MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom@rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen@rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@chipgreen@rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen@rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@chipgreen@rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman@rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen@rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom@klezman@rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin on the child point, it is not obvious to me that someone with biological children has a direct stake in the country’s future. If anything, it is an indirect one. They might well provide the best for their children, not necessarily the country. This plays out benignly in terms of education, service avoidance and other issues.
This might sound political but generational wealth and negligible death taxes are an obvious example of parents not taking a stake in the country.
@canonizer@chipgreen@rjquillin An excellent article. Quite saddening for me. This tells me that Vance could have been what, for me, would have amounted to a person who could bring the current version of the GOP back to a party I could respect. What a missed opportunity.
@canonizer@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Back to the thought that began this thread, it seems to me that it wasn’t Biden’s desire to drop out of the race, but when some of the powerhouse Democrats saw the increasing likelihood that he would lose the election (and the mega$-donors withholding any further donations until another candidate was placed, which likely accounts for a large amount of the donations they are touting Kamala as having “raised”), they pushed him out. And it is an interesting observation that they ignored their voters who had chosen him as the nominee. I just noticed some thoughts from a former Biden chief-of-staff: Former chief of staff says Democrats’ efforts to push out Biden were ‘nasty’
@canonizer@chipgreen@Mark_L@rjquillin
I think some of Harris’ fundraising may have been delayed donations but it’s been well documented that there’s been a groundswell of groups coordinating fundraising as well. Take that for whatever it’s worth - I don’t think it matters much. Not likely, imo, that $100M was delayed for the 6 weeks between the debate and when he withdrew.
And yes, Biden and his advisors probably feel quite angry. But it’s not like any of them thought this was a profession where kumbaya was the norm. I, personally, am happy that he saw the writing on the wall and acted appropriately. Even if he needed a whole lot of help to see it.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin saying someone without children is less vested in our country is just hogwash.
Harris does have children and helped raise them. Just because she didn’t use her uterus makes no difference. I would honestly like to hear what makes trump so great.
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year. “Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”
@davirom@dirtdoctor perhaps Vance should be fearful should he lose. Trump might suggest hanging him. Trump constantly lies about everything. I çan not understand the intelligent people who follow him.
@davirom@dirtdoctor@marjoryk I doubt Vance had anything to fear. He only wanted to let the crowd hang Pence because he thought Pence could disregard the will of the people on his behalf. There’s no illusion Vance can do that.
Let’s take kids out of the equation. Who cares more about the future of the stock market - someone who has a sizeable sum of money invested in it or someone who owns no stocks at all? Apparently the argument on the left is that those with no investments care just as much as those who own stocks. I guess keep telling yourselves that if it helps you sleep at night?
I thought I had disengaged when I said basically, “agree to disagree”. It is amusing to me how strongly opposed people will claim to be over something because of who said it.
I truly do not have the energy or motivation to continue debating left/right menutia such as this now viral comment from three years ago. While I steadfastedly maintain my position that those who are invested in the future care more about that future than those who are not invested in it, I do not believe that the difference is enough, in the scheme of things, to infer that childless politicians are not qualified enough or invested enough to lead the country. So, to me, it’s a non-issue but I cannot argue with the logic behind it.
Klez, I appreciate that you have historically been very civil in your political discourse and claim to have an open mind but am disappointed in your recent comments. I generally try to avoid this thread but your statement that JD Vance is a “total asshole” took me by surprise. I was legitimately curious as to why you had such strong negative feelings towards him, only for you to reply that you had no idea what I was talking about until RJ reminded you and then it was, “I really don’t know much about him”. Hmm… perhaps you are not quite as objective as you think you are?
Then, when I suggested his memoir, it came down to “I don’t care about his whole life because of video clips and sound bytes I have heard over the last 2 weeks”. OK, then.
JD Vance is an extremely intelligent, complicated person. He is also a politician. I don’t care much for politicians. In my book they are a necessary evil. Some of them may start out truly wanting to serve the public but in the end it is almost always about power and money.
I have mixed beings about Vance. In fact, I have mixed feelings about almost everyone and everything in this World. Everything is shades of gray to me. Sometimes I wish I could be more black & white. But mostly I am just tired of all the negativity on both sides. If you are a diehard liberal, that’s great! Hardcore conservative? Good for you! But how about trying to play up the positive side of our beliefs instead of constantly trying to outdo each other with negative comments? That would be a win-win in my book.
@chipgreen I think there’s been a whopping miscommunication here. Calling somebody in politics an asshole does not, for me, mean much in the way of strong feelings. My comment was based not on a clip from 2021, but on quotes and snippets from him in the last few weeks and at the RNC. He struck me as somebody who was using divisive and dismissive rhetoric, things that I am not a fan of. Because of where you put your comment I was looking in the wrong place for what triggered it, and, mea culpa, it took Ron scrolling farther up to point it out. To me it was not a weighty comment nor a thoroughly thoughtful one.
I don’t claim to be 100% objective and anybody saying they are would be lying to themselves. I am largely aware of my biases, at least, which isn’t to say I can always get around them. But I am always open minded, especially with respect to opinions grounded in fact. And I often change my mind as the facts change. (Want to talk about the evolution of my opinion on Progressives?)
As for the rest, I am largely in agreement. I would like the GOP to abandon the racist dogwhistles, the demonizing of LGBTQ people (especially the trans folks, among whom I count two close friends), and so on. I’d like the Democrats (and Republicans) to get out of identity politics. I’d also like elections to be short, like in the rest of the world, so that we could ignore most of politics for a few years at a time.
Vance seems truly intelligent. Very astute observer of America. It’s a shame he’s using that ability to support Trump. His instincts in the mid-teens appear to have been right on. In a world where Vance stuck to the principles he seemed to espouse a decade ago, I could be a full-throated supporter.
@chipgreen I’m confounded by the concept that wealth increases one’s stake in the country. You can’t take it with you. The stocks go towards your children, not the country, especially true given our minimal inheritance tax and stepped up cost basis. I’m very open that a person of any economic status wants the country to thrive with future generations, regardless of their procreative status
@chipgreen I want to thank you for engaging in this forum as you seem to be one of the very few CM’ers willing to present a counterpoint, preventing this from being an echo chamber.
@davirom
Thanks for your comment. Twenty years ago, I was all about debating politics - in the Amazon Gold Box Forum, of all places.
I truly don’t have the energy for it these days. Researching, quoting sources, fact-checking, etc. It’s a lot of work if you don’t want to just shoot your mouth off and then disappear, lol.
@chipgreen@davirom and in case it wasn’t clear, I feel the same way. I’m at a loss for sources of intelligent conversation and debate about politics. I’ve learned a lot from the discussion here over the years and I want to keep learning more.
Ron would hopefully agree that when he was here a few weeks ago all discussion of politics was polite and free of invective.
So Biden has proposed term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Since this will likely require amending the Constitution, I hope the Republicans place one requirement on passing this: term limits for every member of Congress. If the President and SCOTUS justices are term limited, there is no reason not to include the third branch of the government.
@Mark_L I’d like to see longer terms for the House. The every two year election thing is a major source, I think, of the political dysfunction of this country.
House = 4 year terms
Senate = 8 year terms, one senator from each state in each 4-year cycle
Federal elections then happen every 4 years. Less campaigning. More focus on legislating rather than fundraising.
And yes to Supreme Court term limits. When people rarely lived much past 60 or 65 it was one thing, but what happens when somebody refuses to retire well into their 80s or 90s and is clearly in decline?
I think it’s been an interesting debate as to whether an 18-year term limit could be accomplished via statute or would, by definition, require a constitutional amendment. I’ve seen convincing to my non-legal-expert eyes commentary on both sides.
@klezman I totally agree with longer terms for the House, although that would undo some of the “fluidity” that the founders were trying to establish (and I think 2 year terms create better stability than the kind of instant “no confidence” decisions in some countries). But with just 2 year terms every House member is spending a good part of every other year running for re-election. For the Supreme court, I would like to see term limits and maximum age.
I could even see less than 18 year terms for SCOTUS. With the current lifetime terms, it becomes tempting for the President to nominate the youngest candidate that can get approved, as it will lengthen the possible influence that their candidates can have on the court. If the term is (for example) 12 years, a President might be willing to select someone that is older (60?) who brings a longer, more proven, “track record” of jurisprudence to the court.
@Mark_L I used the 18 year term as an example because it seems to be the consensus given the current political cycle that it would be the most fair all around. A 12 year term and even a minimum age seem like potentially good ways to do it. I agree with the perverse incentives in place now.
I think the founders thought a 2 year term was good given the society at the time and they were probably right. In a world that moves 10x faster and where it takes 3 microseconds for news to travel the globe, things have changed. In a world where it takes millions of dollars to even run for a House seat, things have changed.
I know others here would disagree, but I thought one of the brilliant aspects of the constitution is that it can be amended. The founders knew they weren’t perfect and wanted the system to evolve to meet our times. We’ve let them down, imo, by not having a substantive amendment since 1965 (or 1971, if you prefer).
I think it could be a political winner for a candidate in the next election to bring a proposed package of constitutional amendments to the table.
@klezman@Mark_L There are some practical, as opposed to political, nuts & bolts problems with amending the Constitution. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), there are 2 ways. (1) Congress passes a bill to amend and then 3/4 of states (38) ratify it. This is how the Equal Rights Amendment died. (It may technically be alive waiting for more states to ratify, or not.) Or, (2) A Constitutional Convention called an Article 5 Convention is called for by 2/3 of the states (34). Currently 28 mostly red states have called for such a convention.
The problem with (1) is that the only issue likely to rally bipartisan congressional consensus would be to thwart term limits for themselves. No such bill is likely to ever be proposed, yet still passed.
The problem with (2) is that once the Convention is convened EVERYTHING is on the table, up to and including repeal, because the Constitution does not set out rules for such a Convention. Amendments from the Convention must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state conventions. None of the existing 27 amendments came about by Convention.
@klezman I should have mentioned, I think that two 6-year terms is plenty for the senate (a potential 12 years, or perhaps 15 if coming in as a replacement with less than a half term) – the President is limited to two (or less than 10) years, so a Senator even would have a chance at a bit longer longer. Give the House three 4-year terms to keep things even. And if you have termed out of the House or Senate, your only further opportunities is to serve as VP and then President (if you’re good enough to last that long, you might deserve it). And while at it, there would likely need to be consideration for combined House & Senate years/terms
@davirom I would much rather see things such as this come through the “normal” amendment process rather than an Article 5 convention. (Here in Missouri, there is an (IMO) insane way that a certain number of signatures can get an amendment to the state constitution put on the ballot, and all it takes is a 50%+1 majority of the vote to pass it. There are some movements to make it a bit harder for such things to get passed.)
But one problem with this happening via the normal amendment process is that the entrenched lifetime politicians in both parties (becoming $$$$millionaires in office) will staunchly protect their empires, meaning that it might take a “revolution” by the people in the form of an Article 5 action.
I’ve always thought that these term limits might mean that some really good politicians will be forced to vacate their positions, but it’s kind of like losing the clean water that you have to use to flush out the .
@klezman@Mark_L
Some say an Article V Convention of the States could be more productive than attempting to push an amendment thru Congress, as it removes those more likely to prefer the system as it is; term limits is one of many items proposed for discussion.
[edit, I see this is further up the thread. Missed it due to a lack of a refresh]
@Mark_L I mostly agree with you, especially your closing analogy , but if a Convention follows a Trump victory I would make it more likely that presidential term limits are repealed rather than new congress and SCOTUS term limits imposed. Of course, that could happen if the R’s take both houses along with the presidency.
I also find it hard to believe that, after Citizens United, an Article 5 Convention would in any way be (as you put it) "…a “revolution” by the people…
@davirom By “revolution”, I was suggesting the will of the populace bypassing the unwillingness of those in power to “yield”. And I would be proud of the citizens if they (we) were to succeed in such a situation.
@klezman@Mark_L age is a hard one. one person is demented (literally) at age 50, while another is in perfectly good shape at 90. so term limits is a better option…
i had an employee a few years ago that was in her 70s and showing signs of early dementia and my hands were tied as there was nothing in policy about any form of medical clearance after hire. i was at the end scared she might hurt someone, and that would have devastated her.
@klezman There are probably many who look at the New York Times and exclaim “What has happened to my newspaper haunts me”, just as there are probably many Democrats who look at their party and wonder “What happened to the party of JFK?”. It is all a sad commentary on how polarized so much of our politics (and media) on both sides have become. I long to find a reliable news source that is totally objective and unbiased.
Is there some way we can be completely rid of political parties and just evaluate candidates based on their personal merits?
@Mark_L I probably should have noted the article is from Peter Wehner, former member of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations.
I have plenty of misgivings about how the NY Times covers many things. But I give credit to the op-ed department for routinely publishing a wide array of opinion. At least in the last couple years.
Oook then being new here , thought I’d rattle a few chains.
Exactly what is a liberal cesspool? I’m not acquainted with cesspools. Is that like a bog? Or more like a quagmire? Or perhaps like Loch Ness?
@FritzCat@marjoryk We live in a rural area (with no public sewers) where most homes are equipped with a septic system. However, some (there are requirements for lot size) are equipped with “lagoons”, which are open pools for sewage. Cesspools are somewhat between a septic systems and lagoons, as cesspools are underground storage but have no drainage as does a septic system.
@FritzCat@klezman@marjoryk@Mark_L
perhaps it is growing up in a more rural area enhanced the exposure to these, as to the strict definition, not colloquial usage.
@FritzCat@klezman@Mark_L@rjquillin I grew up in a quiet suburb and attended Catholic schools, but when we visited mÿ moms family in Kentucky they had thsimilar. It’s the derogatory use or slang that I’m not used to hearing openly
@FritzCat@marjoryk@Mark_L@rjquillin I went to summer camps in rural areas but they had septic systems! Wouldn’t want an open bottomed cesspool letting gunk run into the lake!
@marjoryk@rjquillin it’s been quiet because it seems that people prefer to retreat into their media echo chambers and don’t like to hear diverse opinions. Microcosm of the problems in the country today, IMO.
@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin
I have been spending my spare time helping candidates. Attending fundraisers, walking in parades, knocking on doors, making phone calls, passing out literature, etc.
@rjquillin
No, I have never run but I used to be part of the local party’s Executive Committee. They decide which candidates to endorse. I resigned because the members are all expected to vote for whomever is favored by the party boss. I didn’t want to be anyone’s puppet or bobblehead.
Ok, so Sinwar is dead. Y’all think we can get toward peace in Israel now? Will Hamas finally let the hostages go and stop subjecting their people to war?
@canonizer@klezman H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote in the Sept. 19, 1926 edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune: “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
@canonizer@davirom@klezman Mencken, of course, had nothing but utter contempt for politicians of all flavors and you should also keep in mind his (and George Jean Nathan’s) definition of Democracy in the Jazz Webster section of A Book of Burlesques
Democracy. The theory that two thieves will steal less than one, and
three less than two, and four less than three, and so on ad infinitum;
the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to
get it good and hard.
@canonizer@klezman@rpm Or, go back a few more years to Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:
REPUBLIC, n. A nation in which, the thing governing and the thing governed being the same, there is only a permitted authority to enforce an optional obedience. In a republic, the foundation of public order is the ever lessening habit of submission inherited from ancestors who, being truly governed, submitted because they had to. There are as many kinds of republics as there are graduations between the despotism whence they came and the anarchy whither they lead.
