includes other left-wing sources online.  It is sometimes a depressing read, and that might come across in some of my responses.

    Again, what I encounter is justification of the violence, demonization of anyone who is not an extreme leftist, and so on.  I cannot help but believe that this stuff is in fact being read, and is in fact motivating people to act.

    You can dismiss it all you want.  WTF do you care?  This past election was a damned if we do, damned if we don’t scenario.  The left are extremely upset that they didn’t win.  I have even read about people fearing civil war.

    But again, WTF do you care?

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    The multiple appointments of Goldman Sachs executives is indicative of how Trump’s appeals to the ‘working class’ (all about the corrupt Wall Street elite) were based on deceit.

    I simply noted that if people could get jobs and put food on the table, they won’t care about “Goldman Sachs”.

    Well no it will depend on a whole lot of factors as to whether they’ll be satisfied or not. For example, what they’re losing in exchange, as I noted. So if they get a low-paying job they might not have health insurance, and be victim to the looser regulatory policies that will make it easier for banks to take bigger risks. The Goldman Sachs guys will be pushing hard for the rollback of financial regulations that are much more relevant to those ‘working class’ people in terms of banking practices than affecting small businesses and fictitious large new manufacturing companies hiring them.

    Anyway, you’ll note that my comment about the Goldman Sachs appointments was related to directly to the way Trump courted those rust-belt voters.

     And in all of your lecturing, you have yet to even touch on that. 

    Stogy elaborated, didn’t seem much point repeating it.

    You are a master of misdirection.

    Ah no, you’re the one attempting to misdirect from my initial statement. It wasn’t remotely ‘Goldman Sachs are EVIL!’. It was specifically directed sarcasm.

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    who share nothing but hate and agitation on their timelines

    Do you rail against the 8 years of anti-Obama hate and agitation by their equivalents? A lot of what I’m seeing my feeds is humour rather than hate.

    It includes other left-wing sources online.  It is sometimes a depressing read, and that might come across in some of my responses.

    Again, what I encounter is justification of the violence, demonization of anyone who is not an extreme leftist, and so on.  I cannot help but believe that this stuff is in fact being read, and is in fact motivating people to act.

    Sounds a lot like the last 8 years. But that doesn’t make it right.

    You can dismiss it all you want.

    I don’t think it should be dismissed. Some people are fuckwits, first and foremost. Some people are immune to facts and evidence and persuasive arguments, but many aren’t. It’s worthwhile finding those people and engaging with them.

    WTF do you care? 

    The world cares more than it ever did because of the ignorance and arrogance of the person you elected and the potential ramifications on the world stage. You and others criticised Obama for not negotiating to keep troops in Iraq beyond the pre-determined withdrawal date, and yet Obama’s replacement keeps saying the US should have stolen US oil and has banned Iraqis from entering the country (and we know this is the closest he could get to a Muslim ban)? I mean, if you’re concerned about IS and the spread of Islamic terrorism, Trump has done more to endanger the world on that score in a month than Obama did in 8 years. How can you argue so intently against Obama on something that is arguable and in hindsight and yet say nothing at all about Trumps recklessness and counterproductive actions? The guy is the very definition of ‘knee-jerk’? Seriously, WTF?

    This past election was a damned if we do, damned if we don’t scenario. 

    Well I don’t agree with that. The whole campaign (and actions taken outside the campaign by Comey and seemingly Russia) against Hillary was just ridiculous. There is no way in a million years that she would have been this incompetent and ignorant, and certainly could not possibly have been more deceitful.

    The left are extremely upset that they didn’t win. 

    At some stage could it be about what they’re opposing rather than just being sore losers? Is that possible?

    Thumb up 0

  39. stogy

    I don’t have a lot to add to what CM is saying here. However two points on this:

    Pretty much everyone on this blog seems to agree that Gorsuch is a decent choice for SCOTUS, but the professional agitators on the left are “resisting” even that.  

    Garland first, then Gorsuch. Not because one is better than the other, but because the precedent shouldn’t be allowed to stand.  As far as I know, I am the only “agitator” here arguing that.

    I read somewhere that the goal of the leftist agitators is to make this country ungovernable.  If that doesn’t qualify as trying to incite all-out war, I don’t know what does.

    Erm… wasn’t that the point of the government shutdown in 2013 – to make the country ungovernable?

    The second reason is that Republicans are setting a precedent which, if followed, would make America ungovernable. Voters have seen fit to give their party control of one arm of government—the House of Representatives—while handing the Democrats the White House and the Senate. If a party with such a modest electoral mandate threatens to shut down government unless the other side repeals a law it does not like, apparently settled legislation will always be vulnerable to repeal by the minority. Washington will be permanently paralysed and America condemned to chronic uncertainty.

    Must have been all the “leftists” in the Republican party. Again, the precedent was bad.

     

    Thumb up 0

  40. richtaylor365

    Garland first, then Gorsuch. Not because one is better than the other, but because the precedent shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

    Uh, the “precedent” already existed;

    And thanks to likes of Harry Reid, and Obama (as seen here) they will not be able to filibuster Gorsuch like they did Alito.

     

    Thumb up 0

  41. stogy

    Biden argued for it, but there was no vacancy or nominee, and no vote was taken on it, so it isn’t really much of a precedent is it? He was arguing it more as a point of principle. Plus he made the speech in late June 1992, much later into the election cycle than Obama’s nomination of Garland.

    If it was voted on and made into a law then you might have a leg to stand on with this argument.

     

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    Before the 2016 election Richard Burr said if Hillary won they should refuse to confirm anyone for the whole 4 years. McCain and Cruz agreed I believe.

    Thumb up 1

  43. richtaylor365

    Did you actually listen to what Biden said, “President Bush should consider following the practices of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed”? He thinks a precedent has been set.

    If it was voted on and made into a law then you might have a leg to stand on with this argument

    .

    I got both legs for this argument, precedent is established by past practices.

     McCain and Cruz agreed I believe

    Yyyeeeaaahhh……………….you’re gonna have to provide a link for that.

     

    Thumb up 0

  44. stogy

    I got both legs for this argument, precedent is established by past practices.

    And that practice would be…. when exactly?? There was no “practice”. It was floated. No one bit (is that a mixed metaphor? Or a fishing one? Anyway, moving right along…)

    If you want to persist with this argument, amputated attractively from both hips as you are, you’re also going to have to prove that Republicans supported the idea. Because if they rejected it then you are completely back to square one.

    Thumb up 0

  45. richtaylor365

     There was no “practice”.

    So I guess you didn’t listen to your buddy Biden in the video, he and Shummer beg to differ.

     you’re also going to have to prove that Republicans supported the idea

    Sorry, imaginary hoops ignored and discounted, not even remotely required for pointing out hypocrisy of asking the other side to do one thing but not holding yourself to the same standard.

