tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67932222024-02-19T01:31:26.944-05:00The Grey MatterOffering truth beyond the mere black and white.
<br>
<b>"Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." -- Antonio Gramsci</b>
<br>
<b>"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith</b>
<br>
<b>"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell</b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2758125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-52885368801671009692020-03-05T16:43:00.000-05:002020-03-05T17:15:48.485-05:00Starbucks should close all US stores on Election Day<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It wasn't that long ago that former Starbucks CEO and billionaire Howard Schultz was running to be POTUS. It was an ill-fated decision and last September he officially dropped out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And that's seemingly the last anyone has heard from him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yesterday billionaire Mike Bloomberg likewise dropped out of the race, and yet he's made it clear he will continue to spend $$$ in helping to defeat Trump. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What has Mr. Schultz done in this regard? Since exiting the race, what has he contributed in the effort to defeat Trump? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Got me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But I have a suggestion, one that I hope he seriously considers. As I've been tweeting for several months, voter turnout will be crucial in ousting Trump this November. Trump knows this fact and it's why he's always trying to suppress turnout. He did it with Hillary, constantly framing her as "crooked" and corrupt, in the hopes that people will become disgusted and stay home.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's very discouraging to learn that for many of the recent primaries, Bernie's supporters <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-young-voter-turnout.html" target="_blank">have not been showing up</a> in the numbers he expected. Needless to say, his supporters tend to skew young and if they're not bothering to vote, that could spell trouble for the D ticket in November. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My suggestion to Howard Schultz? <b>He should announce that on Election Day (November 3rd), all Starbucks in the United States will be closed.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By doing this, it would not only "force" many young people to vote (as opposed to hanging out in Starbucks with coffee and their laptops), but more importantly he would be sending a strong message with such a stark corporate decision. I don't know the exact figures off hand, but closing all Starbucks would likely cost the company many millions of $$$ in revenue. However, Mr. Schultz could say that it's worth it. The fate of our country is at stake and no price tag can be placed on that. So on this very important day, forget coffee, instead get out and vote!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It would do much to resuscitate and rehabilitate Schultz' name, especially following what was a brief but embarrassing presidential run. All Chick-fil-A restaurants are closed every Sunday, sacrificing millions in profit to instead honor the founder's original Christian wishes. But analysts argue it's also been a brilliant business decision. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm fairly certain Starbucks will be just fine if they close all stores for just one day. And frankly the payback in patriotic goodwill, not to mention the free advertising with this announcement, make it a no-brainer in my opinion.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-59809905471675364032020-01-29T12:10:00.000-05:002020-01-29T12:10:42.815-05:00Now is the time to be heard!<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It seems a day doesn't go by that I don't receive a BREAKING NEWS alert about how Trump is doing something, anything, to further destroy the environment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The latest, "<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f7ee830c-3ee6-11ea-a01a-bae547046735" target="_blank">US threatens retaliation against EU over carbon tax.</a>" </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Apparently Trumpsters value pissing off "libtards" much more than saving the planet. But then climate change is all one big hoax to them....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On a separate note, I was somewhat shocked to see Trump holding a rally in New Jersey. NJ is a very blue state, voting for Hillary, Obama (twice), Kerry, Gore and Clinton (twice) in the last seven presidential elections. But then I learned it was payback for NJ Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who switched parties to support Trump. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have to admit, I was hoping to read this morning that Bruce Springsteen -- known to <u>not</u> be a fan of Trump -- made a surprise appearance in Jersey. That perhaps Bruce, one of NJ's greatest gifts to the world, would've seized on the opportunity to show that most NJ residents are not Trumpsters. He could've amassed many more people at his appearance than Trump's rally, further driving Trump nuts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But it was not to be. No Bruce showing. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He apparently had other things to do.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Look, I get the fact that Bruce has many fans who also are Trumpsters, and Bruce likely doesn't want to upset those fans. But speaking frankly, this election is more important than that consideration. I mean hell, Bruce is already worth $500 million (??), at least, and his supporters know full well what he's all about, his politics, his beliefs, so what is he worrying about? That he may piss off a faction within his fandom? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even if he claims the above isn't true, his absence last night is disappointing. He is known for making surprise visits in NJ, often. He has been outspoken about Trump in the past. So why, of all times, not take advantage of a Trump rally occurring in NJ, to throw shade and emphasize a stark contrast?!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Everyone, including celebrities, need to be as involved as possible in the lead up to this election. There can be no hedging or "playing it smart" for the sake of not wanting to ruffle feathers or annoy a certain segment of voters. People need to speak out and let it be known that Trump's rabid "base" is not nearly as big as Fox News, Republicans & Trump would have us believe. The crowd in Wildwood made it look as if NJ was Mississippi -- a complete farce! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've said similar about Obama, that given the reign of Trump, any traditional decorum respected by former presidents must be tossed aside. An unprecedented authoritarian tyrant in the White House requires unprecedented treatment towards such an individual. Bye-bye to conventional niceties!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Needless to say, this election is the most important in our lifetimes. From now until November, we need to actively and vociferously speak out, and refuse to worry about hurting feelings or alienating MAGA-heads. Four more years of Trump could spell the end of America (and Earth?!) as we knew it.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-34854693768861369282020-01-08T12:12:00.000-05:002020-01-08T12:12:16.527-05:00Republican Hypocrisy Never Ends<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So Trump orders the assassination of Soleimani, Iran retaliates with bombings last night in Iraq and then states that's it, they don't wish to further escalate. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And Trump and Republicans believe Iran. "All is well."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Imagine if this were Obama, taking at face value from Iran that any further retaliation is not in the cards. Fox News and Republicans would be laughing out loud at the naivety of Obama. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The hypocrisy of Republicans is one thing you can count on time after time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A primary reason for the Iran nuclear deal was to at least have inspectors on the ground to verify that Iran wasn't lying. Critics of that deal can say the inspectors would be led astray or refused entrance to key sites, but what's the alternative? Well, apparently it's to just trust what the Iranians say, period. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The same goes for North Korea. Obama knew not to entertain Kim's offers for summits or negotiations, knowing Kim could not be trusted. But Trump goes right ahead and trusts Kim's word, believing that he wouldn't engage in further missile testing. What a shocker (not) to now learn Kim was lying.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Republicans talk tough but in the end countries like North Korea, Iran and even Russia love them because these "bad" countries can easily dupe the morons in the GOP. It's no wonder Putin despised Hillary. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet the dimbulb Trump base believes we're safer under their orange bully. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We'll see if Iran is all done. No more retaliation. I doubt it, but then we'll just have to take their word for it, right? (so says Trump and Republicans....)</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-40223349046846143022019-12-10T10:23:00.001-05:002019-12-10T10:27:37.163-05:00Slippery Turley<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Jonathan Turley wrote an <i>LA Times</i> <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats" target="_blank">op-ed</a>, published yesterday, attempting to further defend his, by all accounts, embarrassing testimony before Congress. I have a few comments:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It tells you much about Turley with his
comparison of Trump's impeachment to performance art, namely a taped banana. He choses a widely-publicized, absurd occurrence to contrast with something as extremely serious as impeachment. He also went there in his testimony with his glib “Even my dog is
angry!” Ha-ha, funny guy! But what's truly funny is I don’t recall
him ever being so jocular regarding the Clinton impeachment. There the POTUS
committed the heinous act of lying about getting consensual fellatio and Turley
treated that “crime” as if Clinton literally urinated on the Constitution and set it aflame.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Turley’s hang-up is speed, that the impeachment
is proceeding too quickly. But he never mentions specifically how to slow it
down.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Presumably that would mean hear from more witnesses, beyond the already dozen (more?) who have already testified. Fine,
bring them on, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney – there’s five right
there. Oh, but wait, <u>Trump has forbidden them from testifying</u>. Something Turley
never specifically mentions (Trump's interference), in this op-ed or in his testimony. That alone makes what he has
to say very disingenuous (despite his constant reminder that he votes Democrat
(we’ll never know) and he has "no dog in this fight").</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>I know statistics and when Turley compares this
impeachment to prior ones, we’re talking a very small data set. Three to be
exact. So to say this impeachment is quicker than one of the three others is ridiculous. Data significance (robustness) ain’t there. And frankly, Turley is no dope, he knows this, and yet he'll go there. Speaks volumes.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">They’ve already <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/impeachment-hearing-live-updates-second-day-judiciary-committee-testimony-n1097486/ncrd1098186#liveBlogHeader" target="_blank">fact checked</a> this speed claim. Trump's impeachment proceedings are now at 77 days, compared to the blazing fast Clinton impeachment
which lasted just 72 days <u>total</u>. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Go back and view the videos of Turley defending
Judge Porteous. It’s laughable. Of course, Porteous had the right to legal
counsel, like any American, yet most lawyers would’ve passed, knowing it was a
hopeless case. And yet the esteemed Turley agreed to take it. Why? My guess is
Turley loves the limelight, the attention, not caring a bit about the laughter, or the merits, apparently. If he loses, so be it, it was expected, but if he
wins, he’s a genius! It’s all about beating high odds for notoriety and fame.