I am particularly disappointed that he campaigned on fearmongering about minorities - especially the most vulnerable of them. My (few) trans friends are beyond livid.
It’s funny that you can mirror the national polarization/degradation in discourse in our own annual political threads. What used to be thoughtful and perhaps even profitable exchanges eventually dried up.
I’ll take small solace where available, including too much wine last night and the remainder of a 1933 Armagnac
@canonizer@davirom@klezman It is bleak…from either side…had your candidate prevailed, I would have despaired utterly for the republic. There was no one really to enthusiastically support, only a judgement as to which of the candidates was the least worst.
Discourse has devolved here as it has in many places - we don’t even have common ground on which discussion can take place because our perceptions of the world - reality - are so very different….
Except about wine, of course…the eternal…in vino veritas!
@canonizer@davirom@rpm I am sad that the debates we used to have somehow became impossible. I have learned much in these pages about both wine and history.
I, for one, continue to want to understand how others see the world. I don’t understand how demonstrably false assertions take hold and get held as “fact” by certain factions. It’s truly disturbing.
@canonizer@davirom@klezman Indeed. Our perceptions are so different that we don’t have common ground to discuss which issues matter, much less how they could be resolved.
Well here is a thing that’s confused me of late. Republicans successfully pinned a leftist label on the Democratic party, despite how the Democrats moved substantially away from left leaning ideology like universal healthcare, minimum wage increases and identity politics, all while moving rightward on hawkish foreign policy & border security, picking up endorsements along the way from, ahem, more traditional republicans like the Cheneys and Trump’s first term staff. Plus a vague and, ultimately, overly optimistic vision of codifying Roe.
Trump presents isolationist policy. Deporting millions of people and increasing tariffs would likely cause staggering inflation (which the US handled better than any other country in the entire world). No one has been a bigger beneficiary of sucking down government largesse than Musk* but somehow he’s going to be the blue ribbon task force on efficiency.
None of this takes into account my personal feeling toward Trump himself, which could not be lower.
Tldr, Republicans accuse the Democrats of being communists monsters while Democrats basically think the party looks like a bunch of 1990s Republicans.
*I’m not sure it has been studied but I think this might be literally true.
@rpm it’s nice to see you back here. We had some good discussions about abortion back in the day. Oh, how things have changed on that front! The people of my state just voted for an amendment to make abortion legal (until viability, etc etc), but it was VERY close.
The democrats have become absolutely ridiculous (probably you think they always were!), but it is depressing. This is why we have Trump. Again.
I remember. Hope all is well with you.
I was thrilled to see Roe overturned because I had always thought it was bad law - the issue belongs at the states, where the various state legislatures and citizens (through initiative or referenda where permitted) determine the matter in response to the views of the citizens of the various states, which differ. Hence different solutions in different states. Democracy is the theory etc.
That said, the absolute positions on the issue are nuts, IMHO. Roe was terrible law, but as originally decided, a reasonable political outcome, which made no one happy ( a mark of a good compromise): a period without significant restriction, a period with some restrictions, and a late period with prohibition, or close to it.
My view on the issue hasn’t changed since before Roe was decided in the early '70s.
-everything in Project 2025 is on the table. The only thing that will keep abortion legal in some states is if the incoming Senate majority leader refuses to kill the filibuster because he seems it politically unwise.
-I’m not sure about the future of the fda in the event that opinions of people like Kennedy or Kacsmaryk are given priority in determining the safety or efficacy of pharmaceuticals.
The abortion issue isn’t my pie, but I understand it is for many, and I’m in total agreement with rpm; it is a States issue and that’s where the overturn of Roe put it.
Can anyone cite where Trump has indicated he would institute Federal restrictions?
However the claim we have a secure border is pure fantasy; we have virtually unchecked illegal immigration that is sapping resources from legal citizens; be they natural born or legalized.
@rjquillin I think Trump’s own statements are somewhere close to immaterial because you can find an example of him saying almost anything. His recent tightrope walk of taking credit for overturning Roe and saying he didn’t want a national ban was in the face of the appearance of criticism that there is national support for Roe-like abortion policies.
But despite the attempt to remove himself from the intensely scrutinized Project 2025…those are his party’s platforms, written largely by people from his administration or support. So there is very good reason to believe he would sign such a ban into law.
As I said above, I think whether we see such codification will largely depend on whether the Republican leadership in Congress thinks it is a politically savvy maneuver.
@rjquillin Abortion isn’t my issue either. Perfectly reasonable to oppose Roe as law and believe abortion should be reasonably widely available - the decision to be made at the state law by the legislative process (or initiative/referendum where available).
Illegal immigration is a much bigger issue for me. Again, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to want zero illegal immigration (and all illegals deported) and to similarly want lots of legal immigration - with the sorts of people the country wants to admit.
A country whose borders are not secure is not a country. And, as Milton Friedman put it succinctly, one can either have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.
Those who hark back to the very open legal immigration regime before 1925 forget there was no welfare state in the US before the New Deal.
Rob, how do you square deporting 2 to 8 million people with inflation?
You once spoke highly of divided government and things are shaping up to be very one sided. It was a while back on a different wine forum in the face of an Obama administration. How are you feeling about one party managing all 3 branches?
@canonizer@rjquillin@rpm While I agree that illegal immigration is a serious issue, I keep coming back to the practical aspects. There are a lot of people here who’ve been here for ages. They have families. Their communities depend on them. Businesses depend on them. Finding and rounding up millions of people is not going to work well even in the best-run situation.
So while I am wholeheartedly in favour of clamping down on illegal immigration and securing the border (although I continue to believe a wall is not likely the best answer when we have other tech that could work better) I still think we need a solution that addresses the question of what to do with the millions already here. I am not advocating for citizenship for them - I think that should be foreclosed. But I think trying to deport everybody in that situation will be worse than finding some other political compromise.
As for abortion, I think that pre-viability (or some small number of weeks before that, e.g. 20 weeks) it should be codified in federal law that a state may not interfere with women’s bodies and their reproductive decisions, full stop. Beyond that, let the states regulate how they like. I agree it was foolish for Harris to promise codifying the Roe standard given that the president doesn’t write laws…
@canonizer@rjquillin inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon: government expands the supply of money faster than the expansion of goods and services. Basic economics. If labor becomes scarcer, centers paribus, its price increases relative to other factors of production. If the supply of money doesn’t change, there is no inflation, other factors must decrease in price or less labor must be used or less of other factors must be used.
As to divided government, it has virtues most of the time. It can be a check on excesses of one party by the other. In the current circumstance, there has been so much overreach beginning with Obama that a serious course correction is needed, for which a unified government is necessary. At some point, we’ll revert to a situation where divided government makes sense again.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin
It won’t be easy to deport all the illegals, but it must be done to preserve the integrity of the republic. If the Democrats had kept the bargain that they made with Reagan for the 1986 amnesty - serious border enforcement - we would not be here today. Hard cases make bad law.
On a portion, I simply don’t agree it is a federal issue at all under our Constitutional framework.
My personal preference is for a liberal regime before viability - as difficult as that may ne to determine - and a restrictive regime in the last few months…. I am uncomfortable drawing the lines. It really is about what the citizens of each state find more consistent with their beliefs.
I hope the policy is more pragmatic than mass deportation. They’re humans and have dignity. They also provide the backbone of our labor.
As I see it, Democrats have legislatively passed the liberal policies like aca and the ira, as well as conservative ones like free trade and tough on crime bills. I favor the liberal legislation.
Republicans have largely only passed tax reductions. My belief is that this money has not fostered growth, other than the increasing wealth gap. It has not broadened the economy or made it’s way into the hands of labor.
Both parties sought the low interest environment that left few tools for dealing with inflation and lit the housing market on fire.
I guess you can throw in some marriage equality, though I don’t really see that as policy.
Anyway, I do not have any doubt that this will be the most corrupt government the nation has ever seen. On the one hand, I’m grateful there’s a modicum of transparency. Who bought the $100000 watches, personalized nfts, sneakers and propped up djt media? Who stayed at the failing dc hotels or Trump properties abroad? Who opened a Saudi investment fund with no experience running money? We know what’s for sale because it’s absolutely everything, everywhere, all the time (as long as you have, or know someone with, the right last name).
I believe we have delivered the keys to the Union (or Castle following the immunity ruling) to traitors and the future will be very dark. No one from either side of the aisle deserves it but it will affect us all.
Anyway, as Rob said, we lack enough common understanding to talk productively here. You all have my gratitude and wishes for good health. I’m going to resist further replies for at least a little while.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin@rpm didn’t. I’ve read that this mass deportation will cost well over 80 million. It has to be done humanely and tbh I can’t see that being the case with him.
@canonizer@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin
The US spends far more than $80 million a week on benefits of all kinds for illegal aliens, so at that one time price we would be getting a bargain!
As to ‘humanely’, there is absolutely nothing to prevent those currently here illegally from leaving before any deportation measures are put into effect.
I would expect a modest grace period, where illegals could register and leave, with the possibility of coming in legally in the future.
Having given illegals an opportunity to leave voluntarily - perhaps even give them transport out of the country, it is then hardly inhumane to cut off all public support for housing, health care, phones, etc., enforce (on both employers and employees) prohibitions on hiring illegals, etc. And to bar those ultimately deported from reentry permanently.
And, of course, any illegals who come to the attention of the criminal justice system must be summarily deported and permanently barred reentry.
The taxpayers should not be subsidizing illegal aliens at all. Once most of the illegals are gone - and it may take a year or two to do it humanely - we can talk about who we want to allow in legally.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin@rpm by humanely I mean they are people don’t treat them like cattle. You know most of the people bitching about illegal don’t mind having their roof done by them because it’s cheaper.
@canonizer@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin
Assuming they go quietly when caught, I have no problem not treating them like cattle…the harder they try to avoid being deported, the less I’m interested their treatment.
I quite agree with you about the hypocrisy of people bitching about illegals and the exploiting them as cheap labor.
In fact, the hypocrisy of exploiting illegals as cheap labor, illegal votes, or just plain bodies to be counted for electoral apportionment is a major reason the Democrats caused this crisis.
I would remind everyone the Cesar Chavez and UFWOC were unalterably opposed to illegal immigration as bad for American farm workers (who were mostly, but not all, Hispanic citizens of this country).
Not sure if you’re old enough to remember, but there was an amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986, a compromise deal between Reagan and the Democrats in control of Congress pursuant to which the Dems promised real border control, labor law enforcement against hiring illegals and swift deportation of new illegals…none of which they followed through on. I was skeptical at the time. While I was not surprised at the betrayal, I will never trust the Democrats on immigration until the results are delivered in a way they can’t be undone.
On that basis, I have ZERO trust in any promises or in an compromises on illegal aliens. The only way to ensure any deal is kept is to get every single illegal alien out of the country. THEN consider and agree on who we will let in, how many, and from where. Otherwise we no control of our country.
@canonizer@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin
Even at $88 billion it’s probably less than is spent on all services for illegals, without even considering the harm to the rule of law.
@canonizer I wonder what it might take for moderate Republicans, which I once considered myself but now can’t even define, to revisit or regret their vote for Trump. Some combination of these actions? Note that I am not addressing his MAGA base who, for reasons beyond my understanding, want some of these things even if they are against their interests.
Pardon for himself
Pardon for the Jan 6 rioters and other insurrection enablers
Weaponizing the DOJ against his critics
Endorsing / signing a federal abortion ban (or severe restrictions)
Revoking the ACA without a workable replacement
Reductions in benefits for Social Security, or crippling the trust fund
Reductions in benefits for Medicare, which might include not negotiating lower drug prices
Gutting the EPA, FDA, FCC, FEMA, or Depts of Labor and Education (not a comprehensive list)
Delaying or failing to declare disasters in blue states
Tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy
@davirom
I think these would all be features, not bugs, for his constituency. Many republicans don’t believe these agencies should exist or that the government should run/mandate/control various insurance programs/trusts.
As for the rest of it, there isn’t any daylight between Republicans and MAGA, which is now the entirety of the party. It is much much stronger than it was in 2016 or 2020.
Revoking the ACA without a workable replacement
Reductions in benefits for Social Security, or crippling the trust fund
Reductions in benefits for Medicare, which might include not negotiating lower drug prices
Gutting the EPA, FDA, FCC, FEMA, or Depts of Labor and Education (not a comprehensive list)
Aileen Cannon for AG/SCOTUS when Thomas or Alito retires.
I think @canonizer is correct that (at least many of) the listed items would be considered features rather than bugs.
I would write the list rather differently and would exclude certain items you list as unlikely, either as a matter of practicality or as a matter of approach to governing. I think the differences in the way I would describe these things indicates how very different our perspectives are and how differently we view the world.
Pardon for the Jan 6 rioters (no one on the right considers Jan 6 to have been an “insurrection”)
Depoliticizing the DOJ - no more political persecution or protection of the politically favored
Eliminating all public benefits for non-citizens other than legal immigrants.
Substantial reduction of federal regulation (which might well include gutting much of the administrative state)
End sunset of 2017 Tax reforms - additional tax reform. Growth-oriented tax policy.
For these my enthusiasm is as boundless as your depression.
The items on your list I didn’t modify I don’t consider serious possibilities for this administration. In the long run, something needs to be done about both Social Security and Medicare, but neither the left nor the right have been able to address the entitlement programs seriously, and likely won’t until the edge of the cliff is much close.
I would expect to see any judicial appointments be very conservative, but they will likely be academically qualified (not necessarily ABA endorsed because the ABA is very left wing today) - I have no opinion about Cannon, whom I do not know. Whether you like her opinions or not, the ones I’ve seen have been seriously reasoned and need to be engaged as legal work, not a matter of one’s political preferences.
@canonizer@davirom@rpm I did read one of Canon’s decisions and I did not find it persuasive. But I’m not a lawyer even though I read lots of legal decisions as part of my work. So take it for whatever little it’s worth.
Regarding politicizing the DOJ - just ask Hunter Biden how much the DOJ was politicized in his favour. Can you imagine Trump allowing one of his sons to be prosecuted even if he was caught red-handed committing a federal crime?
Real question: What public benefits, precisely, can people illegally present in the US qualify for aside from K-12 public school?
As for federal regulation, I’m sure there’s plenty to cut. But I fear Trump won’t cut that stuff and will instead do everything he can to turbocharge climate change and ensure the world becomes uninhabitable for our kids and grandkids.
Seriously? You do realize that Hunter wasn’t prosecuted for 4 YEARS? And even then, the DOJ was extremely light on his sentence. IIRC, it was the judge that threw it out. And that was after government agencies kept insisting that the laptop was “Russian disinformation !”
To just about everyone on the Right, the DOJ has been politized for years, if not decades. Especially since Clinton met with the AG in a plane on the tarmac. Even more so when those 4 aides were given immunity, and then had nothing to say. Immunity is given for testimony against the main target. Yet they gave NO testimony that resulted in any charges!
If you are an undocumented worker in California, you can apply for DI and PFL benefits, even if you do not have a Social Security number (SSN). It doesn’t matter what your citizenship or immigration status is; DI and PFL benefits will not affect your path to citizenship. Your information will be kept confidential.
And granted, this is from Fox News, but it does highlight the various costs incurred by caring for illegal immigrants when they arrive, as well as funding to other agencies assisting (legal, medical, etc.) them. And that doesn’t include any getting fake id’s.