    Your argument, boiled down to , “The Democratic leaders said policy A existed, but because they did not get a chance to implement policy A, we can’t be sure that policy is really a policy……………even though they said it was”. Amputated at the neck.

    Thumb up 0

  46. Iconoclast

    The whole campaign (and actions taken outside the campaign by Comey and seemingly Russia) against Hillary was just ridiculous. 

    Still banging on about how Russia stole the election for Trump?  That’s no better than the birther nonsense.  Just more tin-foil-hat idiocy.

    Hillary did break laws by having her home-brew mail server handling classified emails.  She did compromise national security. That’s just historical reality, so spare us the following:

    There is no way in a million years that she would have been this incompetent and ignorant, and certainly could not possibly have been more deceitful.

    I will give you the ignorant and incompetent (she is a seasoned politician after all), but deceit????????

    The Clintons thrive on deception and lies.  It’s what runs through their veins in lieu of actual blood.

    And again, for me personally, it came down to SCOTUS appointments, on which Trump has come through.

    Thumb up 0

  47. Iconoclast

    Do you rail against the 8 years of anti-Obama hate and agitation by their equivalents? 

    I didn’t encounter “equivalents”.  No one demonizing Obama supporters to the degree Trump supporters are routinely demonized.  No one agitating to make the country ungovernable.  No one screaming “RESIST!” as if they were members of the Star Wars Resistance against The Empire.

    Not saying they didn’t exist.  Just saying I didn’t encounter them anywhere I went.

     

    Thumb up 0

  48. Iconoclast

    At some stage could it be about what they’re opposing rather than just being sore losers? Is that possible?

    As long as they’re carrying “Not My President” signs, no, not possible.

    Thumb up 0

  49. Iconoclast

    No one demonizing Obama supporters to the degree Trump supporters are routinely demonized.

    Before you start your “LMAO” whining, let me elaborate.

    Sure, I often say Obama supporters characterized as “losers who wanted free shit from the government” and such, but I never encountered anyone calling them racists, or “okay with sexual assault”, or white supremacists or the like.  I’m sure you will be able to provide links to Obama supporters being physically assaulted like some Trump supporters have been, but I didn’t encounter that myself.

    On the contrary, I was the “racist” when I opposed Obama.  I was demonized.  Dissent under Bush was “the highest form of Patriotism”, but under Obama, it was racism, plain and simple.

    But yeah, tables turned and whatnot.  You seem quite enthusiastic about pointing out how Trump has deceived us.  “Goldman Sachs” is your “incontestable proof”.  But you didn’t seem so enthusiastic when Obama was in charge.  Quite the contrary.  His deceptions and lies are simply a part of the historical record, now.

    Thumb up 0

  50. AlexInCT

    Not saying they didn’t exist.  Just saying I didn’t encounter them anywhere I went.

    I challenge that assertion Iconoclast. Had someone like this existed I guarantee you that the dnc operatives with bylines would have paraded them front and center to push their “you object to Obama because you are a racist”, or some such other tired lefty meme.

    In fact, how many episodes of “we finally have proof this was a right wing racist anti-Obama terrorist” did we go through, before the stories just vanished from the dnc operative with bylines propaganda outlets, obviously as soon as it had become obvious the culprit was a leftist or a muslim?

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT

    But yeah, tables turned and whatnot.  You seem quite enthusiastic about pointing out how Trump has deceived us.  “Goldman Sachs” is your “incontestable proof”.  But you didn’t seem so enthusiastic when Obama was in charge. 

    That horrible and still secret Iran deal and how it was defended comes to mind…

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    Yyyeeeaaahhh……………….you’re gonna have to provide a link for that.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court/

    There’s a potential nightmare for Hillary Clinton if she wins the presidency but Republicans hold onto control of the Senate — a blockade of her Supreme Court picks.
    That prospect — which could impact every aspect of American life including climate regulations, abortion and gun rights — was first raised by Senator John McCain of Arizona, then Ted Cruz of Texas and now Richard Burr of North Carolina, who CNN reported Monday talked up the idea at a private event over the weekend.
    “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told a group of Republican volunteers, according to CNN.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-01/clinton-s-supreme-nightmare-is-gop-blockade-of-court-nominees

    Possibly wasn’t ‘reported’ at Breitbart so you might have missed it.

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    Still banging on about how Russia stole the election for Trump? 

    I’ve hardly mentioned it as an impact, and certainly have never claimed ‘stolen’. You sure are dishonest aren’t you? You’d be in cuckoo land to deny that it wasn’t likely a factor though. As was Comey’s letter and timing of it:

    http://election.princeton.edu/2016/12/10/the-comey-effect/

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-clinton-wouldve-almost-certainly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter/

    But I’d never argue that one single thing (or even two) lost it for Clinton, that would be equally as stupid.

    I will give you the ignorant and incompetent (she is a seasoned politician after all), but deceit????????

    There’s just no reasonable equivalence. My electric blanket and the sun are both hot, but not equally as hot.

    As long as they’re carrying “Not My President” signs, no, not possible

    How does that necessarily equate to being bitter over Hillary losing?

    So you’re saying all those who said the same thing about Obama were still bitter about McCain and Romney losing? Yeah, I don’t think so, I think it was much more about Obama himself.

    Before you start your “LMAO” whining

    Not sure what “LMAO whining” would look like. If something is so funny that it generates a LMAO (definitely a step up from LOL) then it’s an entirely different reaction to whining.

    Sure, I often say Obama supporters characterized as “losers who wanted free shit from the government” and such, but I never encountered anyone calling them racists, or “okay with sexual assault”, or white supremacists or the like. 

    I can certainly recall suggestions that blacks would vote Obama because they hate whitey. And plenty of other derogatory abusive comments and suggestions. But yeah obviously I can’t speak for what you encountered.

    On the contrary, I was the “racist” when I opposed Obama.  I was demonized.  Dissent under Bush was “the highest form of Patriotism”, but under Obama, it was racism, plain and simple.

    And I think you can place a fair degree of blame on the whole racist Birther campaign against Obama for that. Trump was a big player in that. Guilt by association isn’t a good thing, but it’s human nature and foreseeable.

     “Goldman Sachs” is your “incontestable proof”

    The appointment of so many of the Wall Street elite is indicative of that yeah. He campaigned strongly and directly against those guys, repeatedly.

    He ran an ad in his campaign’s final days, for instance, that featured Goldman Sachs Group Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein as a representative of the corporations that Trump says have pocketed the wealth that American workers have lost. And he’s accused hedge fund managers of “getting away with murder” on paying taxes.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-biz-wall-street-20161109-story.html

    But you didn’t seem so enthusiastic when Obama was in charge.  Quite the contrary.  His deceptions and lies are simply a part of the historical record, now.

