The Shakeup

Plenty to write about, but little time. It’s been a crazy week for Team Trump though. First, they hired Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. Scaramucci instantly declared war on leakers, threatened to fire the entire communications staff, gave an off-color interview slamming other members of the Administration, then had a fit because a newspaper printed his on-the-record interview as well as published his financial records, which are public. Sean Spicer subsequently resigned. Then today, Trump’s Chief of Staff Prince Reibus, having been described by Scaramucci as a paranoid schizophrenic, resigned. In the meantime, we still have a lot of positions at defense and state going unfilled.

I’ll have more to say on the trans soldier ban, the failed Obamacare repeal and other things. But this Administration is devolving into a mess. It’s like Game of Thrones, only everyone is Viserys.

Comments are closed.

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    I was thinking more like House of Cards except Trump is no Frank Underwood…

    I don’t think McCain voted to “save” Obamacare so much as he wanted something that would actually have passed, with a realistic replacement. Still sort of a McMaverick thing for him to do one more time, though.

    The trans ban-what does Trump have against trains?

    Thumb up 0

  2. repmom

    The trans soldier ban tweets were nothing more than the usual Trump distraction, one that he knew would appeal to his base supporters.

    And Kudos to Maverick John McCain. What a moment for the history books. We need to repeal and replace Obamacare, but this was not the solution. Kudos to the Senators from Maine and Alaska as well for standing their ground under immense pressure and even threat from Administration.

    On Priebus, just more of that Trump loyalty going only one way. I’d like to feel sorry for the man, but I don’t.

    And how about the new Communications Director? What a potty mouth on him! Fits right, doesn’t he.

    Trump can fire and hire all he wants, nothing is going to help his Administration as long as he’s the head honcho.

    Thumb up 0

  3. repmom

    There’s that, Stogy, And hasn’t there been some little action lately by North Korea as well while the Adminsration is busy fighting among themselves?

    Thumb up 0

  4. stogy

    Repmom, I can tell you that most people here in Japan are not particularly worried about the missile launch. We’ve been in range of North Korean missiles for decades. I think it’s more of an issue for the US now that most states may be within strike range. I still think it’s highly unlikely that NK will try anything.

    And I was in Seoul a couple of weeks back. The people I spoke to there were far more worried about Trump than Kim Jong-un. Kim is predictable, they told me, but no-one has any idea about what Trump will do from one day to the next. They were worried he would provide the trigger for war rather than Pyongyang.

    The global foreign policy agenda is now largely being run from the Kremlin, and Putin can pretty much do whatever it likes.  Washington is sending out too many mixed messages. Most countries no longer see it as a reliable ally – apart from Duterte, Erdogan, and Viktor Orban, who can now kill and jail opposition leaders and journalists with impunity.

    And Trump knows absolutely nothing about how to conduct international negotiations or talk to foreign leaders, which makes him a complete patsy. This isn’t to say that Obama was much better than Trump (apart from a couple of notable achievements, he was exceptionally weak on foreign policy). It’s Merkel who now leads the opposition.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Hal_10000 *

    The thing about McCain’s vote is that the entire GOP was secretly grateful. They knew this was awful legislation and hoped he would kill it.

    Thumb up 1

  6. repmom

    The thing about McCain’s vote is that the entire GOP was secretly grateful. They knew this was awful legislation and hoped he would kill it.

    Yeah, I had a feeling that was the case. Will wait for you to write more on the subject before further comment.

    Thumb up 0

  7. stogy

    There’s a fascinating long piece in Vanity Fair about the Department of Energy under the Trump administration.

    It really does show what can happen when you put people who know nothing in charge programs that they have no real interest in, but are full of confidence that they know better than people who have spent a lifetime studying and trying to solve technically intricate problems that threaten huge populations.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Ah but experts are to be shunned, they’re not on the side of Normal Americans. To some extent it’s like we’ve entered another Dark Age.

    I see Scaramucci has now gone. Soon you’d be able to put together an entire alternative Administration just from those who have resigned or been fired. 

    Thumb up 0

  9. repmom

    “No chaos in the White House,” Trump reassures us as Scaramucci is booted out after ten days of hiring, and General Kelly is moved from one position to another, leaving the Department of Homeland Security Secretary position unfilled.

    Hard to keep up in this “unchaotic” Administration.

    Scaramucci out is a good thing, but he shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. Seems he may have served his purpose though in that short time – outing Spicer and Priebus.

    Thumb up 0

  10. stogy

    This pretty horrifying Senate testimony by Bill Browder from last week may explain some of the Mooch’s bizarre behavior. I know that a lot of regular readers here are allergic to the Huffington Post, but Browder’s testimony is reproduced here in full (at the end of the article), and worth spending time on. Sergei Magnitsky was nothing other than a hero for putting up with abuse and torture, even when it ultimately cost him his life.

    The testimony really shows the scale of  corruption in Russia and the lengths to which the oligarchs (including Putin himself) and the whole Kremlin administration are willing to go to cover things up (such as the recent throwing of the lawyer of Magnitsky’s mother out of his 4th floor apartment window the night before he was due to testify). It also shows how much the Russian leadership want to revoke the Magnitsky act, and get back to business as usual (i.e. money laundering and running a state kleptocracy).

    Thus the little “chat” over adoptions that happened in June last year takes on much greater significance – although I personally doubt that Jnr. was able to grasp its true importance.

    Anyway, Scaramucci was very successful in disappearing this from the news cycle.

    Thumb up 3

  11. repmom

    Why is this place so dead when there is SO much going on? I understand Hal is busy with work and family, but aren’t there other writers? Where are they?

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Why is this place so dead when there is SO much going on? I understand Hal is busy with work and family, but aren’t there other writers? Where are they?

    Remember the SHITSTORM when Michelle Obama decided to have a private birthday party where electronic devices were banned, so they could all relax and not worry about pics etc ending up on social media? I suspect everyone here is just waiting for Trump to fuck up to THAT extent before commenting.

    Thumb up 0

  13. stogy

    Hi Repmom, I think it’s because the wait and see-ers (like Rich) from 6 months ago are now banging their heads on the table in frustration at how stupendously bad things have become in such a short time.

    Here’s a case in point: Foreign Policy magazine on how Vietnam backed down to China last week over South China Sea drilling rights. The reason? They could no longer rely on the support of Washington, so they allowed China a perfect opportunity to assert its regional power.

    Now wouldn’t you think this would be a perfect pressure point on China over North Korea. But no, instead, Tillerson has been sidelining all of the experienced policy wonks at the  State Dept. and the WH is engaging in yet another round of White House Survivor.

    I can still hear Alex’s howls of glee over the firing of senior State Dept. personnel after Trump took office – like they did nothing and knew nothing. Turns out it was the other way around.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  14. repmom

    Stogy, I’d say you’re right on target with your assessment.

    In good news from the White House, it seems Trump finally got around to signing the sanctions bill against Russia.

    Interesting how it was done in quiet, with none of the usual fanfare he’s so fond of when he has pen in hand.

    But it is finally signed and that is a big relief.

    Thumb up 1

  15. richtaylor365

    Stogy, I’d say you’re right on target with your assessment.

    Sorry, repmom, he is not even close, and TBH i’m really surprised you think so.

     I think it’s because the wait and see-ers (like Rich) from 6 months ago are now banging their heads on the table in frustration at how stupendously bad things have become in such a short time.

    No head banging going on at all, and if you had read any number of posts written by me after his election, I clearly expected initial chaos. How could anyone not expect that, given his character, lack of political acumen, and his reactionary nature? It should have been obvious to anyone that a period was required for him to work in to the job. It is possible that he will never work into it, that he is so ill suited, temperamentally bereft, and cognitively incapable of grasping the fundamentals of the separation of powers or of compromise. We shall see. But let’s get real (as real as you and your reach around progressive buddies here can be), the bar was not only set low, it remained on the ground;

    As long as Trump does not start WW3 and vaporize the planet, he will be ahead of his predecessor.

    I did not expect much, a good SCOTUS pick (or 2), a complete disassembly of Obama’s onerous regulatory nightmare (on this he is coming through splendidly), some tax relief,  and maybe a shinny new wall on the Mexican border. The rest was mostly pie in the sky (did anyone really think that after Obama blew up the medicare rolls, that the states were really going to give up all that free money?)

    I know you are just dying to hear me say ,”What was I thinking? I am so embarrassed over Trump’s antics, and really wish I had voted for Hillary”.

    I have to admit, watching you guys continually chase your tails, looking for Russian bogymen under your bed, it has been entertaining. I guess you guys forgot that Trump was not the first president to fire his FBI director over political differences, or that Bill Clinton’s approval ratings at this stage in his presidency was lower than Trump’s is now.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365

    http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853

    Different polling outfits put Trump at varying levels of approval, but the RealClearPolitics average had him at 39.8 percent Tuesday, while the weighted average from FiveThirtyEighthad him at exactly 39 percent. Not great numbers, but still better than Clinton. On Day 138 of his presidency, just 37.8 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing, according to FiveThirtyEight.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    But let’s get real (as real as you and your reach around progressive buddies here can be), the bar was not only set low, it remained on the ground;

    Yeah but when you’ve previously said that race relations have “never been worse” you completely discredit yourself on objectively assessing Obama. And Shapiro doesn’t even hide his “The Govt is shit at everything”, and there’s absolutely ZERO objectivity in that rant.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

     http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853

    It’s now August Rich. You starting up with the cherry-picking right from the get-go? Even with your cherry-picked date, Clinton’s net approval rating on Day 138 was -12.0, against Trump’s -17.1.

    I correct what you said about race relations, it was actually:

    Race relations? Has it ever been worse?

    http://right-thinking.com/2016/05/04/sully-panics/

    Same meaning though.