In Trump’s 1st term, he cut 8 regulations for every 1 new one. And while he did cut jobs at most departments, the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs growth more than offset the losses elsewhere.
Also, you do realize that China’s pollution is more than double the US and exceeds all developed nations? And has undermined any gains from California’s efforts.
@canonizer@davirom@MarkDaSpark
The one part I will respond to is your last point. Who cares if China is polluting more than we are when it comes to reducing our own impact? You are basically embodying the tragedy of the commons problem and the collective action problem. We have to stop putting CO2, CH4, etc into the atmosphere if we want to have a plant our grandchildren and their grandchildren can live on. Doing the most we can while pressuring every other country on earth is about all we can do.
Except the most effective is Nuclear Power, which the Democrats killed. Wind power kills birds and long term is wasteful (blades cannot be recycled), and solar only works when the sun is out.
The tragedy is the false promise of electric cars. The electricity required means more coal plants, PLUS the huge amounts of elements for the batteries, which ALSO, like the wind blades, cannot be reused.
What YOU are missing was the MAIN POINT…there’s only so much we can do, and until China (and India as well) cut back on THEIR POLLUTION, it’s pretty much like pi$$ing into the wind.
ALL that California has gained in eliminating carbon emissions was NEGATED BY CHINA’S EMISSIONS.
You say there’s only so much we can do, but I think the bottom line is doing something, however insignificant it may seem, is better than doing nothing. Also, simply acknowledging the issue is real holds a lot of weight.
Yes… China and India (the entire world, honestly speaking) need to come to terms and make an effort to reduce the harmful impact we have on the planet.
However, progress (even motivation for that matter) is seriously hindered when people with power and influence spread misinformation.
Here’s a snipet from a BBC article, FWIW…
If you judge Donald Trump based on his words alone, his views on climate change appear contradictory - and confusing.
.
He has called climate change “mythical”, “nonexistent”, or “an expensive hoax” - but also subsequently described it as a “serious subject” that is “very important to me”.
.
Still - if you sift through his multitude of tweets and statements, a number of themes emerge.
.
In 2009, Mr. Trump actually signed a full-page advert in the New York Times, along with dozens of other business leaders, expressing support for legislation combating climate change.
.
“If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet,” the statement said.
.
But in the years that followed, he took an opposite approach on Twitter, with more than 120 posts questioning or making light of climate change.
.
In 2012, he famously said climate change was “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive” - something he later claimed was a joke.
.
He regularly repeated claims that scientists had rebranded global warming as climate change because “the name global warming wasn’t working” (in fact, both terms are used, but experts at Nasa have argued that climate change is the more scientifically accurate term).
.
And he also has dozens of tweets suggesting that cold weather disproves climate change - despite the World Meteorological Organization saying that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years.
Sparky, I did, in fact, understand your “main point” but I simply disagree that the bits we can contribute are worthless in the face of other countries continuing to emit lots of CO2.
It’s also the main issue behind the collective action problem. It’s too easy to say “I won’t do it until the rest of the people do it”, but then unless everybody agrees at exactly the same time then nothing ever happens. And then you have a catastrophe on your hands.
As for nuclear, I am in favour.
Electric vehicles are not a false promise, though. And battery material recycling is an emerging industry. These things take time. Declaring it a “false promise” when the technology is in its infancy is, frankly, ignorant. Show me that thermodynamic limitations prove it’s unworkable, though, and I’ll happily change my mind.
@klezman@marjoryk
perhaps a poorly worded no context comment attempting to reference “a night of rioting targeted Israeli football fans in the centre of Amsterdam”
@marjoryk@rjquillin It’s more than Amsterdam, although that’s a rather visible thing. I left it deliberately very vague to see how people reacted.
I’ve seen over the last several years the widening of antisemitism from the far right and progressive left (antisemites for rather different reasons) to occupy more and more space. It includes things like the Charlottesville nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” and has metastasized into random people being attacked because they are Jewish.
My neighbourhood of LA had a Jewish section of shops shot up on election night. You’ve got Trump supporters posting all sorts of hateful material on Twitter, Truth Social, Telegram, and beyond. You’ve got the incident in Brooklyn (I think - I heard this from a friend) where a man was walking to synagogue with his kids and a man in a ski mask tried to grab one of the kids and run away with him.
What sort of world are we living in where the president-elect (and former president) of the United States can’t clearly and convincingly say “NO MORE HATE”? No, instead he foments it and nurtures it to achieve his own aims, even if he doesn’t specifically foment antisemitism. What he, and many, don’t seem to understand is that all hate seems to lead to antisemitism.
This is not an anti-Trump screed, at least not solely - I could easily say more about the hatred propagated by the far left progressives. I am sick and tired of antisemitism being seen as okay in this country and around the world. As my wife put on FB the other day, we are less safe now simply because we’re Jewish.
I think attributing ANY of the current increase in anti-semitism to President Trump is a canard…wildly off base and a libel…his daughter is a convert to Judaism and his grandchildren are Jewish. The man has always been pro-Israeli and has moved without the slightest hint of being thought anti-semitic in New York circles for more than 50 years.
In my experience in the US dating back to the '67 War (when my Lebanese (Christian) descent Brother Rat (VMI classmate) reached out personally to each of my Jewish Brother Rats to assure them he stood with Israel in that war), I have have seen very little anti-semitism in the United States from the right (outside of some of the Ku Klux Krazies in the South) and a whole lot more black antisemitism and in the past 20 years or so, a whole lot more antisemitism on the left generally.
I think you will find - and it has been true since forever - there is far more anti-semitism in the State Department and its friends than there has been in the military. And those on the right have been far, far more supportive of Israel than than has the left.
It deeply upsets me that one of the manifestations of the identitarianism (Carville’s euphemism for ‘woke’) of the past 40+ years (yes, it’s been that long building) has been the left’s at first tolerance of, and now participation in, serious anti-semitism.
I think if you read and listen carefully, you will find those of us on the right far, far less tolerant of anti-semitism generally, and of support for Iran and the Palestinians more specifically, than anyone one the left.
@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin Someone whispered my last sentence might be unclear. Let me rewrite it to be clearer:
I think if you read and listen carefully, you will find those on the right far, far less tolerant of anti-semitism generally, and far less likely to support Iran, or the Palestinians, than anyone one the left.
@marjoryk@rjquillin@rpm I tried to not have anybody read my thoughts as you apparently read them. I do not believe Trump, himself, is antisemitic. I am saying that he has generally, at a minimum, allowed hateful people to spew their hate on his behalf. Personally, I think the way he talks about “other” people is hateful, but ymmv. I believe that gives the actual antisemites (and anti-whatever-ites) a sort of social permission to be out in the open. I am not sure whether I believe this has increased antisemitism in society or it’s simply brought out the existing virus into the open. But it’s way more out in the open from both the right and the left best I can tell.
As for the left’s vs. right’s support of Israel I will make a very very big distinction between the far left, “regular” left, “regular” right, and far right. First, as one who is generally conversant and knowledgeable about Israeli and Jewish history, I do not believe that “supporting Israel” necessarily means doing whatever the Israeli PM says. And when that PM is the 2024 version of Netanyahu, I think it likely that Israel’s best interest is currently not aligned with Netanyahu’s - and Netanyahu has long shown that he is primarily out for his own interest.
The antisemitism on the far left has been apparent to me for a long time as well, so I agree with you there. I think the far right holds a lot more antisemitism than you are giving them credit for. The “Jews will not replace us” crowd were far right, not far left, for example. I find the State Department vs military comparison a bit inapt here, especially since one can have well founded but divergent views of the various dealings with Iran et al for the last 15 years.
To address your last point, I think it’s likely true that people on the “normal” right are generally less tolerant of antisemitism than those on the “normal” left for the last decade or so.
I think what RPM is referencing is that the US State Department has long been pushing back against supporting Israel (since 1947 at least) because of Arab oil (and OPEC way back). Even when Kissenger was Secretary of State, they still were not fully supporting Israel.
And Trump was finally the one to move our Embassy to Jerusalem! Over the entrenched US diplomats foot-dragging.
The military has probably been more supportive because US equipment gets “field-tested” in combat conditions by highly trained Israelis. Easier to sell Patriot Missile batteries to Congress when shown how effective they are stopping the huge amount of missiles fired into Israel. Plus, they can push for “newer” equipment when they off-load “surplus” to Israel.
As to “far left” vs “far right”? Sadly, while both are crazy anti-semites, there are far more on the “far left”, as evidenced by the far left support and protests on college campuses for Hamas. Yes, there are “far right” anti-semites, but they aren’t in the numbers (in the US) that you think.
The “far left” (and some in the “regular” left) keep trying to associate Zionism with racism, which it isn’t.
It still boggles my mind that Israel has the most freedom for LGBTQ+ in that region (because basically they would be murdered in every other country) yet the far left (and some “regular”) keep supporting the Muslim terror groups and repeating blood labels against Jewish people.
And some of these far left groups are teaching our kids! See UTLA (saw it first from a @time2testit (?) Post on FB) and their antisemitism.
@klezman@marjoryk@MarkDaSpark@rjquillin@rpm@time2testit I think that those protesting/activist/student/far left, who MDS characterizes as pro-Hamas or anti-Semite are actually just pro-humanity, who are appalled at Israel’s willingness to kill civilians and not allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Of course that image might be MSM bias too.
@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin
Well, I think our differing perceptions are coloring how we read what each other is saying and we have reached the limits of fruitful discussion. Nonetheless, you (and others) may be assured this man of the right is neither an antisemite nor an uncritical supporter of any particular Israeli administration, though strongly supporting Israel’s right of self-defense, which includes the right to absolutely eliminate those who insist that they will remain dedicated, come hell or high water, to the elimination of Israel.
Israel has gone over and above TRYING TO AVOID injuring or killing civilians! They’ve notified Palestinians in buildings that they are attacking. Hamas (and the UNRWA spelling?) that has been storing weapons (and hostages!) inside or under civilian buildings.
And you (and far too many “journalists” seem to miss that EGYPT does the same! AS WELL AS HAVING A FENCE TO KEEP PALESTINIANS OUT OF EGYPT!
You seem to ignore that October 9th occurred, where innocent civilians were attacked, assaulted, murdered or taken captive.
Some of the worst human rights violators are on the UN boards. The UNRWA workers actively support Terrorism!
Part 2 to follow to address the other misinformation
Including that many were protesting that didn’t even know why!
From the NATO Strategic Communication Centre of Excellence report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas. The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties.
Note: it has been reported that Hamas has prevented civilians from leaving areas where Israel has warned those living there.
Hamas initially claimed it was an Israeli airstrike, until reports showed it was a Hamas missile.
And as to your “pro-humanity” claim?
Two students from Columbia University joined an anti-Israel rally at NYU and admitted they didn’t know what the rally was about. One student said, “I honestly don’t know all of what NYU is doing”. The other student said, “I wish I was more educated”.
If they were truly “Pro-Humanity”, they would be DEMANDING the return of ALL HOSTAGES STILL IN HAMAS control! You know, the ones kept from their families for OVER A YEAR for doing nothing but being CIVILIANS!
97 hostages still held by Hamas including CHILDREN!
Yes, the history is complicated, but the fact remains that Israel has time and time again gone to the table for PEACE. If Hamas stopped attacking, there would be PEACE. If Israel stopped attacking, there would indeed be a genocide (From the River to the Sea") of Israelis.
Point, the “Pro-Humanity” protestors seem to forget that a “genocide” means population goes down, not up every year! So if they were truly “Pro-Humanity”, they WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING A TERRORIST GROUP!
@marjoryk@rjquillin@rpm Rob, I agree Trump is not - himself - antisemitic. I remain concerned about the company he keeps and the effects on others, but c’est la vie. I hope he proves me wrong that he’ll accept those elements in his coalition by clearly denouncing, in both word and deed, antisemitism in all its forms, whether neo-nazi or progressive lunacy.
As for the policy and such, if Trump does not play yes-man to Bibi and if he pushes Israel and the Palestinians toward peace (bonus if it comes with eliminating Hamas forever) then I will be happy with his effect on Israel. I 1000% agree that Israel has the right to defend itself against all enemies and anybody with two eyes and three functioning brain cells ought to be able to understand the depths of the depravity Hamas subjects the Palestinians to on a daily basis.
On a broader scale, my wish for Trump the last time around and doubly so for this time is that he proves my expectations and worries unfounded.
@FritzCat@marjoryk@MarkDaSpark@rjquillin@rpm@time2testit
Well I’ll be damned…I can’t a single thing to argue in this one Sparky! Well done!
I might add the obvious lack of basic civil rights in Gaza (or most Islamic-governed areas) for LGBTQ people. And by “lack of civil rights” in many cases I mean “they’ll be put to death”.
@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin Fair enough…who knows how it will all sort out…still I expect Trump’s instincts to do the right thing will keep him on a reasonable path…from my perspective at least…not beholden to any particular foreign leader…but with the best interests of our republic as his lodestar. It’s going to be a difficult 4 years and would be regardless of who was in office. At least our adversaries take Trump seriously in a way no one could take the alternative seriously.
@klezman@marjoryk@rjquillin@rpm This discussion reminded me of a video my daughter sent me (probably 4 years ago) where a major in the Israel Defense Force said that Trump was “the best thing that ever happened to Israel in the White House” and “there has never been a friendlier president to Israel in the oval office.”
@marjoryk@Mark_L@rjquillin@rpm Coming at this from a strong Zionist and Jewish position, I certainly hope Trump is good for Israel. I fear for Israel’s legitimacy in the community of nations, doubly so if it heads (further) down the road of religious ethnostate. My biggest worry about Trump vis a vis Israel is that he enables that trajectory. Again, it’s not a prediction, but it is a worry.
I will say that my ideologically diverse local community has widely varying views on this particular item. The diversity extends to people who are Israeli and who have relatives in Israel. All that is a long winded way of saying, again, that I don’t know, but I have both hopes and worries.
@rpm (Taking a break from my reading - it’s currently July 3, 1863, and I have a feeling significant things are afoot…)
And now that serious discussion has ended in this sub-thread, I have to say I had a “Wodehouse moment”:
“Oh, Jeeves,” I said; “about that check suit.”
“Yes, sir?”
“Is it really a frost?”
“A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.”
“But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.”
“Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.”
“He’s supposed to be one of the best men in London.”
“I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.”
When I read “Trump’s instincts to do the right thing”, I had a feeling you were not talking about his moral character.
Can you “recollect some instance of goodness, some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence, that might rescue him from the attacks of [the blue press]; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors”? (Yes, I’m copying Austen, now - at least I’m cribbing from the best.)
(And now I won’t be able to check in for a few days - or 160-odd years, depending on point of view…)
I hardly ever post in a politicks thread (I think the last time was still on woot), but I want to say how much I appreciate seeing people being able to disagree and still be civil.
That said, I have a crazy, new (for me) political theory!
@canonizer Don’t forget the proposed “warrior board” as reported by the WSJ, with the authority to oust generals and admirals who hesitate to comply with presidential orders.
@canonizer I loved the statement about depoliticizing the DOJ followed by nominating someone who has been a politician almost his entire adult life. Yep that will do it.