We saw that again with his recent testimony, where he was universally mocked on
social media for his unimpressive “performance.” But I suspect Turley – much
like Dershowitz – relishes being the devil’s advocate, the contrarian, as it
gains more eye-raising notice. After all, there’s no such thing as bad publicity! </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Has Turley responded to the obvious outright
contradictions in his <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12" target="_blank">2014 <i>WaPo</i> op-ed</a>? Th</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">is alone should make whatever
Turley has to say about this matter highly dubious.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">P.S. And there's <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now" target="_blank">this</a> from the very not-liberal Cato.</span></div>
<ul>
</ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-27319594571405424392019-10-27T09:38:00.001-04:002019-10-27T09:38:44.276-04:00The reason Republicans are so upset<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7aef7" data-offset-key="fnbf4-0-0">
<div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="fnbf4-0-0">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Frat-boy Matt Gaetz and his gang of thugs <a href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/874003/4-odd-details-from-house-gops-bizarre-antiimpeachment-scif-sitin" target="_blank">recently stormed</a> the SCIF room being used for impeachment interviews. Republicans claim the hearings are occurring without their knowledge, and that the impeachment inquiry is operating on fabricated rules. Both egregious lies, but Republicans know one thing for certain: their supporters (the base) are clueless, don't fact check and believe anything told to them by fellow MAGA Republicans.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact is Republicans are indeed <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/trump-impeachment-gop-lawmakers-who-have-access-inquiry/4083246002/" target="_blank">present and have access to</a> all of the supposed "secret" impeachment hearings and/or interviews. And this is the reason why they're so upset and rageful, because of what they're learning from these hearings. The testimonies are all corroborating what the whistleblower reported. Specifically, what <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/moment-shocked-room-during-taylor-s-ukraine-testimony-n1071476" target="_blank">William Taylor had to say</a> was incredibly damning, all but justifying and assuring Trump's impeachment. As reported, Taylor's testimony "<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a;">even led to gasps in the room" as "t</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">he gravity of the moment and the realization of what is at stake in the impeachment probe was palpable in the room." An anonymous Republican present succinctly said, "</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">This isn't good."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's after this bombshell testimony that Republicans lost their sh*t and, as they usually do, decided a diversion was needed, something theatrical and over-the-top to distract their Fox News base. Answering the call, Gaetz stepped forward with a genius plan.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Oh, and as for their second claim about the made-up rules, the fact is <i><a href="https://www.nationalmemo.com/now-house-republicans-hate-the-rules-they-made/" target="_blank">they wrote the rules</a></i>! Republicans are very good at one thing, hypocrisy. They love rules as long as the rules don't apply to them. Same apparently goes for laws. Similarly, they despise deficits, until their guy's in charge and then <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-gap-widened-to-984-billion-in-fiscal-2019-11572026473" target="_blank">deficits don't matter</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But as a rule, the more you see Republicans pissed off and acting out, the more certain that Trump is doomed. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-40783679725617050782019-10-16T11:01:00.002-04:002019-10-16T11:01:49.741-04:00My take on the debate<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First off, I've grown weary of these debates. Too many candidates answering more/less the same questions each time. Instead of the field narrowing, it grew this time around. And there are eight more debates to go? Ugh. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My take on last night:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Biden</u>: Seems to now know that saying less is more, meaning avoid "senior moments" or gaffes. He remains near the top of most polls, better to just ride it out and let others fail and drop out. This strategy won't work for much longer. At some point, he'll need to give lengthy answers, often, and it will sink him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Warren</u>: She did fine. Compared to prior debates, she has quickly become the focus of attacks, with her rapid rise in the polls. Others will say it's counter-productive to see Dems attacking each other, but I disagree. Whoever does become the eventual nominee better be able to handle a barrage of attacks because that's what Trump does. Better to have Warren sharpen her chops versus other Democrats than to have her cakewalk. And frankly some of her answers could be better. It drives me crazy that she can't better explain her health care position, that yes taxes will go up, but after factoring in the health care savings, people will net net be ahead, i.e. the total savings surpass the tax increase. Bernie has been better at explaining this and he actually had his best answer to this last night. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Sanders</u>: Everyone wanted to see how he looked post-heart problem, and he actually looked better imo than pre-heart issue. As people say, Bernie will do Bernie, and that's what he did. Although as I wrote above, some of his answers have become even better, more concise and clear. The problem for Bernie is he has his diehard core base, but can he expand it? He would be able to if Warren drops out, but that won't happen anytime soon. So he needs to try and convert Warren supporters into Bernie-bots, but how will that happen? They're already with Warren, and not him, for a reason(s). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Harris</u>: She seemed noticeably at ease, esp. for someone who really needs to shake things up and make a move. But instead she seems resigned to the fact that she's likely Cabinet material. It's almost like she KNOWS she will be the future AG and she's good with that. In the meantime, she'll have fun and speak her mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Buttigieg</u>: He seemed like he drank a few cups of high-octane coffee before the debate. He was very "on" and for him, fired-up. It was refreshing to see. And he didn't just keep to himself, answering questions as if on an island, and instead actively sparred with others. I think he's actively positioning himself for VP, knowing that role usually requires more of an attack-dog approach and demeanor. In my opinion, for someone like Warren, I think it comes down to Buttigieg or Castro as VP (she'll avoid dual female ticket, and she won't pick Bernie to avoid inevitable uber-socialist smear (and Bernie wouldn't accept VP role anyway)).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Klobuchar</u>: Many are writing she did very well. I don't know about that. I thought she came across as desperate at times, even seemingly near tears, as if realizing her chances of winning are coming to a close. She obviously was in attack mode, specifically directed at Warren. Try as she might, she's not going to rise much further in the polls, if at all. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Gabbard</u>: I have no idea why she was on the stage. As if she was a Republican plant or operative. Fortunately it will soon be "Tulsi who?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Rest of the field</u>: Meh. Booker, Castro, Yang, Steyer, Beto -- why bother commenting, they soon won't be on the stage. Hopefully they all do what they can to support the eventual nominee and defeat Trump. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-59570811221607354872019-10-15T17:33:00.001-04:002019-10-15T17:34:04.892-04:00Biden has to drop out<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I've tweeted many times that Biden is too old. He's had many "senior moments" on the debate stage and on the campaign trail. Ironically, what is actually benefiting Biden is his longstanding history of making gaffes. His habit of foot-in-mouth disease and/or garbling what he meant to say is allowing him to skate free now with what appears to be early-onset dementia of some sort. The media just gives him a pass, whereas if Warren or Buttigieg shook Bernie Sanders' hand and called him "Mr. President," there would be real concern. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But showing signs of age is not the only reason Biden needs to drop out. The other is his son, Hunter. All informed, sane people know <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/23/20879611/joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-prosecutor-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint" target="_blank">there's nothing there</a> with this supposed scandal. Along with the G-7 and the IMF, Joe Biden was urging Ukraine to remove the prosecutor because he was not doing <i>enough</i> to investigate corruption. Republicans and right-wingers <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/" target="_blank">have reversed this 180 degrees</a>, claiming Biden was trying to get Ukraine to fire the prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, the company in which Hunter sat on the board. In short, Biden Sr. was looking to protect Biden Jr. All not true, with the truth being the exact opposite.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All of that aside, what we do know is if Joe Biden were to become the nominee, Trump and Republicans would look to incessantly hound him with this Hunter/Ukraine "scandal," to the point where it's all the media would focus on. They did it to Hillary with her private email server. It smelled just enough like a credible scandal that Fox News and right-wing radio pressed it hard, 24/7. It became this perfect distraction for Trump, allowing him to deflect from his extensive resume of corruption by saying "You think I'm bad? Look at her, she's no saint!" Followed by the "Lock Her Up!" mantra.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We can't have that happen again. Sure, no matter who becomes the nominee, they will always look to find some kind of supposed scandal to inflate and pound home to the Fox News rubes. But we <i>cannot</i> make it so easy for them. And with Biden, it's fairly low hanging fruit. I'll take Pocahontas nonsense over this Hunter/Ukraine BS, without question.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-79307406425375390742019-09-26T17:23:00.001-04:002019-09-26T17:23:25.291-04:00It starts with a crack....The <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/a-clear-path-to-impeachment-republicans-show-signs-trumps-rock-solid-support-may-be-weakening/" target="_blank">dam is giving way</a>. It starts with a crack and then boom, the whole thing collapses. That's how it went for Nixon, his approval rating was good and then boom, it plummeted. And then he was gone.<br />
<br />
Romney and Sasse are trying to get out in front of the oncoming collapse. Only fools like Jordan, Meadows, Nunes and Gaetz will be the last to cave. But by then it will be far too late to save their lapdog skins.<br />
<br />
Expect to see more Republicans waver and begin to move away from Trump's camp. Yes, sure, they'll face the wrath of Trump (as he's already doing to Mitt), but they know it's best to flee the Titanic while some life boats are still available.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-18288186961456516492019-09-26T09:21:00.001-04:002019-09-26T09:22:00.025-04:00Returning to bloggingIt's been more than a year since I last posted anything on this blog. Instead, I decided to give Twitter a try, tweeting any thoughts or comments I had on any given topic. The upside of tweeting is the ease and immediacy: see something interesting and quickly post a few sentences expressing your take. Done. And the limitation on characters/words can also be a plus as it forces you to be concise and impactful.<br />
<br />
However, the downside is the ease & immediacy of tweeting allows you to sidestep meaningful time spent reflecting on the topic at hand. Reacting replaces contemplation. A snarky sentence or two does not count as deep, considerate thinking. And for many Twitter users, the goal becomes getting many likes and hopefully -- fingers crossed -- going viral.<br />
<br />
I admit, I got sucked into all that, the quick feel-good that comes from posting a tweet, then seeing how widely read it becomes, watching my followers grow in size (to 100, wow!) and wondering why others have so many more than me. Ugh.<br />
<br />
So I plan to return to blogging. I will tweet links to all blog posts and I will remain active on Twitter. But I want to get back to writing commentary longer than 280 characters. Incredibly, I blogged all the way through the GW Cheney reign and thought that was bad; never did I believe we'd see worse. But Trump makes GW look like FDR!<br />
<br />
Stay tuned....Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-42173915537927271572018-07-16T15:17:00.000-04:002018-07-16T18:38:33.493-04:00The Tipping PointI was going to try and write about the entire Strzok hearing but just couldn't stomach it. And trust me, it was horribly bad even before you get to the vile comments by Louie "Gomer Pyle" Gohmert. It was political grandstanding at its worst, nothing more.<br />
<br />
It's hilarious to hear the Republicans go on about Strzok's anti-Trump bias, and how that presumably affected his professional work, and yet all of the House Republicans are obviously biased, 100%, no doubt. Yet we're expected to presume they're unbiased in <i>their</i> investigation about the 2016 election.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's most obvious is the Republicans are desperate and in deep-panic mode. The only goal of the hearing was to discredit Strzok, and by association the Mueller investigation, because they know what's coming. Friday's twelve indictments were just a prelude.<br />
<br />
And with today's press conference following the Trump/Putin meeting, that desperation and panic became even more palpable. More than a few Republicans have criticized Trump for his comments, and even Fox's Neil Cavuto <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/media/397217-neil-cavuto-trump-press-conference-with-putin-was-disgusting" target="_blank">said</a> it was "disgusting."<br />
<br />
<b>I believe today marks the tipping point. </b>From here we should start to see Republicans increasingly flee the sinking ship that is POTUS Trump. This historically awful and treasonous press conference was likely the last straw. How can the Republicans continue to support this man and his administration, abdicating their duties of oversight and being fully complicit?<br />
<br />
As I said, bad things are coming down the road from Mueller and they know it. They've been banking on enough Americans simply not believing the bad news when it's revealed (thanks to the discrediting efforts of Republicans and Fox News).<br />
<br />
But Republicans are taking a big chance, one that can blow up in their faces and decimate the GOP for many years to come.<br />
<br />
With Trump defending Putin today and denying the findings of our own American intelligence agencies, Republicans are breaking out in flop sweat behind closed doors. Many are starting to realize they may have made a bad bet in siding with party over country.<br />
<br />
Get ready to observe the rats turn on their orange leader....</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-86507483279050456522018-07-13T08:49:00.001-04:002018-07-13T08:49:32.068-04:00Strzok Congressional Hearing, Part 2Rep. Jerrold Nadler's opening statement:<br />
<ul>
<li>He rightly points out that this hearing should really be about the nearly 3,000 children wrongfully separated from their families, how this happened and how it will be resolved. As opposed to this sideshow that will only play well on Fox News and to "the base."</li>
<li>Nadler goes on to state that post-election, the House Dems requested that the House conduct investigations into Russia's interference in the election, and Repubs said "no."</li>
<li><u>Note:</u> the CSPAN replay had "CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION" posted in the lower left corner the entire time. It's a helpful reminder since this entire hearing was NOT about Hillary's emails. It was all about trying to make Strzok look bad and not credible. This hearing was just another effort by Republicans to smear Mueller and his investigation, to further plant seeds of doubt in the minds of "the base."</li>
<li>Nadler requested that his Republican colleagues treat Strzok with common courtesy and respect -- almost as if Nadler knew how this hearing would play out.</li>
</ul>
<div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-27543253297760956572018-07-12T18:57:00.001-04:002018-07-12T21:11:35.799-04:00Strzok Congressional Hearing, Part 1Rep. Bob Goodlatte's opening statement:<br />
<ul>
<li>He wants to get this "off the front pages." The Mueller investigation has had zero leaks. </li>
<li>He talks about "text message after text message, dripping with bias." Someone please name the volumes of biased text messages that he's referring to....?</li>
<li>He says "the FBI director predetermined the outcome of the case months in advance." Huh? Mueller? Comey? (both Republicans) What is he talking about?</li>