    Thumb up 0

  19. repmom

    Sorry to disappoint, Rich. But glad to know you’re still around, enjoying yourself. I was actually somewhat concerned that there might be some health or family issues that were keeping you away.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    The temporary triumph of myth over truth.

    http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/energy-environment/344825-top-epa-official-resigns-over-direction-of-agency-under

    The abandonment of polluter-pays should be fought tooth and nail by anyone who professes to be believe in a properly performing market and any concept of responsibility. Polluters shouldn’t be subsidised by taxpayers. This is blind and hypocritical stupidity in obsessive pursuit of “a complete disassembly of Obama’s onerous regulatory nightmare”.

    Thumb up 1

  21. stogy

    Sorry, repmom, he is not even close, and TBH i’m really surprised you think so.

    That’s not blood dripping from your forehead is it?

    Thumb up 1

  22. repmom

    Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress, the same people that can’t even give us HCare! DJT

    Some mornings when I check Twitter I bang my head on the table (which you can actually do and still not wish for Hillary), and some mornings I just go into the kitchen and start popping the popcorn.

    Never a dull moment with this President, that’s for sure.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    And Shapiro doesn’t even hide his “The Govt is shit at everything”, and there’s absolutely ZERO objectivity in that rant.

    Right.  Because one cannot be truthful  without “objectivity”….

    You have a pattern of not actually refuting right-wing commentators, but simply whining that they aren’t “objective”.  As if your left-wing sources are.

    Hilarious.  Or, to use your preferred rhetoric, “Brilliant!”

     

    Thumb up 0

  24. Iconoclast

    I think it’s because the wait and see-ers …. from 6 months ago are now banging their heads on the table in frustration at how stupendously bad things have become……

    Well, of course that’s what you think.  That’s hardly surprising.  After all, it’s completely wrong but it makes you leftists-who-want-us-to-think-you’re-not-leftists look oh so superior, and that’s what matters.

    Poll: Clinton more unpopular than Trump

    I’m sure CM will whine about how “objective” that poll isn’t, but it does underscore the point I made before:  Trump’s #1 task is Not. Being. Hillary.

    And he’s nailing it, chaos and doomsdaying notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 0

  25. stogy

    I’m sure CM will whine about how “objective” that poll isn’t, but it does underscore the point I made before:  Trump’s #1 task is Not. Being. Hillary.

    OK, once again: I wasn’t a Hillary supporter, and she is no longer a candidate, so not really sure of the relevance of the poll. The point isn’t that Hillary isn’t the President. It’s that Trump now is.

    Why you want good government? Why wouldn’t you want a President who could actually tell the truth and do even a tenth of the things he claims to be able to do? Why wouldn’t you want a President who understood the constitution and the limits it places on the office? And who is able to recognize his limitations and lack of expertise in certain areas? Why wouldn’t you want a President who chose staffers on their ability and knowledge, and would tell it to him straight, rather than loyalty to his majesty, and… what’s that huge sucking sound??

    Whether or not he’s not Hillary ceased to be relevant a bit over 8 months ago. It doesn’t matter whether he’s “nailing it” or not.

    Thumb up 1

  26. Iconoclast

    Whether or not he’s not Hillary ceased to be relevant a bit over 8 months ago.

    You’re not really that myopic and disingenuous, are you???  Or is it just wishful thinking, perhaps? The fact that he’s not Hillary will be relevant the whole time he remains in office.  That IS the point, whether you care to acknowledge that or not.

    The whole point is that Obama’s policies were soundly rejected by the Electorate, as evidenced not only by Hillary’s unexpected defeat, but by the loss of one thousand Federal seats by the Democrats under Obama’s watch. We The People have spoken, loudly and brashly.  We’re fed up with left-wing policies, of being scolded at by the elitists, of being told to shut up and do as we’re told by our alleged “betters”. We’re sick of being told that Russia handed the Presidency to Trump, that this election was somehow “illegitimate”, and that we are fools for electing Not Hillary.

    You can pretend that Trump’s being Not Hillary is irrelevant all you want.  It’s a free cyberspace.

    You can also pretend that wringing your hands over every Trump Screw-Up will somehow mitigate the preceeding, but I am simply telling you that it won’t, no matter how much you clutch your pearls or CM mocks “Normal Americans”.

    You keep forgetting, in your ongoing orgy of Trump-bashing, that Hillary was the only viable alternative. That IS the point.

     

    Thumb up 3

  27. Iconoclast

    Why wouldn’t you want a President who could actually tell the truth……

    If you seriously think Hillary would have fulfilled that pipe dream, you are simply beyond hope.

    Thumb up 1

  28. richtaylor365

    Why you want good government?

    Such heart felt concern, where was that concern when the last guy was in? I find it high-larious that the press has finally decided to do their job, that progressives are just now figuring out that the government works for them, that only now does that same government need to be watched and scrutinized. Better late than never.

    Tell me, does “good government” only apply to the executive? Where is your ire for the foot dragging party of “no”?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/9/senate-democrats-hold-blue-slips-delay-judicial-no/

    https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-08-02/democrats-take-aim-at-trumps-judicial-appointments

    Why wouldn’t you want a President who could actually tell the truth and do even a tenth of the things he claims to be able to do? 

    Oh, so you want honesty, were you living in a cave the last 8 years?

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.e5cf78ce130b

    Why wouldn’t you want a President who understood the constitution and the limits it places on the office? 

    I would, that is why I was so opposed to Obama’s constant Constitutional end runs, funny but I don’t recall any complaints from you while in mid commission.

    And who is able to recognize his limitations and lack of expertise in certain areas?

    As already noted, Bill Clinton had great difficulties early on before getting on track. Obama had the luxury of super majorities when he took office, hence, all the damage done early on. It was clear to everyone that a steep learning curve would present difficulties initially, so none of this is really unexpected.

    But since you and your gang were calling for his head before he even took office, any complaints or evaluations are tainted to irrelevance.

    Repmom, thanks for the concern. Life is good, and retirement can’t be beat, as you well know. The Trump bounce in the stock market, great weather here in the Bay Area, some pop left in my tennis serve, God was been very good to me.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    CM mocks “Normal Americans”.

    Again, I’m mocking you. But then you know that. Again.

    Right.  Because one cannot be truthful  without “objectivity”….
    You have a pattern of not actually refuting right-wing commentators, but simply whining that they aren’t “objective”.  As if your left-wing sources are.

    When you’re considering everything from such a binary “GOVT IS SHIT” perspective, as he does, you’re not going to be able to rationally and objectively assess any of the details. Unless you’re ALSO a partisan hack, in which case you’ll assess EVERYTHING Obama did to be wrong, but you’ll cut a Republican POTUS a huge amount of slack.

    I’m sure CM will whine about how…

    Not sure why I’d whine when that’s completely irrelevant to whether Trump currently has higher support than Bill Clinton.

    Latest poll has Trump lower yet again, now at 33%.

    https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2476

    Also:

    American voters say 54 – 26 percent that they are embarrassed rather than proud to have Trump as president. 

     

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    I’m mocking you.

    Of course you are. You’ve got nothing else. And you’re doing a bang-up job — consider me appropriately awed…..

    When you’re considering everything from such a binary “GOVT IS SHIT” perspective…..

    And you are assuming that to be his starting position, rather than a conclusion based on observation. Unless you can prove your assumption, you continue to have nothing by way of argument. Just a lot of hot air and no actual rebuttal.

    Again.

    And again, consider me appropriately awed…..

     

    Thumb up 0

  31. stogy

    You can pretend that Trump’s being Not Hillary is irrelevant all you want.  It’s a free cyberspace.

    OK. He’s not Hillary. He’s not Hillary. He’s not Hillary. I say that as a person who didn’t support Hillary. She didn’t win. Obama is now out of power, so he no longer matters. End of story.

    As already noted, Bill Clinton had great difficulties early on before getting on track. 

    Yes, and he was quite rightly criticized for that. He’s also long gone.

    Now, moving right along, why wouldn’t you want better government? Why is it so impossible to criticize the clusterfuck that is the current government in Washington? Remembering that it is quite likely to come back and haunt the GOP in the mid-terms and 2020 (although it is well within the capacity of the Dems to screw up an unlosable election). Remembering that the US is ceding international clout to China and Russia, as erstwhile allies peel away.

    If your only defense of poor government is that he’s not x or y because they were in the z party then you don’t deserve good government. There are plenty of other people in the GOP that I would prefer to Trump.

    Glad life is treating you well, Rich. I would think about selling down on your shares in about 7 – 8 months so you don’t get caught.

     

    Thumb up 0

  32. richtaylor365

    Now, moving right along, why wouldn’t you want better government?

    Gee, do I want “better” government? hmmmmmm, why don’t you ask me if I want cleaner air/water, no war, less crime, a chicken in every pot? Yes, Stogy, I would like better government (and all those other things)……..now what? Is it only the executive that is in need of being better, you conveniently skipped right over that one.

     Why is it so impossible to criticize the clusterfuck that is the current government in Washington? 

    Really? Are you really going to pull a CM and totally ignore the mountains (yes, mountains) of comments and posts in the past of me doing exactly that? Why bother with any discussion if you ignore the other side, really.

    Remembering that the US is ceding international clout to China and Russia, as erstwhile allies peel away.

    You mean what Obama had done for the last 8 years, right? See, this is where you lose me. You complain about lack of honesty, yet crickets from you for the last 8 years, which tells everyone here that you really don’t care at all about honesty. Then you complain about a policy of hugging enemies and shitting on our friends which was Obama’s continuous fall back position. If you don’t like it now, why did you like it then?

    If your only defense of poor government is that he’s not x or y because they were in the z party then you don’t deserve good government. 

    Not sure who you wrote that for since no one here is defending poor government. Tell me, I know the comments have dwindled to a trickle, but can you tell me who here has penned total  assent at the way Trump has comported himself since taking office.