I’m tired of folks saying the DOJ was politically motivated by attacking Trump, as if Trump was some innocent bystander. Maybe he could have acknowledged he lost a fair election instead of lying and actively trying to find a way to stay in power, or returned classified documents after they were requested several times instead of hiding them in his personal home. Yeah, he didn’t bring any of his legal issues on himself.
@canonizer I’m super excited about it.
For far too long the federal government has failed to be constrained by its citizens. The time of upheaval is upon us, and it will be a great reckoning
Leaving aside the Senate’s decision [potentially, yet to be seen] to abdicate its role in advising and consenting to the cabinet picks, why is there no uproar about Trump’s failure to perform the transition retirements required by the GSA.
The General Services Administration was created in 1949. AFAIK it is never been an issue with any administration other than Trump’s. Why tf is anyone ok with this?
Losing my mind. Mind gone. Asking for background checks and ethics pledges is pro forma.
@canonizer Pro forma unless you know (or suspect) your nominees won’t pass. Seems like the laws need to be strengthened in this regard. He won, he’s entitled to make his picks, but skirting around these basics leaves a stench. Kind of like how he prevented the FBI from fully investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh.
@canonizer One can always hope that 4 GOP senators can hold back the worst of the bunch. Might be hoping in vain, but still…
And Dr. Oz for head of Medicare/Medicaid?? Why does he even still have a medical license?!
@klezman@nostromo_ again, you think a guy who hawks chlorophyll pills should run CMS and a former democratic congressman who has all the markings as a russian asset should handle intelligence.
Having an entire personality devoted to trolling the libtards is fun. A joy at every party! The light of every wine tasting!
I would confirm most of these people if i were a Democrat in the Senate, other than the military and intelligence nominations. Let people suffer Trump’s gratitude.
@davirom@klezman I’m being unfair. I want someone to convince me that this is ok but I don’t think I would accept such an argument. So it’s back to the original point of seeing things in starkly different terms.
I apologetic to said conservatives for not keeping my promise to stay away. It just feels like Donald Trump and his supporters despise this country. There aren’t many policy positions to argue about in this moment.
@klezman@nostromo_ To be fair, my comment was a little in jest, and could be taken as not promoting a discussion of differences. Of his nominations, aside from the civil settlement issue, I am a little intrigued by what the former military, Fox News guy, has to say he about changes he would make. I need to read up, as I’m not one to watch Trump news channel.
Regarding the sore losers comment, and not knowing nostromo’s opinion on the 2020 election outcome, any Trump supporter who was okay with his handling of the last election shouldn’t be saying much about the questioning of nominations.
@dirtdoctor@klezman@nostromo_ No, the 2020 election was stolen because Trump lost and this one was fair because he won. You see how that’s completely logical and not culty, dirt.
@canonizer@klezman The depoliticization of the DOJ continues, out with Gaetz and in with Bondi, someone who was on Trump’s defense team and is an America First Policy Institute member. There’s also the fact that while Florida AG, she said she was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University until suddenly deciding against doing so after her re-election group received a donation from the Trump Foundation. She’s better than Gaetz, but far from a non-political nominee.
Ugh…these types of things are the result of the last election deniers, and why it was so bad that Trump wouldn’t acknowledge losing and lied about all the fraud. It will become the norm that individuals believe there was some widespread fraud. People need to accept the results and deal with the consequences. The election showed more Americans blamed Biden/Harris for the inflation, while also going too far on DEI issues. Our results are consistent with elections in numerous countries, where existing administrations lost primarily due to economic issues: https://apcoworldwide.com/blog/2024-elections-global-results-and-implications-for-the-future/
@dirtdoctor let’s be clear about the dei issues, though. It was pure scaremongering by the right with a caricature of crap that doesn’t happen. So to the extent that made any difference it was based on lies and punching down to the most vulnerable in society.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden and his Dad are out looking for hookers and blow to celebrate their “spanking” of the justice system. Did they check that nook in the White House?
@chipgreen I agree that the pardon looks bad. He shouldn’t have categorically stated anything. It is his prerogative to make pardons as he sees fit and all presidents going back to Clinton have pardons deemed politically motivated for paying back favors or personal reasons. I’m sure that presidents prior to Clinton did so as well, though I was too young to be aware of such and am not invested in doing research right now.
At the same time, years of Hunter Biden hearings have been unproductive. I think it would be difficult to suggest that the tax and gun charges are anything but politically motivated. Any similar defendant would have pleaded out years earlier without this scrutiny or having their dick exposed on the floor of Congress. If it were up to some people, they would open further equally wasteful investigations into Benghazi.
@canonizer@chipgreen So then are/were you equally or more outraged at the politically motivated and personal pardons Trump handed out to people - including his extended family - when he was in office? Often for worse offenses that were handled more closely according to standard DOJ procedures?
@chipgreen@klezman The knock on Biden is optical - he said he wouldn’t pardon his son. It looks bad but shouldn’t be.
The rest of the ‘let’s prosecute fauci, swalwell, etc.’ rhetoric is really disturbing. Kash Patel as FBI director and installing personal lawyers in the DOJ are equally appalling.
Wow, while I don’t support the pardoning of Hunter, that’s one heck of a statement from a couple of standpoints. One, if you’ve ever known someone who has a drug addiction, they can do some crazy things to satisfy those cravings. I don’t know why there’s a reference to Joe participating in those past activities, and good for Hunter for supposedly (I don’t know the guy) for kicking the habit. Second, I sure didn’t hear much outrage from conservatives when Trump pardoned Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and George Papadopoulos, not to mention the promise to pardon convictions of individuals involved with January 6th.
In addition to those items, based on Trump’s statements during his campaign about going after individuals, I can see why Biden would consider giving such a broad pardon to protect his son from future attacks from a Trump DOJ…but I suppose he shouldn’t need to worry because of Trump’s statement about depoliticizing the DOJ (where’s the sarcasm font?)
@dirtdoctor Yes, I had initially thought it looked terrible but after reading a bit about Kash Patel and his revenge list I can definitely understand why Biden did this. It is also true that just about every prosecutor has said that these charges would have been pled out with a fine years ago had he not been named Biden. The whole thing has screamed “politically motivated” since the beginning. Not to mention the years of investigation by Congress having turned up nothing.
@dirtdoctor On further thought - I think Biden would have been smarter to carve out the sentences for the crimes Hunter was recently convicted of. Full pardon for everything else to prevent political attacks on his kid but let “justice”, such as it is in this case, prevail.
The way I read it, I think he meant it would have been smart to remove the gun & tax charges from the pardon, to minimize blowback/criticism of President Biden. So Hunter Biden would face the consequences of his actions, but the pardon would protect him from any absolute BS in the future during Trump’s second term in office.
@canonizer@kawichris650 Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Thanks @kawichris650. It, imo, fixes some of the optics problems but solves the real problem of the “revenge” bus coming for Hunter. (Although I’m not even sure what said revenge is for…maybe just the fact that his dad won an election?)
FWIW, it doesn’t outrage me in the least but it is definitely not a good look after steadfastly pledging over and over again NOT to pardon Hunter.
AFAIK, Joe has never been accused of cocaine abuse and I hope for Hunter’s sake that he truly is clean. I was just making light of some low hanging fruit.
Matt Gaetz for AG?
Kennedy for HHS?
Tulsi Gabbard for DNI?
Pete Hegseth for Defense?
Elon and Vivek for efficiency?(!?)
This is dark and unserious.
And Kash Patel as the director of the FBI.
Many supporters of Trump believe he possess instincts to do what’s best for our country. I sincerely wish that was true, but how can one honestly think that considering his cabinet picks?
Rather than selecting people who are actually qualified and dedicated to the responsibilities of each position, he’s treating this as if it’s a reality TV show.
He did the same thing during his first term, which resulted in record setting turnover.
Donald Trump had more turnover in his administration than any president since the Brookings Institution started measuring in 1980, with 92% of his A-team followed by another 45% of his second hires for his A-team. The turnover rate in his first year was double the next highest president since Reagan.
There’s a lot of detailed information here and it’s best viewed on a computer screen rather than a mobile device. Hence why I included the summary above.
If people think it’s funny to hear the president elect talk about annexing another country, I’ve got a Ukrainian quagmire of a war to sell you.
Trump couldn’t measure out a glass of wine, let alone the words that come out of his mouth. Bless the hearts of anyone who believes this is a good thing.
I feel like nothing has changed since 2016. Everyone absurd, racist, destruction statement he makes is either rewarded, defended, or filtered.
This isn’t a fucking episode of the Simpsons or South Park. The president shouldn’t fucking say this shit.
Haha we’ve successfully trolled the libtard again. It’s so funny! He has tds lolololol
@canonizer I think that’s both the genius and danger of how Trump “communicates”. He says things that are so crazy that people want to think he doesn’t mean what he says. He also speaks with such vagueness that people can easily import their own meaning onto what he said. All the while he maintains something kind of like plausible deniability.
@canonizer@rjquillin The border has been much quieter for something like half a year since Biden put executive action in place after Trump scuttled the bipartisan deal.
I am more curious what immigration policy could look like if all the Republicans put together a bill in the next few months.
@canonizer@rjquillin I didn’t read it and don’t recall the details, but when James Lankford is the main author I hardly think it was as you describe. No amnesty aside from those who helped the US troops in Afghanistan. Additional work authorisation for spouses/children of those here legally. Not seeing what you’re seeing having scanned the original source.
The official summary from congress.gov says:
The bill expands Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to address the processing of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) and provides supplemental appropriations for related purposes.
Among other provisions, the bill provides DHS emergency authority to summarily remove or prohibit the entry of certain non-U.S. nationals within 100 miles of the southwest land border. DHS may exercise this authority if DHS encounters an average of 4,000 non-U.S. nationals within a seven-day period. If the number of encounters reach certain higher thresholds, DHS must exercise the emergency authority. This emergency border authority expires after three years and may be modified by the President under specified circumstances.
Next, the bill establishes an expedited process that authorizes asylum officers to adjudicate certain asylum claims. Among other provisions, these provisional noncustodial removal proceedings impose certain target timelines for determining asylum claims and limit review of denied claims. The bill also establishes a stricter threshold for individuals to remain in the United States pending adjudication of an asylum petition.
The bill extends and establishes immigration pathways for Afghan citizens or nationals, including by (1) making certain individuals admitted or paroled to the United States eligible for conditional permanent resident status, and (2) expanding eligibility for special immigrant visas for certain individuals who were injured while supporting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
The bill also increases base pay for asylum officers and grants DHS temporary direct hire authority to hire personnel to implement the bill.
@canonizer@rjquillin goalpost moving. That is not what you stated your objection was.
Note that it’s “encounters”. That doesn’t mean 4000 people get across the border in a week. That means 4000 people were caught. I don’t claim to know what the optimal number is for that clause. But it has nothing to do with your stated objections of amnesty and business as usual. Granting the president specific authority to shut down the border completely is new.
@klezman@rjquillin do you mean the fearmongering about migrant caravans from 2018 when many migrants entered the US during Trump’s administration and nothing was done and then migration declined during the pandemic before rising again and Republicans doing nothing legislatively to address the issue?
No it was biden’s fault for not wanting to act by executive order on what requires actual legislation.
@canonizer If I truly believed it would be abolished for good I’d support that. But it feels equally likely these days that the GOP would try to reinstitute it the minute there’s a Democratic president in charge.
@canonizer@klezman
If there’s one thing Trump’s first term showed us - it’s that he is not a fiscal conservative. I am concerned about our country’s multi-trillion $ debt.
Curious as to why you would favor eliminating the debt ceiling?
@canonizer@chipgreen because it doesn’t do anything useful. It becomes a cudgel for one party (lately the Republicans) to threaten to shut down the government while not actually working to solve the underlying problem. If you keep voting to raise the ceiling then it’s not really meaningful.
Then there’s also the part about paying our debts and meeting our commitments, both in terms of loans/debt and to the people who work for the government and who depend on its services.
Solve the debt problem, yes. But the only way that happens is with higher taxes and eliminating loopholes. When is the last time you saw that get proposed?
The reason I’m so tired is in large part reflected here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html
MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
@davirom truly scary, isn’t it?
@davirom @klezman yep yep yep!
@davirom American Taliban.
Or rewrite the Declaration of Independence…
@Mark_L I think it’s unlikely that the founders adopted a catholic or evangelical world view tbh to guide their framework.
Both the bible and founding documents are subject to interpretation
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom @klezman
absolutely agree on term limits for congress;
but the only way you’ll get it is with a convention of the States
@davirom @rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
GUYS THIS STUFF IS EXCITING!
@canonizer I KNOW!!!
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
Indeed! To quote something I read this morning: “For the first time, the Democrats have managed to steal an election from their own candidate.”
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
@davirom @Mark_L Agreed. Tired of Schumer and McConnell
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen @rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@klezman @rjquillin
From everything I have seen today, the legality issues do not seem to be a concern but Obama’s hesitancy gave me pause.
Klez, I am not surprised that you do not like JD Vance, but curious as to why your negative feelings are so strong?
@chipgreen @rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen @klezman I can only imagine it was
yet you profess
@chipgreen @rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@klezman @rjquillin
Would you like me to send you a copy of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis?
THE #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER
“You will not read a more important book about America this year.”—The Economist
“A riveting book.”—The Wall Street Journal
“Essential reading.”—David Brooks, New York Times
@chipgreen @rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman @rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen @rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@klezman @rjquillin
I don’t think that is an apt analogy but I certainly respect your right to disagree.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please quote your source for the “less American” comment. I saw the clip and that’s not what I heard.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
It’s not my argument but I can’t disagree with common sense.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
@chipgreen
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
@chipgreen
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin on the child point, it is not obvious to me that someone with biological children has a direct stake in the country’s future. If anything, it is an indirect one. They might well provide the best for their children, not necessarily the country. This plays out benignly in terms of education, service avoidance and other issues.
This might sound political but generational wealth and negligible death taxes are an obvious example of parents not taking a stake in the country.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin
JD Vance, an Unlikely Friendship and Why It Ended https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/us/politics/jd-vance-friend-transgender.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin An excellent article. Quite saddening for me. This tells me that Vance could have been what, for me, would have amounted to a person who could bring the current version of the GOP back to a party I could respect. What a missed opportunity.
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Back to the thought that began this thread, it seems to me that it wasn’t Biden’s desire to drop out of the race, but when some of the powerhouse Democrats saw the increasing likelihood that he would lose the election (and the mega$-donors withholding any further donations until another candidate was placed, which likely accounts for a large amount of the donations they are touting Kamala as having “raised”), they pushed him out. And it is an interesting observation that they ignored their voters who had chosen him as the nominee. I just noticed some thoughts from a former Biden chief-of-staff: Former chief of staff says Democrats’ efforts to push out Biden were ‘nasty’
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @Mark_L
Was this really not obvious from the git-go?
@canonizer @chipgreen @Mark_L @rjquillin
I think some of Harris’ fundraising may have been delayed donations but it’s been well documented that there’s been a groundswell of groups coordinating fundraising as well. Take that for whatever it’s worth - I don’t think it matters much. Not likely, imo, that $100M was delayed for the 6 weeks between the debate and when he withdrew.
And yes, Biden and his advisors probably feel quite angry. But it’s not like any of them thought this was a profession where kumbaya was the norm. I, personally, am happy that he saw the writing on the wall and acted appropriately. Even if he needed a whole lot of help to see it.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin saying someone without children is less vested in our country is just hogwash.