<li>It's very telling that he feels the need to state that the House investigation has been "legitimate" in its oversight duties, AND he specifically lashes out at those "who continue to disparage our investigation." When you're defending, you're losing.</li>
<li>It's a joke, really. Goodlatte spent most of his time defending the farcical House investigation, trying to rebut the justified criticisms of how the House has completely divorced itself of proper oversight, in this case, of the Executive Branch, and namely the POTUS. But he ends his statement with a LOL howler, saying, "no one is above the law." Really?! How about Trump, the POTUS, will that apply to him down the road? Will Goodlatte abide by whatever comes of Mueller's investigation? And if it is found that Trump is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors," will Goodlatte remember that "no one is above the law"??</li>
</ul>
<div>
After all is said done, Strock's texts are but a speck on a GOP elephant's ass. Goodlatte tries to make the case that Strzok <b>is</b> Mueller, <b>is</b> heading the entire investigation into Trump, that it's really about Strzok vs. Trump, mano vs. mano. What a joke.<br />
<br />
And when it comes to the election, Strzok's presumed and supposed efforts to stop Trump amounted to zilch, notta, whereas Putin and Russia wielded tremendous influence and had a real effect -- and yet Goodlatte and Repubs spend no time on this. It's all about Mueller and Hillary and Comey -- or anything that stands as a threat to their hold on power.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-76264589225083944382018-07-10T16:48:00.002-04:002018-07-10T16:49:35.732-04:00Trump, creator of criminals<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump claimed Mexico was exporting their rapists and murderers to the USA.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">The usual horse sh*t from him.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #14171a;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">But by separating these kids, he (and Stephen Miller) has greatly increased the likelihood that many of these kids actually grow up to be murderers and rapists.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-65335438124381363572018-07-05T12:29:00.000-04:002018-07-05T12:29:01.156-04:00The Telling QuietConservatives and those on the right have clamored loudly against abortion for many decades. Yet finally when overturning Roe v. Wade is within their grasp, they suddenly go quiet.<br />
<br />
Why the silence?<br />
<br />
I liken it to sneaking a fox into the hen house. You must be very quiet, don't make a sound, no sudden moves, don't breath until you finally get the fox inside. Then it can pounce and go crazy!<br />
<br />
Anti-abortion proponents are going to try and deftly sneak through their pick. The relative quiet is telling and foreboding.<br />
<br />
Trump's pick will undoubtedly dance, dodge and attempt to finesse his/her way through the hearing(s). For an example of what to expect, <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4681521/al-franken-roasted-amy-barrett" target="_blank">watch</a> Al Franken grill SCOTUS pick favorite Amy Barrett. It basically becomes an exercise in running out the clock without saying anything especially controversial or of substance. Feign ignorance, experience memory lapses, act naive -- whatever it takes to get through unscathed.<br />
<br />
And nearly all the senators will oblige. For those few who choose to look tough and determined, just hold the line, it won't last long.<br />
<br />
Such a charade allows senators like Susan Collins to later claim she was duped, that she was told X during the hearing and can't be blamed for the new Justice siding with Y or Z.<br />
<br />
Yes, an incredibly lame defense for those who have at least half a brain, but that's beside the point.<br />
<br />
However, all of that said, voting for Gorsuch is quite a different matter compared to this time around. Yes, Gorsuch did the dodge and dance regarding Roe/Wade, offering his respect for "settled law" and precedence. Right. But everyone knows, everyone, that push come to shove, Gorsuch will help to overturn Roe/Wade.<br />
<br />
Yet there was always Kennedy to serve as a ballast, to keep the Roe/Wade decision intact. And in effect, Kennedy offered cover to "moderate" senators like Collins to vote for Gorsuch.<br />
<br />
But that cover is now gone.<br />
<br />
This next SCOTUS vote will directly target Roe/Wade. If a senator votes for Trump's pick, he/she will be voting to overturn Roe/Wade, period. No lame excuses allowed later about how you were misled or if you knew then what you know now. Nope, no one's gonna buy it. This vote is plain as day.<br />
<br />
Such a reality should make the likes of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski sweat a bit and force them to do some earnest soul-searching. Clearly their legacy is at stake. Do they want to be forever remembered for the key votes that turned back the clock 50+ years, to an awful era of coat hangers and maimed women? Not to mention the possibility of criminalizing mothers??<br />
<br />
It's one thing to give empty rhetoric and then cave, voting the party line. It's quite another to be the deciding factor in establishing a dystopian nightmare.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-75569510187930817132018-06-29T15:32:00.001-04:002018-06-29T15:41:28.289-04:00Conservatives and the SCOTUS openingJeremy Peters was on Morning Joe this morning to discuss his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/conservatives-supreme-court-fight.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fjeremy-w.-peters&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection" target="_blank"><i>NY Times</i> piece</a> concerning conservatives and the soon-to-be SCOTUS opening.<br />
<br />
Some brief comments:<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Jeremy said conservatives bemoan the fact that historically they've been on the wrong side of many SCOTUS verdicts.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hmm, maybe this is because they're on the wrong side of the law and Constitution. Yet instead they perceive it as the fault of a person, the Justice(s). See Souter, or Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. They want someone who is not going to properly interpret the Constitution or what the founding fathers intended. Rather they want strict ideologues, to side with narrowly-focused beliefs, not legal mumbo-jumbo.</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Many evangelicals and/or conservatives voted for Trump for one reason only: abortion. In other words, SCOTUS picks to ban abortion. That's it. They ignore all of the voluminous filth and repugnant aspects of Trump, believing they're good with God & Heaven if they just ban this medical procedure. Trump may ruin the USA as we know it, but that's not going to stop these people from entering the pearly gates. And let's ignore the fact that the founding fathers specifically designated for the separation of church and state. We are NOT a country founded on religion, but rather a secular nation founded on laws. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Jeremy said on MJ that it's amazing to think Reagan -- "the conservative lion" -- appointed O'Connor and Kennedy. </li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But not before the Democrats fought hard and got Bork borked. And note also that Reagan today would be a moderate centrist compared to the far right positions of the GOP. I maintain that if Reagan were alive today, running for president, and yet did not look like Reagan, Republicans would cast him out with fervent animus. </blockquote>
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-28804973659725791152018-06-05T08:35:00.001-04:002018-06-05T08:45:46.801-04:00Eagles, Trump & Fox News<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Every morning I watch both Fox News and MSNBC, flipping back and
forth to see the difference in coverage. It's really incredible. This
morning I watch Doocy, Kilmeade and whatever beautiful babe sits between
them go on and on about the Eagles visit to the White House being cancelled
by Trump due to disagreement over kneeling during the national anthem. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But
the FACT is no Eagle player <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eagles-white-house-visit-canceled-torrey-smith-fact-check-trump/" target="_blank">ever kneeled</a> during the national anthem.
It's another Fox News lie. And the pictures Fox showed of Eagle players
kneeling were NOT during the national anthem but rather during prayer gatherings well before the game and anthem -- meaning Fox News purposely showed pictures
out of context to prove their (false) narrative. Outrageous. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fox
does this all the time, I see it every morning, lies and distortions to
mislead viewers. They violate Journalism 101 ethics regularly. The sad
truth is too many Americans rely on Fox for supposedly real news and
actually believe what they're being told, never fact-checking (as I do).