     I would think about selling down on your shares in about 7 – 8 months so you don’t get caught.

    I wrestle with this daily, but just for discussion sake, have you seen the last jobs report, the last unemployment rate (16 year low), the high percentage of  investor sentiment (what they think about the state of the economy, a 16 year high) and rising of corporate profits (the 2 legged stool of any bull market)? And the hope (yes, hope, we all know Republicans could not organize a one car parade) of tax relief in the coming year?

    Yeah, I’ll admit to a certain level of frothyness, but 2.6% growth in GDP,  a rosy economic outlook and corporate earnings at historical averages?

    Aside from a shooting war with NK, or Israel finally deciding to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, I don’t see the US economy dropping off a cliff anytime soon.

    Thoughts?

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  33. stogy

    Really? Are you really going to pull a CM and totally ignore the mountains (yes, mountains) of comments and posts in the past of me doing exactly that? Why bother with any discussion if you ignore the other side, really.

    No, I see you giving Trump a free pass because he’s not Hillary.

    You mean what Obama had done for the last 8 years, right? See, this is where you lose me. You complain about lack of honesty, yet crickets from you for the last 8 years, which tells everyone here that you really don’t care at all about honesty.

    A few days ago, I repeated the point that I thought Obama was quite weak on foreign policy (apart from a couple of achievements). But at least he didn’t thank the Lebanese leader for fighting Hezbollah and Isis (the Lebanese government is allied with with Hezbollah in fighting Isis). Or accuse Xi Jinping of being president of the Republic of China. Or completely ignore recent Chinese threats against Vietnam in the South China Sea. These are not just snafus, they have genuine geo-polical implications – for the US and for the US strategic and trading partners.

    Not sure who you wrote that for since no one here is defending poor government. Tell me, I know the comments have dwindled to a trickle, but can you tell me who here has penned total  assent at the way Trump has comported himself since taking office.

    No, instead you just ignore it and attack anyone who does criticize because a) Obama and b) not Hillary.

    I wrestle with this daily, but just for discussion sake, have you seen the last jobs report

    Seven months (Feb next year), mark my words. Trump will blame Obama, despite taking all the credit now. And 2.6 % may be just a spike – you need to look at it over a longer period (i.e. annual growth) Obama quite regularly got growth higher than that but did not rosy up the claims).

     

    Thumb up 2

  34. richtaylor365

     

    No, I see you giving Trump a free pass because he’s not Hillary.

    Then we have nothing to discuss.

    No, instead you just ignore it and attack anyone who does criticize because a) Obama and b) not Hillary.

    Except that I am not doing that………….at all, you just keep ignoring what I write, a great way to have a discussion.

    Trump will blame Obama, despite taking all the credit now.

    Ah, so all this good economic data is Obama’s doing (chuckles times 10).

     And 2.6 % may be just a spike – you need to look at it over a longer period (i.e. annual growth) Obama quite regularly got growth higher than that but did not rosy up the claims).

    More revisionist history you guys are known for?

    Not only is the average annual growth rate of just 1.48% during Obama’s business cycle the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949, he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.

    Thumb up 0

  35. stogy

    Then we have nothing to discuss.

    My apologies. It was Icon above who is saying that “Trump is nailing not being Hillary.” However, that begs the question of why you are arguing against me and not him. I remember you telling me to wait and see. So far I can’t see a learning curve taking place.

    I gave Obama a B-. So far this administration is averaging a D-.

    Thumb up 0

  36. richtaylor365

    that begs the question of why you are arguing against me and not him

     For the simple reason that “Trump is nailing it not being Hillary” is such a low bar and not even close (Hell, not even in the same galaxy) as ,”No, I see you giving Trump a free pass because he’s not Hillary”, and I’m surprised you can’t see the difference.

      I remember you telling me to wait and see. So far I can’t see a learning curve taking place.

     I pretty much agreed with this in my above comment;

      I clearly expected initial chaos. How could anyone not expect that, given his character, lack of political acumen, and his reactionary nature? It should have been obvious to anyone that a period was required for him to work in to the job. It is possible that he will never work into it, that he is so ill suited, temperamentally bereft, and cognitively incapable of grasping the fundamentals of the separation of powers or of compromise.

     Does this really sound like giving Trump a free pass?

    So far I can’t see a learning curve taking place.

     “So far”, I agree with you, hence the context I tried to provide with the Bill Clinton comparison.

     I gave Obama a B-. So far this administration is averaging a D-.

     I gave Obama a D, and Trump an Incomplete (with him being called into the Dean’s office with a ,”If I don’t see some improvement soon, you might consider dropping the class”.

     Oh, and don’t think I missed the irony of you railing against me and Icon for providing context with Clinton and Obama comparisons, then you doing the exact same thing with the Obama GDP raise comparison. One of those,”I can do it but you can’t” argument techniques we see here all too often.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  37. Iconoclast

    Why is it so impossible to criticize the clusterfuck that is the current government in Washington?

    Yes, you poor, mistreated victim….

    If you had any perception, you might have noticed that nobody bothered to interfere with your Trump-bashing circle-jerk until you decided that “Trump supporters” (no matter how reluctant said “support” was) were supposed to be “banging their heads on the table in frustration”, in response to repmom’s query regarding how dead this venue is.  Obviously, no one had a problem with your ability to “criticize the clusterfuck”, but we do have a problem with being told how we are expected to respond.

    OK. He’s not Hillary.

    Apparently, you’re still utterly clueless as to what that means.

    I say that as a person who didn’t support Hillary. She didn’t win. Obama is now out of power, so he no longer matters. End of story.

    Nope, Not “end of story” as long as leftists continue to not accept Trump’s presidency. Not “end of story” as long as the MSM and Trump-hating bureaucrats keep doing everything in their collective power to undermine Trump’s Administration.  Not “end of story” as long as Hillary keeps injecting herself into the public sphere with excuses as to why she ain’t POTUS.

    Had she won, Obama would have indeed still been in power, for all intents and purposes, for his various policies would have continued and been strengthened.  That is what the Electorate voted against, and that’s why it matters, your desperate, ongoing attempts at hand-waving dismissal notwithstanding.

    Yes, and he was quite rightly criticized for that. He’s also long gone.

    You keep saying people are “long gone” as if that means something. Well, the point you seem desperate to not get is that Bill Clinton’s presidency is a part of history, and it’s fair game to make comparisons. It seems rather apparent that you’re not interested in those comparisons, or what they mean.

    The point is that, even though there was a period of chaos rivaling the current situation, Clinton went on to complete two terms, and leftists continue to consider him a successful president. Even with the chaotic periods. And again, if Hillary had won, Bill would not be “long gone”.

    Now, moving right along, why wouldn’t you want better government?

    Loaded question, which begs the question of how “better government” is defined, and who gets to make the definition. Hint: It Ain’t You.

    The Electorate decided that Trump would be “better government” than Hillary. Whether you personally agree is off-the-charts irrelevant.

    The fact that leftists, including the MSM, refuse to accept the Electorate’s decision and are doing everything in their power to undermine the Electorate’s decision is what really should be cause for concern.

    But it ain’t.

     

    Thumb up 1

  38. stogy

    The fact that leftists, including the MSM, refuse to accept the Electorate’s decision and are doing everything in their power to undermine the Electorate’s decision is what really should be cause for concern.

    Actually, I think the administration are doing a very good job of undermining the electorate’s decision on their own. They don’t need any help from “the leftists”.

    Just take Obamacare: Trump promised the electorate something very very different from what the Republicans actually presented to Congress (“cheaper, everyone will be covered”). That’s what they voted for. But then he turns around and tries to sell what was astonishingly bad legislation – even by the accounts of many people that voted for it. What was delivered was not what was promised the the people who voted for him

    And then now we have reports that businesses are holding back on investments because they doubt the administration’s ability to deliver on tax reforms.

    By any admission, this is poor government. These were core promises – 100 days. If a Republican-controlled House, Senate and Presidency cannot deliver on its own promises, then I think that would meet most people’s definition of poor governance.

    And, Rich. OK,  I can see that there is less difference between your position and mine than I originally thought :)

    Oh, and don’t think I missed the irony of you railing against me and Icon for providing context with Clinton and Obama comparisons, then you doing the exact same thing with the Obama GDP raise comparison. One of those,”I can do it but you can’t” argument techniques we see here all too often.

    The point I was really trying to make was that Trump is taking a hell of a lot of credit now for some pretty average growth (“”best economic numbers in years”), and only over a very short term. And he hasn’t actually done anything policy-wise to change the numbers. Anyway, the point is that I didn’t make the comparison, Trump did. So my intention wasn’t to rosy up Obama’s record.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    Ah but stogy it doesn’t matter that Trump tried to sell out his own supporters completely on healthcare, because IT WASN’T SUCCESSFUL. Yep, apparently that’s an argument that’s meant to be convincing. This is literally the shit they’re now reduced to.

    Thumb up 0

  40. richtaylor365

    The point I was really trying to make was that Trump is taking a hell of a lot of credit now for some pretty average growth

    Except that I never mentioned Trump in my question. You posited a rather gloomy scenario whereby the bottom was going to fall out of the stock market in 7 months. I presented some positive economic numbers ( GDP growth, jobs increase, unemployment rate, 4 qtrs in a row of corporate earning growth, overall market sentiment) that would indicate a more healthy stock market outlook. Nowhere in there did I mention Trump or his predecessors, you injected them, the very thing that you chastised us for in an earlier comment.

     and only over a very short term.

    Of course, no one said otherwise, but my question was; given this positive (short term) economic data we have now, why the 7 month prediction for disaster?

     And he hasn’t actually done anything policy-wise to change the numbers.