Harris does have children and helped raise them. Just because she didn’t use her uterus makes no difference. I would honestly like to hear what makes trump so great.
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year.
“Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom @dirtdoctor Yes, 100x this.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”
@davirom @dirtdoctor perhaps Vance should be fearful should he lose. Trump might suggest hanging him. Trump constantly lies about everything. I çan not understand the intelligent people who follow him.
@davirom @dirtdoctor @marjoryk I doubt Vance had anything to fear. He only wanted to let the crowd hang Pence because he thought Pence could disregard the will of the people on his behalf. There’s no illusion Vance can do that.
Let’s take kids out of the equation. Who cares more about the future of the stock market - someone who has a sizeable sum of money invested in it or someone who owns no stocks at all? Apparently the argument on the left is that those with no investments care just as much as those who own stocks. I guess keep telling yourselves that if it helps you sleep at night?
I thought I had disengaged when I said basically, “agree to disagree”. It is amusing to me how strongly opposed people will claim to be over something because of who said it.
I truly do not have the energy or motivation to continue debating left/right menutia such as this now viral comment from three years ago. While I steadfastedly maintain my position that those who are invested in the future care more about that future than those who are not invested in it, I do not believe that the difference is enough, in the scheme of things, to infer that childless politicians are not qualified enough or invested enough to lead the country. So, to me, it’s a non-issue but I cannot argue with the logic behind it.
Klez, I appreciate that you have historically been very civil in your political discourse and claim to have an open mind but am disappointed in your recent comments. I generally try to avoid this thread but your statement that JD Vance is a “total asshole” took me by surprise. I was legitimately curious as to why you had such strong negative feelings towards him, only for you to reply that you had no idea what I was talking about until RJ reminded you and then it was, “I really don’t know much about him”. Hmm… perhaps you are not quite as objective as you think you are?
Then, when I suggested his memoir, it came down to “I don’t care about his whole life because of video clips and sound bytes I have heard over the last 2 weeks”. OK, then.
JD Vance is an extremely intelligent, complicated person. He is also a politician. I don’t care much for politicians. In my book they are a necessary evil. Some of them may start out truly wanting to serve the public but in the end it is almost always about power and money.
I have mixed beings about Vance. In fact, I have mixed feelings about almost everyone and everything in this World. Everything is shades of gray to me. Sometimes I wish I could be more black & white. But mostly I am just tired of all the negativity on both sides. If you are a diehard liberal, that’s great! Hardcore conservative? Good for you! But how about trying to play up the positive side of our beliefs instead of constantly trying to outdo each other with negative comments? That would be a win-win in my book.
@chipgreen I think there’s been a whopping miscommunication here. Calling somebody in politics an asshole does not, for me, mean much in the way of strong feelings. My comment was based not on a clip from 2021, but on quotes and snippets from him in the last few weeks and at the RNC. He struck me as somebody who was using divisive and dismissive rhetoric, things that I am not a fan of. Because of where you put your comment I was looking in the wrong place for what triggered it, and, mea culpa, it took Ron scrolling farther up to point it out. To me it was not a weighty comment nor a thoroughly thoughtful one.
I don’t claim to be 100% objective and anybody saying they are would be lying to themselves. I am largely aware of my biases, at least, which isn’t to say I can always get around them. But I am always open minded, especially with respect to opinions grounded in fact. And I often change my mind as the facts change. (Want to talk about the evolution of my opinion on Progressives?)
As for the rest, I am largely in agreement. I would like the GOP to abandon the racist dogwhistles, the demonizing of LGBTQ people (especially the trans folks, among whom I count two close friends), and so on. I’d like the Democrats (and Republicans) to get out of identity politics. I’d also like elections to be short, like in the rest of the world, so that we could ignore most of politics for a few years at a time.
Vance seems truly intelligent. Very astute observer of America. It’s a shame he’s using that ability to support Trump. His instincts in the mid-teens appear to have been right on. In a world where Vance stuck to the principles he seemed to espouse a decade ago, I could be a full-throated supporter.
Give this a listen. I thought it was insightful. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-dont-we-have-better-candidates-for-president/ (Note this was from before Biden dropped out.)
@chipgreen I’m confounded by the concept that wealth increases one’s stake in the country. You can’t take it with you. The stocks go towards your children, not the country, especially true given our minimal inheritance tax and stepped up cost basis. I’m very open that a person of any economic status wants the country to thrive with future generations, regardless of their procreative status
@canonizer
I never said that. You are combining two different comments.
@chipgreen I want to thank you for engaging in this forum as you seem to be one of the very few CM’ers willing to present a counterpoint, preventing this from being an echo chamber.
@davirom
Thanks for your comment. Twenty years ago, I was all about debating politics - in the Amazon Gold Box Forum, of all places.
I truly don’t have the energy for it these days. Researching, quoting sources, fact-checking, etc. It’s a lot of work if you don’t want to just shoot your mouth off and then disappear, lol.
@chipgreen @davirom and in case it wasn’t clear, I feel the same way. I’m at a loss for sources of intelligent conversation and debate about politics. I’ve learned a lot from the discussion here over the years and I want to keep learning more.
Ron would hopefully agree that when he was here a few weeks ago all discussion of politics was polite and free of invective.
posted on the other side, but not everyone goes there
@Cerridwyn Other side = meh?
@klezman aye
So Biden has proposed term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Since this will likely require amending the Constitution, I hope the Republicans place one requirement on passing this: term limits for every member of Congress. If the President and SCOTUS justices are term limited, there is no reason not to include the third branch of the government.
@Mark_L I’d like to see longer terms for the House. The every two year election thing is a major source, I think, of the political dysfunction of this country.
House = 4 year terms
Senate = 8 year terms, one senator from each state in each 4-year cycle
Federal elections then happen every 4 years. Less campaigning. More focus on legislating rather than fundraising.
And yes to Supreme Court term limits. When people rarely lived much past 60 or 65 it was one thing, but what happens when somebody refuses to retire well into their 80s or 90s and is clearly in decline?
I think it’s been an interesting debate as to whether an 18-year term limit could be accomplished via statute or would, by definition, require a constitutional amendment. I’ve seen convincing to my non-legal-expert eyes commentary on both sides.
@klezman I totally agree with longer terms for the House, although that would undo some of the “fluidity” that the founders were trying to establish (and I think 2 year terms create better stability than the kind of instant “no confidence” decisions in some countries). But with just 2 year terms every House member is spending a good part of every other year running for re-election. For the Supreme court, I would like to see term limits and maximum age.
I could even see less than 18 year terms for SCOTUS. With the current lifetime terms, it becomes tempting for the President to nominate the youngest candidate that can get approved, as it will lengthen the possible influence that their candidates can have on the court. If the term is (for example) 12 years, a President might be willing to select someone that is older (60?) who brings a longer, more proven, “track record” of jurisprudence to the court.
@Mark_L I used the 18 year term as an example because it seems to be the consensus given the current political cycle that it would be the most fair all around. A 12 year term and even a minimum age seem like potentially good ways to do it. I agree with the perverse incentives in place now.
I think the founders thought a 2 year term was good given the society at the time and they were probably right. In a world that moves 10x faster and where it takes 3 microseconds for news to travel the globe, things have changed. In a world where it takes millions of dollars to even run for a House seat, things have changed.
I know others here would disagree, but I thought one of the brilliant aspects of the constitution is that it can be amended. The founders knew they weren’t perfect and wanted the system to evolve to meet our times. We’ve let them down, imo, by not having a substantive amendment since 1965 (or 1971, if you prefer).
I think it could be a political winner for a candidate in the next election to bring a proposed package of constitutional amendments to the table.
@klezman @Mark_L There are some practical, as opposed to political, nuts & bolts problems with amending the Constitution. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), there are 2 ways. (1) Congress passes a bill to amend and then 3/4 of states (38) ratify it. This is how the Equal Rights Amendment died. (It may technically be alive waiting for more states to ratify, or not.) Or, (2) A Constitutional Convention called an Article 5 Convention is called for by 2/3 of the states (34). Currently 28 mostly red states have called for such a convention.
The problem with (1) is that the only issue likely to rally bipartisan congressional consensus would be to thwart term limits for themselves. No such bill is likely to ever be proposed, yet still passed.
The problem with (2) is that once the Convention is convened EVERYTHING is on the table, up to and including repeal, because the Constitution does not set out rules for such a Convention. Amendments from the Convention must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state conventions. None of the existing 27 amendments came about by Convention.
Be careful what you wish for.
@klezman I should have mentioned, I think that two 6-year terms is plenty for the senate (a potential 12 years, or perhaps 15 if coming in as a replacement with less than a half term) – the President is limited to two (or less than 10) years, so a Senator even would have a chance at a bit longer longer. Give the House three 4-year terms to keep things even. And if you have termed out of the House or Senate, your only further opportunities is to serve as VP and then President (if you’re good enough to last that long, you might deserve it). And while at it, there would likely need to be consideration for combined House & Senate years/terms
@davirom I would much rather see things such as this come through the “normal” amendment process rather than an Article 5 convention. (Here in Missouri, there is an (IMO) insane way that a certain number of signatures can get an amendment to the state constitution put on the ballot, and all it takes is a 50%+1 majority of the vote to pass it. There are some movements to make it a bit harder for such things to get passed.)
But one problem with this happening via the normal amendment process is that the entrenched lifetime politicians in both parties (becoming $$$$millionaires in office) will staunchly protect their empires, meaning that it might take a “revolution” by the people in the form of an Article 5 action.
I’ve always thought that these term limits might mean that some really good politicians will be forced to vacate their positions, but it’s kind of like losing the clean water that you have to use to flush out the
.
@klezman @Mark_L
Some say an Article V Convention of the States could be more productive than attempting to push an amendment thru Congress, as it removes those more likely to prefer the system as it is; term limits is one of many items proposed for discussion.
[edit, I see this is further up the thread. Missed it due to a lack of a refresh]
@Mark_L I mostly agree with you, especially your closing analogy
, but if a Convention follows a Trump victory I would make it more likely that presidential term limits are repealed rather than new congress and SCOTUS term limits imposed. Of course, that could happen if the R’s take both houses along with the presidency.
I also find it hard to believe that, after Citizens United, an Article 5 Convention would in any way be (as you put it) "…a “revolution” by the people…
@davirom By “revolution”, I was suggesting the will of the populace bypassing the unwillingness of those in power to “yield”. And I would be proud of the citizens if they (we) were to succeed in such a situation.
@klezman @Mark_L age is a hard one. one person is demented (literally) at age 50, while another is in perfectly good shape at 90. so term limits is a better option…
i had an employee a few years ago that was in her 70s and showing signs of early dementia and my hands were tied as there was nothing in policy about any form of medical clearance after hire. i was at the end scared she might hurt someone, and that would have devastated her.
I’d love to hear current/former Republican supporters’ comments on this. Gift link to bypass paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/trump-vance-republican-party.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-00.yAmi._9QxfJFEHQ93&smid=url-share
@klezman There are probably many who look at the New York Times and exclaim “What has happened to my newspaper haunts me”, just as there are probably many Democrats who look at their party and wonder “What happened to the party of JFK?”. It is all a sad commentary on how polarized so much of our politics (and media) on both sides have become. I long to find a reliable news source that is totally objective and unbiased.
Is there some way we can be completely rid of political parties and just evaluate candidates based on their personal merits?
@Mark_L I probably should have noted the article is from Peter Wehner, former member of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations.
I have plenty of misgivings about how the NY Times covers many things. But I give credit to the op-ed department for routinely publishing a wide array of opinion. At least in the last couple years.
Brought a few him home.
Anyone know how Rupert’s other properties are describing the event?
https://webview.wsj.com/webview/WP-WSJ-0001944905?wsj_native_webview=android&ace_environment=androidphone%2Cwebview&ace_config={"wsj"%3A{"djcmp"%3A{"propertyHref"%3A"https%3A%2F%2Fwsj.android.app"}}}&ns=prod/accounts-wsj
Oook then being new here , thought I’d rattle a few chains.
Exactly what is a liberal cesspool? I’m not acquainted with cesspools. Is that like a bog? Or more like a quagmire? Or perhaps like Loch Ness?
@marjoryk Yes, but with sewer.
@FritzCat @marjoryk We live in a rural area (with no public sewers) where most homes are equipped with a septic system. However, some (there are requirements for lot size) are equipped with “lagoons”, which are open pools for sewage. Cesspools are somewhat between a septic systems and lagoons, as cesspools are underground storage but have no drainage as does a septic system.
@FritzCat @marjoryk @Mark_L I had no idea that was actually a technical term! I learned something today.
@klezman @marjoryk @Mark_L @FritzCat
seriously?
https://www.epa.gov/uic/large-capacity-cesspools
@FritzCat @marjoryk @Mark_L @rjquillin Seriously. It has never come up in my life aside from its more metaphorical use.
@FritzCat @klezman @marjoryk @Mark_L
perhaps it is growing up in a more rural area enhanced the exposure to these, as to the strict definition, not colloquial usage.
@FritzCat @klezman @Mark_L @rjquillin I grew up in a quiet suburb and attended Catholic schools, but when we visited mÿ moms family in Kentucky they had thsimilar. It’s the derogatory use or slang that I’m not used to hearing openly
@FritzCat @marjoryk @Mark_L @rjquillin I went to summer camps in rural areas but they had septic systems! Wouldn’t want an open bottomed cesspool letting gunk run into the lake!
Aww well wasting to be subtle and not pick a fight. Quiet bunch…
@marjoryk not always quiet, but it can be a relief when it is. You review any of the up-thread posts?
@rjquillin I put my 2 cents in once or twice.
@marjoryk @rjquillin it’s been quiet because it seems that people prefer to retreat into their media echo chambers and don’t like to hear diverse opinions. Microcosm of the problems in the country today, IMO.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
I have been spending my spare time helping candidates. Attending fundraisers, walking in parades, knocking on doors, making phone calls, passing out literature, etc.
@chipgreen
You running again as well?
@rjquillin
I wouldn’t be caught dead running for office!
@chipgreen I thought you mentioned you were on a school board, or some other local-ish position, from a post or comment a couple/few years ago…
@rjquillin
No, I have never run but I used to be part of the local party’s Executive Committee. They decide which candidates to endorse. I resigned because the members are all expected to vote for whomever is favored by the party boss. I didn’t want to be anyone’s puppet or bobblehead.
@chipgreen That was likely what I was recalling.
Congrats for standing up to your principles, we need more of that.
@chipgreen @rjquillin Agreed. I wish there was more abiding by one’s principles in this world.
Ok, so Sinwar is dead. Y’all think we can get toward peace in Israel now? Will Hamas finally let the hostages go and stop subjecting their people to war?
@klezman Ssems like there’s always a war in the middle east so probably not but we can hope and pray they let the hostages go.
Interesting opinion piece by David French. Especially valuable, I think, for those who’ve not yet voted. Link should bypass paywall.
The premise is “why do Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney seem to get along so well”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/opinion/kamala-harris-cheney-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WU4.PdEM.BEUqq_rrSemm&smid=url-share
I’d love to hear from people - especially Trump voters - who think the worry about Trump’s desire to rule as an authoritarian are wrong. Michelle Goldberg’s assessment rings true to my read of the situation but I’d love to hear reasons why not. (Not really a point by point rebuttal, but more of why we should expect Trump to do anything other than what he keeps saying.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/opinion/donald-trump-dictator-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.W04.-xg0.4aIrrez-pgQb&smid=url-share
Link bypasses paywall.