    Which ones in particular? “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was certainly a big one. He ultimately acknowledged it and apologised:

    “We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he said.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

    Can you imagine Trump saying anything remotely like that in a million years?!

    All politicians tell lies (DOH!) but most are somewhere in the middle of the curve (that’s how the curve works). Obama was most definitely in the middle. Trump is at the far end of the curve. He lies so much and so badly and so baldly without caring that he’s likely changed the curve.

    Thumb up 0

  54. Iconoclast

    Obama was most definitely in the middle. Trump is at the far end of the curve.

    Yeah, of course.  It always seems to be worse when a Republican does it.

    Your link is nothing more than an insincere apology for lying repeatedly.  Anyone who buys into it is a fool.  Obama lied repeatedly to sell it, and when it turned out to be a complete turd, it’s like “oh well, oops, sorry”.

    Kinda like, “those ‘shovel-ready’ jobs weren’t quite as ‘shovel-ready’ as I thought they would be” <stupid sheepish grin>

    I’m sure that all works for you.  Me, not so much.

    The main diff is that Obama is admittedly more eloquent at it.  To the point where it has people like you fooled into thinking it ain’t as bad, somehow…….

    Thumb up 0

  55. richtaylor365

    CM, from your NPR link;

     GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president. 

    Here’s the problem, “suggesting” to a lefty means ,”Ya know, I bet he probably thinks this way or maybe in his lifetime, entertained the idea of”

    Another problem is that of semantics, big difference between between blocking a nominee (voting “NO”), and not even holding a vote.

    So essentially, you have proved nothing. When you find a quote from either McCain or Cruz that they are OK with not even having a Senate vote on a SCOTUS pick, then we’ll talk.

    Thumb up 0

  56. stogy

    Another problem is that of semantics, big difference between between blocking a nominee (voting “NO”), and not even holding a vote.

    So essentially, you have proved nothing. When you find a quote from either McCain or Cruz that they are OK with not even having a Senate vote on a SCOTUS pick, then we’ll talk

    Umm… Doesn’t that completely undermine your own argument on the Biden principle above?

    Just saying’… :)

    Thumb up 0

  57. Iconoclast

    I’ve hardly mentioned it as an impact…..

    Sure.  You mention it all the time, from where I sit.

    There’s just no reasonable equivalence.

    Bullshit.  Bull-fucking-shit.  Your idiotic opinion is noted and dismissed.

    How does that necessarily equate to being bitter over Hillary losing?

    How does it not?????

    I can certainly recall suggestions that blacks would vote Obama because they hate whitey.

    Oh, I’m sure you can.

    And I think you can place a fair degree of blame on the whole racist Birther campaign against Obama for that.

    Again, bullshit.  You can personally place blame wherever the hell you personally want, of course.

    The appointment of so many of the Wall Street elite is indicative of that yeah. He campaigned strongly and directly against those guys, repeatedly.

    Yeah, he did.  But then, maybe these guys are just good at what they do.  I’m willing to wait and see what actually happens with the economy.  You, on the other hand, seem more than willing to jump to conclusions. Maybe you’re right, and maybe not.

    If the economy does no better, and maybe even does worse than Obama’s economy (I frankly have a hard time seeing how that’s even possible), then yeah, you were right.  You can say, “I told you so” in four years……

    Thumb up 0

  58. grady

    the whole racist Birther campaign against Obama

    CM – Please explain how the birther campaign against Obama is racist.  During the same time, additional birther arguments were made against Schwarzenegger and Cruz.  Is there anything more than “Obama has black skin so any white person making any negative comment is racist”?  Making the argument that someone born in another country is ineligible for president (although true considering our constitution) would be more nationalistic than racist.

    I believe that you have just proven Icon’s point:

    On the contrary, I was the “racist” when I opposed Obama.  I was demonized.  Dissent under Bush was “the highest form of Patriotism”, but under Obama, it was racism, plain and simple.

    Please note that my question has nothing to do with where Barrack, Ted or Arnold were actually born, or what their birth certificate looks like.  The question is why is it a racist act to bring up the question.

    Thumb up 2

  59. richtaylor365

    Umm… Doesn’t that completely undermine your own argument on the Biden principle above?

    Nope, not at all, because if you listen to both Biden and Schummer they are discussing the topic under conditions of the last year of a sitting president and lobbying to not even put forth a nominee for Senate vote until after the next held election. The conditions, or time frame, of McCain’s “suggestion” is totally different.

    Thumb up 0

  60. AlexInCT

    The main diff is that Obama is admittedly more eloquent at it.  To the point where it has people like you fooled into thinking it ain’t as bad, somehow…….

    Obama could be a complete douche about how he tells the left he lied to them (he has done so repeatedly: see Obamacare), then bust out his dick and demand they suck it, and they would clean that nob and still fawn over his evil ass.

    Thumb up 0

  61. richtaylor365

    OT (not worth a dedicated post but still pissed off about it)

    The SAT’s (Scholastic Assessment Test) all HS seniors take to asses college eligibility,  is being used a propaganda tool for the progressive left, a short read. To summarize, in the essay portion of the test, students are required to read and analyse a HuffPo article written by lefty Senator Gillibrand on the Family and Medical Insurance Act;

    The SAT is an assessment tool and not a mechanism to promote a political agenda to millions of impressionable students. This article might be the only point of view some students ever hear about paid leave, and they are required not only to read it but to restate its central arguments. Educators know that writing down facts is an effective way to retain information. Students should be memorizing algebraic equations, not arguments for progressive labor policy.

    Smart kid

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  62. CM

    grade, sorry didn’t see your post, this thread just got buried….

    Oh please, the Cruz and Schwarzenegger questions were just questions and never went beyond that, never got traction, whereas the Obama bitherism turned into a frickin movement. Chalk and cheese.

    Bitherism was probably inevitable for Obama:
    https://phys.org/news/2011-04-prejudice.html
    http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/05/02/birthers_shameful_racist_roots/

    Whereas:
    “The more racial bias you harbored, the less likely you were to vote for Mitt Romney or John McCain.

    With Trump, the opposite was the case. The more a person saw black people as lazy and undeserving, the more likely they were to vote for the self-proclaimed billionaire.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.0538ad636d80

    Thumb up 0

  63. Iconoclast

    Bitherism was probably inevitable for Obama:

    https://phys.org/news/2011-04-prejudice.html

    First sentence from CM’s link(emphasis added):

    Racial prejudice among some white Americans — even if unintentional — influences their views of President Barack Obama’s “Americanism” and their assessment of how well he is performing in office, according to a University of Delaware doctoral student.

    Pretty much proves my point.  If you criticize or oppose the Great Obama, you’re a racist.  If you question whether he’s a legitimately natural born citizen, you’re a racist.  “Intentionally” or not, you’re a racist just the same.

    Some punk-ass psych student sez so, so it must be true.