    Regulatory repeal has been a good start. But you are missing the market sentiment angle in all this. Many investors (myself included) have felt that onerous governmental regulations have impeded that dynamo known as free market capitalism. More jobs, getting Washington out of corporate governance, reducing the corporate tax rate and allowing corporate profits held oversees to be repatriated back at a lower tax rate, these are the drivers for sustained profitability and an ever climbing stock market. Sure, if he can’t deliver on tax reform and those GDP numbers fall, a more sanguine opinion will prevail. But so far I am encouraged by the economic data.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  41. Iconoclast

    Actually, I think the administration are doing a very good job of undermining the electorate’s decision on their own. They don’t need any help from “the leftists”.

    This kind of unadulterated bullshit is just what I expected. Of course it’s all Trump’s fault that the GOP can’t get its act together on repealing Obamacare. Of course the never-Trumpers, the MSM and all of the Trump-hating bureaucrats who insist on leaking government information and otherwise undermining anything Trump attempts to do are utterly blameless.

    Gee, why didn’t I think of that?

    As Rich observed earlier, we have nothing to discuss.

    Thumb up 0

  42. stogy

    Nowhere in there did I mention Trump or his predecessors, you injected them

    Trump made the comparison. Not you. Not me. I just pointed out that it was bullshit regardless.

    why the 7 month prediction for disaster?

    Hey, it was just friendly advice. I have good intel. Listen to it or don’t. It could be out by a month or two (which is the way with these things(. But February-ish.

    Thumb up 0

  43. stogy

    Of course it’s all Trump’s fault that the GOP can’t get its act together on repealing Obamacare. 

    Actually, that wasn’t my point at all. The Republicans in Congress presented a completely different policy to the one he promised his core constituency during the campaign – they had to because he actually has no ideas about health care himself (“Who knew that health care could be so complicated?”). So we got a horseshoe policy. And rather than look after the people who, you know, actually voted for him, he held his nose and pretended it that it didn’t stink.

    Trump-hating bureaucrats who insist on leaking government information

    You mean his cabinet and other appointments? From what I hear, Preibus was the biggest leaker… And Trump promised he had the best people – one of his recent appointments only lasted a week.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Iconoclast

    And rather than look after the people who, you know, actually voted for him, he held his nose and pretended it that it didn’t stink.

    This is meaningless, because there was never a delivered bill for Trump to sign. Doesn’t matter how “good” or “bad” it was, it never got to Trump’s desk. But Trump is to blame anyway.

    Got it.

    You mean his cabinet and other appointments?

    No, I mean bureaucrats left over from the previous administration, people who were waiting with bated breath for Hillary to come on board.

    You can keep sidestepping to your heart’s content, stogy.  I expect nothing less.  But the reality is that the left consider Trump to be an illegitimate POTUS, and are doing everything they can to overthrow his Administration, short of an armed coup.

    And what do you think will happen in this country if they succeed???!!?!

     

    Thumb up 0

  45. stogy

    This is meaningless, because there was never a delivered bill for Trump to sign. Doesn’t matter how “good” or “bad” it was, it never got to Trump’s desk. But Trump is to blame anyway.

    Ah come on, Icon! He was somewhat active in trying to sell the bill to Senators (and showed he had enough knowledge of its contents to describe it as “mean”).

    the left consider Trump to be an illegitimate POTUS, and are doing everything they can to overthrow his Administration, short of an armed coup.

    That”s not a point I was making or discussing. The point I was making is, he is not capable of delivering on many core promises to the very people who voted for him. And he is making the world less safe by putting know-nothings into positions of power and sidelining or removing people who have spent their lifetimes studying problems. This is the point I have been making since the beginning of the threat (I just went back and checked).

    You can keep sidestepping to your heart’s content, stogy.  I expect nothing less. 

    So who’s the one side-stepping here?

    And what do you think will happen in this country if they succeed???!!?!

    The country will probably muddle on regardless.

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    Ah come on, Icon! He was somewhat active in trying to sell the bill to Senators (and showed he had enough knowledge of its contents to describe it as “mean”).

    Delusion ain’t it. He was desperate for this to come to him so he could sign it, and get a ‘win’.

    Thumb up 0

  47. repmom

    I kinda feel responsible for this current conversation that seems to have no end, and certainly no conclusion, but could I possibly interrupt it for a moment to ask if ANYONE has anything to say about the current situation with North Korea? Preferably a comment that does not include Hillary or Obama, but simply addresses the current situation. My apologies if I’m asking too much. And also my apologies if I’ve missed any such comment.

    Thumb up 0

  48. stogy

    From the North Korean end, I think it’s just sabre-rattling, Repmom. The NK regime is very committed to its own survival and will engage in all kinds of brinkmanship to that end.

    The US end is quite a lot more unpredictable given the severe shortage of diplomatic skills and ability to work behind the scenes in the Trump administration. As I said at the top of the thread, most South Koreans are more worried about Trump than Kim (some even told me they don’t want reunification because they don’t want to have to pay the massive costs entailed). The Japanese government are trying to use the crisis as an excuse to change the constitution, so they have an interest in talking up a NK threat.

    Despite the ramp up in rhetoric, I don’t think much has really changed since last week. NK is unlikely to do anything stupid unless they perceive that they are going to be attacked themselves. However, I have also learned not to underestimate most people’s stupidity.

    Thumb up 1

  49. CM

    Thermonuclear disaster, and Trump seemingly itching for it, isn’t a concern until it happens. Once it does, perhaps, but only perhaps, will he be partly at fault.

    Thumb up 1

  50. repmom

    Thanks, stogy.

    Trump is my concern with his straight out of Sunday’s episode of Game of Thrones “fire & fury like the world has never seen” comment yesterday. We have good Generals in charge. I take comfort in that.

     

    Thumb up 0

  51. richtaylor365

     I have good intel. Listen to it or don’t. 

    Gee, stogy, I was hoping for something a bit more data driven, more empirical than ,”I got a tip from my butcher, Lennie, who says sell everything in 7 months”.

    The US end is quite a lot more unpredictable given the severe shortage of diplomatic skills and ability to work behind the scenes in the Trump administration. 

    Yeah, those Obama sycophants did such a bang up job containing NK for 8 years. I know, you just can’t help yourself. I have way more confidence in Tilerson/Mattis/McMasters/Pompeo/Haley and co. then any cadre of  enablers that Obama cobbled together.

     

    Thumb up 0

  52. Iconoclast

    Ah come on, Icon!

    Where are we going, stogy?

    He was somewhat active in trying to sell the bill to Senators (and showed he had enough knowledge of its contents to describe it as “mean”).

    “Mean”?  Yeah, that’ll sell it…..

    It still doesn’t matter, because it never made it to his desk.  Quit acting like it did, and quit acting like the GOP’s failures are his fault.

    The point I was making is, he is not capable of delivering on many core promises to the very people who voted for him.

    Perhaps, but again, I’d rather have him fail to keep his promises than to have Hillary succeed in keeping hers. I’ll keep repeating that no matter how sick you get of hearing it.

    And he is making the world less safe by putting know-nothings into positions of power and sidelining or removing people who have spent their lifetimes studying problems.

    Uh-huh. His predecessor’s actively ignoring problems like NK and enabling problems like Iran have nothing to do with anything — it’s all Trump’s fault.

    So who’s the one side-stepping here?

    You are — pay attention.

    The country will probably muddle on regardless.

    And if not, will you continue to just shrug your shoulders?

     

    Thumb up 0

  53. stogy

    Gee, stogy, I was hoping for something a bit more data driven, more empirical than ,”I got a tip from my butcher

    Can’t give you the source, but it’s quite a bit more solid than I have a feeling in my pinky. As I said, take it or leave it.

    Yeah, those Obama sycophants did such a bang up job containing NK for 8 years. 

    Obama’s policies of containment were not very successful or particularly useful in the case of NK. As I said, Obama was pretty weak when it came to foreign policy.

    Uh-huh. His predecessor’s actively ignoring problems like NK and enabling problems like Iran have nothing to do with anything — it’s all Trump’s fault.

    The Iran nuclear agreement was about the best of a bunch of bad options. Current US policy under Trump is driving Iran towards Russia – whereas Obama at least had them mistrustful of each other. Closer Iran-Russia ties removes a lot of options from the table.

    Thumb up 0

  54. Iconoclast

    The Iran nuclear agreement was about the best of a bunch of bad options.

    Yeah, that’s how it was sold, by the Administration and MSM, a couple of highly trustworthy sources…….

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    …..and the UK, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Vatican (in fact more than 100 countries) in addition to the EU, the UN, as well as the IAEE, nuclear physicists, military official, non-proliferation experts….pretty much everyone that wasn’t an ODS victim.

    Thumb up 1

  56. stogy

    Yeah, that’s how it was sold, by the Administration and MSM, a couple of highly trustworthy sources…….

    Well if you think you had a better option – one that didn’t involve going to war against an ally of Russia, or didn’t involve Iran getting an actual nuclear weapon, or that sanctions were not working – please do let me know.

    Until then, I will go with the MSM, the UN Security Council and all those other countries that CM listed.

    Thumb up 1

  57. Iconoclast

    Fine. You guys win on the Iran nuke thing. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a coup going on against Trump. That doesn’t mean “whatever Trump does, the Dems are worse” (I didn’t say that, but I expect you to keep putting those words in my mouth until the universe dies).  And that certainly doesn’t mean that everything wrong in the world is Trump’s fault (like the GOP’s inability to deliver on the ACA repeal promise).

    Those points still stand.

     

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a coup going on against Trump.

    An actual coup? Or are you referring to the natural and appropriate responses (and not just from “leftists”) to what he’s said and done both prior to becoming POTUS and after? I don’t see a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. I’d like to see the case for that argument laid out though.

    That doesn’t mean “whatever Trump does, the Dems are worse” (I didn’t say that, but I expect you to keep putting those words in my mouth until the universe dies). 