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The FACT is most Eagles players had
refused to show up at the White House because they disagreed with Trump
on many political issues. Reportedly only 9 out of 70 Eagles were going
to show, and because that made Trump look bad (which can NEVER happen),
he cancelled the visit. It had NOTHING to do with kneeling and the
national anthem, but that is what Trump tweeted and that is what Fox
News conveyed to their viewers. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Speaking
of facts, I'm still numb about Trump saying he can pardon himself. Yes, we have a president who has decreed himself a king, above
the law. If he commits a crime, it doesn't matter, he believes he can
just pardon himself. Imagine if Obama had said this, or Hillary as president, there would be nonstop calls for impeachment by Fox News and Republicans. But with Trump, nothing, silence.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The word "hypocrisy" has lost all meaning at this point.....</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-76343865007425592102018-05-27T15:14:00.001-04:002018-05-27T15:17:28.430-04:00What is the point?<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Rudy Giuliani is usually wrong about everything (esp. of late), but recently he likely got something right. He reminds us that any judgement by Mueller would probably have to be handled by Congress when it came to punishments or reprimands. Quoting from the <i><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">NY Times</a></i>, "</span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">any finding of wrongdoing would be referred to Congress, putting it squarely in the realm of politics."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That said it's absolutely conceivable the Mueller investigation could result in proven acts of "h<span style="color: #222222;">igh </span><span style="color: #222222;">crimes and</span><span style="color: #222222;"> misdemeanors"</span> and ultimately amount to 100% non-action by Congress. Such balking would be entirely consistent with everything we've seen thus far by the Republicans, who have if anything been complicit with Trump as opposed to fulfilling their Constitutional duty to serve as a check on the Executive Branch. And even if the GOP loses the House in November, it's doubtful the Senate would have enough "brave" Republicans to vote for impeachment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So where does that leave us as a country?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's become obvious that the founding fathers never conceived of a Donald Trump, a sociopath compulsive liar who has no moral foundation, no sense of ethical principles. Or should I say, they likely never conceived that such a person would ever be electable to president. Yet here we are.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It goes back to the truism, "we get the government we deserve." Yes, Russia meddled, and yes Hillary was deeply flawed and made the horrible decision regarding her private email server, and yes Comey made an infamously horrible decision just before the election, tilting the scale. But Trump was <i>so</i> bad he still should've lost, and yet just enough voters were conned. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And now he's in there and we can't get him out. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump has been hard at work trying to once again con just enough people that Mueller's investigation is a partisan witch hunt. He knows that at end of the day, this is more of a political fight than legal. Trump will most likely take the Fifth, not meet with Mueller and the political fallout be damned. Any ensuing blowback he will survive, given the gutless backing of Republicans. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So remind me again, what is the ultimate point of the Mueller investigation? To present us with the facts for what purpose? To presumably act on, right? Does anyone really see that happening at this point...?? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sadly, my fear is Mueller's report will become a for-the-record historical document, much like a Blue Ribbon Commission study. Lengthy, filled with facts, suggesting certain actions be taken, but in the end nothing comes of it, relegated to becoming an ignored effort. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hopefully I'm wrong.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-60824544517411099192018-05-20T17:08:00.000-04:002018-05-20T17:08:09.149-04:00Josh Barro can be very sillyI all but laughed when I read <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5" target="_blank">this piece</a> by Josh Barro.<br />
<br />
There's been many Republicans who have left the party due to Trump. Some have done it for personal reasons involving principles, and others have seemingly done it more out of public appearance, that it would be too embarrassing to remain given the buffoonery of Trump. I believe Barro falls in the latter camp.<br />
<br />
After following him on Twitter for several months, Barro appears to be something of a provocateur. Whereas other journalists are hard at work trying to come up with scoops and sourced stories of substance, Barro seems to be all about clickbait. Try to put together that piece that has lots of sizzle, is tantalizing, and couple it with a controversial headline (key to clickbait). Then sit back and (hopefully) watch it catch fire.<br />
<br />
To wit, this Clinton piece.<br />
<br />
Barro claims that the Clintons are a big reason why Trump supporters are not shocked by Trump's many transgressions and wrong-doings, that they don't care because of the prior awfulness of Bill and Hillary. Really? Such an assertion makes <u>both</u> Clinton and Trump supporters scratch their heads, saying "huh?!" -- which is exactly what Barro wants. Twice the audience = more clicking to read what the heck he's putting forth.<br />
<br />
Ding ding, mission accomplished.<br />
<br />
Barro's employer, Business Insider, is arguably a web site all about clicks. Much like say Buzzfeed, the writers are judged by the number of eyeballs viewing your piece, as opposed to the actual veracity and quality, which while important, are seemingly secondary considerations. First and foremost, tantalize, provoke, create an immediate stir. Above all else, get people to click on your story for ad revenue purposes.<br />
<br />
Barro is all about that. It's to the point where I think he frequently sits back and wonders, "Ok, there's this generally accepted narrative out there about X, how can I say it or position it differently that will cause people to get upset or to say 'WTF?' and click on my piece?"<br />
<br />
Ergo this Clinton story.<br />
<br />
I'll be the first to admit the Clintons are no saints. To the point where when Bill was caught lying about Monica -- yes, an entirely unserious matter on its face (marital fidelity is not on par with treason or acts of criminality) -- I was all for Bill resigning. NOT for reasons involving giving in to a true witch hunt, led by Newt Gingrich, but rather he did lie and he was a lame duck, so best to clear the way for Gore to run in 2000. Stepping down would establish Gore as presiding POTUS, allowing voters to already have that title attached to his name. And Gore would've been able to "adopt" much of the good resulting from Bill's eight years and yet give him time to distance himself from the lingering hangover questions concerning Monica and the impeachment crap.<br />
<br />
But to relate Bill, and Hillary for that matter, to the willful blindness and ignorance of Trump supporters is absurd, and just silly.<br />
<br />
To prove it, I posit this: would Trump supporters be this jaded and quiet if all this was going on with Hillary as POTUS? I highly doubt it. They'd be screaming "IMPEACH" and "TREASON" and "LOCK HER UP," much like they were doing before the election. According to Barro, the Clintons helped to normalize corruption to the point where diehard Trumpians have accepted all kinds of wrongfulness, or Trump is simply the Clintons on steroids.<br />
<br />
That all sounds conceivable, especially when Barro selectively whips together incidents and facts into what he sees as a believable thesis. Yet once you start to question this and assert that, it begins to unravel, and he no doubt will start refuting and backpedaling a mile-a-minute as he often does on MSNBC, until you're forced to go to a commercial....<br />
<br />
If what Barro is suggesting is true, then Trump supporters should be just as cynical, and therefore not care, if it was Trump, Hillary or any politician for that matter. But we all know that's simply not true. The many Benghazi inquiries went on for years, with no wrong-doing to show for it, but the Mueller investigation turning all of one-year-old has already dragged on too long for most Republicans and Trumpians. But I thought they were jaded? Numbed by the corrupt Clintons? Why are they even keeping track of days or months?<br />
<br />
The fact is Trump supporters are all about extreme tribalism, hypocrisy and purposeful ignorance. If all of what has been going for Trump as POTUS had also occurred under a President Obama or Hillary, they'd be up-in-arms upset -- and rightly so. But it's Tribalism 101: because he's a Republican (who also happens to be a TV celeb), it's OK, but if a Dem, 100% unacceptable. And therein lies the bald-faced hypocrisy. Yes, the Clintons got taken to the woodshed for much less, BUT the screaming and outcry was FAR louder against them. <u>It's not quieter now because of the normalization of corruption, rather it's quieter now simply because the Clintons are not in office!</u> And because a Repub is POTUS! Hell, as POTUS, Obama had perhaps one of the most scandal-free eight years in history, yet Republicans tried their darndest to make a big stink out of whatever trivial thing they could find.<br />