    Thumb up 0

  64. richtaylor365

    Not trying to pile on, but crikey CM, quoting a teenager as evidence that white’s are the only race that allows racial prejudices to influence thought? What, you couldn’t find a dog that would bark once for racists and twice for nonracist?

    You also conveniently ignore the democratic hand in running (not originating) with this polemic;

    The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

    Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”

    Penn was not a birther. His memo didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s citizenship. Furthermore, he was acutely aware of the political danger that a Democrat would court by going after Obama in this way, even subliminally: “We are never going to say anything about his background,” he wrote. Still, his memo is the earliest example of a strategy that metastasized. The Republican tactic has been to make explicit what Penn intended to be merely implicit—and then carry it to its furthest extreme. Soon, the belief spread among many voters that Obama had been educated in a radical madrassa, that he was secretly a Muslim, and, finally, that he had not even been born in the U.S.

    But your TDS can only hide so long. The question was how a birther campaign about Obama is always knee jerked racial, yet you just can’t help yourself and bring Trump’s stupidity in to the mix. Like ,”Yeah, my argument is weak, but that Trump, look what he said”.

    You are infected, poor chap.

    Thumb up 0

  65. Iconoclast

    It obviously doesn’t matter in the long run.   He was still elected President — twice — even if he wasn’t native born.  But yeah, we’re still racists.

    Thumb up 0

  66. CM

    Pretty much proves my point.  If you criticize or oppose the Great Obama, you’re a racist.  If you question whether he’s a legitimately natural born citizen, you’re a racist.  “Intentionally” or not, you’re a racist just the same.

    Except that’s not even remotely what is claimed by that particular piece of peer-reviewed published research (not to mention the other studies and surveys referenced in the WaPo link).

    There were plenty of reasons to criticise Obama that weren’t related to race. McCain and Romney lost trying those reasons.

    And yes, some people are unintentionally racist.

    Some punk-ass psych student sez so, so it must be true.

    Lazy ad hominem. It was published research and it was co-authored. Would it make you more willing to accept it if the guy was 30? Of course not. You simply don’t like the results.

    quoting a teenager

    Quoting findings published in a professional journal, but obviously you’re also grasping at whatever you can to deny the blatantly obvious.

    as evidence that white’s are the only race that allows racial prejudices to influence thought?

    Where does it even remotely say that? Good lord Rich, that is just awful.

    You also conveniently ignore the democratic hand in running (not originating) with this polemic

    Anyone using birtherism against Obama was looking to tap into a certain voting block. Doesn’t matter who they were, or who did it first.

    Clinton either obviously didn’t want to go there, or just realised it wasn’t going to be a winner for her (even if she’s the world’s biggest racist). McCain refused to go there (against Palin’s wishes), Romney didn’t either. Trump went there 100%, because it gave him a big bump in support everytime he did.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/16/donald-trump-is-a-racist-conspiracy-theorist-dont-let-him-lie-his-way-out-of-it

    By the way – acknowledging this doesn’t make you racist.

    But your TDS can only hide so long. 

    Non-sequitur.

    The question was how a birther campaign about Obama is always knee jerked racial, yet you just can’t help yourself and bring Trump’s stupidity in to the mix. 

    Trump is a significant part of the Bitherism crusade. Why he decided to take that route is an important insight into explaining what it’s about and why he went there. You’re not this stupid Rich. Neither are you Iconoclast.

    Like ,”Yeah, my argument is weak, but that Trump, look what he said”.

    Ah, not, that would be dismissing published research because of the age of one authors is a student. It doesn’t get much more pathetic than that.

    It obviously doesn’t matter in the long run.   He was still elected President — twice — even if he wasn’t native born. 

    It mattered a great deal because it played a significant part in launching Trump (who then won, having used Birtherism for as long as it decided that it was politically expedient) and it fundamentally changed the ‘norm’ of what is off limits for a POTUS candidate (just one of many changes Trump has introduced – there are literally no limits or ‘norms’ now). Just like offering free shit guarantees a certain voting block, so does appealing to people on the issue of race.

    But yeah, we’re still racists.

    Who exactly are you talking about?

    Thumb up 0

  67. richtaylor365

    Where does it even remotely say that?

    From your own link, which apparently you did not read;

    Furthermore, Hehman predicted that whites would be the only group in which such  would ultimately influence their evaluations of performance and that it would affect only their evaluations of the president.

    Good lord Rich, that is just awful.

    Yep, just awful, this nitwit thinks only whites can’t get passed their racial prejudices to evaluate the president honestly, what a racist.

    Non-sequitur.

    And yet, there it is, coloring everything you write here.

    Trump is a significant part of the Bitherism crusade

    But the question was ,”CM – Please explain how the birther campaign against Obama is racist”, you brought Trump into this all on your own, that’s what TDS sufferers do.

    Anyone using birtherism against Obama was looking to tap into a certain voting block

    A significant number in that block  votes Democrat, otherwise the policy would not have been formulated by Clinton’s chief strategist to exploit it.

    Just like offering free shit guarantees a certain voting block, so does appealing to people on the issue of race.

    Yet more evidence that you are totally clueless as to how Trump beat Clinton.

    Thumb up 0

  68. CM

    Yep, just awful, this nitwit thinks only whites can’t get passed their racial prejudices to evaluate the president honestly, what a racist.

    If that’s what the evidence shows, then that’s what is published. That was his hypothesis, and it was supported by the findings. Again, it doesn’t matter that you don’t like it. It doesn’t make one of the authors racist, not remotely. It also doesn’t mean that “I quoted a teenager as evidence that whites are the only race that allow racial prejudices to influence thought”. I linked to a piece explaining the research in order to help demonstrate that Obama Birthism was promoted for reasons to do with race.

    But this is so typical – attack the people involved, not the actual work/argument.

    And yet, there it is, coloring everything you write here.

    There ‘what’ is? You can’t talk about Obama Birtherism without Trump, he’s an integral part of the story.

    But the question was ,”CM – Please explain how the birther campaign against Obama is racist”, you brought Trump into this all on your own, that’s what TDS sufferers do.

    Again, Trump is a central part of Obama Birtherism. It was essentially dead in 2011 (only really held sway with nutty people at nutty places) before Trump brought it back and made it mainstream (for a good reason).

    A significant number in that block  votes Democrat, otherwise the policy would not have been formulated by Clinton’s chief strategist to exploit it.

    Great, we can agree that it was designed to exploit racism. We don’t even have to argue about whether it got anywhere near ‘policy’ stage with Clinton (you do know the difference between an attack idea and an actual policy, don’t you?).

    Yet more evidence that you are totally clueless as to how Trump beat Clinton.

    The opposite is true, I know full well; it’s not complicated. But this does help demonstrate just how much cognitive dissonance you’re willing to stomach.

    Thumb up 0

  69. Iconoclast

    And yes, some people are unintentionally racist.

    And….???????