    You repeatedly say that you don’t care what happens as a result of Trump so long as you got your judge and he doesn’t start WW3. Still better than Hillary, according to you.

    And that certainly doesn’t mean that everything wrong in the world is Trump’s fault (like the GOP’s inability to deliver on the ACA repeal promise).

    I haven’t seen anyone here claim that “everything in the world” is Trump’s fault.

    Thumb up 1

  59. stogy

    like the GOP’s inability to deliver on the ACA repeal promise

    Once again, the problem isn’t that they weren’t able to pass the bill. Or present it to the President for signing. It’s that exactly none of the  three options that the GOP presented to the Senate were what Trump promised to his constituents in the election. And he was out publicly spruiking for each of the options – despite calling them mean.

    Rather than, you know, actually developing a policy that does even half of what he promised. Or appointing someone capable of doing so.

    Thumb up 2

  60. Iconoclast

    Rather than, you know, actually developing a policy that does even half of what he promised. Or appointing someone capable of doing so.

    What does “developing a policy that does even half of what he promised” even mean in this context? The POTUS isn’t responsible for introducing or recommending or proposing legislation at all, at any level. That’s the job of the legislative branch, and they’re 100% responsible.  If Trump promised specifics, then that’s the “policy” Congress should draft for the POTUS to sign.

    If they can’t do that, then they negotiate something and present it to the POTUS for signing. If they can’t deliver 100% of what the POTUS “promised”, then they deliver 75% or 50% or whatever, as long as it ain’t 0%. That’s the point. It’s better to get 10% or 50% than the 0% we’ve gotten so far.

    And it’s still the GOP Congress that’s to blame, not the POTUS.

    Thumb up 1

  61. Iconoclast

     It’s what the Normal Americans want!

    I know you think you’re mocking me, but you’re mocking normal Americans, like the left has been doing all along.

    Thumb up 0

  62. Iconoclast

    Or are you referring to the natural and appropriate responses (and not just from “leftists”) to what he’s said and done both prior to becoming POTUS and after?

    So you think riots and burning and trying to get the Electoral College to vote against the Electorate’s wishes (all of which took place before Trump’s inauguration) are appropriate? Very telling.

    You think government leaks and anonymous sources are appropriate? Did you think so when Obama was President?

    You repeatedly say that you don’t care what happens as a result of Trump so long as you got your judge and he doesn’t start WW3. Still better than Hillary, according to you.

    And that is enough to refute and disqualify the “whatever Trump does, the Dems are worse” straw man you mentally masturbate over. Obviously, if Trump starts WWIII (which you seem to think is the case right now), then the Dems would have a real hard time doing worse.

    I haven’t seen anyone here claim that “everything in the world” is Trump’s fault.

    And I didn’t claim that anyone made that specific claim, but stogy did claim the specific claim I mentioned (and that you edited from your response).

    (Cue thumbs up for whatever lame response CM submits.)

    Thumb up 2

  63. Iconoclast

    CM, you yourself mentioned the (meaningless) popular vote a number of times already, so, as far as I’m concerned, you are biased against Trump and, along with the rest of the hard left, see him as illegitimate. That diminishes your credibility on the issue, and explains your myopia, your unwillingness to see.

    Thumb up 1

  64. stogy

    The POTUS isn’t responsible for introducing or recommending or proposing legislation at all, at any level. That’s the job of the legislative branch, and they’re 100% responsible. 

    Thank you! That’s exactly what I have been saying all along. Here’s what he promised. What was presented to the Senate broke every promise he ever made about it during the campaign.

     If Trump promised specifics, then that’s the “policy” Congress should draft for the POTUS to sign.

    So why would he support a policy that was the opposite of what he promised?

     

    Thumb up 1

  65. Iconoclast

    Thank you! That’s exactly what I have been saying all along.

    Looks to me like you’ve been saying the opposite:

    [Trump] was out publicly spruiking for each of the options – despite calling them mean.

    Rather than, you know, actually developing a policy that does even half of what he promised. Or appointing someone capable of doing so.

    That could be taken to mean that Trump (or an appointee) should have crafted legislation and introduced it to Congress.

    What was presented to the Senate broke every promise he ever made about it during the campaign.

    But what was presented to the Senate was not the final bill — it was just a draft from the lower House. And that’s the problem; you’re acting like it was the final version of the bill.

    No, once the House of Representatives agree on a bill, it is submitted to the Senate for further debate and revision. The Senate also has the option of starting from scratch, which I believe is what they did. But the bottom line is that you and the MSM are trying to pretend that these initial drafts represent the final, signed law.

    They don’t.

    Again, nothing ever made to the President’s desk for him to sign. Until a bill actually makes it to his desk, you and the MSM have No. Cause. For. Complaint.

    And again, the inability for either the House or the Senate to come up with a bill that would survive these initial steps is the GOP’s fault, no matter how much you persist in and insist on blaming Trump.

    So why would he support a policy that was the opposite of what he promised?

    He wasn’t supporting a “policy”, but an initial draft of a bill that was to go through more rounds of debate and revision. Perhaps he was just wanting the process to continue, in the hopes that something with maybe 30-50% of what he promised would end up on his desk. What we have right now is 0%.

     

    Thumb up 3

  66. richtaylor365

    That’s brilliant, CM. A perfect start to my weekend!

    Allow me to help out;

     

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/19623/newsweek-loses-its-mind-rips-trump-women-wearing-hank-berrien

    http://iotwreport.com/leftist-morons-report-trump-for-violating-terms-of-twitter/

    Led by Kal Penn, the very dumb Kal Penn, thousands of idiots reported the president of the United States for “threatening nuclear war,” seemingly unaware that this is a warning to a country who is threatening to bomb Guam

    I know, leftist moon battery hardly provides the same “wow” factor, kinda like “water is wet”.

    Thumb up 1

  67. stogy

    That could be taken to mean that Trump (or an appointee) should have crafted legislation and introduced it to Congress.

    It could also be taken to mean that he could have disowned the legislation as bad policy. Or called on Congress to actually do its job properly. The fact is he didn’t really care about what was in the legislation as long as it repealed Obamacare, and regardless of the cost to his own voters.

    I know it wasn’t the final legislation. I was following the debate.  But a couple of Republicans didn’t like even that enough to support what was on the table.

    It stank.

    Thumb up 1

  68. Iconoclast

    I’ve only mentioned the popular vote in response to repeated incorrect claims about the election results.

    You seriously believe that?

    People chose the bad person and kicked the worse person to the curb.

    louctiel, July 12, 2017 11:38 AM, Trump, Jr. Under the Bus

     

    True, substantially more individuals chose Hillary.

    CM, July 12, 2017 7:09 PM, Trump, Jr. Under the Bus

    For better or worse, the Electorate wanted a barroom brawler, and they got one.

    Iconoclast, May 28, 2017 9:50 AM, Today’s Trump Drama

     

    Nah, by the tune of 2.8 million.

    CM, May 28, 2017 4:33 PM, Today’s Trump Drama

    Clearly, louctiel and I were refering to the actual results, and didn’t make any “incorrect” claims at all.  People did choose Trump, and the Electorate, as a whole, did want (and got) a barroom brawler.

    But then, maybe your snarky popular vote responses mean you “win” on a technicality…..lol!

    Thumb up 1

  69. Iconoclast

    The fact is he didn’t really care about what was in the legislation as long as it repealed Obamacare, and regardless of the cost to his own voters.

    No, that is not a “fact”. It’s your personal opinion. I am not swayed by personal opinions which are passed off as objective facts, even if the thumbs up lurkers are.

    Thumb up 1

  70. CM

    Clearly, louctiel and I were refering to the actual results, and didn’t make any “incorrect” claims at all.  People did choose Trump, and the Electorate, as a whole, did want (and got) a barroom brawler.

    The system resulted in Trump, but overwhelmingly the voters preferred Hillary. The electorate didn’t cast a single vote for Trump because that’s who they wanted. Trump just picked up exactly the right votes in exactly the right places which meant the system resulted in him being POTUS. There is a technical mandate by winning via the system, but there is none on sheer numbers. That isn’t saying he “kinda won”, just like you can’t be “kinda pregnant”. He won, Hillary lost. But when you start making claims about the collective intent of voters, you’re just going to look silly.

    Thumb up 0

  71. CM

    No, that is not a “fact”. It’s your personal opinion. I am not swayed by personal opinions which are passed off as objective facts, even if the thumbs up lurkers are.

    Except that his opinion 100% aligns with Trump’s comments on this matter. Do you have anything from him that contradicts this?

    Did you apply this whole “it doesn’t matter what he does or says until the very end” tactic to previous Presidents?

    Thumb up 0

  72. CM

    If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

    It’s not my claim, and I didn’t say that Trump admitted directly to that. But the above quote certainly aligns with what stogy said. Repealing Obamacare, and in fact anything at all related to Obama, appears to be his focus. Obviously this quote says nothing about the quality of what would replace it, but then, again, that is why I wrote ‘aligns’.

    Thumb up 0

  73. Iconoclast

    ….but overwhelmingly the voters preferred Hillary….

    No, of the ones who voted, some two million preferred Hillary. But they were all in CA and NY, so the electoral college did what it was designed to do.

    That’s why I refer to “the Electorate” and not “the majority”. Because it’s a representative republican system, not a democratic one.

    Which means my statements needed no correction, no matter how “silly” they look to hard leftists.

    Saying “the voters” preferred Hillary is what’s silly, given that the Democrats in general lost over 1000 federal and state-level seats under Obama’s 8-year reign. Clearly, “the voters” did not want more of the same.

    No, densely-populated urban centers on the coasts wanted Hillary, but the rest of America wanted Trump. Thankfully, the electoral college prevented the densely populated urban centers from imposing their will on the rest of the nation.