@klezman nothing matters. Get ready for more crony capitalism and much more expensive wine.
@canonizer @klezman H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote in the Sept. 19, 1926 edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune: “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
@canonizer @davirom @klezman Mencken, of course, had nothing but utter contempt for politicians of all flavors and you should also keep in mind his (and George Jean Nathan’s) definition of Democracy in the Jazz Webster section of A Book of Burlesques
@canonizer @klezman @rpm Or, go back a few more years to Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:
@canonizer @davirom @rpm That’s pretty bleak!
I am particularly disappointed that he campaigned on fearmongering about minorities - especially the most vulnerable of them. My (few) trans friends are beyond livid.
@davirom @klezman @rpm
I’m in a bleak mood. But hey that’s democracy.
It’s funny that you can mirror the national polarization/degradation in discourse in our own annual political threads. What used to be thoughtful and perhaps even profitable exchanges eventually dried up.
I’ll take small solace where available, including too much wine last night and the remainder of a 1933 Armagnac
@canonizer @davirom @klezman It is bleak…from either side…had your candidate prevailed, I would have despaired utterly for the republic. There was no one really to enthusiastically support, only a judgement as to which of the candidates was the least worst.
Discourse has devolved here as it has in many places - we don’t even have common ground on which discussion can take place because our perceptions of the world - reality - are so very different….
Except about wine, of course…the eternal…in vino veritas!
@canonizer @davirom @rpm I am sad that the debates we used to have somehow became impossible. I have learned much in these pages about both wine and history.
I, for one, continue to want to understand how others see the world. I don’t understand how demonstrably false assertions take hold and get held as “fact” by certain factions. It’s truly disturbing.
@rpm Amen to your second paragraph.
@davirom @klezman @rpm we see different things.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman Indeed. Our perceptions are so different that we don’t have common ground to discuss which issues matter, much less how they could be resolved.
@davirom @klezman @rpm
Well here is a thing that’s confused me of late. Republicans successfully pinned a leftist label on the Democratic party, despite how the Democrats moved substantially away from left leaning ideology like universal healthcare, minimum wage increases and identity politics, all while moving rightward on hawkish foreign policy & border security, picking up endorsements along the way from, ahem, more traditional republicans like the Cheneys and Trump’s first term staff. Plus a vague and, ultimately, overly optimistic vision of codifying Roe.
Trump presents isolationist policy. Deporting millions of people and increasing tariffs would likely cause staggering inflation (which the US handled better than any other country in the entire world). No one has been a bigger beneficiary of sucking down government largesse than Musk* but somehow he’s going to be the blue ribbon task force on efficiency.
None of this takes into account my personal feeling toward Trump himself, which could not be lower.
Tldr, Republicans accuse the Democrats of being communists monsters while Democrats basically think the party looks like a bunch of 1990s Republicans.
*I’m not sure it has been studied but I think this might be literally true.
Sorry for all the hate speech.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman @rpm it is depressing and shocking. His campaign preyed on ignorance and fear.
@rpm it’s nice to see you back here. We had some good discussions about abortion back in the day. Oh, how things have changed on that front! The people of my state just voted for an amendment to make abortion legal (until viability, etc etc), but it was VERY close.
The democrats have become absolutely ridiculous (probably you think they always were!), but it is depressing. This is why we have Trump. Again.
I remember. Hope all is well with you.
I was thrilled to see Roe overturned because I had always thought it was bad law - the issue belongs at the states, where the various state legislatures and citizens (through initiative or referenda where permitted) determine the matter in response to the views of the citizens of the various states, which differ. Hence different solutions in different states. Democracy is the theory etc.
That said, the absolute positions on the issue are nuts, IMHO. Roe was terrible law, but as originally decided, a reasonable political outcome, which made no one happy ( a mark of a good compromise): a period without significant restriction, a period with some restrictions, and a late period with prohibition, or close to it.
My view on the issue hasn’t changed since before Roe was decided in the early '70s.
Wait, semi final thoughts:
-everything in Project 2025 is on the table. The only thing that will keep abortion legal in some states is if the incoming Senate majority leader refuses to kill the filibuster because he seems it politically unwise.
-I’m not sure about the future of the fda in the event that opinions of people like Kennedy or Kacsmaryk are given priority in determining the safety or efficacy of pharmaceuticals.
The abortion issue isn’t my pie, but I understand it is for many, and I’m in total agreement with rpm; it is a States issue and that’s where the overturn of Roe put it.
Can anyone cite where Trump has indicated he would institute Federal restrictions?
However the claim we have a secure border is pure fantasy; we have virtually unchecked illegal immigration that is sapping resources from legal citizens; be they natural born or legalized.
@rjquillin I think Trump’s own statements are somewhere close to immaterial because you can find an example of him saying almost anything. His recent tightrope walk of taking credit for overturning Roe and saying he didn’t want a national ban was in the face of the appearance of criticism that there is national support for Roe-like abortion policies.
But despite the attempt to remove himself from the intensely scrutinized Project 2025…those are his party’s platforms, written largely by people from his administration or support. So there is very good reason to believe he would sign such a ban into law.
As I said above, I think whether we see such codification will largely depend on whether the Republican leadership in Congress thinks it is a politically savvy maneuver.
@rjquillin Abortion isn’t my issue either. Perfectly reasonable to oppose Roe as law and believe abortion should be reasonably widely available - the decision to be made at the state law by the legislative process (or initiative/referendum where available).
Illegal immigration is a much bigger issue for me. Again, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to want zero illegal immigration (and all illegals deported) and to similarly want lots of legal immigration - with the sorts of people the country wants to admit.
A country whose borders are not secure is not a country. And, as Milton Friedman put it succinctly, one can either have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.
Those who hark back to the very open legal immigration regime before 1925 forget there was no welfare state in the US before the New Deal.
@rjquillin @rpm
Rob, how do you square deporting 2 to 8 million people with inflation?
You once spoke highly of divided government and things are shaping up to be very one sided. It was a while back on a different wine forum in the face of an Obama administration. How are you feeling about one party managing all 3 branches?
@canonizer @rjquillin @rpm While I agree that illegal immigration is a serious issue, I keep coming back to the practical aspects. There are a lot of people here who’ve been here for ages. They have families. Their communities depend on them. Businesses depend on them. Finding and rounding up millions of people is not going to work well even in the best-run situation.
So while I am wholeheartedly in favour of clamping down on illegal immigration and securing the border (although I continue to believe a wall is not likely the best answer when we have other tech that could work better) I still think we need a solution that addresses the question of what to do with the millions already here. I am not advocating for citizenship for them - I think that should be foreclosed. But I think trying to deport everybody in that situation will be worse than finding some other political compromise.
As for abortion, I think that pre-viability (or some small number of weeks before that, e.g. 20 weeks) it should be codified in federal law that a state may not interfere with women’s bodies and their reproductive decisions, full stop. Beyond that, let the states regulate how they like. I agree it was foolish for Harris to promise codifying the Roe standard given that the president doesn’t write laws…
@canonizer @rjquillin inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon: government expands the supply of money faster than the expansion of goods and services. Basic economics. If labor becomes scarcer, centers paribus, its price increases relative to other factors of production. If the supply of money doesn’t change, there is no inflation, other factors must decrease in price or less labor must be used or less of other factors must be used.
As to divided government, it has virtues most of the time. It can be a check on excesses of one party by the other. In the current circumstance, there has been so much overreach beginning with Obama that a serious course correction is needed, for which a unified government is necessary. At some point, we’ll revert to a situation where divided government makes sense again.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
It won’t be easy to deport all the illegals, but it must be done to preserve the integrity of the republic. If the Democrats had kept the bargain that they made with Reagan for the 1986 amnesty - serious border enforcement - we would not be here today. Hard cases make bad law.
On a portion, I simply don’t agree it is a federal issue at all under our Constitutional framework.
My personal preference is for a liberal regime before viability - as difficult as that may ne to determine - and a restrictive regime in the last few months…. I am uncomfortable drawing the lines. It really is about what the citizens of each state find more consistent with their beliefs.
@klezman @rjquillin @rpm
I hope the policy is more pragmatic than mass deportation. They’re humans and have dignity. They also provide the backbone of our labor.
As I see it, Democrats have legislatively passed the liberal policies like aca and the ira, as well as conservative ones like free trade and tough on crime bills. I favor the liberal legislation.
Republicans have largely only passed tax reductions. My belief is that this money has not fostered growth, other than the increasing wealth gap. It has not broadened the economy or made it’s way into the hands of labor.
Both parties sought the low interest environment that left few tools for dealing with inflation and lit the housing market on fire.
I guess you can throw in some marriage equality, though I don’t really see that as policy.
Anyway, I do not have any doubt that this will be the most corrupt government the nation has ever seen. On the one hand, I’m grateful there’s a modicum of transparency. Who bought the $100000 watches, personalized nfts, sneakers and propped up djt media? Who stayed at the failing dc hotels or Trump properties abroad? Who opened a Saudi investment fund with no experience running money? We know what’s for sale because it’s absolutely everything, everywhere, all the time (as long as you have, or know someone with, the right last name).
I believe we have delivered the keys to the Union (or Castle following the immunity ruling) to traitors and the future will be very dark. No one from either side of the aisle deserves it but it will affect us all.
Anyway, as Rob said, we lack enough common understanding to talk productively here. You all have my gratitude and wishes for good health. I’m going to resist further replies for at least a little while.
Be well.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin @rpm didn’t. I’ve read that this mass deportation will cost well over 80 million. It has to be done humanely and tbh I can’t see that being the case with him.
@canonizer @klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
The US spends far more than $80 million a week on benefits of all kinds for illegal aliens, so at that one time price we would be getting a bargain!
As to ‘humanely’, there is absolutely nothing to prevent those currently here illegally from leaving before any deportation measures are put into effect.
I would expect a modest grace period, where illegals could register and leave, with the possibility of coming in legally in the future.
Having given illegals an opportunity to leave voluntarily - perhaps even give them transport out of the country, it is then hardly inhumane to cut off all public support for housing, health care, phones, etc., enforce (on both employers and employees) prohibitions on hiring illegals, etc. And to bar those ultimately deported from reentry permanently.
And, of course, any illegals who come to the attention of the criminal justice system must be summarily deported and permanently barred reentry.
The taxpayers should not be subsidizing illegal aliens at all. Once most of the illegals are gone - and it may take a year or two to do it humanely - we can talk about who we want to allow in legally.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin @rpm by humanely I mean they are people don’t treat them like cattle. You know most of the people bitching about illegal don’t mind having their roof done by them because it’s cheaper.
@canonizer @klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
Assuming they go quietly when caught, I have no problem not treating them like cattle…the harder they try to avoid being deported, the less I’m interested their treatment.
I quite agree with you about the hypocrisy of people bitching about illegals and the exploiting them as cheap labor.
In fact, the hypocrisy of exploiting illegals as cheap labor, illegal votes, or just plain bodies to be counted for electoral apportionment is a major reason the Democrats caused this crisis.
I would remind everyone the Cesar Chavez and UFWOC were unalterably opposed to illegal immigration as bad for American farm workers (who were mostly, but not all, Hispanic citizens of this country).
Not sure if you’re old enough to remember, but there was an amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986, a compromise deal between Reagan and the Democrats in control of Congress pursuant to which the Dems promised real border control, labor law enforcement against hiring illegals and swift deportation of new illegals…none of which they followed through on. I was skeptical at the time. While I was not surprised at the betrayal, I will never trust the Democrats on immigration until the results are delivered in a way they can’t be undone.
On that basis, I have ZERO trust in any promises or in an compromises on illegal aliens. The only way to ensure any deal is kept is to get every single illegal alien out of the country. THEN consider and agree on who we will let in, how many, and from where. Otherwise we no control of our country.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin @rpm no I wasn’t but rarely does anyon.e keep their promises but I was wrongness about that 80
Mil
@canonizer @klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
Even at $88 billion it’s probably less than is spent on all services for illegals, without even considering the harm to the rule of law.
I’m wondering whether Trump will act on the enemies from within, truth & reconciliation, etc.
Eh, I’m losing my mind. Tds. This is a nightmare.
@canonizer I wonder what it might take for moderate Republicans, which I once considered myself but now can’t even define, to revisit or regret their vote for Trump. Some combination of these actions? Note that I am not addressing his MAGA base who, for reasons beyond my understanding, want some of these things even if they are against their interests.
Is there a bridge too far?
@davirom
I think these would all be features, not bugs, for his constituency. Many republicans don’t believe these agencies should exist or that the government should run/mandate/control various insurance programs/trusts.
As for the rest of it, there isn’t any daylight between Republicans and MAGA, which is now the entirety of the party. It is much much stronger than it was in 2016 or 2020.
Aileen Cannon for AG/SCOTUS when Thomas or Alito retires.
My depression is boundless.
@canonizer @davirom
I think @canonizer is correct that (at least many of) the listed items would be considered features rather than bugs.
I would write the list rather differently and would exclude certain items you list as unlikely, either as a matter of practicality or as a matter of approach to governing. I think the differences in the way I would describe these things indicates how very different our perspectives are and how differently we view the world.
For these my enthusiasm is as boundless as your depression.
The items on your list I didn’t modify I don’t consider serious possibilities for this administration. In the long run, something needs to be done about both Social Security and Medicare, but neither the left nor the right have been able to address the entitlement programs seriously, and likely won’t until the edge of the cliff is much close.
I would expect to see any judicial appointments be very conservative, but they will likely be academically qualified (not necessarily ABA endorsed because the ABA is very left wing today) - I have no opinion about Cannon, whom I do not know. Whether you like her opinions or not, the ones I’ve seen have been seriously reasoned and need to be engaged as legal work, not a matter of one’s political preferences.
@canonizer @davirom @rpm I did read one of Canon’s decisions and I did not find it persuasive. But I’m not a lawyer even though I read lots of legal decisions as part of my work. So take it for whatever little it’s worth.
Regarding politicizing the DOJ - just ask Hunter Biden how much the DOJ was politicized in his favour. Can you imagine Trump allowing one of his sons to be prosecuted even if he was caught red-handed committing a federal crime?
Real question: What public benefits, precisely, can people illegally present in the US qualify for aside from K-12 public school?
As for federal regulation, I’m sure there’s plenty to cut. But I fear Trump won’t cut that stuff and will instead do everything he can to turbocharge climate change and ensure the world becomes uninhabitable for our kids and grandkids.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman @rpm
Klez,
Seriously? You do realize that Hunter wasn’t prosecuted for 4 YEARS? And even then, the DOJ was extremely light on his sentence. IIRC, it was the judge that threw it out. And that was after government agencies kept insisting that the laptop was “Russian disinformation !”
To just about everyone on the Right, the DOJ has been politized for years, if not decades. Especially since Clinton met with the AG in a plane on the tarmac. Even more so when those 4 aides were given immunity, and then had nothing to say. Immunity is given for testimony against the main target. Yet they gave NO testimony that resulted in any charges!
And granted, this is from Fox News, but it does highlight the various costs incurred by caring for illegal immigrants when they arrive, as well as funding to other agencies assisting (legal, medical, etc.) them. And that doesn’t include any getting fake id’s.
Illegal Immigrant Assistance
In Trump’s 1st term, he cut 8 regulations for every 1 new one. And while he did cut jobs at most departments, the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs growth more than offset the losses elsewhere.
Although I think that the VA needed more help!
Regulatory Relief helps all Americans
Trump slashed federal jobs
Also, you do realize that China’s pollution is more than double the US and exceeds all developed nations? And has undermined any gains from California’s efforts.
China emissions exceed all developed nations combined
@canonizer @davirom @MarkDaSpark
The one part I will respond to is your last point. Who cares if China is polluting more than we are when it comes to reducing our own impact? You are basically embodying the tragedy of the commons problem and the collective action problem. We have to stop putting CO2, CH4, etc into the atmosphere if we want to have a plant our grandchildren and their grandchildren can live on. Doing the most we can while pressuring every other country on earth is about all we can do.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman
Except the most effective is Nuclear Power, which the Democrats killed. Wind power kills birds and long term is wasteful (blades cannot be recycled), and solar only works when the sun is out.
The tragedy is the false promise of electric cars. The electricity required means more coal plants, PLUS the huge amounts of elements for the batteries, which ALSO, like the wind blades, cannot be reused.
What YOU are missing was the MAIN POINT…there’s only so much we can do, and until China (and India as well) cut back on THEIR POLLUTION, it’s pretty much like pi$$ing into the wind.
ALL that California has gained in eliminating carbon emissions was NEGATED BY CHINA’S EMISSIONS.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman
@MarkDaSpark
You say there’s only so much we can do, but I think the bottom line is doing something, however insignificant it may seem, is better than doing nothing. Also, simply acknowledging the issue is real holds a lot of weight.
Yes… China and India (the entire world, honestly speaking) need to come to terms and make an effort to reduce the harmful impact we have on the planet.
However, progress (even motivation for that matter) is seriously hindered when people with power and influence spread misinformation.
Here’s a snipet from a BBC article, FWIW…
Link to the full article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark
@kawichris650 has the facts correct, for sure.
Sparky, I did, in fact, understand your “main point” but I simply disagree that the bits we can contribute are worthless in the face of other countries continuing to emit lots of CO2.
It’s also the main issue behind the collective action problem. It’s too easy to say “I won’t do it until the rest of the people do it”, but then unless everybody agrees at exactly the same time then nothing ever happens. And then you have a catastrophe on your hands.
As for nuclear, I am in favour.
Electric vehicles are not a false promise, though. And battery material recycling is an emerging industry. These things take time. Declaring it a “false promise” when the technology is in its infancy is, frankly, ignorant. Show me that thermodynamic limitations prove it’s unworkable, though, and I’ll happily change my mind.
So… Antisemitism. Go!
@klezman what??
@klezman @marjoryk
perhaps a poorly worded no context comment attempting to reference “a night of rioting targeted Israeli football fans in the centre of Amsterdam”
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin That is what I assumed it referred to. A very sad situation!
@klezman @Mark_L @rjquillin sorry I didn’t understand. Was traveling yesterday and hadn’t caught up
@klezman That’s horrible that that happened. Very sad indeed.
@marjoryk @rjquillin It’s more than Amsterdam, although that’s a rather visible thing. I left it deliberately very vague to see how people reacted.
I’ve seen over the last several years the widening of antisemitism from the far right and progressive left (antisemites for rather different reasons) to occupy more and more space. It includes things like the Charlottesville nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” and has metastasized into random people being attacked because they are Jewish.
My neighbourhood of LA had a Jewish section of shops shot up on election night. You’ve got Trump supporters posting all sorts of hateful material on Twitter, Truth Social, Telegram, and beyond. You’ve got the incident in Brooklyn (I think - I heard this from a friend) where a man was walking to synagogue with his kids and a man in a ski mask tried to grab one of the kids and run away with him.
What sort of world are we living in where the president-elect (and former president) of the United States can’t clearly and convincingly say “NO MORE HATE”? No, instead he foments it and nurtures it to achieve his own aims, even if he doesn’t specifically foment antisemitism. What he, and many, don’t seem to understand is that all hate seems to lead to antisemitism.
This is not an anti-Trump screed, at least not solely - I could easily say more about the hatred propagated by the far left progressives. I am sick and tired of antisemitism being seen as okay in this country and around the world. As my wife put on FB the other day, we are less safe now simply because we’re Jewish.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
I think attributing ANY of the current increase in anti-semitism to President Trump is a canard…wildly off base and a libel…his daughter is a convert to Judaism and his grandchildren are Jewish. The man has always been pro-Israeli and has moved without the slightest hint of being thought anti-semitic in New York circles for more than 50 years.
In my experience in the US dating back to the '67 War (when my Lebanese (Christian) descent Brother Rat (VMI classmate) reached out personally to each of my Jewish Brother Rats to assure them he stood with Israel in that war), I have have seen very little anti-semitism in the United States from the right (outside of some of the Ku Klux Krazies in the South) and a whole lot more black antisemitism and in the past 20 years or so, a whole lot more antisemitism on the left generally.
I think you will find - and it has been true since forever - there is far more anti-semitism in the State Department and its friends than there has been in the military. And those on the right have been far, far more supportive of Israel than than has the left.
It deeply upsets me that one of the manifestations of the identitarianism (Carville’s euphemism for ‘woke’) of the past 40+ years (yes, it’s been that long building) has been the left’s at first tolerance of, and now participation in, serious anti-semitism.
I think if you read and listen carefully, you will find those of us on the right far, far less tolerant of anti-semitism generally, and of support for Iran and the Palestinians more specifically, than anyone one the left.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin Someone whispered my last sentence might be unclear. Let me rewrite it to be clearer:
I think if you read and listen carefully, you will find those on the right far, far less tolerant of anti-semitism generally, and far less likely to support Iran, or the Palestinians, than anyone one the left.
@marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm I tried to not have anybody read my thoughts as you apparently read them. I do not believe Trump, himself, is antisemitic. I am saying that he has generally, at a minimum, allowed hateful people to spew their hate on his behalf. Personally, I think the way he talks about “other” people is hateful, but ymmv. I believe that gives the actual antisemites (and anti-whatever-ites) a sort of social permission to be out in the open. I am not sure whether I believe this has increased antisemitism in society or it’s simply brought out the existing virus into the open. But it’s way more out in the open from both the right and the left best I can tell.
As for the left’s vs. right’s support of Israel I will make a very very big distinction between the far left, “regular” left, “regular” right, and far right. First, as one who is generally conversant and knowledgeable about Israeli and Jewish history, I do not believe that “supporting Israel” necessarily means doing whatever the Israeli PM says. And when that PM is the 2024 version of Netanyahu, I think it likely that Israel’s best interest is currently not aligned with Netanyahu’s - and Netanyahu has long shown that he is primarily out for his own interest.
The antisemitism on the far left has been apparent to me for a long time as well, so I agree with you there. I think the far right holds a lot more antisemitism than you are giving them credit for. The “Jews will not replace us” crowd were far right, not far left, for example. I find the State Department vs military comparison a bit inapt here, especially since one can have well founded but divergent views of the various dealings with Iran et al for the last 15 years.
To address your last point, I think it’s likely true that people on the “normal” right are generally less tolerant of antisemitism than those on the “normal” left for the last decade or so.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm
I think what RPM is referencing is that the US State Department has long been pushing back against supporting Israel (since 1947 at least) because of Arab oil (and OPEC way back). Even when Kissenger was Secretary of State, they still were not fully supporting Israel.
And Trump was finally the one to move our Embassy to Jerusalem! Over the entrenched US diplomats foot-dragging.
The military has probably been more supportive because US equipment gets “field-tested” in combat conditions by highly trained Israelis. Easier to sell Patriot Missile batteries to Congress when shown how effective they are stopping the huge amount of missiles fired into Israel. Plus, they can push for “newer” equipment when they off-load “surplus” to Israel.
As to “far left” vs “far right”? Sadly, while both are crazy anti-semites, there are far more on the “far left”, as evidenced by the far left support and protests on college campuses for Hamas. Yes, there are “far right” anti-semites, but they aren’t in the numbers (in the US) that you think.
The “far left” (and some in the “regular” left) keep trying to associate Zionism with racism, which it isn’t.
It still boggles my mind that Israel has the most freedom for LGBTQ+ in that region (because basically they would be murdered in every other country) yet the far left (and some “regular”) keep supporting the Muslim terror groups and repeating blood labels against Jewish people.
And some of these far left groups are teaching our kids! See UTLA (saw it first from a @time2testit (?) Post on FB) and their antisemitism.
Additional evidence against UTLA:
UTLA supports BDS against Israel
*Born Dumb & Stupid
@marjoryk @MarkDaSpark @rjquillin @rpm @time2testit Sparky I agree with almost everything you wrote. It’s a banner day!
@klezman @marjoryk @MarkDaSpark @rjquillin @rpm @time2testit I think that those protesting/activist/student/far left, who MDS characterizes as pro-Hamas or anti-Semite are actually just pro-humanity, who are appalled at Israel’s willingness to kill civilians and not allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Of course that image might be MSM bias too.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin
Well, I think our differing perceptions are coloring how we read what each other is saying and we have reached the limits of fruitful discussion. Nonetheless, you (and others) may be assured this man of the right is neither an antisemite nor an uncritical supporter of any particular Israeli administration, though strongly supporting Israel’s right of self-defense, which includes the right to absolutely eliminate those who insist that they will remain dedicated, come hell or high water, to the elimination of Israel.
@FritzCat @klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm @time2testit
Fritz … WTF? You need different sources!
And you (and far too many “journalists” seem to miss that EGYPT does the same! AS WELL AS HAVING A FENCE TO KEEP PALESTINIANS OUT OF EGYPT!
You seem to ignore that October 9th occurred, where innocent civilians were attacked, assaulted, murdered or taken captive.
Some of the worst human rights violators are on the UN boards. The UNRWA workers actively support Terrorism!
Part 2 to follow to address the other misinformation
Including that many were protesting that didn’t even know why!
@FritzCat @klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm @time2testit
From the NATO Strategic Communication Centre of Excellence report:
Note: it has been reported that Hamas has prevented civilians from leaving areas where Israel has warned those living there.
Hamas tells citizens not evacuate after IDF warning
Billions in Humanitarian Aid siphoned off to build tunnels and buy weapons
And you wonder why Israel limits aid to Gaza?
UNRWA Workers Accused of aiding (and paticipating in) the Oct. 7th attack
9 workers dismissed (Total 12 accused, 2 since are dead) from UNRWA. Other reports document Hamas hijacking aid shipments. Gee, who’d thunk it?
Hamas had command tunnel under UN Gaza HQ
Among other civilian & UNRWA sites used to store weapons or hostages. Or fire terror weapons from!
Hospital damage from Hamas missile, not Israeli airstrike
Hamas initially claimed it was an Israeli airstrike, until reports showed it was a Hamas missile.
And as to your “pro-humanity” claim?
No idea
If they were truly “Pro-Humanity”, they would be DEMANDING the return of ALL HOSTAGES STILL IN HAMAS control! You know, the ones kept from their families for OVER A YEAR for doing nothing but being CIVILIANS!
97 hostages still held by Hamas including CHILDREN!
Yes, the history is complicated, but the fact remains that Israel has time and time again gone to the table for PEACE. If Hamas stopped attacking, there would be PEACE. If Israel stopped attacking, there would indeed be a genocide (From the River to the Sea") of Israelis.
Point, the “Pro-Humanity” protestors seem to forget that a “genocide” means population goes down, not up every year! So if they were truly “Pro-Humanity”, they WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING A TERRORIST GROUP!
@marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm Rob, I agree Trump is not - himself - antisemitic. I remain concerned about the company he keeps and the effects on others, but c’est la vie. I hope he proves me wrong that he’ll accept those elements in his coalition by clearly denouncing, in both word and deed, antisemitism in all its forms, whether neo-nazi or progressive lunacy.
As for the policy and such, if Trump does not play yes-man to Bibi and if he pushes Israel and the Palestinians toward peace (bonus if it comes with eliminating Hamas forever) then I will be happy with his effect on Israel. I 1000% agree that Israel has the right to defend itself against all enemies and anybody with two eyes and three functioning brain cells ought to be able to understand the depths of the depravity Hamas subjects the Palestinians to on a daily basis.
On a broader scale, my wish for Trump the last time around and doubly so for this time is that he proves my expectations and worries unfounded.
@FritzCat @marjoryk @MarkDaSpark @rjquillin @rpm @time2testit
Well I’ll be damned…I can’t a single thing to argue in this one Sparky! Well done!
I might add the obvious lack of basic civil rights in Gaza (or most Islamic-governed areas) for LGBTQ people. And by “lack of civil rights” in many cases I mean “they’ll be put to death”.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin Fair enough…who knows how it will all sort out…still I expect Trump’s instincts to do the right thing will keep him on a reasonable path…from my perspective at least…not beholden to any particular foreign leader…but with the best interests of our republic as his lodestar. It’s going to be a difficult 4 years and would be regardless of who was in office. At least our adversaries take Trump seriously in a way no one could take the alternative seriously.
@klezman @marjoryk @rjquillin @rpm This discussion reminded me of a video my daughter sent me (probably 4 years ago) where a major in the Israel Defense Force said that Trump was “the best thing that ever happened to Israel in the White House” and “there has never been a friendlier president to Israel in the oval office.”
@marjoryk @Mark_L @rjquillin @rpm Coming at this from a strong Zionist and Jewish position, I certainly hope Trump is good for Israel. I fear for Israel’s legitimacy in the community of nations, doubly so if it heads (further) down the road of religious ethnostate. My biggest worry about Trump vis a vis Israel is that he enables that trajectory. Again, it’s not a prediction, but it is a worry.
I will say that my ideologically diverse local community has widely varying views on this particular item. The diversity extends to people who are Israeli and who have relatives in Israel. All that is a long winded way of saying, again, that I don’t know, but I have both hopes and worries.
@rpm (Taking a break from my reading - it’s currently July 3, 1863, and I have a feeling significant things are afoot…)
And now that serious discussion has ended in this sub-thread, I have to say I had a “Wodehouse moment”:
“Oh, Jeeves,” I said; “about that check suit.”
“Yes, sir?”
“Is it really a frost?”
“A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.”
“But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.”
“Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.”
“He’s supposed to be one of the best men in London.”
“I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.”
When I read “Trump’s instincts to do the right thing”, I had a feeling you were not talking about his moral character.
Can you “recollect some instance of goodness, some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence, that might rescue him from the attacks of [the blue press]; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors”? (Yes, I’m copying Austen, now - at least I’m cribbing from the best.)
(And now I won’t be able to check in for a few days - or 160-odd years, depending on point of view…)
I hardly ever post in a politicks thread (I think the last time was still on woot), but I want to say how much I appreciate seeing people being able to disagree and still be civil.
That said, I have a crazy, new (for me) political theory!
@TimothyB ok, do tell!
@rpm @TimothyB Yes please!
Also, nice to see you here! Haven’t seen you in real life in far too long also!
@rpm @klezman Well, this is embarrassing - I was lightly skimming the Lincoln-Douglas debates and confounded myself.
Now I have to rethink everything I was going to say.
So for now, I’ll just repeat my gratitude for an oasis of relative civility.
Matt Gaetz for AG?
Kennedy for HHS?
Tulsi Gabbard for DNI?
Pete Hegseth for Defense?
Elon and Vivek for efficiency?(!?)
This is dark and unserious.
@canonizer yeah, agreed.
@canonizer Don’t forget the proposed “warrior board” as reported by the WSJ, with the authority to oust generals and admirals who hesitate to comply with presidential orders.
Backtracking on hegseth already. Best of the best
@canonizer I loved the statement about depoliticizing the DOJ followed by nominating someone who has been a politician almost his entire adult life. Yep that will do it.
I’m tired of folks saying the DOJ was politically motivated by attacking Trump, as if Trump was some innocent bystander. Maybe he could have acknowledged he lost a fair election instead of lying and actively trying to find a way to stay in power, or returned classified documents after they were requested several times instead of hiding them in his personal home. Yeah, he didn’t bring any of his legal issues on himself.
@canonizer @dirtdoctor 100%
@canonizer I’m super excited about it.
For far too long the federal government has failed to be constrained by its citizens. The time of upheaval is upon us, and it will be a great reckoning
@nostromo_ ok, how would you like to constrain the government? where did the government touch you? please show me on the doll
Leaving aside the Senate’s decision [potentially, yet to be seen] to abdicate its role in advising and consenting to the cabinet picks, why is there no uproar about Trump’s failure to perform the transition retirements required by the GSA.
The General Services Administration was created in 1949. AFAIK it is never been an issue with any administration other than Trump’s. Why tf is anyone ok with this?
Losing my mind. Mind gone. Asking for background checks and ethics pledges is pro forma.
@canonizer Pro forma unless you know (or suspect) your nominees won’t pass. Seems like the laws need to be strengthened in this regard. He won, he’s entitled to make his picks, but skirting around these basics leaves a stench. Kind of like how he prevented the FBI from fully investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh.
@klezman I’m losing my mind. My cia contact is very confident that Gabbard is bought and paid for.
@canonizer One can always hope that 4 GOP senators can hold back the worst of the bunch. Might be hoping in vain, but still…
And Dr. Oz for head of Medicare/Medicaid?? Why does he even still have a medical license?!
@canonizer @klezman
@klezman @nostromo_ again, you think a guy who hawks chlorophyll pills should run CMS and a former democratic congressman who has all the markings as a russian asset should handle intelligence.
Having an entire personality devoted to trolling the libtards is fun. A joy at every party! The light of every wine tasting!
betsy devos part of the deep state. let’s go linda mcmahon. cool. (for the dept we’re closing?)
I would confirm most of these people if i were a Democrat in the Senate, other than the military and intelligence nominations. Let people suffer Trump’s gratitude.
@canonizer We get the government we deserve?
@canonizer @klezman Any comments from the Trump supporters about the quality of his cabinet picks?
@davirom @klezman I’m being unfair. I want someone to convince me that this is ok but I don’t think I would accept such an argument. So it’s back to the original point of seeing things in starkly different terms.
I apologetic to said conservatives for not keeping my promise to stay away. It just feels like Donald Trump and his supporters despise this country. There aren’t many policy positions to argue about in this moment.
@canonizer @davirom @klezman He’s making nominations like he’s still hosting the TV show The Apprentice
@davirom @klezman lmao: I apologize to said conservatives re coming back.
Sigh. I wish the edit lasted longer than 10 minutes. It’s pretty f’ing annoying.
@canonizer @davirom @dirtdoctor yes, he is. And if reports are to be believed he’s doing it by watching TV and pretending it’s Tinder.
A lot of poor losers in here. Feel sorry for y’all!
@nostromo_ how exactly does a comment like this or the one above further conversation and mutual understanding?
@nostromo_ lmao, it’s just amazing that you would take time out of your day to say this. That basically encapsulates the whole thing.
@klezman @nostromo_ To be fair, my comment was a little in jest, and could be taken as not promoting a discussion of differences. Of his nominations, aside from the civil settlement issue, I am a little intrigued by what the former military, Fox News guy, has to say he about changes he would make. I need to read up, as I’m not one to watch Trump news channel.
Regarding the sore losers comment, and not knowing nostromo’s opinion on the 2020 election outcome, any Trump supporter who was okay with his handling of the last election shouldn’t be saying much about the questioning of nominations.
@dirtdoctor @klezman @nostromo_ No, the 2020 election was stolen because Trump lost and this one was fair because he won. You see how that’s completely logical and not culty, dirt.
@canonizer
@nostromo_
I guess Thune stood up against one recess appointment.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/21/politics/matt-gaetz-withdrawing-attorney-general/index.html
@canonizer He knows what’s in that ethics report and that it won’t stay buried forever…
@canonizer @klezman The depoliticization of the DOJ continues, out with Gaetz and in with Bondi, someone who was on Trump’s defense team and is an America First Policy Institute member. There’s also the fact that while Florida AG, she said she was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University until suddenly deciding against doing so after her re-election group received a donation from the Trump Foundation. She’s better than Gaetz, but far from a non-political nominee.
@dirtdoctor @klezman I believe Blanche has been floated as the deputy ag, his literal personal attorney getting to look at the cases against him
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151721941
@canonizer https://substack.com/home/post/p-151923500
Ugh…these types of things are the result of the last election deniers, and why it was so bad that Trump wouldn’t acknowledge losing and lied about all the fraud. It will become the norm that individuals believe there was some widespread fraud. People need to accept the results and deal with the consequences. The election showed more Americans blamed Biden/Harris for the inflation, while also going too far on DEI issues. Our results are consistent with elections in numerous countries, where existing administrations lost primarily due to economic issues: https://apcoworldwide.com/blog/2024-elections-global-results-and-implications-for-the-future/
@dirtdoctor let’s be clear about the dei issues, though. It was pure scaremongering by the right with a caricature of crap that doesn’t happen. So to the extent that made any difference it was based on lies and punching down to the most vulnerable in society.
blah blah every accusation is a confession
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/02/us/politics/dinesh-dsouza-2000-mules-apology-trump.html
@canonizer I surmise that he “misspoke”, as is a common excuse by politicians of both sides.
@canonizer @Mark_L too many results from the Google search!
@canonizer @klezman @Mark_L
I think this may be another link to the story
@klezman @Mark_L @rjquillin His new lies about his old lies are not confidence inspiring.
He sure “spanked” the media with them.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden and his Dad are out looking for hookers and blow to celebrate their “spanking” of the justice system. Did they check that nook in the White House?
@chipgreen I agree that the pardon looks bad. He shouldn’t have categorically stated anything. It is his prerogative to make pardons as he sees fit and all presidents going back to Clinton have pardons deemed politically motivated for paying back favors or personal reasons. I’m sure that presidents prior to Clinton did so as well, though I was too young to be aware of such and am not invested in doing research right now.
At the same time, years of Hunter Biden hearings have been unproductive. I think it would be difficult to suggest that the tax and gun charges are anything but politically motivated. Any similar defendant would have pleaded out years earlier without this scrutiny or having their dick exposed on the floor of Congress. If it were up to some people, they would open further equally wasteful investigations into Benghazi.
@canonizer @chipgreen So then are/were you equally or more outraged at the politically motivated and personal pardons Trump handed out to people - including his extended family - when he was in office? Often for worse offenses that were handled more closely according to standard DOJ procedures?
@chipgreen @klezman The knock on Biden is optical - he said he wouldn’t pardon his son. It looks bad but shouldn’t be.
The rest of the ‘let’s prosecute fauci, swalwell, etc.’ rhetoric is really disturbing. Kash Patel as FBI director and installing personal lawyers in the DOJ are equally appalling.
Wow, while I don’t support the pardoning of Hunter, that’s one heck of a statement from a couple of standpoints. One, if you’ve ever known someone who has a drug addiction, they can do some crazy things to satisfy those cravings. I don’t know why there’s a reference to Joe participating in those past activities, and good for Hunter for supposedly (I don’t know the guy) for kicking the habit. Second, I sure didn’t hear much outrage from conservatives when Trump pardoned Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and George Papadopoulos, not to mention the promise to pardon convictions of individuals involved with January 6th.
In addition to those items, based on Trump’s statements during his campaign about going after individuals, I can see why Biden would consider giving such a broad pardon to protect his son from future attacks from a Trump DOJ…but I suppose he shouldn’t need to worry because of Trump’s statement about depoliticizing the DOJ (where’s the sarcasm font?)
@dirtdoctor Yes, I had initially thought it looked terrible but after reading a bit about Kash Patel and his revenge list I can definitely understand why Biden did this. It is also true that just about every prosecutor has said that these charges would have been pled out with a fine years ago had he not been named Biden. The whole thing has screamed “politically motivated” since the beginning. Not to mention the years of investigation by Congress having turned up nothing.
@dirtdoctor On further thought - I think Biden would have been smarter to carve out the sentences for the crimes Hunter was recently convicted of. Full pardon for everything else to prevent political attacks on his kid but let “justice”, such as it is in this case, prevail.
@dirtdoctor @klezman what do you mean carve out the sentences?
@canonizer @klezman
The way I read it, I think he meant it would have been smart to remove the gun & tax charges from the pardon, to minimize blowback/criticism of President Biden. So Hunter Biden would face the consequences of his actions, but the pardon would protect him from any absolute BS in the future during Trump’s second term in office.
@kawichris650 @klezman Yeah, I guess.
But at the same time, it’s been 5 years of investigations, a blown up plea agreement and genital exposure.
@canonizer @kawichris650 Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Thanks @kawichris650. It, imo, fixes some of the optics problems but solves the real problem of the “revenge” bus coming for Hunter. (Although I’m not even sure what said revenge is for…maybe just the fact that his dad won an election?)
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman
I’m just glad to see you guys discussing the Hunter pardon!
FWIW, it doesn’t outrage me in the least but it is definitely not a good look after steadfastly pledging over and over again NOT to pardon Hunter.
AFAIK, Joe has never been accused of cocaine abuse and I hope for Hunter’s sake that he truly is clean. I was just making light of some low hanging fruit.
@chipgreen @kawichris650 @klezman it was big news, the same way we’re talking about Trump cabinet picks
Fuck it, I’ll keep going
https://x.com/Timodc/status/1863620081873244259
@canonizer Holy shit
@canonizer
And Kash Patel as the director of the FBI.
Many supporters of Trump believe he possess instincts to do what’s best for our country. I sincerely wish that was true, but how can one honestly think that considering his cabinet picks?
Rather than selecting people who are actually qualified and dedicated to the responsibilities of each position, he’s treating this as if it’s a reality TV show.
He did the same thing during his first term, which resulted in record setting turnover.
There’s a lot of detailed information here and it’s best viewed on a computer screen rather than a mobile device. Hence why I included the summary above.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
If people think it’s funny to hear the president elect talk about annexing another country, I’ve got a Ukrainian quagmire of a war to sell you.
Trump couldn’t measure out a glass of wine, let alone the words that come out of his mouth. Bless the hearts of anyone who believes this is a good thing.
I feel like nothing has changed since 2016. Everyone absurd, racist, destruction statement he makes is either rewarded, defended, or filtered.
This isn’t a fucking episode of the Simpsons or South Park. The president shouldn’t fucking say this shit.
Haha we’ve successfully trolled the libtard again. It’s so funny! He has tds lolololol
@canonizer I think that’s both the genius and danger of how Trump “communicates”. He says things that are so crazy that people want to think he doesn’t mean what he says. He also speaks with such vagueness that people can easily import their own meaning onto what he said. All the while he maintains something kind of like plausible deniability.
@canonizer @klezman
Seems like it may have already had an effect at the border, but time will tell.
@canonizer @rjquillin The border has been much quieter for something like half a year since Biden put executive action in place after Trump scuttled the bipartisan deal.
I am more curious what immigration policy could look like if all the Republicans put together a bill in the next few months.
@klezman @rjquillin seems like cover for China to take over Taiwan. Idk. Just interesting how little the cold warriors care about the world order.
@canonizer @klezman
that was little more than business as usual and amnesty.
@canonizer @rjquillin Oh, I’ve already assumed China would do that. Yuck. And there goes the semiconductor and hard drive industries…
@canonizer @rjquillin I didn’t read it and don’t recall the details, but when James Lankford is the main author I hardly think it was as you describe. No amnesty aside from those who helped the US troops in Afghanistan. Additional work authorisation for spouses/children of those here legally. Not seeing what you’re seeing having scanned the original source.
The official summary from congress.gov says:
The bill expands Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to address the processing of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) and provides supplemental appropriations for related purposes.
Among other provisions, the bill provides DHS emergency authority to summarily remove or prohibit the entry of certain non-U.S. nationals within 100 miles of the southwest land border. DHS may exercise this authority if DHS encounters an average of 4,000 non-U.S. nationals within a seven-day period. If the number of encounters reach certain higher thresholds, DHS must exercise the emergency authority. This emergency border authority expires after three years and may be modified by the President under specified circumstances.
Next, the bill establishes an expedited process that authorizes asylum officers to adjudicate certain asylum claims. Among other provisions, these provisional noncustodial removal proceedings impose certain target timelines for determining asylum claims and limit review of denied claims. The bill also establishes a stricter threshold for individuals to remain in the United States pending adjudication of an asylum petition.
The bill extends and establishes immigration pathways for Afghan citizens or nationals, including by (1) making certain individuals admitted or paroled to the United States eligible for conditional permanent resident status, and (2) expanding eligibility for special immigrant visas for certain individuals who were injured while supporting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
The bill also increases base pay for asylum officers and grants DHS temporary direct hire authority to hire personnel to implement the bill.
@canonizer @klezman
And even accurately tabulated, you consider this is an acceptable number!?
@canonizer @rjquillin goalpost moving. That is not what you stated your objection was.
Note that it’s “encounters”. That doesn’t mean 4000 people get across the border in a week. That means 4000 people were caught. I don’t claim to know what the optimal number is for that clause. But it has nothing to do with your stated objections of amnesty and business as usual. Granting the president specific authority to shut down the border completely is new.
@canonizer @klezman
It was, if not ‘shut down’ considerably more restricted under 45 until 46 opened and encouraged the influx.
I’m now done with further exchanges.
Move on to someone else.
@klezman @rjquillin do you mean the fearmongering about migrant caravans from 2018 when many migrants entered the US during Trump’s administration and nothing was done and then migration declined during the pandemic before rising again and Republicans doing nothing legislatively to address the issue?
No it was biden’s fault for not wanting to act by executive order on what requires actual legislation.
https://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-abolish-debt-ceiling-3756192
@canonizer If I truly believed it would be abolished for good I’d support that. But it feels equally likely these days that the GOP would try to reinstitute it the minute there’s a Democratic president in charge.
@klezman Maybe, would love to see how to read how the tea leaves party walks back their raison d’etre of the last 15 years because mush said so
@canonizer @klezman
If there’s one thing Trump’s first term showed us - it’s that he is not a fiscal conservative. I am concerned about our country’s multi-trillion $ debt.
Curious as to why you would favor eliminating the debt ceiling?
@canonizer @chipgreen because it doesn’t do anything useful. It becomes a cudgel for one party (lately the Republicans) to threaten to shut down the government while not actually working to solve the underlying problem. If you keep voting to raise the ceiling then it’s not really meaningful.
Then there’s also the part about paying our debts and meeting our commitments, both in terms of loans/debt and to the people who work for the government and who depend on its services.
Solve the debt problem, yes. But the only way that happens is with higher taxes and eliminating loopholes. When is the last time you saw that get proposed?