    Doesn’t mean everyone who simply wanted proof of Obama’s native-born citizenship was a racist, but you certainly implied as much.

    Nothing you have posted comes remotely close to supporting that asinine accusation.  Sure, some people are unintentionally racist.  That’s simply part of the human condition, and it ultimately means nothing.

    It mattered a great deal because it played a significant part in launching Trump…..

    It may have played a part, but whether said part was “significant” is debatable.  There were soooooo damned many things at play, not the least of which was the utterly contemptible Political Correctness Orwellian Newspeak we have been relentlessly inundated with these past several years.  Triggers.  Safe Spaces.  Micro-aggressions.  White privilege.  Refusal to acknowledge the enemy of Islamism. The list goes on and on, ad nauseam.

    But sure, make the focus all about race.  That makes YOU the racist, pal.

    Thumb up 0

  70. Iconoclast

    If that’s what the evidence shows, then that’s what is published.

    Or if that’s how the data gets interpreted by liberal hack psychology students and professors, and if getting that published supports a liberal narrative, then sure, let’s publish!   You seem to think science cannot be politicized.  How sweet……

    Thumb up 0

  71. Iconoclast

    CM, you do realize that the harder you fight, the more you’re simply proving the point, yes?  Criticizing Obama and questioning whether he is a native-born citizen per COTUS requirement does not make one a racist, but that is the standard liberal narrative, which you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to support.

    If Obama had simply produced the documentation to prove his native-born status, the issue would have instantly become a non-issue.  Only that lack of documentation is what gives a birther, whether racially driven or not, the ammo to pose the question in the first place.

    But yeah, again, we are all “unintentional racists”.   Because “science”.

    Never mind the possibility that someone, learning of Obama’s background and being apprehensive of Obama’s agenda, might want to pose the question.  No, it’s all about the color of his skin.

    Because “science”.

    Thumb up 0

  72. Iconoclast

    “Whites who were racially prejudiced against blacks saw Obama as ‘less American’ and subsequently rated him as performing more poorly as president.
    “Non-prejudiced whites, and both prejudiced and non-prejudiced blacks, did not do so. Additionally and importantly, this relationship was only found with Obama, and not in evaluations of Biden.”

    Of course, this begs the question.  How did they know that the whites were “racially prejudiced”?  How was that determined?  Was it circular reasoning?  Were the whites who saw Obama as “less American” simply labelled “racially prejudiced” based on that criterion?

    The article doesn’t say.  The whole study could be nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias on the part of the student and his professor.

    The bottom line is that calling critics of Obama “racist” is simply laziness.  And psychology students and their professors are not immune.

    Thumb up 0

  73. richtaylor365

    I have to admit, watching CM chase his tail like this is entertaining, but to hitch his wagon to this drivel. A Psychology student feeding into the academic echo chamber of “racism” (I guess you will next provide a study written by a 7 year old who supports AGW), with a 300 person study whereby he can look into the souls of white participants and separate the racist from the non racist (like they wear a sign on their backs), then give us ,”whites would be the only group in which such racial prejudice would ultimately influence their evaluations of performance and that it would affect only their evaluations of the president.”, positively Newtonian, Einsteinian, this kid is going places.

    It doesn’t make one of the authors racist, not remotely.

    The very definition of racism.

    There ‘what’ is? You can’t talk about Obama Birtherism

    Only to those TDS sufferers, but then you guys can bring just about everything back to him.

    . It was essentially dead in 2011

    So I guess you can discuss birther-ism without invoking his name, who’da thought?

    Great, we can agree that it was designed to exploit racism.

    Wrong again there, Sparky. The Clinton strategist was going after the Un-Amercian angle, had nothing to do with race. You would know that if you read it.

    it’s not complicated.

    To most folks, it’s not, but not once have you demonstrated even a rudimentary understanding of what happened last Nov. 8th.

    Thumb up 1

  74. CM

    And….???????

    You had it in quote marks.

    Doesn’t mean everyone who simply wanted proof of Obama’s native-born citizenship was a racist, but you certainly implied as much.

    Garbage. Try harder. It was used as a tool because it garnered support from a particular block of voters.

    Nothing you have posted comes remotely close to supporting that asinine accusation. 

    Not an accusation I made. I have provided support for the idea that Obama Birtherism was used as a racist tool. And more than just the study you and Rich are trying to pretend I’m relying on.

    It may have played a part, but whether said part was “significant” is debatable. 

    True, but the point is that he ran with it because it was working. The extent of the final effect is irrelevant to whether Obama Birtherism was put in to effect as a tool to appeal to racism (at any level).

    But sure, make the focus all about race.  That makes YOU the racist, pal.

    No it means I’m sticking to the actual discussion. But nice attempt at “no, you are”, like a 6 year old. Pointing out what is shown by all the evidence (and none against) isn’t remotely racist. That’s obvious nonsense.

    Or if that’s how the data gets interpreted by liberal hack psychology students and professors, and if getting that published supports a liberal narrative, then sure, let’s publish!   You seem to think science cannot be politicized.  How sweet……

    I should have guessed you’d next play the lazy, evidence-free, anti-academic card. Yawn. Yet again, it’s consistent/correlates with other evidence. But I’m sure it’s all liberal fraud. #fakenews etc etc.

    CM, you do realize that the harder you fight, the more you’re simply proving the point, yes?

    Just the opposite, you and Rich are demonstrating over and over again that all you have in response is ad hominem attack, and unfounded accusations of fraud. As well as ignoring the fact that it’s not just a single published piece of research.

    Criticizing Obama and questioning whether he is a native-born citizen per COTUS requirement does not make one a racist, but that is the standard liberal narrative, which you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to support.

    Some prominent Republicans (including Powell, Steele) were able to call it out for what it was/is. I assume they’re secret liberals or closet academics. And no, it does not automatically make one a racist. Stop being so ridiculously obtuse. You’re not this thick. This is Alex level pathetic.

    If Obama had simply produced the documentation to prove his native-born status, the issue would have instantly become a non-issue. 

    The whole point is that it already been put to bed. It was already a non-issue. And that’s aside from the fact that it shouldn’t even have been an issue.

    Only that lack of documentation is what gives a birther, whether racially driven or not, the ammo to pose the question in the first place.

    There was already documentation, including a birth notice. Why should anyone have to bow to a racist’s demands when the evidence is already available? Fuck that.

    I already noted that there were non-racist reasons to oppose Obama. That’s not even remotely arguable.

    But yeah, again, we are all “unintentional racists”.   Because “science”.

    The more you misrepresent, the more it’s obvious you’ve got nothing (well other than the other nonsense tactics I listed above). The part after that just repeats the misrepresentation in an effort to mock the use of science.

    Of course, this begs the question.  How did they know that the whites were “racially prejudiced”?  How was that determined?  Was it circular reasoning?  Were the whites who saw Obama as “less American” simply labelled “racially prejudiced” based on that criterion?