    Hillary knew how the system worked going in. That she failed to obtain the required number of electoral votes is her fault. She didn’t even bother campaigning in Wisconsin, for example.

    Those two million plus voters are irrelevant. No matter how much you go on about them.

    Thumb up 1

  74. Iconoclast

     But the above quote certainly aligns with what stogy said.

    No, it doesn’t.  All that quote says is that Trump wanted to get the repeal part done now and the replace part done later. It takes a lot of twisted mental gymnastics to get “I don’t care what you replace it with” out of that.

    Thumb up 0

  75. Iconoclast

    The fact is he didn’t really care about what was in the legislation as long as it repealed Obamacare, and regardless of the cost to his own voters.

    That is the “fact” that stogy is claiming. What you provided fails to substantiate it. I’m not interested in “aligns” because that can mean just about anything. Either what is quoted above is an objective fact or it isn’t.  Stogy is claiming that it is.

    But it isn’t. At the very least, you have failed to prove that it is, “alignments” notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 1

  76. CM

    No, of the ones who voted, some two million preferred Hillary. 

    Not sure how people who don’t vote are ‘voters’.

     But they were all in CA and NY

    Only because you’re choosing to consider the voters there as the additional voters.

    the electoral college did what it was designed to do.

    No argument there.

    to hard leftists.

    Provide a quote. Back up the claim.

    Saying “the voters” preferred Hillary is what’s silly, given that the Democrats in general lost over 1000 federal and state-level seats under Obama’s 8-year reign. Clearly, “the voters” did not want more of the same.

    Obviously they didn’t vote the same way at local/state level as they did at federal level. But overall, the voters did prefer Hillary, by a considerable margin. It wasn’t even close.

    No, densely-populated urban centers on the coasts wanted Hillary, but the rest of America wanted Trump.

    That’s not accurate. For example Hillary did well in states likes Texas and Georgia. There is no way Hillary easily wins the popular vote by only winning by large margins on the coasts. Trump got there by the number of people who could fit in a stadium, and by them being located in exactly the right place.

    Hillary knew how the system worked going in. That she failed to obtain the required number of electoral votes is her fault. She didn’t even bother campaigning in Wisconsin, for example.

    Absolutely agree, 100%.

    Those two million plus voters are irrelevant. No matter how much you go on about them.

    To the result of who won the Electoral College, absolutely. But I’m not even remotely arguing about who won that.

    Thumb up 1

  77. CM

    No, it doesn’t.  All that quote says is that Trump wanted to get the repeal part done now and the replace part done later. It takes a lot of twisted mental gymnastics to get “I don’t care what you replace it with” out of that.

    Way to misrepresent, again. A trophy for you.

    Thumb up 1

  78. CM

    I’m not interested in “aligns” because that can mean just about anything.

    Why are you asking me for then, ffs? I clearly said ‘aligns’. I don’t give a shit what you’re not interested in. If you think Trump has been acting consistent with what he promised on healthcare then you’re beyond help. All your ‘only matters at the end’ stuff is just obvious weak bullshit.

    Thumb up 2

  79. Iconoclast

    Why are you asking me for then, ffs? 

    Let’s post the quote once again:

    The fact is he didn’t really care about what was in the legislation as long as it repealed Obamacare, and regardless of the cost to his own voters.

    I claim that the statement is, in fact, not a fact, but an opinion only. Your “alignment” argument only shows the statement to be an inference, based on what Trump said. Well, and inference is still not a fact.

    I guess that means I win “on a technicality” again……

    Provide a quote. Back up the claim.

    The claim I wanted to see backed up was stogy’s, the one I keep quoting over and over. I’m not interested in your claims about what stogy said, even if it’s enough to impress the leftist lurkers.

    Thumb up 1

  80. Iconoclast

    But I’m not even remotely arguing about who won that.

    But what you are arguing is irrelevant, and fails as a “correction” of any kind. That’s the point. And as long as you continue that line of argument, it will continue to appear (to me, at least) that you consider Trump’s presidency to be illegitimate at some level, even though you concede that he won the Electoral vote.

    Thumb up 0

  81. Iconoclast

    Did you apply this whole “it doesn’t matter what he does or says until the very end” tactic to previous Presidents?

    Would you care to provide an example of where it could have applied?

    Thumb up 0

  82. Iconoclast

    Obviously they didn’t vote the same way at local/state level as they did at federal level. 

    What do you mean, “obviously”? The Dems lost federal seats and they lost state seats (both legislative and gubernatorial), so no, it isn’t “obvious” at all that the voters “didn’t vote the same way” at those two levels. I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part.

    Thumb up 0

  83. CM

    I claim that the statement is, in fact, not a fact, but an opinion only. Your “alignment” argument only shows the statement to be an inference, based on what Trump said. Well, and inference is still not a fact.

    Right, so you DO understand that you’re directing this to the wrong person. Good.

    I guess that means I win “on a technicality” again……

    Well you’re playing solitaire, but sure, I’d take whatever you can at this point.

    The claim I wanted to see backed up was stogy’s, the one I keep quoting over and over. I’m not interested in your claims about what stogy said, even if it’s enough to impress the leftist lurkers.

    So you’re unable to back up your claim?

    But what you are arguing is irrelevant, and fails as a “correction” of any kind. That’s the point. And as long as you continue that line of argument, it will continue to appear (to me, at least) that you consider Trump’s presidency to be illegitimate at some level, even though you concede that he won the Electoral vote.

    No, I’m not like Trump himself and many of his supporters, I’m not questioning the legitimacy of a President here (and certainly not in an effort to get support from, and enable, racists). What I’m talking about is any illegitimate sense that his win was a clear expression of the people’s will. He won, but not because more people voted for him. He won only because he obtained virtually the exact number of votes in exactly the right place, to an almost uncanny degree. That is the underlying strength of his Presidency, whether you like it or no, and however you wish to dress it up. But there is no doubt that he is President and will be until his term is served, unless he’s removed from office because of what he did either prior to being POTUS, or during his term.

    And yes, I realise you’re still going to say it’s “irrelevant”. I would expect nothing less. After all, he’s your guy.

    Would you care to provide an example of where it could have applied?

    Well I guess it didn’t matter what Obama said or pushed for on gun control, as ultimately none of it happened. So why were there so many people frothing at the mouth about it for so many years? None of it mattered at all until the point at which it got to his desk for signing, which it never did. (The ‘going against your own campaign’ is irrelevant to the point being made)

    What do you mean, “obviously”? The Dems lost federal seats and they lost state seats (both legislative and gubernatorial), so no, it isn’t “obvious” at all that the voters “didn’t vote the same way” at those two levels. I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part.

    True, there has been such gerrymandering in the GOP’s favour for so long now that the Dems can have a greater number of votes across an area but still win fewer races than the GOP across that same area.

    Thumb up 0

  84. Iconoclast

    Right, so you DO understand that you’re directing this to the wrong person. Good.

    Nonsense. You are the one who tried to prove stogy’s claim by showing it to be an inference, but failing to show that it was a fact.

    Well you’re playing solitaire, but sure, I’d take whatever you can at this point.

    Can’t be “solitaire” while you’re here, and it ain’t a question of “taking whatever I can”. I’m simply mocking you.

    So you’re unable to back up your claim?

    You’re asking me to prove a negative. Clever. Since stogy’s claim came first, the onus is on that claim’s supporters (such as you) to back it up before asking me to back up the counter-claim.

    But I suspect you knew that.

    True, there has been such gerrymandering in the GOP’s favour for so long now that the Dems can have a greater number of votes across an area but still win fewer races than the GOP across that same area.

    It’s funny how a little over a year ago, people like you were cheerfully talking about the “blue wall”, and how any GOP Presidential candidate would face such an uphill battle against the Democrat candidate that a GOP win was all but impossible. Funny how quickly a story can change.

    Thumb up 0

  85. CM

    but failing to show that it was a fact.

    I never claimed it as a verifiable fact so, again, you seem to be directing this at the wrong person. I wasn’t aiming to prove his claim, otherwise I would have written something different.

    Can’t be “solitaire” while you’re here

    Do you often claim victory against people who aren’t playing the game?

    it ain’t a question of “taking whatever I can”

    I beg to differ.

    I’m simply mocking you.

    Ah, by your logic that must mean you’re mocking Normal Americans.

    You’re asking me to prove a negative.

    No I’m asking you to prove your claim that I’m a ‘hard leftist’.

    It’s funny how a little over a year ago, people like you were cheerfully talking about the “blue wall”

    If you go back and see what I actually said, I think you’ll find there was no cheering or opinion given on the matter.

    Funny how quickly a story can change.

    It wasn’t a’story’, rather it was the widely agreed-on non-partisan assessment and one shared by Trump himself. He needed to roll a Yahtzee in one go and he did. So the attempt at mocking on this issue fails miserably. Especially when my comment you’re responding to here isn’t about the Electoral College but about local gerrymandering. So, double-fail.

    The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.
    The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.
    Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010.
    The AP analysis also found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/partisan-gerrymandering-republicans-2016-report

    Thumb up 0

  86. Iconoclast

     I wasn’t aiming to prove his claim….

    Which begs the question of why you bothered to respond at all. Either something is a fact or it isn’t. That binary dichotomy holds, and that was the basis of my objection.

    I have always had a problem with people presenting their opinions as “facts”. It doesn’t matter if the opinion is supported by evidence, it still fails to be a fact.

     …..I think you’ll find there was no cheering or opinion…..

    I didn’t claim you were cheering or opining. I said you were delivering information in a cheerful manner. Not the same thing.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  87. Iconoclast

    So, double-fail.

    Sure, even though the bottom line is that you fail to show that it’s “obvious” that the Electorate “didn’t vote the same way at local/state level as they did at federal level.”

    You can obsess over the popular vote until the universe dies. It doesn’t prove anything, and highly doubt you’d be whining if the roles were reversed. If Clinton campaigned worth a damn, if she reached out to those “deplorable” white people who work for a living in uncool places like flyover country instead of calling them names, she’d be POTUS right now.

    Thumb up 0

  88. Iconoclast

    Results by county

    As you can see from the map, the coastal urban centers overwhelmingly favored Clinton, and they do go a long way toward explaining the 2 million plus popular vote. The only real exceptions are other urban centers like Chicago and Detroit, which are not coastal. But overall, the argument holds; it’s easily arguable that those two million plus are in the major urban centers on the coasts, and to a lesser extend, the urban centers around the Great Lakes. Of course, the Los Angeles area itself could account for the lion’s share of them, if not all of them. That’s the point.

    Thumb up 0

  89. Iconoclast

    He needed to roll a Yahtzee in one go and he did.

    No, he worked his ass off on the campaign trail and Hillary didn’t.

    It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths you will go to not give Trump credit. You make it sound like it was sheer luck that he broke down the blue wall.

    No, it was hard work. And a bit of help from his opponent, in that she sucked at campaigning.

    Thumb up 0

  90. Iconoclast

    No I’m asking you to prove your claim that I’m a ‘hard leftist’.

    Given that I never said it was a “fact” that you’re a hard leftist, there is nothing to “prove”. Again, you fail to distinguish between fact and opinion. I opined that you were a hard leftist. I never claimed it was a fact.

    Maybe some day you will get it, but your overall record leaves me highly doubtful.

    Thumb up 0

  91. CM

    Which begs the question of why you bothered to respond at all.

    Because I think it is very very likely the case, and is consistent with everything I’ve seen from Trump on the matter, but I wasn’t about to spend the rest of my life building a case to prove it as a ‘fact’. That you don’t like my use of words, or that I posted it at all, is irrelevant to me.

    I have always had a problem with people presenting their opinions as “facts”. It doesn’t matter if the opinion is supported by evidence, it still fails to be a fact.

    Agreed. In some cases though, as I’m sure you know, the term “fact is…” is used as a figure of speech.

    I didn’t claim you were cheering or opining. I said you were delivering information in a cheerful manner. Not the same thing.

    What specifically about my manner suggested it was cheerful? As I recall I just put it out there as a possible discussion point. I think you just read it in a certain way. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Regardless, as noted, it wasn’t a partisan assessment.

    Sure, even though the bottom line is that you fail to show that it’s “obvious” that the Electorate “didn’t vote the same way at local/state level as they did at federal level.”

    You must have missed the part where I re-considered that, given the extent of gerrymandering and the effect that’s had recently.

    You can obsess over the popular vote until the universe dies.

    I’m not even remotely obsessing over it, I’ve never mentioned it outside the context of a claim being made about the strength of Trump’s mandate.

    If Clinton campaigned worth a damn, if she reached out to those “deplorable” white people who work for a living in uncool places like flyover country instead of calling them names, she’d be POTUS right now.

    Possibly. Although Trump name called on a weekly basis for months (and was exposed as a deplorable human being in a variety of different ways, most often by his own words or actions) as opposed to just once, and that didn’t stop him becoming POTUS. Seems some can’t take it once when it’s about them, but actively like it when it’s directed elsewhere.

    As you can see from the map, the coastal urban centers overwhelmingly favored Clinton, and they do go a long way toward explaining the 2 million plus popular vote. The only real exceptions are other urban centers like Chicago and Detroit, which are not coastal. But overall, the argument holds; it’s easily arguable that those two million plus are in the major urban centers on the coasts, and to a lesser extend, the urban centers around the Great Lakes. Of course, the Los Angeles area itself could account for the lion’s share of them, if not all of them. That’s the point.

    So presumably the people on the coast and in and around cities are the sub-normal Americans? You seem to be causally dismissing those people, implying that people elsewhere are more important. And not just in terms of the Electoral College, in general. That those city folks can be dismissed because they’re all liberal morons and so their votes should count less.  As noted. she actually did well in many states Trump won, including in The South, and those states where Trump won by the combined population of a sports stadium to give him the election. Obviously there can be 10 states in a row you lose by as little as 0.0000000001% and there will still be 10 red states in a row, making you look uber-dominant. That’s not relevant to the binary outcome of who the POTUS is, but it’s still relevant. If it’s wasn’t you wouldn’t even be bothering to delve into any of the detail. The maps are cool though, I do love a new way of displaying information. On the first on at your ‘map in context’ link, there were many counties with large Trump wins in terms of %, but the % victory is because of the low population (the lower the population, the easier it is to win by a large %). So i to combine % win with geographical areas produces a lot of dark red for sure, but ultimately it says much more about area than the actual numbers (level of support).

    No, he worked his ass off on the campaign trail and Hillary didn’t.

    I didn’t get the impression that she didn’t work really hard, but clearly she made strategic errors in terms of not putting enough effort into a few states (and yes, making that one remark about ‘deplorables’, even though Trump was abusing people and groups left, right, and centre for months). Even then, he still needed to roll a Yahtzee, which is why even he was surprised.

    It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths you will go to not give Trump credit.

    I do struggle to give credit to such an obviously horrible human being, who actively used his horribleness to GET support. I’ve never known, in my lifetime, a politician who appealed to the worst in people. Usually that’s political suicide, for good reason. It never ceases to amaze me how people can put so many of their principles of common decency and humanity on-hold and vote for someone like that. If there was anyone remotely like that on offer, representing a party I’d usually support, I can tell you with 100% confidence that I’d likely vote for the other side. It’s just not worth it and I’m certainly not wedded to any political beliefs or tribe to the extent that I would feel I need to prostitute myself. I’d find it too tough to live with. I’d feel partly responsible when the horribleness manifested itself, as it has inevitably done from Day 1.

    Maybe some day you will get it, but your overall record leaves me highly doubtful.

    I get it, thanks for clarifying.

    Thumb up 1

  92. Iconoclast

    So presumably the people on the coast and in and around cities are the sub-normal Americans? You seem to be causally dismissing those people, implying that people elsewhere are more important.

    Yes, I do speak disparagingly of them, for they have been doing the same of me for most of my adult life. Since I am, in fact, a white, straight, cis-gendered Christian male, I have been told for decades than I am a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe, a transphobe, a misogynist, a sexist, did I leave anything out?  Oh, yeah, I am the reason everyone else’s life sucks. This trend simply became more pronounced as history and life wore on, culminating in the eight years of Obama’s reign. It’s easy to assassinate character, a bit harder to argue with facts and logic. Yeah, I lapse into the easy route myself, more often that I would care to admit, although I generally try to take the high road, as unrewarding as it often seems to be.

    That’s why I use the term “Normal Americans”, and I use it to refer to people who want to be left alone, who want to work at a decently rewarding job that pays reasonably well, who want to take care of their families, the ones apparently forgotten by the Democrat Party, said party seeming to be so focused on transgender rights, chiding everyone to be nice to Muslims after every terrorist attack (as if we knuckle-draggers would immediately go out and harass Muslims), and so on. The name calling continued all throughout the campaign, with Hillary using many of those same terms.

    Yeah, Trump did the same thing, but he didn’t target what I call “Normal Americans”, whereas Hillary did. Trump attacked the various protected classes, which is why he didn’t suffer much backlash. “Normal Americans” are sick and tired of everyone being “protected” except them. That’s part of the point, and part of why Trump prevailed in spite of his nastiness. Hillary’s nastiness was definitely a bug, while Trump’s was a feature.

    Not pretty, I admit, but that it pretty much how it was. At least, that’s how it appeared to me.

    Thumb up 0

  93. CM

    Thanks for that, sometimes it is more useful to put the detailed fisking etc aside and cut through it all. So good on you.

    I hold that the so-called ‘protected’ classes, are groups that have for decades or centuries been treated as lesser (and in some cases been actively discriminated against), but over a relatively short space of time society as a whole has realised this is wrong, but the dominant group (and your characteristics as described would be Exhibit A) is struggling to come to terms with both the increase in diversity in society and the impact of this increased demand and acceptance of equal treatment and respect and reduction in stereo-typing. Simply because it’s going against the entire weight of history. But there are examples where people go too far and push too much and these examples are held up as evidence that it’s all just madness, when in fact very little of it is madness, and is in fact as it should be. I would say that this is the ‘facts and logic’. And that ‘left alone’ can be (sometimes wrongly) interpreted to be a desire to return to that former state, where your cohort has absolutely dominance over everything, and so everything seems better. So whether you like it or not, it’s not unreasonable that your ‘Normal Americans’ can be interpreted as being against the interests of those who have only very recently started to begin to enjoy the same rights and benefits as the dominant group. Whether you mean it or not.

    Thumb up 2

  94. Iconoclast

    …..but the dominant group (and your characteristics as described would be Exhibit A) is struggling to come to terms with both the increase in diversity in society and the impact of this increased demand and acceptance of equal treatment and respect and reduction in stereo-typing…..

    I disagree. Let me clarify.

    I have no problem at all with diversity. None. I have no problem with formerly oppressed groups having wider access to opportunity and having their rights recognized. No problem at all. And I doubt that any reasonable person would have a problem with it.

    When I referred to “protected classes”, I was referring to the fact that certain groups are simply above reproach, thanks to the poison of political correctness. If I criticize a female for any reason, I am labeled “sexist” because she’s in the protected class of “female”. If I criticize someone who’s Muslim, or if I criticize Islam, I am labeled “Islamophobe” because Muslims and Islam are on the protected class “Islam”. If I criticize anything about a person who happens to be gay, or if I question aspects of the gay lifestyle as I have observed it (I lived in the San Francisco bay area during the rise of the whole gay pride movement), then I am a “homophobe” because gays are a protected class.

    In contrast, certain groups are decidedly without protection, such as males, Christians, and white people. On the contrary, it seems that membership in one of those classes (Marx help you if you’re in two or more of them) pretty much defines you as a bigot/sexist/(fill-in-the-blank)phobe.

    A recent example is the firing of James Damore from Google for daring to propose that there are reasons beyond the PC narrative as to why there are fewer women than men in tech jobs. You see, he made the mistake of appearing to attack women (appearing, not actually doing), which is a protected class. He, being a white male, had no protections. On the contrary, he was dismissed as being a sexist. It was an internal memo, backed by cited scientific studies, and it was leaked to the public and subsequently misrepresented by the MSM.

    Suggesting that Damore was “struggling to come to terms with both the increase in diversity in society and the impact of this increased demand and acceptance of equal treatment and respect and reduction in stereo-typing” would simply be absurd.

    Being unable to even discuss protected classes flies in the face of freedom of expression, free speech, which is foundational to our society. We are becoming a dystopian police state by being told what we can and cannot say, and, by extension, what we can and cannot think.

    Thumb up 1

  95. Iconoclast

    And again to clarify and amplify the point: I am not talking about trying to oppress anyone, but merely talking about talking about them in any way that’s critical.

    Thumb up 0

  96. stogy

    And again to clarify and amplify the point: I am not talking about trying to oppressanyone, but merely talking about talking about them in any way that’s critical.

    Hi Icon,

    I thought about this for a bit. I think you have the right to criticize others – that’s a fundamental right. However, it’s also other people’s right to shout you down if they think you are wrong, or they feel you are being disrespectful. Generally, if people think you are open to listening and putting yourself in their shoes – if they don’t feel like you are imposing your ideas on them – then they will listen (I’m not always a great example of this). The problem is that many of the people doing the criticizing behave like dicks, and humiliation rather than change is the goal (I am not accusing you of doing this), so people in the protected groups are entitled to be suspicious of your motives.

    And it also depends on the reasons why you are doing the criticizing – often it can have the opposite effect of what you intend.

    Like, for example, the people who verbally (or physically) attack women who wear burqas or niqab. I am as opposed to forcing women to cover up in public spaces as anyone else, and I find it very confronting. But having spent some time with Muslim women and talking to them, I realize that criticizing their right to choose what they wear is the best way to turn the burqa itself into a freedom issue (i.e. the right to wear what they choose). If you want to create change then it’s much  better to support and donate to groups that support women’s rights to choose not to wear the burqa, or that protect Muslim women from domestic violence. Arguing against them or trying to tear off their burqa is the best way to cement a practice that you want to see changed. It’s an own goal.

    If you believe that you have tried to do the right thing, you listened genuinely to other people’s experiences rather than just imposing your views on them, and you are open to self-critique and learning from your own mistakes – then if you get called a homophobe or an Islamophobe, or sexist, then that’s really their issue, not yours. Just move on.

    As I said, I am not always a great example of this.

    Thumb up 1

  97. stogy

    This op-ed from a former Trump supporter and advocate is really worth reading and makes the point that I was trying to make (using healthcare as an example) far better than I was able to.

    It is now clear that my optimism was unfounded. I can’t stand by this disgraceful administration any longer, and I would urge anyone who once supported him as I did to stop defending the 45th president.Far from making America great again, Mr. Trump has betrayed the foundations of our common citizenship. And his actions are jeopardizing any prospect of enacting an agenda that might restore the promise of American life.

    and

    But the administration has committed too many unforced errors and deserves most of the blame for its failures. Far from making the transformative “deals” he promised voters, his only talent appears to be creating grotesque media frenzies — just as all his critics said.Those who found some admirable things in the hazy outlines of Mr. Trump’s campaign — a trade policy focused on national industrial development; a less quixotic foreign policy; less ideological approaches to infrastructure, health care and entitlements — will have to salvage that agenda from the wreckage of his presidency. On that, I’m not ready to give up.

    What I have been trying to say is that opposition to the Trump administration should be long past a left-right issue. For the right, Trump is clearly not capable of delivering on any of the promises he made and is deliberately  feeding divisions in society that pose genuine risks to public safety (the 3 percenter arrested trying to detonate a bomb in Oklahoma City last week is yet another clear example of this).

    Saying Trump is “nailing not being Hillary” is giving him a free pass for his incompetence, narcissism and moral turpitude. It long ago ceased to be good enough.

    Thumb up 1

  98. CM

    Thanks again Icon for your careful articulation, like stogy I’ve spent some time today thinking about these posts of yours. I will continue to ponder, I haven’t ignored it, just so you know.

    Thumb up 1

  99. Iconoclast

    However, it’s also other people’s right to shout you down if they think you are wrong, or they feel you are being disrespectful.

    This is where we fundamentally disagree. No, I absolutely do not accept that someone has a “right” to shout down someone else over feelings. Period. Just because person A feels that person B is being “disrespectful”, it doesn’t mean they actually are being disrespectful. It’s just another case of Person a being offended by person B’s statements. It’s political correctness all over again. That’s why we are where we are, because constantly-offended people are shouting down other people who’s opinions/viewpoints they don’t like.

    Shouting down someone is simply preventing that someone from exercising their right to free speech. It simply isn’t on the same level as engaging the argument. If you think someone is wrong, you let them finish what they’re saying and then explain why the arguments fail. You do not shout them down. End of story.

    Like, for example, the people who verbally (or physically) attack women who wear burqas or niqab.

    Well, again, verbally attacking someone is simply not covered by the First Amendment, and we need to stop equating criticizing someone’s actions or beliefs with attacking someone’s character or person. As long as we persist in conflating those two very different forms of expression, we are not going to make very much progress at all.

    Saying you disagree with the Muslim precept of covering women, and explaining why you disagree, is simply not the same as hurling insults at such women, or the men they’re associated with. The former is criticism, the latter is an attack.

    Thumb up 0

  100. Iconoclast

    Saying Trump is “nailing not being Hillary” is giving him a free pass for his incompetence, narcissism and moral turpitude.

    Maybe it is. But the problem is that we have no guarantees whatsoever that Hillary would be any better. And frankly, narcissism, in and of itself, isn’t really an issue. Just about anybody who spends their life in the public’s eye is narcissistic to some degree. Trump’s predecessor certainly was. Hillary certainly is.

    And I am certainly not convinced that Hillary’s “moral turpitude” is any better. She is utterly corrupt, and lying is a way of life with her. Arguing over whether Trump is worse is moot. Pathological lying is pathological lying, and someone being a few percentage points better or worse than someone else really doesn’t matter.

    That leaves us with competence. Well, as incompetent as Trump allegedly is, Hillary was still not competent enough to beat him in a Presidential campaign, in spite of having the deck stacked in her favor on several levels. Her stint as Secretary of State certainly didn’t showcase any real competence. So yeah, she had experience, but that simply doesn’t translate into competence.

    Thumb up 0

  101. stogy

    Maybe it is. But the problem is that we have no guarantees whatsoever that Hillary would be any better.

    See this is exactly not the point. I am not comparing Hillary to Trump. Hillary ceased to be a meaningful comparison to Trump on November 21st last year. It doesn’t matter what you or I think of Hillary. The only thing that matters now is Trump’s ability to implement his agenda and his moral fitness to lead. Neither of which he has repeatedly shown.

    You are still giving him a free pass.

    I’m about to hit the hay. I’ll come back to the other stuff in the morning.

    Thumb up 1

  102. Iconoclast

    See this is exactly not the point. I am not comparing Hillary to Trump.

    I guess I’ve been misunderstanding your intent; I’ve been reading your statements to mean, “You shouldn’t have voted for Trump”, hence the comparisons to the only alternative. If what you’re actually saying is, “Trump has been given his shot, he flubbed it, now let’s move on to Pence”, then yeah, that’s a lot harder to disagree with.

    Thumb up 0

  103. richtaylor365

     “Trump has been given his shot, he flubbed it, now let’s move on to Pence”, then yeah, that’s a lot harder to disagree with.

    First off, Pence would want no part in that (maybe we can convince him in another 2 years), and second, unless legally impeached (and for good cause) this is Trump’s rodeo, for good and bad.

    I find stogy’s version for free speech so emblematic of the leftist intolerance we see so prevalent today. The notion that speech is violence, that micro aggressions (regardless of intent and mostly manufactured by dint of feelings) justify macro outcomes, that free speech is not really free at all but only allowed with the consent of the perpetually aggrieved. Stogy, you say shouting down someone else speech is allowed if you think they are wrong, the problem is that this is taken to the next level where conservative speakers are not even allowed to speak because of what they said in the past. Heckler’s vetoes, mob violence and property damage, this has been the order of the day. Folks like Shapiro are not allowed to speak because the mob wrongfully equates him with the alt-right (Shapiro has been public enemy number one with the alt right, but these dopey antifa loudmouths can’t be bothered to do their home work and know what the hell they are even protesting against)

    Interestingly, if you go back to the origins of the First Amendment, Madison (along with all the other Constitutional signers) thought a Bill of Rights unnecessary, these rights being inviolate and the Constitution had no power to curtail, limit, or influence them in any way. Madison’s first foray into defining freedom of expression in his first draft to the House was ,”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments”. A pity this version of expression (allowing speech that was totally free in any forum, public or private) was not adopted. Instead they couched in legal terms, “Congress shall make no law”, thus limiting future SCOTUS interpretations of only governmental interference, not private suppression of free speech.

    You routinely hear people (even here) say they support free speech, then in the same breath, limit it to speech they can back or agree with themselves, total nonsense. Hugo Black said it best ,”The very reason for the first Amendment is to make the people of the country free to think, speak, and worship as they wish, not as the government commands”. I would add free to do all those things in the face of the MSM, progressive ideology, and the angry mob of political correctness.

    Thumb up 1