<br />
As for purposeful ignorance, Trump is a consummate con man and a pathological liar. And his supporters are putty in his hands. I imagine most Fox News viewers are ardent Trumpians, and therefore willfully and purposefully ignorant. It's been widely circulated that Fox News is less than truthful, to the point where many FN viewers I know acknowledge this fact. But they don't care. Fox News confirms their preexisting notions and tells them what they want to hear and believe. That it's fiction or heavily distorted does not matter. They are A-OK with being conned. And Trump knows this, completely. One of the few true things to escape his lips was that he could <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html" target="_blank">shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters</a>. Sadly, that is VERY true. In fact, if a Russian "pee tape" does exist, what is he worried about? He wouldn't lose one supporter (and may actually gain a few perverts).<br />
<br />
There are many studies confirming what we're seeing with Trump supporters. Their outright willingness to be conned and to knowingly believe in non-truths, with the primary motivation being confirmation of preexisting, strongly held convictions. And NONE OF THAT has anything to do with Hillary or Bill.<br />
<br />
Josh Barro is just being silly, but more so attempting to provoke for the sake of clicks. As per usual. Quite sad.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-32754338021045018972018-05-17T09:25:00.001-04:002018-05-17T09:26:30.899-04:00Normalizing Collusion<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We're now seeing collusion get normalized. See <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/giuliani-trump-russia-collusion_us_5afd206ae4b06a3fb50d92d9" target="_blank">Giuliani on The Ingraham Angle</a>. Rudy admits to collusion with a foreign country, getting dirt on Hillary from Russia. As if that's OK in itself. And then saying because (supposedly) the info was not used, that also makes it OK.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And keep in mind, as with Trump's tweet this morning:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixNCZ2YeC_-tdxGDDffOGMe96HAvtkoP4xyWqvffUmsAwnRd_lWSf3Pt40p22HmCsfrs6vrQjW9segGbLW-B1V7lcKjLXh9g9Q4cG3qPFoV_odhNti1OUG8DtbfWRW_mbTUyakng/s1600/trump3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="144" data-original-width="569" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixNCZ2YeC_-tdxGDDffOGMe96HAvtkoP4xyWqvffUmsAwnRd_lWSf3Pt40p22HmCsfrs6vrQjW9segGbLW-B1V7lcKjLXh9g9Q4cG3qPFoV_odhNti1OUG8DtbfWRW_mbTUyakng/s1600/trump3.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He claims "NO COLLUSION," period. He doesn't say anything about criminality. Rather he just categorically states "NO COLLUSION." Yet his lawyer Rudy just admitted on Fox News that there indeed was.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Watch for this to evolve into there was collusion, but it's no crime. It will morph from there was no collusion, at all, to there was collusion, but so what? It's not technically illegal (in their view). Rudy just started that ball rolling....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #e6ecf0; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a 14px="" 236="" 23="" 240="" 26="" arial="" background-color:="" color:="" elvetica="" font-family:="" font-size:="" helvetica="" href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/997076300476055552%3E%3C/a%3E%3C/span%3E%3C/p%3E%3Cp%3E%3Cspan%20style=" neue="" quot="" rgb="" sans-serif="">
</a></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And as per usual, just imagine if this were Obama or Hillary. The Fox News world (Hannity, Ingraham, Newt, etc. -- and all Republicans) would be apoplectic, screaming "IMPEACH" and "TRAITOR" 24/7. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But with Trump, they don't care, all is forgiven. This is tribalism and hypocrisy at their worst possible.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-90618185966691027732018-04-16T21:07:00.000-04:002018-04-16T21:07:12.636-04:00James Comey ABC Interview<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My thoughts as I watched the interview with George </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Stephanopoulos:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Mafia. Loyalty to the family first. Period. You don't snitch, instead go to jail. This is indeed Trump's entire way of life and thinking. But, whereas the mafia can buy off & influence high-placed people, Trump can "only" pardon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Comey said that with that now (in)famous walk-across-the-room encounter with Trump, it was all about Trump "establishing dominance" and making him part of "the family."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* George should have stated that the Steele dossier was initially financed by the GOP, an often not-mentioned crucial fact. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Look, when all is said and done, Hillary was just really really stupid regarding her personal emails. To decide to use a personal server, while knowing you were going to run for president in 2016, was just dumb. In the end, to the extent the emails hurt her, it was all her fault. And if she was paranoid (why?), was it worth the risk of an eventual hugely distracting perceived scandal? (which is what happened)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* True point by Comey, that the reason he felt more of an obligation to disclosing Hillary email developments vs. Russian election meddling was because the Hillary "scandal" was fully public, whereas the Russian election was not. It's easy to look back now and blur the two, as if they were equally known then, but was not the case. Therefore if he chose to not comment on the Hillary email controversy he'd potentially be viewed as favoring her, and yet if he commented on, at the time, hazy Russian meddling, he'd be viewed as disfavoring Trump.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Regarding Obama's inauguration crowd size vs. Trump's, Comey said this was empirical fact, no dispute. And from that he believed Trump was just a liar. But Comey didn't go far enough, he pulled back on the reigns. All politicians shade the truth or lie. But Trump is beyond that, instead an outright pathological psychopath re lying. In fact, many if not most politicians can't even relate to Trump's "talent" for lying!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Honest loyalty?? George is right, he said Trump likely took that as "we have a deal." If there's one thing Comey clearly came off as during this interview it's he's very naive. He may be different within the FBI, but this interview had him looking like Opie in the Andy Griffith show. Too much "aw shucks" and not enough healthy cynicism. Even if he was just trying to be polite or get through an awkward dinner, he NEVER should've agreed to honest loyalty. Did he forget that he headed FBI? And he already knew "the family" was all about loyalty! it appears he simply didn't have the guts, as he admitted. A very honest admission, but still sad. I ask, didn't he need such guts in the FBI on a daily basis given the constant tough decisions? Is Comey honest but spineless?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* George says, re Trump asking Comey to let Flynn off the hook, shouldn't Comey have said more?! Comey says maybe -- maybe?!! Another too polite moment? Gutless? Comey's way of escaping awkward moments?? Look, that's OK if you're a very proper and polite host of a dinner party and not head of the FBI! We of course want the FBI head to be honest and upstanding, but also confidently forthright and able to speak out forcefully at all times. So when does Comey finally get that gumption? <span class="aBn" data-term="goog_1464422" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(204, 204, 204); position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Oct 28, 2016, the</span></span> Hillary email announcement. Ugh.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Watching this interview, the video backdrops, it occurred to me: why is the FBI building still named after J. Edgar Hoover?? Given all we now know about Hoover, this shouldn't be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* We're reminded that the <u>day after</u> the Comey firing, Trump has Russians in the Oval Office. OMG, just the optics!!! But it's Trump showing us who are his true friends. Comey reminds in this interview that no other Americans were in room. Plant surveillance bugs everywhere!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* When Trump tweets he hopes there's no tapes, Comey (correctly) is hoping for tapes. Innocent people who tell the truth want tapes! Compare that to Trump's behavior regarding Mueller, where it's all about shutting it down and fear of discovery. Oh yeah, that screams "innocent."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Trump clearly obstructed justice as per the Lester Holt interview, plain as day. How does Trump's base not see this? Unless they're unaware because they only watch Fox News (which is completely possible).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Where is Obama?? His last tweet was March 25th, about Loyola-Chicago in NCAA tourney. Really? No comment about Comey, or Trump, or Syria, or.... I've been asking this question for months on Twitter, where is Obama? Given an atypical POTUS with Trump, to say the least, I would think Obama would sh*t-can the obligatory respectfulness of a prior POTUS and instead speak out. But no....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* If Trump fired Mueller, Comey says it would be a shame if Trump were impeached, that instead the voting public should decide in 2020. WTF? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* The interview concludes with Comey stating the obvious: Trump is unfit to be president, due to a lack of morality. But c'mon, there are multiple reasons why he's unfit, we can debate the order, but key point is it's a list. Plural. But then Comey says don't impeach? That it would "short circuit" the process? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But doing so could save lives! And if it's agreed Trump's unfit to be POTUS, get him out now!! We have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, the people we voted in need to back the Constitution for us today, not in 2020!! More proof that Comey can be very dense. Comey is opting for that McConnell chicanery re Garland, wait till next election -- no, do it now!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* Comey concludes with, "This president does not reflect values of this country. " True dat! But unfortunately Trump's values DO reflect the values of Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, the alt right and the too-many angry Americans who have been brainwashed into believing Trump's BS. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-31665448391151180242018-03-30T09:47:00.000-04:002018-03-30T09:49:04.782-04:00Corporations Need To Force Fox News To Be More ResponsibleAt some point, Laura Ingraham must've decided that Ann Coulter's act was getting old and it was time for a new right-wing, repugnant blond she-devil. Fox News agreed, hiring Ingraham to host her own prime-time show. Along with Sean Hannity, she has been one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders.<br />
<br />
But like Hannity when he went <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/advertisers-sean-hannity-roy-moore-coverage_us_5a0b6582e4b00a6eece4f0aa" target="_blank">too far with Roy Moore</a>, Ingraham has had to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/business/media/laura-ingraham-david-hogg.html" target="_blank">eat crow</a> for going too far with criticism of Parkland survivor David Hogg. And why did she apologize? Because she actually realized how wrong she was? Hah! As with Hannity, it was due to corporate advertisers boycotting her show, i.e. it was due to $$$.<br />
<br />
There's no changing the likes of Ingraham and Hannity. They're craven dim-bulbs that make a very nice living by being provocative and outlandish, speaking hate and vitriol, fabricating lies and fake news, anything to get their lemming viewers riled up and pissed off.<br />
<br />
But what cuts all the crap is $$$. Threaten to take away dollars, and suddenly Laura and Sean (via Fox News directive) get responsible and attempt to retract whatever garbage they spewed.<br />
<br />
This should become a trend. Corporations should increasingly use their tremendous ad $$$ leverage to make Fox News act responsibly. It's sad but it seems to be the only thing that works with Trump TV. Perhaps the constant threat of advertisement boycotts could force Fox News to change its ways, to lessen the misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies, and actually broadcast fact-based news.<br />
<br />
David Hogg obviously understands this power structure and immediately called on people to pressure corporations to pull ads. It worked. He didn't waste time with what Laura likely wanted, to get into an infantile back/forth tweet war of insults and barbs. Instead, Hogg outsmarted her (even with his meager 4.1 GPA).<br />
<br />
This won't be the last time Ingraham, or Hannity, or Tucker Carlson go too far with their ignorant tweets or comments. And we just need to remember what young David Hogg did.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-66149724867701964462018-03-26T15:23:00.003-04:002018-03-26T15:34:21.543-04:00David Brooks is making me baldAnother <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/opinion/speaking-as-a-white-male.html" target="_blank">column</a> by David Brooks, another instance of my reading and trying hard not to pull my hair out.<br />
<br />
As is usually the case with Brooks, he is convinced he's writing about very profound and "deep" ideas, when it's just not the case. I am too often embarassed <i>for</i> him, making reading his columns that much more cringe-worthy. (And please, in no way do I profess to be a Mensa candidate -- all the more worse for Brooks).<br />
<br />
In his latest "thought piece," Brooks is apparently struggling (surprise!) with a chicken and egg dilemma: do we arrive at opinions on our own independently, or do we just adopt them from membership groups? Original thought or groupthink? Meanwhile, Rome (aka USA) burns, but I digress.<br />
<br />
Brooks writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Busy fighting communism and fascism, people back then emphasized individual reason and were deeply allergic to groupthink.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We don’t think this way anymore, and in fact thinking this way can get you into trouble. </blockquote>
This is exactly the kind of Brooksian generality that drives me nuts! Just lazy prose. People back then what? Oh sure, back then people were all about "individual reason" and were not in any way susceptible to "groupthink" -- really? Show evidence! Brooks is much like Fox News: say or write it, and -- poof -- it's true. No need to provide proof with facts and sources. Just sound off with generalizations that seem to sound right (to him), don't bother doing any actual research to bolster and support your claims.<br />
<br />
It's like my older relatives who wax nostalgic about the "good old days" (1950s), mentioning several positives, but of course selectively leaving out many negatives. Preferring to just broadly generalize based on memories and notions. I'll dare to say to them, "But what about the many diseases then (now gone)? What about how women were regarded as second class citizens? What about racism? What about intolerance for gays? Bullying in schools? What about the pollution and lack of protective regulations?" By then, I get brushed aside with a hand gesture, not wanting to be heard. Facts are often inconvenient and bothersome.<br />
<br />
More from Brooks:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How many times have we all heard somebody rise up in conversation and say, “Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean? After you’ve stated your group identity, what is the therefore that follows?</blockquote>
The inference being that the person is about to say something that stems from his/her group identity and not anything originating independently from the individual. Again, more lazy thinking based on a tired notion and assumption. How does Brooks draw this conclusion? And frankly, I believe when a person makes this sort of intro to a statement, it's not to then expound a groupthink-derived idea or sentiment, but rather is simply letting the listener know that the person has at least some direct relevance to what is about to be said. In other words, rather than saying something that is likely an assumption or commonly-held notion (Brooks' forte), the person is giving a helpful heads up "been there, done that, i.e. I know at least a little about what I speak."<br />
<br />
But no, Brooks just assumes that whatever comes next is group-based dogma or platitudes, the person just regurgitating cliches adopted from his/her "kind."<br />
<br />
Brooks continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I started, it was very important for opinion writers to never think of themselves as a Republican or a Democrat. We were individual inquirers, not polemicists for some political team. Over the years, many people stopped making that distinction.</blockquote>
Classic Brooks. He writes about something almost not realizing that it tends to go against the point(s) he's trying to make. Brooks is Republican (he may deny it -- ignore). What political party is known for lemming-like behavior, in which the members all predictably circle the wagons, fall into line and back the chosen candidate 100%? It's certainly not the D party!! Herding cats is easier than getting Democrats to universally agree on most things. But Republicans started with 17 (?) presidential candidates, narrowed it down to Trump, and despite many in the party complaining, we've seen GOP voters staunchly back Trump. No groupthink there!<br />
<br />
But I'm sure Brooks will claim he's spreading the blame and his criticism. It's meant for all sides, not just one. Right. Read the column, you tell me.<br />
<br />
Brooks writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[I]n the 1990s, African-Americans strongly supported tougher criminal justice laws. Now opinion has shifted and a majority of African-Americans strongly oppose them.<br />
<..><br />
Why are people’s views of global warming, genetically modified foods and other scientific issues strongly determined by political label? That seems ridiculous.</blockquote>
Is that true about African-Americans in the 1990s? Am I to just assume Brooks is correct?<br />
<br />
As for science-based, factual issues such as global warming and GMOs, yes, it is ridiculous that the Republican Party has increasingly become about non-science and non-facts and nonsense.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our political system is based on the idea that persuasion and deliberation lead to compromise and toward truth. </blockquote>
Just hilarious. Which political party is more to blame for lack of compromise? Which party steadfastly refused to work with Obama as president? In 2012, which political party was Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein referring to when they <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.33ef4b4cb893" target="_blank">wrote</a>, "ideologically extreme; <b>scornful of compromise</b>; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"? And which party is willfully ignorant of facts and the truth, and repeatedly looks to mislead and distort and con? You guessed it, the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
But it's more dignified and "fair" for Brooks to employ the oft-used false equivalency canard, that both sides are guilty. And he gets to then shake his head and hands in frustration, stating that "he's confused."<br />
<br />
Oh please.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-3746059451286153902018-02-28T13:44:00.002-05:002018-02-28T13:44:50.350-05:00Another reason why Democrats lose elections (despite being on the right side of issues)Question: Why did it take horrific pictures of ex-wives with black-eyes to alert everyone to the security clearance problem in the White House? More so, how is it Democrats in DC didn't first get word of this serious problem and inform the media?<br />
<br />
I have to believe if Obama or Hillary were POTUS, Republicans would've been all over this scandal, early, finding out about it through leaks and word of mouth (which flow like water in Washington). Next thing the Fox News channel is covering it 24/7, demanding resignations and even impeachment.<br />
<br />
As it was, Obama had to run a super-tight ship ethically because he knew that even a hint of scandal, no matter how baseless, would get out and spread like wildfire. Republicans are forever trying to find wrong-doing to hopefully hang Democrats -- to the point where they usually just fabricate "scandal" (see Benghazi).<br />
<br />
Yet with Trump, we have a scandal-o-rama, seemingly nonstop incidents of <u>real</u> wrong-doing, often involving very serious violations. But how often are Democrats credited with uncovering any of these? Again, in this case of Porter's security clearance problem, which gravitated to Kushner and others, we the public can thank the media after explicit photos were released. Initially, it was a MeToo scandal with Porter needing to leave for prior domestic abuse, but then with further scrutiny it morphed into a national security scandal. And only <i>then</i> did we see a bunch of Dem politicians scurry to MSNBC and CNN to pile on condemnation.<br />
<br />
This is one reason why Democrats lose more elections than they should, especially since they tend to be on the right side (the side most Americans favor) with most issues. They're simply too polite and respectful when it comes to playing hardball politics. They need to be more cagy and savvy when it comes to uncovering "dirt" on the other side. (And of course I mean real, actual scandal -- unlike Republicans and their many fake BOMBSHELL scandals (yawn)).<br />
<br />
With this administration, uncovering scandal is as easy as falling out of a boat and hitting water. However, Trump doesn't have to worry with Schumer, Pelosi et al on the beat.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-6220074868342481992018-02-23T09:15:00.000-05:002018-02-23T09:22:00.226-05:00Conservatism In Exile -- Really?This morning on <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe" target="_blank">Morning Joe</a>, Joe and the gang were waxing nostalgic for the good old days of true blue conservatism. You know, like it was back when Reagan was in office.<br />
<br />
I'm no spring chicken and I fully recall those days. I call "fake news!" What are Joe et al thinking about?<br />
<br />
Look, I get that Trump and today's GOP would have anyone wanting to disassociate from anything even remotely resembling this rotten cast of characters. But let's keep it real.<br />
<br />
As I've said repeatedly, Trump didn't just appear on the scene out of nowhere. He's not some invader from outer space who seduced one party into having him as their nominee.<br />
<br />
Rather it's been a gradual evolution (actually devolution) of the Republican Party that has resulted in Trump as POTUS. Admit it! Don't rub your eyes in disbelief, trying to figure out how we got here. The lineage has been fairly straightforward. Reagan to Gingrich to GW/Cheney to Tea Party to Trump. Go ahead, wince, but that's more or less been the regression.<br />
<br />
I have argued that today's GOP and Trump simply represent "conservatism" on steroids, to its extreme. And it's just very difficult for many to accept this ugly reality -- understandably.<br />
<br />
Joe Scarborough never actually explains what he means by the conservatism he longs for, other than to just mention the name of Reagan and his supposed legacy (much of which has become folklore).<br />
<br />
Let's revisit much of what occurred in the 1980s or during the heyday of "real" conservatism.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Reagan cut taxes and blew up the deficit. So has Trump and today's GOP. </li>
<li>Reagan's tax cuts were skewed towards favoring the rich and wealthy. So are Trump's tax cuts. </li>
<li>Republicans then were against government spending -- unless a Republican was POTUS, then it was OK. The same holds true with Trump and today's GOP.</li>
<li>Re spending, Reagan emphasized the military. Trump and today's GOP the same.</li>
<li>Reagan was big on rolling back regulations. Trump and today's GOP the same.</li>
<li>Reagan was not hugely pro-environment (see <a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1858691_1858690_1858648,00.html" target="_blank">James Watt</a>). Trump and today's GOP same, to say the least!</li>
<li>Conservatives then were very much pro-gun, pro-NRA, don't infringe on their rights to bear arms. Not true today?</li>
<li>And of course the anti-abortion holds true then and now....</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What am I missing? What is Joe Scarborough recalling that I seemed to have either forgotten or misinterpreted? Seriously. Enough with this mushrooming group of "recovering" Republicans (Scarborough, Frum, Kristol, Will, etc.) who seemingly pretend that their party was once something wholly different than what we're observing today. Me thinks they doth protest too much. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793222.post-78715947583779469982018-02-21T08:34:00.000-05:002018-02-21T08:38:34.596-05:00Pennsylvania Gerrymandering Obviously Undemocratic<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that the state's congressional district map needed to be redrawn. Of course, Trump weighed in against the Court, tweeting, "<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new 'pushed' Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct!"</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The original map was correct? Really? I suspect that like everything the POTUS says, the truth is likely the opposite. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before Trump won PA by the slimmest of margins (with the help of Russian meddling and Comey's preelection letter), the state had sided with the Democratic presidential candidate for the last six elections, going back to Bill Clinton in 1992. That's right, 6-0 for the "D" candidate.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As for registered voters in the state, here's the breakdown:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">Democratic: 48%</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">Republican: 38%</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">Other: 14%</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">Clearly, Democratic voters outnumber Republican in PA.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">And yet Pennsylvania has 13 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and just 5 Democrats. That's right, 72% of their 18 U.S. House seats are Republican despite PA obviously being a "D" state. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">At the state level, Pennsylvania has 155 Republican state representatives and just 98 Democratic reps, or 61% of the state House seats are Republican.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think the verdict for the Supreme Court was a no-brainer, one a 5th grader could've deduced. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">The unfortunate reality is this type of egregious gerrymandering remains in place in several other states. It's fair to surmise that with a more level playing field, Republicans would not be able to win House majorities at either the federal or state levels, so they must rely on these undemocratic district maps to jerry-rig the vote count in their favor. (Not to mention the enactment of widespread voter suppression measures).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">With the 2010 Republican gerrymandering combined with Trump as POTUS, the United States has likely never been more undemocratic.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0