    How does it beg the question if you’ve already dismissed it as peer-reviewed published liberal bullshit? Which is it? Again, nobody is hanging their hat on a single study. Neither you or Rich have provided anything to the contrary.

    The bottom line is that calling critics of Obama “racist” is simply laziness.

    The bottom line is misrepresenting is a sure sign that you have nothing. You’re dismissing on partisan-based speculation and are ignoring the supporting evidence which is consistent.

    And psychology students and their professors are not immune.

    They’re certainly not immune to you dismissing their peer-reviewed research simply because you’re anti-academic / anti-intellectual.

     

    Thumb up 0

  75. CM

    I have to admit, watching CM chase his tail like this is entertaining, but to hitch his wagon to this drivel.

    I’m sorry that you have literally nothing. That Obama Birtherism was used as racist strategy is not a difficult one.

    A Psychology student feeding into the academic echo chamber of “racism”

    Wow, you’re dismissing it because LIBTARDS ARE TARDS, and the age of one of the authors. Ignore that it’s peer reviewed, published research, ignore that it won an award (second for the guy), and ignore that it correlates with what is found via other methods.

    It doesn’t get more lazy than that. Transparent anti-academic / anti-intellectual nonsense. You have no evidence that there was anything wrong with the published research. All you have is insinuations and accusations against people because you don’t like the results. Well, tough titties for you.

    But if we’re going with this, I guess being a cop in California means you’re a Grade A racist and dumb. No evidence required, I can just assume so based on all the examples I’ve seen. Wow, such an easy way to reach firm conclusions. Must make life a lot easier! No wonder you rail against anything academic. There’s no need for it!

    (I guess you will next provide a study written by a 7 year old who supports AGW),

    Are you actively trying to post obvious nonsense? Again, this is Alex-level shit. Have you given up completely without firing an actual shot?

    this kid is going places.

    It certainly sounds like he’s doing well in his chosen field.

    The very definition of racism.

    Hypothesising around the possibility that whites’ racial prejudices influenced “how American” they perceived Obama to be, which would in turn predict their evaluations of his presidential performance, and finding this to be true, is racist. Wow, you sure went to a great school.

    Only to those TDS sufferers, but then you guys can bring just about everything back to him.

    I just LOVE that the guy who shit his pants (thanks Alex, I take it all back) about a private party Michelle Obama threw for a big birthday is the one accusing others of being deranged about a President. It’s even better when it makes no sense whatsoever. I hope you’ll keep this one going, it’s a real winner.

    So I guess you can discuss birther-ism without invoking his name, who’da thought?

    by early 2009, some Republicans were trafficking in innuendo about Obama’s birthplace.

    The birther issue receded into the realm of conspiracy theorists and fringe political figures such as the actor Chuck Norris, a self-identified document “expert” named Ron Polarik, and Orly Taitz, a California dentist who circulated a document she claimed showed Obama was born in Kenya. It was labeled a forgery by Kenyan officials.

    Birtherism had started to peter out as a mainstream issue when Donald Trump took up the cause.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/10/opinions/why-trump-clings-to-birtherism-dantonio/

    Wrong again there, Sparky. The Clinton strategist was going after the Un-Amercian angle, had nothing to do with race. You would know that if you read it.

    Possibly (likely even) wasn’t taken up because they knew it would viewed as a race thing and wasn’t worth the huge risk of a backlash. That’s of course if it wasn’t intended as a race-whistle to start with.

    To most folks, it’s not, but not once have you demonstrated even a rudimentary understanding of what happened last Nov. 8th.

    Not once have you demonstrated that to be remotely true. Or that Obama Birtherism wasn’t a racist strategy. All the evidence points to Trump using it because of the support he was going after. Entirely consistent with his campaign of abuse and alienation of ‘others’ (be they Mexicans, Muslims, or whatever).

    Thumb up 0

  76. CM

    If Obama had simply produced the documentation to prove his native-born status, the issue would have instantly become a non-issue.  Only that lack of documentation is what gives a birther, whether racially driven or not, the ammo to pose the question in the first place.

    THIS paragraph of yours is the ultimate slam-dunk evidence that you’re just full of shit on this issue.

    Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-birther/500327/

    The evidence was irrelevant.

    And even when confronted with proof positive that his conspiracies are baseless, he often doesn’t back down, or if he does, he does so without apology.

    He is not only bending the truth, he is breaking the notion that truth should matter in the first place.

    This is what is so baffling about the people supporting him: They know he’s lying, but they so want to believe the lies that they have pushed themselves into a universe of irrationality that is devoid of logic.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/trump-grand-wizard-of-birtherism.html

    This is a wagon of horseshit that you guys have hitched yourselves too. Congratulations.

    Thumb up 0

  77. Iconoclast

    The more you misrepresent…..

    That’s precious.  No, really.

    Recall how this idiotic sub-thread started:

    On the contrary, I was the “racist” when I opposed Obama.  I was demonized.  Dissent under Bush was “the highest form of Patriotism”, but under Obama, it was racism, plain and simple.

    Iconoclast, February 16, 2017 12:13 pm

    And your brilliant response:

    And I think you can place a fair degree of blame on the whole racist Birther campaign against Obama for that. Trump was a big player in that. Guilt by association isn’t a good thing, but it’s human nature and foreseeable.

    CM, February 16, 2017 5:31

    This is why you come across as such a complete turd.  It ain’t liberals’ fault that they call me racist.  No, it’s my fault, because I am a racist.  At least, that’s what your fucking study says, the one you cited later.  Fuck you, and fuck that study.  You seriously wonder why I reject it?????  Seriously????  IT’S CALLING ME A RACIST, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!

    Fuck you and your condescension.  I am not “anti-intellectual”.  On the contrary, I am skeptical enough to question bogus shit studies like the one you cited.  My questions are legitimate.  And my skepticism is rooted in the undeniable, empirical fact that academia is infested with liberal thought and ideology, just as the media is.  It strikes me as damned convenient that this “study” so fully dovetails with the “white people (and ONLY white people) are racists” liberal narrative.

    It’s just gas-lighting, plain and simple.

    Wow, you’re dismissing it because LIBTARDS ARE TARDS……

    Yeah, and CONSERVATARDS ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!

    Just to remind you:

    “Whites who were racially prejudiced against blacks saw Obama as ‘less American’ and subsequently rated him as performing more poorly as president.

    “Non-prejudiced whites, and both prejudiced and non-prejudiced blacks, did not do so. Additionally and importantly, this relationship was only found with Obama, and not in evaluations of Biden.”

    What that is saying is that viewing Obama as less American and being critical of his presidency equates to being racially prejudiced against black people.  That’s horseshit.  I don’t give a fucking damn that it’s couched in academic window dressing.

    And yes, that IS what it’s saying.  “Enlightened” white people didn’t view him as “less American”, and therefore were less critical of his performance.  Of course, “enlightened” simply means “liberal”, and “racially prejudiced” means “conservative”.  Typical leftist gas-lighting propaganda.

    Thumb up 0

  78. Iconoclast

    This is a wagon of horseshit that you guys have hitched yourselves too. 

    Screw you.  The only thing I hitched my wagon to (one “o” BTW) is SCOTUS appointments.  How many times to I have to repeat that?????????

    Thumb up 0

  79. richtaylor365

    Did you catch it yet? keep trying. At least from now on you will bother to read your own links, this whole episode was just embarrassing (for you), not knowing what’s in your own link.

    Peer reviewed-bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!, Meryl Streep’s Trump rant at the Emmy’s was “peer reviewed” because the echo chamber that was her audience agreed, you crack me up.

    You use words like “peer review” “evidence” “racism” and yet prove to all your readers that you are clueless as to their meanings, but thanks for ragging on my school, my profession and my racism, yea for you.

    A 300 person study (how many of those whites? we don’t know) where  junior knows (magically, by dowsing rod or interpreting bat entrails) which ones have racial prejudices (what was this percentage of his sampling, again, he doesn’t tell us) then from there he can look in to their souls and divine which one of those racist white were unable to get past their racism and view Obama objectively…………….and CM buys this nonsense. Of course contradictions are rife. First he separates the racist whites from the non racist whites, (again, how many in each group and to what degree the racists whites are racist, a little, a lot, we don’t know, but “science”) then says that the non racist whites could view Obama objectively but the racist whites could not (circular much?) then gives us his conclusion that “whites” can not get past their prejudices to be objective but the other races can. Again, the very definition of racism,”the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races”  (umm, whites can’t do something that other races can……..yep, that qualifies?

    This is a wagon of horseshit that you guys have hitched yourselves too. Congratulations

    To the very end, unable to control the urge to bring Trump in to the discussion………..absolutely clinical and textbook. Still butthurt over the election I see.

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  80. Iconoclast

    Confirmation bias in academia is a real thing, and academia is a liberal echo chamber.  Especially when you’re talking about soft sciences like psychology and sociology.  I managed to survive academia by being a math major, where liberal biases seem to have less traction.

    Thumb up 0

  81. CM

    None of these studies, polls, surveys, or research papers say that you ARE racist if you voted for Trump. To suggest they do is to misrepresent. The linked pdf finds the association between party identification, racial resentment, and whether one is white or not are positively correlated with birtherism to be statistically significant. But I’m not maths major so perhaps you can pull it apart and explain why it doesn’t (rather than just dismiss it because of “Confirmation bias in academia”.
    In saying ‘guilt by association’ I am suggesting that you’re not racist, not that you are. In saying ‘a fair degree of blame’ I am noting that the Obama Birtherism nonsense, and the backlash and anger about that, is most definitely a relevant factor in people being called racist (in a knee-jerk way) for opposing Obama. In no way does this mean that I support or condone people opposing Obama being called ‘racist’.
    Dismissing what you don’t like simply because “academia is infested with liberal thought and ideology” is very weak. It’s just more guilt by association. As noted, all the evidence I can find on this is consistent. Neither of you have provided anything to the contrary.
    Rich, I’m just applying your own arguments/thinking, using extreme examples. If you don’t like it, then improve your arguments/thinking.
    Since 2011 Trump has owned Obama Birtherism. How Trump used Obama Birtherism is extremely relevant. Trying to suggest that mentioning Trump here is ‘TDS’ is just bizarre.

    If you’re both just going to repeat the same nonsense then we’re finished. I have no interest in repeating the same thing again because you’re not getting it (willfully or otherwise) and can’t come with anything better.

    Thumb up 0

  82. richtaylor365

     then we’re finished

    We  were finished a long time ago when you failed to understand what words actually mean, just pointless.

    Thumb up 0

  83. Iconoclast

    For the love of Marx……..

    Is English not your native tongue?  Do I have to quote those paragraphs AGAIN???!?!??!!?!?!?!!??!?

    I never said anything about “voting for Trump”, ever. What I said was…..ah screw it.  If you haven’t managed to get it by now, then you’re simply hopeless.   I’ve already quoted the relevant paragraphs TWICE, and it still hasn’t managed to penetrate.  No reason in the world to think the third time will be the charm.  Your obtuseness is truly breathtaking.

    For everyone but CM:  I was talking about being called a racist for criticizing Obama.  Why CM morphed that into “voting for Trump” is a mystery for the ages, but it does seem to confirm Rich’s suspicion that CM simply cannot not talk about The Donald.

    Thumb up 0

  84. CM

    “Voted for Trump” or “opposed Obama” – none of the studies, polls, surveys, or research papers say that you ARE racist if you did either of those things. Talk about obtuse.

    I’m more than happy to end this here. I’ve supported the initial statement I made. (which grady queried). My response to you complaining about being racist for opposing Obama was entirely reasonable. Neither of you have provided anything of substance in response. Just the usual whining, unwarranted dismissals, and misrepresentation.

    Thumb up 0

  85. Iconoclast

    “Whites who were racially prejudiced against blacks saw Obama as ‘less American’ and subsequently rated him as performing more poorly as president.
    “Non-prejudiced whites, and both prejudiced and non-prejudiced blacks, did not do so.

    Those two sentences are setting up an absolute dichotomy in the white group. That’s just how English works, so if you’re white, you have to be in one group or the other.  No third or fourth or other option is provided. So yes, it’s saying that Obama critics are racists.

    Nowhere in the article does it say anything about non-prejudiced whites being critical of Obama or seeing him as “less American”.  No effing where.

    If that possibility wasn’t even considered, then that’s a major flaw in the study right there.

    The implication is clear to anyone who can comprehend English — if you see Obama as “less American” and are critical of his performance, you absolutely are “racially prejudiced against blacks”.  You would have to go through some rather impressive verbal gymnastics to interpret it any other way.

    Thumb up 0

  86. CM

    I think you’re reading those sentences a little too literally.
    And the finding is that if you’re a white person prejudiced against black people then you’re more likely to view Obama negatively. You seem to have it backwards. They were also looking at correlation, not causation:

    “One limitation of the current cross-sectional design is that although the results were supportive of the proposed model, the direction of causality cannot be definitively determined. Specifically, we postulated that Whites’ racial prejudice would predict the perceived Americanism of Obama, rather than the reverse”

    Thumb up 0

  87. Iconoclast

    From the full paper PDF, first sentence under the heading “Discussion”:

    Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated.

    I rest my case.  You can weasel all you want, but it’s right there in black and white.  And no, I am not reading things “too literally”.  Talk about weak cop-out arguments…….

    Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations

    of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated.

    Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations

    of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated.

    Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations

    of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated.

    Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations

    of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated.

    Thumb up 0

  88. blameme

    If you mean the repeating of your point, I think it fits perfectly as is. Like, you know, it’s necessary to help someone that may struggle with the English language.

    Thumb up 0

  89. CM

    What matters is that there is a clear association (as consistently identified by all other related studies/research/surveys). Which is why the Obama Birtherism strategy was employed. Evidence of his place of birth was already available, in a variety of forms, despite your claim to the contrary and lack of subsequent acknowledgement of that. Rich is beyond help with what racist means though, if he thinks it applies to people hypothesising about the results of research.

    Thumb up 0

  90. richtaylor365

    Having bowed out of the discussion long ago due to your totally inability to understand what words mean, yet you reference me anyway, classy guy, you. Or is it that you also suffer from RTDS?

    Thumb up 0

  91. CM

    Rich I’ve demonstrated what I initially stated, whereas you’ve demonstrated that you’re more concerned with the age of someone, that you think Trump is not relevant at all to Obama Birtherism, that any evidence you don’t like can be dismissed because of your own bias against academia and peer-review system, and that you think hypothesising about the impact of race makes someone racist.

    Thumb up 0

  92. blameme

    Honestly CM, I didn’t get that from Rich has written at all. I don’t know how you got that out of what Rich or Icon has posted.

    Thumb up 0

  93. richtaylor365

    Rich I’ve demonstrated what I initially stated, whereas you’ve demonstrated that you’re more concerned with the age of someone, that you think Trump is not relevant at all to Obama Birtherism, that any evidence you don’t like can be dismissed because of your own bias against academia and peer-review system, and that you think hypothesising about the impact of race makes someone racist.

    Not surprisingly everything in this paragraph, I mean everything is either wrong or unproven, you could not get more wrong if you tried, so it is clearly by design. Since you do not know what basic words like “evidence” “racism” “hypothesis” “Peer review” “may” “possibility” even mean [hint, when someone says there is a possibility that A might occur under certain circumstances, that is not evidence of anything] the joke is clearly on me for even trying to engage. Just leave me out of your delusional missives from now on and quit thinking about me all the time.

    Thumb up 0

  94. CM

    Honestly CM, I didn’t get that from Rich has written at all. I don’t know how you got that out of what Rich or Icon has posted.

    Icon said:

    If you criticize or oppose the Great Obama, you’re a racist. 

    My point was that this isn’t helped by the fact that racism was intentionally stirred up by those who sought to gain from it, and so people are then more likely to be victim of ‘guilt by association’. Totally agree that responsibility first and foremost rests with the people accusing him without foundation of being racist – is that not a given though?

    You are really a piece of work, everything in this paragraph, everything is either wrong or unproven, you could not get more wrong if you tried, so it is clearly by design.

    Dude, it’s all right there in black and white – repeated references to the age of one of the authors (like that’s demonstrably relevant to anything), you keep trying to run some bizarre argument that the only reason I bring up Trump is because I suffer TDS, even though for a substantial amount of Obama’s presidency Trump was the one pushing Obama Birtherism), you have identified no problems with that ONE study and have not even mentioned the others), and you very clearly have stated what you think racism is (which is patently not true). You’ve not demonstrated that I don’t know what anything means. You just keep making the claim and nothing more.

    [hint, when someone says there is a possibility that A might occur under certain circumstances, that is not evidence of anything

    Exactly. Just because issues have been found with peer review, that’s not evidence that there are any issues with that study (or any other study, survey, paper, or research, all of which are consistent). Unless you can identify an issue with the specific studies in question, you’re playing the lazy ‘guilt by association’ game.

    the joke is clearly on me 

    No the joke is on you because of what you’ve tried to argue.

    Just leave me out of your delusional missives, and quit thinking about me all the time.

    Says the guy who takes all his nonsense from this thread directly into an unrelated new open post, in some sort of unintentional self-parody. Brilliant.

    Thumb up 0

  95. AlexInCT

    Honestly CM, I didn’t get that from Rich has written at all. I don’t know how you got that out of what Rich or Icon has posted.

    Because CM isn’t about what the facts are, what actually people say, or even about honesty of any kind. His one talent is in the erection of strawmen to then knock down. All in the pursuit of whatever. One track. Well maybe I am not being fair to he since he does have another talent: up clicking people that are like him in that respect.

    Thumb up 0

  96. CM

    Ok Alex, sure. You can’t say how but then why change a habit of a lifetime huh. Icon claims all Obama had to do was produce evidence, which is a central lie to Obama Birtherism, but I’m the one being dishonest because…….just because.

    Thumb up 0

  97. AlexInCT

    Ok Alex, sure. You can’t say how but then why change a habit of a lifetime huh. Icon claims all Obama had to do was produce evidence, which is a central lie to Obama Birtherism, but I’m the one being dishonest because…….just because.

    Did Obama ever produce any evidence? I don’t think I ever saw a long form births certificate and to be honest with you, I thought the Obamites loved the idea of people wasting time on this crap – true or otherwise – while they were destroying the country. I also frankly believe that if the media had invested 10th of the effort they did in vetting Sarah Palin, this issue would have been cleared. Of course, I doubt Obama would have been elected too if that had been done (not because of the birth thing, but because the guy was an empty suit with nothing to offer but empty lies). the guy was elected by the same machine that tried to carry Hillary over the finish line, and had they done their job Obama would have lost. of course, that would have given the ticket to that idiot McCain, so we would have lost there too.

    I will also tell you this CM: when I am asked by others why I believe the guy was out to destroy the US, I simply ask them what they think Obama could have done differently to do a better job of causing the US downfall, than what was done. The answer is practically always nothing but what was done.

    Thumb up 0

  98. CM

    Did Obama ever produce any evidence? I don’t think I ever saw a long form births certificate

    There we have it. That summarises it nicely. Took no notice at the time, has no interest in looking it up, and for some reason requires a long form birth certificate. But EVEN THEN it won’t make a difference.

    Thumb up 0

  99. AlexInCT

    There we have it. That summarises it nicely.

    A statement of fact is perceived as what by a moron?

    Took no notice at the time, has no interest in looking it up, and for some reason requires a long form birth certificate. 

    Gee, asking for the birth certificate all citizens have no suddenly has become a crime? Were you not one of the idiots demanding Trump release his taxes?

    But EVEN THEN it won’t make a difference.

    Nice strawman. I frankly don’t really much care if Obama was or was not a US citizen. What he is, without any doubt, is an enemy of this country. Then again, the left has a history of producing that sort of person.

    I also do note you never even tried to address my point that there isn’t much Obama could have done differently from what he did, if his intended goal was to cause severe harm and undermine the US. As many now are pointing out, the people accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or are the same people that let Obama get away with actually doing things a Russian stooge or Manchurian plant would have done.

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply