Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

For my part, I would never believe people who supported Trump could be sincere in their concern about any form of ethnic or religious bigotry. Everyone wants to find someone who will champion their cause, but I'd rather make common cause with his targets than be alienated from groups he vilifies. In that sense, the worst part of this week's spectacle was having to see Trump tweet about anti-Semitism or the Republican party putting forward a motion condemning anti-Semitism but not the other forms of bigotry they've bathed in. It was hypocritical, it felt like a slap in the face to other minority communities, and was deeply embarrassing for those Jews who felt ambivalent about the whole thing.

And I say this as someone who thinks that someone should only say another individual or group of individuals has allegiance to another country if they are making an accusation. Probably not everyone agrees with me and I am not looking to argue this point though obviously you're welcome. I don't think Ilhan Omar was acting in bad faith, and I wish her well. Maybe she can convince some members of Congress to support policies that benefit the Palestinians. I hope she does.

[Stavros]

As I understand it, US law does not allow or prohibit dual nationality, whereas I believe that if a US citizen wishes to live and work in Canada they are obliged to give up one for the other. It is not illegal in the UK, Conservative MP Boris Johnson, for example, who was born in Manhattan, has dual British and American citizenship, and it is possible to be a citizen of the UK and Israel, or Pakistan and so on -the free movement of people, guaranteed under the Single Market Act of the European Union does not affect citizenship, so we have had over a million Polish citizens who have lived and married here but have not taken British citizenship whereas their children can have both.

The assumption has been that if you have dual nationality your loyalty is in question, but what is the test of loyalty, indeed, is there one? Is someone who burned their draft card rather than to go Vietnam, anti-American, disloyal? They swore allegiance to the flag every day in school, what happened? I suspect that those who question the loyalty of American Jews who, in whatever way support Israel -or those Arab Americans who support the Palestinian cause- and have their loyalty questioned, may be victims of a prejudice that smuggles its hate into a political argument without actually engaging the political issues.

[Stavros]

Two quick questions:

1) Is it true that it is illegal in the USA to turn your phone to silent if taking a photograph?

2) Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish the Electoral College -a) can this be done? b) is it a good idea?

[buttslinger]

1) Is it true that it is illegal in the USA to turn your phone to silent if taking a photograph?
Of course it is, privacy laws.
2) Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish the Electoral College -a) can this be done? b) is it a good idea?
a) The move would require a constitutional amendment, which is rather tough to pass. To do so, two-thirds of both the Senate and House of Representatives would need to support the change, as would 38 of the 50 states.
b) It's a great idea unless you're a Republican.

I've never heard about the phone thing, I think they want perverts to have a camera click sound when they're shooting "upskirts" in the mall.
ALL the voting laws are nuts, the reason we vote on Tuesday is so everyone's horse and buggy can get to the Polls on time. The IRS code is just as bad. The rich are guilty and the poor are innocent.

PS you brits hang in there, I have absolutely no advice to give....

[filghy2]

2) Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish the Electoral College -a) can this be done? b) is it a good idea?

Another possible way to achieve this without changing the constitution is a compact between the states to award their electoral college votes to whichever candidate gains a majority. That's unlikely to work for the same reason that the red states are unlikely to go along. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/

Ironically, the founding fathers devised the electoral college as a way to prevent a clearly unsuitable candidate from winning the presidency by manipulating the voters. https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

I googled the phone thing and got nothing, so it sounds like a myth.

[Stavros]

The protests against the Sackler Foundation have led to museums and galleries withdrawing their appeal for funding, and led to a confused debate on the origins of arts and education funding. A key reason for the protests at the Guggeneheim in New York has been the Sackler family business and the creation of powerful opioids that are at the centre of a health care crisis in the US. The problem for me, is that the Sackler family cannot be responsible for the drugs doctors prescribe for their patients, and there is evidence that US doctors prescribe opioids at far highe levels than in other countries. Heroin and Morphine are powerful drugs that have medicinal uses, as does cocaine, and it is clear that in some cases the production and distribution of these drugs is not medicinal but recreational and can lead to severe and indeed, fatal addictions. I don't see how the medical profession can be blamed for drug addiction which mostly is social and individual in origin, and where the medical profession has developed therapes to deal with addiction.

What strikes me about this, is that fossil fuels companies blamed for climate change are targeted by people who drive cars, use public transport -in other words, use the very fuels that they are complaining abou, while goverrnment funding of the arts and education is not condemend even when the government is not only legally and morally respnsible for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places, but is involved in the destruction of life and property right now. If the Sackler Foundation, why not the Rockefeller Foundation, or the US Government, or the British Government?

And, if the money dries up, where will the arts get its funding from? The search for a perfect donor is a wasted trip. And how much of the world's great examples of art and architecture were created using slave labour? In some case there might be an argument to resist funding -say, from the 9/11 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but the Sackler Foundation is not run as part of the family's pharmaceutical business, so I don't see the connection between it, and an opiod crisis that can be solved in the US if the medical services in the US want to -there are a plethora of pain killers on the market, it is up to doctors to make the right choices.

[filghy2]

And, if the money dries up, where will the arts get its funding from? The search for a perfect donor is a wasted trip. And how much of the world's great examples of art and architecture were created using slave labour?
There's a famous quote from Harry Lime/Orson Wells in the Third Man along similar lines:
"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

[Stavros]

There's a famous quote from Harry Lime/Orson Wells in the Third Man along similar lines:
"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

The Third Man, a cynical dismissal of life itself, with a soundtrack guaranteed to drive any music lover mad. How many times does that damn zither insert its spikes into the brain? As for Lime, what his quote does is expose his pathetic ingorance of Switzerland as a country, and its achievements. Funding the arts is not the same as creating them.

[FavreDisco]

My daughter told me a couple months back she identified as pan sexual, that she didn't base attractedness to another person based on their gender. I didn't know how to react. I admit, I had been narrow minded (mainly based out of my own fear) but in a gesture finding common ground to discuss things, I read a book she was reading called "Beyond Magenta." What stuck with me was in the author's note which states: "...once we get to know individuals who may be different from ourselves, it is less likely we will be wary of them. And maybe, just maybe, we will learn a little more about ourselves."
Individuals who decide to express themselves and embrace who they are, despite backlash, are courageous. And in the end, 'everyone wants love in their own way.' I think, ultimately the enemy here is fear. People fear what they don't understand and it's easier to play the hate card than actually taking the time to try to understand the other person as an individual who deserves respect and acceptance.

[Stavros]

To the extent that people are afraid of something they don't know, you are right. Some people like the unknown, the challenge of an opposite, not being comfortable where for others security is everything -knowing when they get to a foreign country there will be a hotel, the food will be edible, the people honest. With sexuality there may be a fear that difference is also unhappiness, but if parents truly love their children they must surely allow them to be who they are, but the fear that alternative sexualities to the simple binary choices is eroding the fabric of society is nonsense. There just aren't enough homosexuals, transexuals, any 'sexuals' to disrupt the balance that exists. If there is a 'threat' it is infertility and the decline of population growth, the curve expected to rise to 2050 and decline thereafter, a decline already evident in parts of Asia. Set against this and the wider problems of climate change, economic opportunity and political stability/instability, why get so stressed by something that for the person concerned is simply normal?

[Stavros]

This invocation of Jesus in the Pennsylvania State House seems over the top even by American standards, but if this is the way the US is going, it is the beginning of the end.

Appearing almost in tears, Ms Borowicz sermonised about “overcoming evil” in the name of Jesus – who she mentioned 13 times – and said “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess” in the name of him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-pray-jesus-republican-stephanie-borowicz-movita-johnson-harrell-a8841446.html

[filghy2]

This invocation of Jesus in the Pennsylvania State House seems over the top even by American standards, but if this is the way the US is going, it is the beginning of the end. [I]

It's certainly the way the Republican party is going - it's takeover by religious nutters, bigots and unprincipled scumbags is almost complete. It's had to see how this mindset can be compatible with democracy and the rule of law at the end of the day. Doesn't God's will have to take precedence over a man-made constitution?

[broncofan]

It's certainly the way the Republican party is going - it's takeover by religious nutters, bigots and unprincipled scumbags is almost complete. It's had to see how this mindset can be compatible with democracy and the rule of law at the end of the day. Doesn't God's will have to take precedence over a man-made constitution?
Since I don't agree in principle with any conservative policies it's difficult for me to see what their platform would look like if they get rid of the most extreme nutjobs. They can get rid of the bigots and the unprincipled scumbags but could they get rid of the religious nutters and still be conservative? Certainly they could have more respect for the first amendment's proscription on religious interference in governance, but being pro-life has been a core policy position for them despite Roe v Wade being a 40 plus year precedent.

A conservative friend of mine was writing a policy paper on women's rights and wanted to include a section arguing that being pro-life is compatible with being a feminist. I recall saying reproductive rights are so central to women's autonomy that I don't see how the argument could even be made. She ended up avoiding the subject and arguing that left-wing attempts to empower women were really paternalistic and the real obstacle to women's equality....

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure honest arguments can be made in support of too many of their policy positions. Allow the market to determine health care costs because it's the most efficient way to pay for it? Not pass civil rights laws because the free market dis-incentivizes discrimination? Defund social welfare programs because they create dependency and are responsible for the breakdown of the American family? These aren't strawmen. They actually believe this stuff but it's fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about it that their premises are false.

But yes, they can get rid of the most extreme bigots and liars. They can have respect for the rule of law and act in good faith. They cannot provide a remedy for the fact that their policy proposals are fairly easy to knock down with logic.

[Stavros]

I don't want to smear the Americans with a tag of ignorance, but how much detail on policy do Americans actually debate? The way the so-called debate on abortion is framed in many media outlets posits the existence of a heartbeat as the origin of life with the simple proposition that it is wrong to end it -according to Paula White, the President's 'Pastor'-the one who tells him what God wants (!)- he confronted a pro-choice Senator with the proposition it is wrong to kill babies, and the US has withdrawn funding from agencies that provide family planning advice as part of the US foreign aid programme. But where is the debate on what famly planning actually consists of in the US, where abortion is just one part of the services that are provided? Where is the debate on women's rights when the defeault position of the President's supporters is that 'women's rights' by definition is some lunatic feminist 'social justice' agenda out of touch with the American Way of Life?

On the matter of health care, where is the debate between a 'service' and a 'business'? The Single payer system is dismissed out of hand as socialism, preventing any rational debate on what it means, and how it mght benefit the USA, while the complex system which revolve around insurance policies that do or do not provide health care are too dense for most people to comprehend.

We have a similar problem in the UK where the Brexit debate has in fact, for most of the time, been based on distortion and lies, reduced to a simplistic notion we are either better off or worse off if we are in or out. Politicians love this, they love nothing better than avoiding the detail, while these days too many powerful poiticians never even bother with the detail, either because they 'don't have time' or in the case of the President are too thick to understand it, and can't cope with lots of words.

Which is why I like what I have seen of AOC, because she has an ability to examine the detail and ask penetrating questions which are a digest of the detail that expose its strengths and limitations, and which is why some people are uncomfortable when being questioned by her. But at some point, when the detail becomes the headline, will the people stop and spend half an hour to find out what it is, or just 'trust' the President has it right and vote not just for or even in spite of him, but vote against the Democrats because their policy is derided as 'socialism', because the Democrats are an 'anti-Jewish' party because they are the 'enemies of the people'?

A fractured media enables politicians and their supporters to fix the 'debate' in advance, while some of what passes for 'news' is just opinion, and not based on analysis or a balanced approach that sees more than one side of the argument. This is the consequence of the end of the Fair Broadcasting rules that Reagan abolished in 1987 on Murdoch's advice and which has caused so much damage to political debate in the US.

[Stavros]

Can Boeing survive? Remember this?


Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2016 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806134244384899072)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/06/did-donald-trump-tank-boeings-stock-because-he-was-mad-about-a-news-article/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c10a4431b3c5

[filghy2]

Since I don't agree in principle with any conservative policies it's difficult for me to see what their platform would look like if they get rid of the most extreme nutjobs. They can get rid of the bigots and the unprincipled scumbags but could they get rid of the religious nutters and still be conservative?

Presumably it would be about the virtues of small government combined with traditional morality and family values. The latter doesn't need to take the peculiar form that American evangelical Christianity has taken. I don't support this position and I don't think the empirical evidence supports it, but I can understand intellectually why people might think that approach is best for society as a whole.

The striking thing about today's Republican party is that they no longer make any serious attempt to make the case that their policies would benefit most people. It's all about tribalism, where the aim of politics is to benefit members of your tribe at the expense of others and to do down the other tribe by any means possible.

I don't think the Trump Republican party can any longer be described as conservative. What is conservative about trashing long-standing institutions with little thought as to the future implications? What is conservative about refusing to apply any standards of acceptable behaviour? What is conservative about weakening constraints on executive power?

[holzz]

when I was in uni, one day I was feeling pretty groggy. I think I had some kind of cold, and my lecturer was being an arse. He accused me of not handing in a report, when I clearly did, and I had bought a sandwich which fell out of my hand as I left the shop, and I was late to class since I asked the taxi driver to go to the campus but he went the wrong way, and I was a bit hyper.

I dropped some money on the ground, and as I was picking it up from the corridor floor, some girl came and then literally stood on my hand. She was thinking "oh, I want to hurt this guy so I'll step on his hand!!" So I just got up and shoved her. she fell to the ground, and then she looked so shocked. Some guys in the corridor looked at me and motioned to hit me, i just told them to f off. Even some campus security came and just moved on.

But then some girl who thought she was badass and was above social norms/rules and because i was "nothing" in her eyes - lol. really? what made her the judge of value?

Looking back, i don't really see what I did wrong. I was defending myself. But i'm only asking this since I told my parents, and they said it was understandable but over the top.

​

tl;dr - some college babe who is the Godly-humanity-judge stepped on my hand as i was picking up loose change, i got irate, shoved her, and then she acted the victim.

Just a random thought I had.

[broncofan]

Below is a quote on twitter by a man named Grahame Morris who is a Member of Parliament. He said this while linking to a video of Guatemalan troops abusing children. Notice how he invokes Christianity and particularly Easter. Even if he had not linked to a propaganda video claiming Guatemalan troops were Israelis, it sounds like he's invoking the Christian God's judgment against the Jews, which in the context of Easter is not a terribly thoughtful thing to do.

My understanding is that he has acknowledged they're not Israelis but has not issued a condemnation of Guatemala.

This comes in the wake of a bunch more scandals....and the potential of the European Human Rights Commission investigating Labour for anti-Semitism. If there is a God, he will please let this happen....absolute clowns.

"Marvellous, absolutely marvellous the Israeli Army, the best financed, best trained, best equipped army in the world caught on camera beating up Palestinian children for the fun of it. May God forgive them. What would Jim Royle say on an Easter Monday".

[Stavros]

For what it's worth, not much I expect, Morris has apologized for his error referring in his tweet to 'the dangers of fake news online'. Morris lifted the Guatemalan/IDF claim from the now suspended account of 'Rachel Swindon' or Rachel Cousins, a pro-Corbyn member of Swindon Labour Party whose profle you can read here-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/heres-the-woman-behind-britains-most-divisive-twitter

I don't know where Rachel Cousins gets her information from, and I doubt that for all her support for the Palestinian cause she has ever been to the West Bank or Gaza and, snob that I am, I doubt she has ever read a book on the subject or the articles in key journals that provide superior in quality arguments for and against the Israelis and Palestinians. For Morris to latch on to something he did not look into himself is his problem, and he has made a fool of himself.

But what this exposes is the way in which people react to something they see online much as they might have done seeing something on tv or listening to the radio before twitter. Without pausing to wonder if what they have seen is true, the emotion is triggered, the buttons pressed, the mistake published for all to see. It can of course in more expert hands be used to cover up the truth on behalf of the person pressing the buttons -the President's instant claims of exoneration being a case in point, even though everyone knows he is America's No 1. Liar, as David Frum described him on the BBC last week.

But, is twitter a genius means of exposing the rank stupidity of people, or a clever way of publishing instant thoughts and reactions to news? I don't use it, only read it if it is part of the news, so if it disappeared at mdnight tonight I would not care, and the world would not be any different. But at least it might halt the incesssant garbage that garbage man in the White House pumps out, labouring under the delusion he is important.

And if there is any justice, Morris will not be an MP for much longer. But a good example of how decrepit the Labour Party has become.

[broncofan]

For what it's worth, not much I expect, Morris has apologized for his error referring in his tweet to 'the dangers of fake news online'. Morris lifted the Guatemalan/IDF claim from the now suspended account of 'Rachel Swindon' or Rachel Cousins, a pro-Corbyn member of Swindon Labour Party whose profle you can read here-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/heres-the-woman-behind-britains-most-divisive-twitter

I don't know where Rachel Cousins gets her information from, and I doubt that for all her support for the Palestinian cause she has ever been to the West Bank or Gaza and, snob that I am, I doubt she has ever read a book on the subject or the articles in key journals that provide superior in quality arguments for and against the Israelis and Palestinians. For Morris to latch on to something he did not look into himself is his problem, and he has made a fool of himself.

But what this exposes is the way in which people react to something they see online much as they might have done seeing something on tv or listening to the radio before twitter. Without pausing to wonder if what they have seen is true, the emotion is triggered, the buttons pressed, the mistake published for all to see. It can of course in more expert hands be used to cover up the truth on behalf of the person pressing the buttons -the President's instant claims of exoneration being a case in point, even though everyone knows he is America's No 1. Liar, as David Frum described him on the BBC last week.

But, is twitter a genius means of exposing the rank stupidity of people, or a clever way of publishing instant thoughts and reactions to news? I don't use it, only read it if it is part of the news, so if it disappeared at mdnight tonight I would not care, and the world would not be any different. But at least it might halt the incesssant garbage that garbage man in the White House pumps out, labouring under the delusion he is important.

And if there is any justice, Morris will not be an MP for much longer. But a good example of how decrepit the Labour Party has become.
I stopped following all of the accounts that kept me abreast of what was going on because it caused me a little irritation. I had someone reach out to me and I re-followed them and this came up on my timeline. This happened recently with the Trump Mueller stuff as well that I was determined not to follow too closely.

Morris' first response was that it didn't matter if it was not really Israel because Israel has done bad things. So he posted something false with all sorts of strange religious innuendo, was told it was false by hundreds of people, and said it didn't matter to him that it was false and that the people responding were "trolls".

Right-wingers are rightly brought to task for including Christian religious innuendo when discussing military operations in the Middle East because of the sensitive history of the Crusades. While I have no animus towards Christianity or Easter, the God forgive them it's Easter Monday is a little too tone deaf if that's all it is and I suspect whether unconscious or conscious it was motivated by Israel's Jewishness.

I'm hesitant to talk about all of the fringe figures like Swindon who get their hands slapped but the problem is they never stop having influence. Even exiles like Atzmon have an uncertain status to some. People are told to avoid David Icke but then he does have an influence among some in these networks and criticizing the lizard king can be seen as pro-Zionist. There ARE many people on the left who are critical of Israel and do not have an axe to grind but there's also a bubbling cauldron of conspiracy driven crazy.

Initially I thought it was an unsolvable problem because random people keep popping off with this sort of thing but I feel more conviction that it's the tolerance of it. The party sometimes acts against these people but really identifies more with them than the people who are complaining about it. Jim Sheridan can say he used to respect and empathize with Jews but now doesn't and he's a well-meaning lovable guy who got carried away out of his anger at Israel. Jewish people complain that this is unacceptable and and they are vindictive, enemies of the party, and as I heard one Corbyn supporter with a large following say "Corbynophobic". In fact, this person said Corbynophobia is a bigger societal problem than anti-Semitism.

I had gotten it wrong about the commission. Apparently they're the Equality and Human Rights Commission and I don't know what authority they have. The only thing I hope is that there's a full list of the people involved in these scandals, with notes analyzing each issue because frankly I'm tired of the obfuscation. If it's really just criticism of Israel that's being stigmatized, then transparency would show that, but of course that's not what it would show.

[Stavros]

I know politicians talk rubbish, it comes with the job, but I wonder if I have ever lived through a time when the volume of rubbish is at such staggering proportions. That it comes from a 'vox pop' that seems to have no rules other than self-belief and self-promotion is the price we pay for free speech, just as once a week if it still happens, Sunday in the Park in London was crowded with inflammatory speakers and the crowds they loved to wind up.

But then you have Rudolph Giuliani making the most outrageous statements in defence of criminal behaviour and you realise the poison has infected the head, these are not normal times, that elementary facts are discarded and truth is no longer valued. The worst thing is people may actually believe him, though I wonder how Republicans would have reacted in 1980 had Jimmy Carter publicly called on Brezhnev to help his campaign, not missing out Putin who was a KGB officer at the time, and a member of the Communist Party -and has he changed his views since 1991?

On the lunchtime news Sir Anthony Meyer, a former ambassador to the US justified the State Visit on the grounds it is about the country and the Office of the Presidency rather than the incumbent, yet this is a President who has no respect for that very office and even less for his country. We can list all the undesirable thieves, liars and murderers who have been given State Visits, but that doesn't mean we must maintain a tradition of inviting the worst to ride with the Queen and have trumpets announce their arrival at dinner -we should not be giving this sack of shit a welcome of any kind, not least because of the way he insulted and abused Theresa May in the newspaper owned by the soft-porn publisher and criminal hacker Rupert Murdoch on the eve of his last visit. Who knows- if the Tory part has its way, she won't be Prime Minister by the time he arrives, we may have left the EU (but I doubt it), and when the Queen sees what the President wants, she may decide to 'go sick' and lumber Chuck with the problem.

[buttslinger]

I know politicians talk rubbish, it comes with the job, but I wonder if I have ever lived through a time when the volume of rubbish is at such staggering proportions. That it comes from a 'vox pop' that seems to have no rules other than self-belief and self-promotion is the price we pay for free speech....

Trump practically blows Putin onstage at Helsinki, …….where the fuck is the outrage?
Tolerance doesn't mean you cut your balls off, somebody's got to start calling balls and strikes because Conservative Media is playing by their own set of rules. I've always thought Trump wouldn't make it four years in the United States of America, maybe something truly nefarious is going on above and beyond the usual bullshit.

[buttslinger]

And... the cold fact is all I know is what they tell me. Shooting the messenger is where we're at now. In the USA, a dozen or two indictments against Trump for money laundering would be like killing that blue White Walker on Game of Thrones, all Trump's underlings would shatter like glass. I imagine Brexit's situation is more like groping the air, more complex than 3-D chess, with a blindfold.
When I used to get Viagra from Canada, the mis-information about competing clinics was off the charts, My urologist asked me what the best clinic was! Any time huge amounts of money are at stake, the competition is going to be epic.

[Stavros]

Surely the problem you now have in the US is that the President can break as many laws as he chooses to, deny he is breaking the law, maybe even boast he is breaking the law, because nothing will happen as a result -the mere fact that none of the Republicans who went ape when Bill Clinton committed one offence now see nothing, hear nothing and do nothing. It underlines the extent to which Congress is a useless vessel, a talking shop that has ceased to be a branch of government. Pelosi can't be bothered, and why should she insist the rule of law and democratic accountability shape the politics of the USA?

Admit that reason has all but disappeared in public life and you can retire your morals. States are passing laws to limit abortion by claiming that evidence of a heartbeat confirms and protects life when science could inform them there is not even a heart at 6 weeks to beat, but why would an American believe science is anything but bullshit? You might as well argue that when a state chops the heads off 37 people in one day it may be worse than Daesh but why should the US care what Saudi Arabia does as long as it is paying the President to keep his trap shut and bend the knee to MSB?

It remains to be seen if the US can recover from the most sustained attack on its Constitution, its laws and institutions since the attack on Fort Sumer in 1861, or be now forever divided against itself. Who needs the Greys when you have a degenerate moron in the White House protected by men utterly bereft of elemetary decency and respect for all that the US has achieved? Brexit is a poltical mess, your Republican party is a fatal disease. The UK may break up into its parts, England, Scotland and Wales, and Ireland be re-unified, but are you ready for the break up of the USA, and does anyone actually care?

[buttslinger]

I wish I could explain it, more importantly, I hope there's enough sanity left in the government that they understand at least. I heard a bit of the Mueller Report today ...they intercepted Russian phone calls on election night 2016 saying "Putin has won"
Maybe the insanity we see hides the greater insanity that we don't see.
I'm hoping one of the Democrats on the Mueller team is getting all his notes together to leak at the appropriate time. The Mueller Report did kill Trump, he just doesn't know it yet.
No fucking way does Putin not wake up the sleeping giant.

[filghy2]

Surely the problem you now have in the US is that the President can break as many laws as he chooses to, deny he is breaking the law, maybe even boast he is breaking the law, because nothing will happen as a result -the mere fact that none of the Republicans who went ape when Bill Clinton committed one offence now see nothing, hear nothing and do nothing. It underlines the extent to which Congress is a useless vessel, a talking shop that has ceased to be a branch of government. Pelosi can't be bothered, and why should she insist the rule of law and democratic accountability shape the politics of the USA?


Not only is he ignoring the laws himself, but there are reports that he has encouraged officials to ignore the law on the promise that he will pardon them. He has done this sort of thing publicly on several occasions already.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/congress-trump-pardon-kevin-mcaleenan-dhs.html

It's also clear that Trump's strategy on HoR attempts to investigate his administration will be to refuse cooperation on dubious legal grounds and try to tie it up in the courts until after the election. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/trump-democrat-investigation-1289645

Could the presidential power to pardon (combined with court-stacking and a compliant party) be the Achilles heel in the US system of democracy and law? I guess we'll find out over the next couple of years.

The real reason to impeach Trump is this systematic pattern of law-breaking and not the specific question of collusion with Russia. I think one thing that history does tell us is that when would-be autocrats succeed it is usually because their opponents have been too timid in taking them on.

[broncofan]

The real reason to impeach Trump is this systematic pattern of law-breaking and not the specific question of collusion with Russia. I think one thing that history does tell us is that when would-be autocrats succeed it is usually because their opponents have been too timid in taking them on.
In the Federalist Papers you can find discussion about misuse of the pardon power and how impeachment is a remedy for that. They were aware of the possibility of self-dealing but thought impeachment would be a check on that. It doesn't mean they got it right, but if the Federalist Papers are any guide to what is impeachable, it should be that sort of pattern of corruption. Which leaves your next point about a compliant party.

The Russia investigation was always about getting to the bottom of what their campaign was to influence our election, what dirty money got into our system, what cyber crimes were committed, and what sorts of fraudulent and illegal actions took place. Trump may think that because the investigation did not find a smoking gun connecting him to Russia's campaign that such fact-finding was not necessary, but that's because he has no sense of responsibility to anyone other than himself. His actions were objectively corrupt, not part of normal partisanship, and threatened national security by interfering with attempts to uncover espionage.

I'm curious what you think Democrats could do to be less timid. I'm not saying this defensively, but there was a time when the criticism from some quarters was that Democrats had become shrill and obsessed with this issue.

[Stavros]

Before he entered office he was given the arguments by 'literalist' advocates that there are details in the relationship between the President and Congress that have never been codified or tested in law, and if there is one thing he learned froom Cohn it is to always attack and use the law as the weapon. Either this is a strength for the Democrats so that they can overhaul the legal relationship between the President and Congress, or he will simply get away with it, and frustrate any attempt to call his staff to testify by issuing a blizzard of writs or rejections of subpoenas (just say no!) and wait for the other side to get stuck in the legal process. But it does mean, as if we did not know it already, that everything is about HIM, not the law, not democracy, not Congress, not the Constitution, not 'norms and values', and certainly not basic decency. HIM, His Imperial Majesty.

Nancy Pelosi needs to think hard about the consequences of doing nothing and relying on the voters -but surely now their public campaign must be to put key Republican Senators in the spotlight to expose their hypocrisy in their refusal to impeach on clear evidence of illegality, so that it is the Republican Party that becomes responsible for participating in the demolition of the Constitution and the rule of law. It is quite extraordinary what this man is getting away with, but just as depressing is the relegation of Congress to an irritant to the King's Rule.

Watergate was often a confusing sequence of claims and revelations about the way individuals behaved after the break-in, and it ended with the sense that Nixon had undermined public trust in him, but not the Presidency. Then and since it was believed the system had shorted, but corrected itself, primarily because Nixon had lost the trust of his party in Congress. The situation we have now, as Biden suggested in his declaration video today, is one approaching existential levels, where the indifference of the GOP to law breaking theatens the basic purpose of government, and what's more, I really don't think they care if the system falls apart.

[filghy2]

I'm curious what you think Democrats could do to be less timid. I'm not saying this defensively, but there was a time when the criticism from some quarters was that Democrats had become shrill and obsessed with this issue.

I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi's reluctance so far to contemplate impeachment. I know there's an argument that it's better to focus on things that directly affect people (like health care) but at some point protecting the system has to take precedence. If Trump continues along his current trajectory they will probably have no choice but to proceed.

[trish]

My worry is that impeachment will only consolidate Trump's support, not diffuse it. Even if successful, it would leave Pence (who may not be as ignorant as Trump, but is certainly more backward) the incumbent in the next election. So far I'm siding with Pelosi on this matter.

[broncofan]

Consider the following hypothetical: a country has a process in place to remove a leader from power when he has demonstrated unfitness for office. Should the predicted outcome of that process dictate whether to initiate it? I think most people would say no. In the abstract I would say if you believe he's done something impeachable then one should initiate impeachment hearings even though the result is that the senate almost definitely would not remove him from power by 2/3 vote.

But the way this entire investigation has unfolded has made it an extremely unpopular political fight. The corrupt way Trump has conducted himself doesn't trouble his supporters and Democrats probably would be less popular as a result.

I don't know the right answer. You both have good points. Maybe if this country's founders did not want the process to be political it should not take place in a political branch! It's like we've had a nationwide referendum on corruption and the result is that it's okay if you knew your guy was corrupt when you voted for him.

[broncofan]

I don't know the right answer. You both have good points.
Although I have to say I'm leaning towards impeach; think they would impeach in the House, not convict in the Senate and would have a negative political outcome for Democrats.

[filghy2]

Views about the political implications of impeachment seem to be based largely on the public response to the Clinton impeachment. I think there are some key differences between that episode and this one.

First, Clinton was a much more popular president than Trump is. Second, it was more clearly an abuse of the process because it was based on an isolated incident (lying about an embarrassing sexual affair) rather than a systematic pattern of abuse of power. Third, the Starr investigation was more clearly politically-motivated than Mueller's investigation. Fourth, Clinton's response to impeachment was relatively measured, whereas Trump's response is likely to be over the top. Is another year and a half of increasingly unhinged ranting really going to work in Trump's favour?

Also, Bush still won the 2000 election despite the advantages that Gore inherited, so it's not clear the Republicans paid a big price.

Even if the Dems don't proceed with impeachment they will still have to pursue Trump on abuse of power. The political challenge for them will be to highlight both the conduct of the Trump administration and the ways it has damaged the interests of most Americans, while drawing the links between the two.

[broncofan]

You make all fair points. I was basing it on the fact that while obstruction really should be the quintessential impeachable offense along with abuse of power, it doesn't resonate with the average person the way disloyalty does. The media kept looking at the sequence of Mueller's indictments and predicting that he was setting everyone up for a big reveal. But Mueller is a professional and was not paying attention to optics.

What happened is that expectations were ratcheted up, rhetoric about Trump being a traitor and there being a quid pro quo and backchannels generated excitement. What we have in the Mueller report is more detail about Trump's corruption but it should have already been priced in to expectations. That's just one observation, but there is the fact that the investigation was substantive and did reveal a lot of wrongdoing and that the obstruction of it impeded something that was essential to protect our electoral process.

[buttslinger]

You could impeach Trump for any behavior unbecoming of a President of the United States, but good luck getting any Republicans to sign on, Trump signs their paychecks now. Which in itself should be enough for impeachment, but that's my opinion.
Somewhere in a locked drawer, or a safe, or on a shelf is a document, a tax form, or a recording that could take down the entire Trump Organization, I'd stake my reputation as a world class asshole on it. Before he had the military protecting him, and the Republican Party protecting him, when nobody was looking, Trump fucked up and Mueller found it, and Barr's hiding it. Or the Southern District of New York is investigating it.
I'd prop Trump up long enough to find it, even if it takes a year. If Trump keeps blocking Oversight, and looks like he'll pull it off, you'll have all those Democrats on the Mueller Report singing like a heavenly choir.
Keep those subpoenas coming, I heard Trump on Hannity last night, he sounds like a nervous wreck. Let's speak plainly, the Republican Party is to blame for everything, not partisanship. If you get the chance to cripple them, take it.

[buttslinger]

If you're an American, you probably can't name Trump's Cabinet or all the Democratic Presidential Hopefuls, but you do know Flo, Gecko, Mayhem, and based on their jokes you're supposed to decide which Insurance is best for you and your family. For three weeks we heard the Mueller Report proved no collusion, no obstruction, then we got the report and the headline was again President not guilty, finally Barr bored us to death with his 5 minute filibusters. Lindsey Graham announced he hasn't even read the report, because it's over, time to move on. I didn't grasp until a couple of days ago that Barr oversees the 14 counts referred to New York. Oh, shit.
Looks like it's up to Mueller to decide the future of the Country, will he talk??? Maybe the one mistake Barr made was to call him "snitty"......I hope Mueller spills his guts on National TV and declares Trump a Danger to the Country. Because "The People" seem like the only thing they know is what they're told.

[buttslinger]

Two Cents:
Now that Trump has been vindicated, if the Russians offer him dirt on Joe Biden, is that Kosher now? Like you can't charge him twice because of double jeopardy? No crime to charge? What's the verdict, Fatboy?
On a completely different topic, there is not a list that grades everyone who has ever lived from best to worst. Some lives are better than others, and while we're all in this together, every life is different, and every life's existence is separate from the mass and reasonably could be rated by it's own existence, so while the list doesn't exist, all the people who aren't on it do exist or have existed. Sadly, and perhaps unfairly, the bottom five people probably aren't there because they were slackers, they probably all died at childbirth. The top five people would be even harder to imagine.

[buttslinger]

I just read some internet blurb that said "Angela Merkel fears dark forces in Europe"...hmmm, me too. I wonder how much of that fear is the threat to the Caucasians as the leaders of the Western World. In the 1950s an American GI could get a job as a milkman, get married, buy a house and have five kids. Now that same guy drives two hours a day to get to a job that pays well, his wife works, and he's lucky if he can afford two kids. Would the World be a better place if the White Man lost his mojo??? Is the USA the best badguy the world has ever bowed to, or the worst?

[broncofan]

When someone says that Theresa May has a Zionist slave master agenda it is not criticism of Israel. It is not even coherent unless you consider what they must really mean, and you can figure it out by reading early 20th century anti-Semitic tracts. If the same person liked facebook posts where people are saying this or that Mossad created Isis it is not an accident.

That you find this in the same feeble-minded political movement where people who openly say they do not like Jews are given a slap on the wrist and Jews who object to the culture of anti-Semitism are run out of the party it is hard to believe it's a coincidence.

There have literally been dozens of cases like this, many of which I posted, where the excuses for the anti-Semitism are so pathetic and unbelievable that one has to have forsaken all attempts at good faith to even make the excuses.

This comes not long after Peter Willsman on the NEC said that 68 British Rabbis who complained about anti-semitism were working for the Israeli Embassy. There is no evidence of this at all, unless your standard for evidence is that of a conspiracy theorist. The Labour rank and file by the thousands defended this with the same expose from 2016 where an Israeli bragged about his influence. Apparently because Israel does lobby the government it means anyone can be accused of being in the lobby so long as they're Jewish and you want to discredit them. This represents the total deindividuation of Jewish people among pretty significant proportion of the public there.

Can someone explain to me what it means to say Theresa May has a Zionist slave master agenda? I don't see it as containing content. Is this actually defensible? I'm looking at this stuff and the responses to it and it is something out of a nightmare.

[broncofan]

BTW, I've heard the excuse is that Lisa Forbes only liked the post. It is an obvious anti-Semitic dog-whistle, and has become part of mainstream Labour discourse to engage in conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Someone running for office has no business signaling support for hatred like that.

From soft to hard Holocaust denial, pseudo-scientific racism about the genetic origins of Jews, financial conspiracy theories usually invoking the Rothschild family, and just wanton abusive language to anyone Jewish who will not provide cover for them. Take a look at some of Lisa Forbes' fellow signatories for a letter she signed opposing the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism if you think this is an accident.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-s-peterborough-candidate-signed-letter-opposing-ihra-antisemitism-definition-1.485060

[Stavros]

Can someone explain to me what it means to say Theresa May has a Zionist slave master agenda? I don't see it as containing content. Is this actually defensible? I'm looking at this stuff and the responses to it and it is something out of a nightmare.

It must come from the claim made by Jackie Walker in 2016-

Walker faced complaints after writing on Facebook in February 2016, in which she said: “Millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews… and many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean.”
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/jackie-walker-had-legitimately-held-belief-over-playing-down-the-holocaust/

Walker has since modified her remark to admit she ought to have added the word 'amongst'-

But she made one mistake. She should have said 'amongst the financiers ... and many Jews, my ancestors too, were amongst the chief financiers of the slave trade', because that is a fact."
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jackie-walker-in-edinburgh-1.442461

Jackie Walker has since been expelled from the party.

I don't know much about Lisa Forbes, other than that she must now undergo 'anti-semitism training' (! what?) and was selected from an all-female shortlist of candidates, and that whoever allowed her name to be on the list knows nothing about 'due diligence'. Given the prolific amount of information we leave about ourselves on social media, the time must come when candidates be subjected to that due diligence to uncover what they have said or written or approved of in the past. Even if she is not anti-semitic, to approve of that kind of statement is not 'radical chic', it is brainless. And if she acts without thinking first, how can she be fit to be an MP? Peterborough Labour Party has had, shall we say, an 'interesting' approach to election organization in recent years, and their scrape through last Thursday can not hide the serious problems this party has with Corbyn as leader.

[broncofan]

I don't know much about Lisa Forbes, other than that she must now undergo 'anti-semitism training' (! what?) and was selected from an all-female shortlist of candidates, and that whoever allowed her name to be on the list knows nothing about 'due diligence'. Given the prolific amount of information we leave about ourselves on social media, the time must come when candidates be subjected to that due diligence to uncover what they have said or written or approved of in the past. Even if she is not anti-semitic, to approve of that kind of statement is not 'radical chic', it is brainless. And if she acts without thinking first, how can she be fit to be an MP? Peterborough Labour Party has had, shall we say, an 'interesting' approach to election organization in recent years, and their scrape through last Thursday can not hide the serious problems this party has with Corbyn as leader.
It actually wasn't in response to Jackie Walker's comments. I don't think slave-master here was used to comment on the role of Jewish people in the slave trade but rather to mean "overlord". I think the person whose video she was responding to was saying Theresa May is controlled by a cabal of Jews and that she herself was a puppet or in more extreme terms, slave to these people.

I think what's missing is the gestalt when someone actually looks at the networks that you find this information in. Yes, as a general matter it is possible to like ugly stuff online without reading it carefully. But the density of conspiratorial ugliness in which these comments are found often means one has sought out the information.

When the comments are plucked out of the networks in which they're found, it sometimes looks like a one-off, even if it's the zillionth occurrence of similar behavior. But when you see thousands of accounts, travelling in the same circles, posting the same memes, and following the same accounts of people who have been suspended (and should have been expelled) it has a different appearance. What it looks like is a network of people trading in poorly thought out conspiracy theories engaging in persistent low level harassment of Jewish people who didn't ask to see the stuff.

I'll give a couple of examples of what I've experienced, though it couldn't be used formally as evidence, it gives some clue why each individual case doesn't look independent to a statistical though I acknowledge not unanimous, majority of Jewish people.

1. A Corbyn supporter responding to the Willsman stuff saw a tweet of mine and called me a Khazar. The Khazar hypothesis is something people can speculate about, though there's not much support for it and it's not provable at this point. But it's different to respond to a random Jewish person by insisting that they shut up because they're a Khazar phony.

2. Corbyn supporter who told me it's not anti-Semitic to say American Jews run the world because it's as much a criticism of Americans as Jews. When I said it is, they told me I'm shameful and that calling this anti-Semitic trivializes real anti-Semitism.

3. Someone who insisted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. Again, I was told I should be concerned about real anti-Semitism.

4. In response to the Chris Williamson circulating a petition for Atzmon someone yelled at me "He's a SEMITE, you're an anti-Semite for criticizing Atzmon." Atzmon has said such appalling things, it's not controversial..I don't really care about Atzmon's background as much as his views...but it's notable this person didn't insist he's a Khazar.

5. Being put on a list of Tory Zionists.

6. A half dozen times when I've responded to something, getting a meme in my notifications of an Israeli woman saying "anti-Semitism is a trick" that the Israelis use. This meme has circulated on neo-Nazi forums for years, and is often used in response to unambiguous anti-Semitism pointed out by a non-Israeli Jew.

7. Being called a baby killer and apartheid lover apropos of nothing, except for the cases we're talking about, which hardly raises the issue of Israel's foreign policy.

There's also the fact that I've seen low-level twitter celebrities who support Corbyn, have follower numbers in the thousands, and have engaged in Holocaust denial.

Now someone might think: is this as bad as Neo-Nazis who talk about killing Jews, as well as other minority groups. Why not focus on that? They should be a focal point for law enforcement and be kept away from political positions. But it's extremely alienating to see such widespread tolerance for conspiratorial anti-Semitism, that has made its way into the mainstream networks and is propagated by people who claim to be anti-racist.

This is what I've seen and experienced when I've tried to discuss some of these cases on twitter. But it's not just what I've seen and experienced, it's been documented and forwarded to Labour by other people in many cases.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, you are plugged into this more than I am as I don't have a twitter account and registered a Facebook account but have never used it. I assume that Walker is part of this trend that distorts historical evidence, or just makes it up, and that her remarks on slavery and the Jews is part of this stuff about 'Zionist slave masters'. I can't say I want to know more than that, other than to wonder how we got to a situation where this kind of comment has become so common.

I can understand when it is part of the once-redundant, now revived conspiracy theory concerning the Jews, because in a real sense that never went away, but was discredited for so many years because of the Holocaust. It was also the preserve of the 'right' which meant those who felt sorry for Hitler, and who retain theories of race that privilege white people over all the others, and which tend to regard Jews as part of a long-established plan to take over the world, just as Black people are condemned to a life of crime because they have criminal genes, or some such rubbish. How anyone on the left can subscribe to such theories is beyond me, and as a critique of Israel it is nonsensical, as Israel did not exist during the slave trade, to take that example, and Israel has enough problems without dragging in the Protcols of the Elders of Zion, the Khazar thesis or some worn out claim about 'the Rothschilds'.

The growth of the internet is clearly making this easier to happen than before, when Lyndon Larouche was a notorious figure but his crazy and offensive ideas limited to publications and obscure radio shows. I am not sure what the purpose of twitter is, it seems to me to reduce complex arguments on every subject you can think of, to slogans and shouting matches which retard any progress in debate.

And I believe every generation needs to know what the Holocaust really was, what its roots were, and how the ideas that gave rise to it can, if not challenged at every event, flourish again. Hegel's belief in a long, progressive journey of enlightenment may have had its moments of negation, but it seems to me the negation of actuality at this level today, runs the risk of turning the clock back. If the trend that has seen the emergence of the rhetoric and the laws emerging from the US is part of a wider trend across Europe, Asia and Africa, the advances we thought we had made in the 1960s are in real peril. The phrase 'Never Again' that was attached to the Holocaust has been attached to Obama, and not just because he was a Democrat. So far, the violence has been sporadic and episodic rather than co-ordinated, but on more than occasion I have read of dire warnings that if Brexit is not deilivered 'the people will rise up' or words to that effect. 'Tommy Robinson' is seen as part of this potential vanguard, alleged supporters of the English Defence League which he used to lead, have been blamed for football hooliganism the other day in Portugal, he himself was involved in a punch up the other day yet he is a hero to an organization like the Middle East Forum in the US because Daniel Pipes regards anyone campaigning against Islam as a friend.

To make it worse, there are radical Muslims in the UK who are a gift to Pipes and people like him. The current allegation in Peterborough is that a Muslim who was part of the election organization for the by-election has been engaged in a rigged postal vote which secured Lisa Forbes victory. These Muslims are also being accused of having links to Anjem Chaudhury and promote anti-semitic views. I don't know what the truth of this is, but it has been known for some time that the literature produced in Saudi Arabia that is used in some Madrasas in the UK and across the world is deeply anti-semitic, but Saudi Arabia is now in alliance with Israel and Tom Kaine has alleged the US foreign policy on the Kingdom is determined by the money they give to the President to get what they want (nuclear technology) -so the duplicity of Saudi Arabia goes unchallenged, becoming part of a conspiracy theory too.

In the case of Brexit, which is part of this trend, I see the prospect of failure becoming part of the narrative -not because it is a badly managed process with impossible goals, but because when it fails, it will be the fault of 'those people' who wanted it to fail - in the UK 'the establishment', in Europe, 'George Soros' and, of course, 'the Germans'. The division of 'them' and 'us' is not just designed to identify different segments of society who have benefited or lost from globalization, it uses those 'markers' to suggest that what has been lost is an original identity -that 'mass immigration' has diluted the 'national character' to the extent that 'our white christian' civilization is now at risk.

It is in effect, a revival of fascism in its original form, not the desperate measures Mussolini took to make it work -you can see it in the campaigns of Steve Bannon, and in the writings of Roger Scruton, where, without a trace of irony, people who are part of this trend claim they are protecting a 'Judeo-Christian' civilization from the one threat that has superceded Communism as the greatest threat of all -Islam. That Christians slaughtered Jews, expelled them from the country, allowed them back in but to live in ghettoes, limiting their participation in the economy -precisely what the Nazis did prior to the Final Solution- does not to me create in Judeo-Christian civilization the basics of civilization itself: respect for human life, equally valid for all.

The left has lost political representation across Europe at a time when economic disadvantage ought to be succeeding at the ballot box -which it has in Denmark but not in Germany, France, the Netherlands or Italy. It seems to me that by falling into a culture of victimhood and blame, the left has lost any positive agenda for the future which it needs if it is to counter the current 'populist' trend -instead of being part of this nauseating anti-semitism, it should be fighting it; instead of calling for reparations and impeachment, it should be laying out a plan for the next 25 years that everyone can relate to and support. I cannot believe some of the paper thin drivel I often hear from Labour, it is as if they have been so battered by Brexit they cannot think at all. I am still not sure if the Labour Party is a Leave or a Remain party. What I am sure about is that I am glad I severed my ties to it in the 1980s and have no voted for it since Blair. It has become a party of cowards unfit for public office, and I see no hope for the UK over the next 5-10 years only instability and economic decline.

[buttslinger]

There are all kinds of smart, and all kinds of stupid, and Trump is about to unveil his latest stupid gift to his flock, the mass deportation of illegals. The final solution.
Suggested reading: Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad

[bluesoul]

A former senior adviser to President Barack Obama has said that the president is deeply concerned about the direction of the U.S., and that the two-term president plans to be involved in Democratic efforts to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-very-concerned-2020-election-donald-trump-democratic-party-valerie-jarrett-1444717

ummmm... not a good idea.

[buttslinger]

I wish Obama was Prez like I wish I was 21 again, that ship has sailed.
I honestly don't see any Democratic hopeful that is up to the real task of maintaining LBJ's great society, even Obama had to skyrocket the national debt to get along, maybe it was BIG BUSINESS who killed Hillary, not PUTIN, they're sure reaping the benefits now.
When Bernie is President, we will all be friends again, and we will all be broke.
No one from this forum would be allowed to babysit the kids of Trump's base.
Yeee-haw!!!!!

[broncofan]

I am not sure what the purpose of twitter is, it seems to me to reduce complex arguments on every subject you can think of, to slogans and shouting matches which retard any progress in debate.

Twitter is exciting because its format permits so little text that the interactions actually seem like face to face conversations. With so little written it also permits the viewpoints of hundreds of people to fit into a very small space. But what does it do for complex arguments? Imagine trying to write what you wrote in 280 characters, about three sentences?

It also allows for an exquisite combination of sophistry and bullying. Imagine asking someone to provide you evidence or disprove a logical fallacy in such a small space. Anyone earnest who wants a conversation is swamped by any liar and their cohorts who prefers to repeatedly ask for evidence they don't want to see.

For an example of how twitter obliterates nuance, consider this common comeback. When someone concedes something but uses the word "but" to disagree in part, twitter users will point out they've used the word "but". To them the use of the word "but" means that the other person isn't even conceding the part they are in fact conceding. What they are demanding is complete endorsement of what they've said without any distinction or clarification. The format of twitter does that already, where thousands of views are crammed into a discrete set of categories.

[broncofan]

When someone concedes something but uses the word "but" to disagree in part, twitter users will point out they've used the word "but".
I'm telling you the demand that other people disagree without using the word but is a twitter tic. An example:

Imagine someone is accused of being an embezzler and you want to acknowledge that embezzlement is a very serious crime while disagreeing with the particular accusation:

Me: "I think embezzlement is a very serious crime but I don't think party C actually embezzled".

Person B: He just said "I think embezzlement is a serious crime BUT"....lol doesn't sound like the words of someone who takes embezzlement seriously lol

You can imagine that is not a worthwhile or honest conversation...:)

[trish]

(Twitter) is terrible for all the reasons you mentioned BUT

I’ve no first hand experience with twitter. I only see the tweets that make it into newspapers, television broad casts etc. and those are usually particularly egregious examples. I can’t imagine (without cringing) what Trump’s twitter coverage of the Democratic Debates is going to be like. The format is terrible for all the reasons you’ve mentioned, but in the hands of a first-rate liar and troll it can become an effective propaganda machine. It seems almost forms of social media have become weaponized and designed to fractionalize us beyond recognition. (I’m in the middle of reading Neil Stephenson’s “Fall: or, Dodge in Hell” which develops a extreme variation of this issue).

[Stavros]

For an example of how twitter obliterates nuance, consider this common comeback. When someone concedes something but uses the word "but" to disagree in part, twitter users will point out they've used the word "but". To them the use of the word "but" means that the other person isn't even conceding the part they are in fact conceding. What they are demanding is complete endorsement of what they've said without any distinction or clarification. The format of twitter does that already, where thousands of views are crammed into a discrete set of categories.

I agree with you, but...

[Stavros]

It seems almost forms of social media have become weaponized and designed to fractionalize us beyond recognition. (I’m in the middle of reading Neil Stephenson’s “Fall: or, Dodge in Hell” which develops a extreme variation of this issue).

Or,
It seems almost forms of social media have become weaponized and designed to fictionalize us beyond recognition...

[broncofan]

-New Trump rape allegation by E. Jean Carroll that is both believable and describes repulsive behavior. I would love to hear Trump'ers explain why Trump cannot at least informally be considered a predator but that Weinstein, Spacey, and other serial abusers can be. Would also love to hear what they think due process is again.

Should he be criminally charged and then get the full panoply of constitutional protections? Should Congress investigate the allegations to make sure he is not being unjustly accused? If due process refers to the institution of procedures to prevent an unjust deprivation of liberty or property, then maybe it's time he faces the consequences that necessitate those protections.

[Stavros]

On the one hand, I can understand why there is a convention that prohibits the prosecution of the President -it could be used by opponents to bring case after case that interferes with the job. On the other hand, this President has made it clear that he knows -because the lawyers have told him it is so -that Executive Privilege allows him to do many things which are not illegal but violate an established 'standard of behaviour' -standards he does not adhere to because he chooses not to- but which also includes illegal actions, on which the President is clear: I am breaking the law, what are you going to do about it?

Violating the Atomic Energy Act to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia; by-passing Congress on issues that relate to a 'national emergency' where there is none or is contested; employing people who break the law (Conway and the Hatch Act); ordering present and former employees of the White House to refuse to answer questions posed by Congressional committees. At what point does the term Executive Privilege become Executive Dictatorship?

The question is can the relationship be changed in law, can Congress impose legal limits on the Presidency that enable the Justice Department, when the evidence is there, to proseute the President where impeachment is not the relevant course of action? And yet it seems to me the President is deliberately breaking the law to prove he can do it with impunity, it is his way of taking revenge on all those political and public figures who have ridiculed him over the years: 'Yes, I am a schmuck, but I am the schmuck in the White House and you are nothing'.

Change the rules, and while you're at it, change the President.

[buttslinger]

The Mueller Report proved Trump was guilty of obstruction, and that alone is enough to impeach him, but doing the right thing would destroy the Republican Party as we know it, and Mitch McConnell will block the Democrats until the Supreme Court says he can't. That's why he's packed the courts with Federalist Society Judges.
I don't think we're quite at the point to shred the Constitution, I think as soon as Trump is out of the White House the Insanity stops.
I don't think anything is more important than showing Trump's base that their Idol laundered millions of Oligarch dollars, and Putin did indeed command Donald Trump, not them. Let them chew on that for a while.
I'm afraid that as far as the Hung Angels Politics and Religion section goes, it went. To twitter. As an old geezer, I have a hard time keeping up, but the comedy over there can be as good as it gets. And you get a good feel of what's really going on with the Trump Base. Yech.
I know that Putin messed with the election and Brexit, but goddam it I want details. There was a recent article about the Pentagon setting up a way to zap the entire Russian power grid (just in case) and they didn't tell Trump. I forget the details. I sincerely believe there are Americans 100 times smarter and more powerful than me who know exactly what's going on and aren't allowed to poke their nose into politics.
Don't forget, we are the Nation that melted 100,000 Japanese civilians with one B-29.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

[broncofan]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18761166/supreme-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

The second link is to the actual case of Rucho v. Common Cause. The Supreme Court has decided that partisan gerrymandering is not unconstitutional and that the drawing of districts in Congressional elections is a political question left to other coordinate branches of government, namely state legislatures.

I haven't read the case but I did skim the synopsis at the beginning and what stands out to me is this quote from a previous gerrymandering case: "The question is one of degree: how to provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much." Huh? If it can be inferred that the districts in a state were drawn a particular way to entrench one party in power, that should violate equal protection. How much partisan gerrymandering is too much? Any. How do you prove an impermissible motive? The same way you would in any other case, through statistical inference, statements by people involved in the process etc.

The Court seems to rely on precedent to say that some partisan gerrymandering is permissible. I cannot imagine that there is a rational or legitimate government objective to create rules that make it easier for the party in power to maintain power.

The Court goes on to say that it is difficult to come up with standards for how districts should be drawn since the choices are varied and it is beyond the ken of the judiciary to engage in such an exercise. They are not being tasked with devising a method for drawing districts. They are only tasked with determining whether partisanship was a factor in the way they were drawn. The legislatures would have full leeway to draw districts how they please unless they engage in racial or partisan gerrymandering, in which case it should be struck down as unconstitutional. Any choice they make might fall within some range of discretion; unless they provably drew districts based on racial demographics or to ensure a political outcome, the courts would not constrain their choices.

Anyhow, I probably will read the dissent...

[broncofan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYMm3tivK7A


Didn't see the debates. Saw this exchange and agree with Harris.

[buttslinger]

They say after Angela Merkel shook hands with Obama the last time a little tear went down her face, I look at the 20 Democrats and just see the problems. I knew this was a racist country, but I don't think even Atticus Finch could sway Fox Nation. Free Racism is a better sell than free healthcare.

[broncofan]

I look at the 20 Democrats and just see the problems.
With all of them? Preliminarily I like Harris and Buttigieg. Biden has always seemed like a nice enough guy. I watch him and get the feeling he wants to be liked. I've always thought Bernie wants to be idolized and now sees it as his chance to be an important figure after a lifetime as an outsider. I should probably watch the debates but I've always been impressed by Harris. She's prepared and on message.

[buttslinger]

With all of them? ...

I liked maybe half, but I don't see any of them on Mt Rushmore. I thought your boy Hickenlooper did well. Following Donald Trump is going to be a hard act to follow. Maybe when it gets down to eight we'll have something to chew on. While I thought either Hillary or Bernie would be a great choice in 2016, for reasons I can't explain, they seem like aliens now. Seems like a long time ago.

[broncofan]

i thought your boy hickenlooper did well.
:) i'm nowhere near colorado!! :d

[buttslinger]

8 sleepy years with Joe would please me.

[Stavros]

The Supreme Court has decided that partisan gerrymandering is not unconstitutional and that the drawing of districts in Congressional elections is a political question left to other coordinate branches of government, namely state legislatures.



On the one hand a depressing example of the SC not wanting to intervene in a matter they claim is political, yet one so blatant in its intentions to rig elections one wonders what the relationship between voting and the Constitution might be.

On the other hand can Congress now intervene, for example through a Federal Boundary Commission and take the right to draw boundaries away from the States? How far do 'State's rights' enable a State to make its own rules?

If Congress can assert itself over the State on this issue, it should do so before 2020, just as voter suppression and the closure of polling stations ought to be dealt with too. But does the US Congress have the will to change things?

[broncofan]

On the other hand can Congress now intervene, for example through a Federal Boundary Commission and take the right to draw boundaries away from the States? How far do 'State's rights' enable a State to make its own rules?

I'm not sure the answer to this. The Constitution provides a means of figuring out how many representatives each state should have in the house but I'm not sure it prescribes the methods for drawing districts. If the Constitution did specifically prescribe a way for states to do it, then Congress would not be able to legislate over it. If it doesn't I'm still not sure what power this would fall under for Congress. Finally, as you say, if they had that power, would they exercise it?

What is so strange about the majority opinion in this case is that the Supreme Court already has said that they can step in to remedy "racial gerrymandering". It makes their argument that they cannot come up with standards for analyzing "partisan gerrymandering" ring hollow. They are right that it isn't their job to prescribe procedures for districting, but it is their job to ensure people's votes aren't diluted by a process of rigging as you accurately put it. There IS a legitimate distinction between telling states they cannot adopt a particular method (because it entrenches the incumbent) and telling the states exactly what method to adopt.

[broncofan]

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/redistricting

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/redistricting-reform-tracker-congressional-bills

Don't know much about the Brennan Center, except that they're a non-profit affiliated with NYU Law. Here's what they have to say about Stavros' question, especially the second link.

I also looked up Article 1 Section 4 referenced above:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[broncofan]

Have a feeling the below House Resolution would not pass the senate or if it did would be vetoed. But it seems pretty sensible. Maybe after the next elections we can pass something similar and ensure greater fairness in House elections.


H.R. 145 (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr145/BILLS-115hr145ih.pdf)
: An omnibus anti-corruption reform bill including a requirement for each state to use a nonpartisan independent commission to conduct congressional redistricting, starting with the redistricting that follows the 2020 census; prohibits the use of federal funds for election administration purposes unless the state uses a nonpartisan independent redistricting commission to draw state legislative districts.

[buttslinger]

Nice shot, Bronco, they were talking about that on C-Span, they basically said what you said, they added that gerrymandering started in some form before 1776.
I was in College when Nixon was president, my draft # was 28. I once went to a student demonstration, I was having a good time seeing people from the dorms I knew from freshman year. Then a police car blew up, and "the pigs" pushed the crowd against me, pinning me against a car. I had my bicycle with me, so I was being impaled and my adrenaline was spiking and I could not wiggle one inch. When I finally broke away, I was running down the side street, when a girl grabbed my arm and said "SLOW DOWN" ….As soon as she touched me, I calmed right down, in fact, I dropped into a completely relaxed sleepwalk, we were walking down the middle of the street at night, and on either side of us running long haired freaks were getting their heads busted by galloping cops on horseback. But it was exciting back then. In fact it was a gas.
My Mom is now 97, she can't remember 10 seconds ago, so we talk about the great depression and WWII. She was born in an Arkansas boom town, and was 17 when Gone with the Wind first screened.
To make a long story short, as bad as the trials and tribulations have been, I am thankful that this joke administration must surely come to an end, and I'm hopeful that when the truth comes out, Trump's base will own what they did and sour on the lies and hate they've been spoon fed.
On the Democrat side, as refreshing as a Kamala or Buttigieg might be, I want an old white guy in the middle with Chuck and Nancy on either side. I want the Democrat Republicans like best. I want the Nation to roll up it's sleeves and work together under the Union Flag. No, not the YANKEE flag, the Union flag. WORK is the great equalizer.

[Stavros]

Have a feeling the below House Resolution would not pass the senate or if it did would be vetoed. But it seems pretty sensible. Maybe after the next elections we can pass something similar and ensure greater fairness in House elections.
H.R. 145 (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr145/BILLS-115hr145ih.pdf)
: An omnibus anti-corruption reform bill including a requirement for each state to use a nonpartisan independent commission to conduct congressional redistricting, starting with the redistricting that follows the 2020 census; prohibits the use of federal funds for election administration purposes unless the state uses a nonpartisan independent redistricting commission to draw state legislative districts.


This looks sane and reasonable, but will it pass?

[Stavros]

Two more examples that stretch the boundaries of credulity. I have posted on the case of child marriages in the US before, an investigation broadcast on BBC Radio 4 offers some insights into this, and a lot of pathetic excuses. At least resolve some of the problems by standardizing the age of marriage to 16 (and the age of consent where in states it is still eighteen with limits on the age of the spouses -the programme is here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07f1zcs

As for Marshae Jones being prosecuted for manslaughter because her baby was shot by someone else...yes, it is Alabama, but unless it secretly seceded to revive its Confederate heritage (or never gave it up) it is still part of the USA...???

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/01/us-rights-concern-foetus-not-survive-trip-down-birth-canal
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alabama-shooting-mother-unborn-baby-victim-charged-police-pleasant-grove-grand-jury-a8982751.html

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146430380981067777

This is so disgusting and indefensible. Of all the public statements Trump has made this might be the worst one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)

[broncofan]

Best case scenario for Eddie Gallagher: He was a psychopath known for taking "militarily pointless shots" in order to murder random Arabs; he witnessed a fellow serviceman murder a POW and decided to pose with the body.

Worst case scenario for Eddie Gallagher: He was a psychopath known for taking militarily pointless shots and murdering random Arabs; he also murdered a POW and posed with the body.

I forgot to mention that in the best case scenario, at least one serviceman testified to Gallagher stabbing the POW but not being the ultimate cause of death...either way the President of the United States just sent a message of support to a cold-blooded killer.

[broncofan]

The BBC is releasing a documentary on whether Labour is anti-semitic. There is some question over the use of non-disclosure agreements being used to prevent people from talking about Labour anti-Semitism. Oftentimes ndas are used to protect patent processes or trade secrets, but are typically not allowed to shield whistleblowing activity. Whether it is whistleblowing activity will depend on what is contained in the documentary.

I've seen large numbers of Labour members, in advance of the documentary, try to find different grounds for accusing the documentary makers of bias (one accusation was disqualification by Jewishness, which was probably even embarrassing for some of the worst rabble rousers). I'm always a bit suspicious when someone wants to discredit something whose findings they don't know yet. But maybe Labour supporters have been disingenuous when asking to see the evidence and really they know what it is. In my experience they should sometimes be told "you're the evidence". I've seen the same accusations about the pending statutory investigation by EHRC. With such an attitude they seem to hold out no hope for exoneration.

Related to this, the Guardian published a letter signed by a relatively small number of signatories from the Jewish community claiming the accusations of anti-Semitism are a smear campaign. This is not the first time they've published such a letter, often with the same signatories, but this is the first time they've pulled the letter, after it was reported one signatory was a Holocaust denier and one had publicly admitted to pretending to be Jewish because of its usefulness. I think one was a 9/11 truther but that doesn't necessarily make them less Jewish.

A few resignations today as well. I'm curious to see the documentary and the findings of the EHRC investigation. If I were compiling evidence, I would have enough to make the argument so I have to imagine a team of people will dutifully report it.

[broncofan]

One of the signatories of the letter in the Guardian wrote "Rothchild funded both the British and French Napoleonic Wars", that "Jews do not pray to Jesus, they killed him", "thankfully the Hispanics are outbreeding Jews in New York" and "Zionists are animals to be exterminated".

This was by the signatory of a letter hoping to exonerate Labour!!! I wonder what the opinion is of the broader public about what's going on there.

[buttslinger]

I just heard we were demoted to 29th in the United Federation of Planets,...Damn you Trump!!!
Scientists must admit we are trained animals.
My thought?
Break training.
I honestly don't know what's going to happen with Trump, I've been wrong so far. I think Robert Mueller is chugging a bottle of Maalox about now, thinking about the good old days in Viet Nam. Everything Trump says, even the lies, is about 37% right. That makes him 100% wrong.
Those Clowns Trump hangs with make a million bucks on a phone call.
Nobody believes in the Devil but they all know his name.

[Stavros]

Latest from the President of the USA: 'I can do anything I want'.

Is this true, and is it because nobody in over 200 years ever thought a man so corrupt would be President that the Constitution would allow anything and everything that is not specifically not allowed?

[buttslinger]

Latest from the President of the USA: 'I can do anything I want'.
Is this true, and is it because nobody in over 230 years ever thought a man so corrupt would be President that the Constitution would allow anything and everything that is not specifically not allowed?


pretty much.

[broncofan]

pretty much.

So you changed one number in Stavros' quoted text and wrote pretty much three indents from the left. What is going on here? From my abode in Denver this seems awfully suspicious:)

[buttslinger]

So you changed one number in Stavros' quoted text and wrote pretty much three indents from the left. What is going on here? From my abode in Denver this seems awfully suspicious:)


You said you didn't live in Colorado...…
I was actually thinking the same thing Stavros was thinking, Trump isn't the President who acts like an asshole, he's an asshole who acts like a President.His election is completely unbelievable. This can't happen.
I think Mueller has everything. The taxes, the money laundering, the Putin connection, as well as other crimes farmed out to New York. They were sloppy. And they will receive no mercy in Court.
Mueller even ponied up the dough to pay the 25 million price tag from the Paul Manafort seizures. Nice touch.

[Stavros]

Some powerful and emotional responses in defence of Baltimore following the dog's attack, though one should pause to recall that typical volley of abuse was provoked by Rupert Murdoch's 'news' infotaintment., just as one marvels at the claim he made when Obama was President that if he was flown into the city he would 'fix it quick'! Whereas David Simon said if he was flown into West Baltimore where they shot The Wire, the President would 'wet himself'.

The full version of Blackwell's passionate response is here-
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/28/politics/baltimore-response-trump-tweets/index.html

The editorial in the Baltimore Sun is surely the most astonishing attack on a sitting President in the press, maybe worse than anything said by Nixon? I copy it below having had to work round the fact the Baltimore Sun is not available from the UK (I had to use the Cached function on google).

But here is the thought: what is the thinking behind all this racist garbage? Is 2020 really going to be fought on issues around 'the browning of America' and the allusion to disloyalty to America based on colour and religion? Can the people advancing this be so utterly ignorant of their own history? Murdoch and his dog hate government, and will do anything they can do denigrate, demean and undermine the concept of it as well as its actual practice -they want a world without taxation, regulation (and without tariffs and quotas) where even defence of the 'nation' is provided by organized militias. Congress and its Congressional Representatives are USELESS, that is the key message from the Murdoch-Dog kennel.
The silence from the bulk of the Republican Party is expected, but is it not also a violation of their oath to not respond when the USA is being attacked like this? Is it not time to impeach, if not the President, members of Congress for violating their oath of office?

Baltimore Sun Editorial

"In case anyone missed it, the president of the United States had some choice words (https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-cummings-trump-20190727-chty2yovtvfzfcjkeaui7wm5zi-story.html#nt=instory-link)to describe Maryland’s 7th congressional district (https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-trump-baltimore-analysis-20190727-wsnwhl6so5hlhfo5uhmmiz5zfa-story.html#nt=instory-link)on Saturday morning. Here are the key phrases: “no human being would want to live there,” it is a “very dangerous & filthy place,” “Worst in the USA” and, our personal favorite: It is a “rat and rodent infested mess.” He wasn’t really speaking of the 7th as a whole. He failed to mention Ellicott City, for example, or Baldwin or Monkton or Prettyboy, all of which are contained in the sprawling yet oddly-shaped district that runs from western Howard County to southern Harford County. No, Donald Trump’s wrath was directed at Baltimore and specifically at Rep. Elijah Cummings, the 68-year-old son of a former South Carolina sharecropper who has represented the district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996.

It’s not hard to see what’s going on here. The congressman has been a thorn in this president’s side, and Mr. Trump sees attacking African American members of Congress as good politics, as it both warms the cockles of the white supremacists who love him and causes so many of the thoughtful people who don’t to scream. President Trump bad-mouthed Baltimore in order to make a point that the border camps are “clean, efficient & well run," which, of course, they are not — unless you are fine with all the overcrowding, squalor, cages and deprivation to be found in what the Department of Homeland Security’s own inspector-general recently called “a ticking time bomb."
In pointing to the 7th, the president wasn’t hoping his supporters would recognize landmarks like Johns Hopkins Hospital, perhaps the nation’s leading medical center. He wasn’t conjuring images of the U.S. Social Security Administration, where they write the checks that so many retired and disabled Americans depend upon. It wasn’t about the beauty of the Inner Harbor or the proud history of Fort McHenry. And it surely wasn’t about the economic standing of a district where the median income is actually above the national average. No, he was returning to an old standby of attacking an African American lawmaker from a majority black district on the most emotional and bigoted of arguments. It was only surprising that there wasn’t room for a few classic phrases like “you people” or “welfare queens” or “crime-ridden ghettos” or a suggestion that the congressman “go back” to where he came from.

This is a president who will happily debase himself at the slightest provocation. And given Mr. Cummings’ criticisms of U.S. border policy, the various investigations he has launched as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, his willingness to call Mr. Trump a racist for his recent attacks on the freshmen congresswomen, and the fact that “Fox & Friends” had recently aired a segment critical of the city, slamming Baltimore must have been irresistible in a Pavlovian way. Fox News rang the bell, the president salivated and his thumbs moved across his cell phone into action.
As heartening as it has been to witness public figures rise to Charm City’s defense (https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-trump-baltimore-reactions-20190727-rkn2npfghfgtdm4ikex77szjgm-story.html#nt=instory-link) on Saturday, from native daughter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young, we would above all remind Mr. Trump that the 7th District, Baltimore included, is part of the United States that he is supposedly governing. The White House has far more power to affect change in this city, for good or ill, than any single member of Congress including Mr. Cummings. If there are problems here, rodents included, they are as much his responsibility as anyone’s, perhaps more because he holds the most powerful office in the land.
Finally, while we would not sink to name-calling in the Trumpian manner — or ruefully point out that he failed to spell the congressman’s name correctly (it’s Cummings, not Cumming) — we would tell the most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, the mocker of war heroes, the gleeful grabber of women’s private parts, the serial bankrupter of businesses, the useful idiot of Vladimir Putin and the guy who insisted there are “good people” among murderous neo-Nazis that he’s still not fooling most Americans into believing he’s even slightly competent in his current post. Or that he possesses a scintilla of integrity. Better to have some vermin living in your neighborhood than to be one."

[buttslinger]

I think what I hate most is that Trump is getting away with it. Behind the clown tweets he and his are on a four year smash and grab heist, seeding away millions where no-one will ever find it. Money for a rainy day. A grand old time. And we're all watching. How can anybody jack off to Shemales and enjoy it when that's what he wants us to do!!!!

[filghy2]

How can anybody jack off to Shemales and enjoy it when that's what he wants us to do!!!!

If you spent more time in the general discussion section rather than always loitering in the political section you might be aware that "shemale" has not been an acceptable term on this forum for some time.

[buttslinger]

If you spent more time in the general discussion section rather than always loitering in the political section you might be aware that "shemale" has not been an acceptable term on this forum for some time.

And if you turn your gaze to the right of this page you might see an ad for SHEMALE JAPAN 8
If you send a check to Donald Trump made out to "racist, childish, shithead prick" it will be cashed, I guarantee you.
"Let them eat cake" -Marie Antoinette
"You can't insult me with cash" -Bobby the Brain Heenan.

[filghy2]

And if you turn your gaze to the right of this page you might see an ad for [B][/I]

I know it's a waste of time trying to educate you on anything, but these are the rules according to Grooby Steven http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?108755-Hungangels-community-rules-updated-may-2019

"2. You should be aware of the proper terminology if you want the respect and answers. Trans, Tgirls, Transsexual, TG, TS, Transgender, etc. are appropriate. Tranny, Shemale, Chicks with Dicks aren't."

If you scroll down you will see they have decided not to go back and change past titles like Shemale Japan 8, though the series is now called Tgirl Japan.

"There is a fine line between irreverence and being a jerk." - Me

[buttslinger]

I know it's a waste of time trying to educate you on anything
Now you know how your Mom feels.
"2. You should be aware of the proper terminology if you want the respect
Anytime I feel the driving need for respect I head to a porn site!
If you scroll down you will see they have decided not to go back and change past titles like Shemale Japan 8, though the series is now called Tgirl Japan.
I mocked this site years ago for using terms like SHEMALE. I'm glad they finally heeded my advice.
"There is a fine line between irreverence and being a jerk."
There's a fine brown line around your dick too.
I'm just fuckin' with you, filghy2, maybe now that you've put me in my place you can state your case on politics and religion, and see if anyone salutes.

[filghy2]

I'm just fuckin' with you, filghy2, maybe now that you've put me in my place you can state your case on politics and religion, and see if anyone salutes. [/COLOR]

I've done so many times before, but I'm a bit over it at this stage. Everything Trump and co does follows a predictable pattern so it's hard to say anything that hasn't been said before. Also, there's probably no more than 5 people coming to this section regularly and they mostly agree, which is why we end up arguing over minor things. Unlike the good Stavros I don't have an endless appetite for preaching to the choir, and even he seems to be tiring of it lately.

What this section needs is some villains to spice up the discussion. Where are you Mr Fanti, Redvex, Nick Danger, CD Sasha? Even being called a c**t by that oaf Peejaye might be better than nothing.

[buttslinger]

I'm not sure there is a calm way to say the President is guilty of Treason. There should be no discussion about it. The reason there are so many Mexicans here is because Americans don't do their own dirty work anymore.

[buttslinger]

I guess the bottom line is that it was a lot more fun being a World Class Asshole when Obama was President, none of the current Democratic hopefuls will give the World hope and guidance like Obama did.


https://i.ibb.co/pX2zMx0/00.jpg (https://ibb.co/5cT8S6M)

[fred41]

I'm not sure there is a calm way to say the President is guilty of Treason. There should be no discussion about it. The reason there are so many Mexicans here is because Americans don't do their own dirty work anymore.

So in your opinion, what would happen if there no longer were any "outside" people here, to do the dirty work you say Americans wouldn't do anymore? Let's just say, for sake of argument, that was no longer an option.

[buttslinger]

So in your opinion, what would happen if there no longer were any "outside" people here, to do the dirty work you say Americans wouldn't do anymore? …..

I have no clue, Fred, I guess we'd buy all our produce from Mexico. Why, what do you think would happen?

[fred41]

I have no clue, Fred, I guess we'd buy all our produce from Mexico. Why, what do you think would happen?
Well..., because we simply don't know - it somewhat comes down to what you mean as "dirty work". In rural areas it seems to mean manual, backbreaking field work; in urban areas - I would guess it means working in the low wage areas in a restaurant or (at some of it's worst) hanging around Home Depot hoping someone would ask you to help with their bullshit home construction project; in the suburbs it would mean doing the grunt work for a landscaper or being a nanny or housekeeper, with the added risk of being paid sub par wages under the threat of being fired.

So, if for the most part, those options went away...what would happen?

Well certainly, in the suburban examples, the assholes should be simply forced to pay more...someone will do the job. In the urban example, some restaurants may close...some may have to pay more to staff...no crisis. The agricultural area is the toughie....but if you can't afford real wages, then you can't afford a business...unions used to agree with that.

I don't know either...hardly ever post anymore, came through and saw your post and figured - have a little debate. All theory anyway. I'm not fucking with you, but I did see some previous posts, in other political threads and totally understand why you might think that...but, like you, I also don't understand why Stavros came at you in that other post either...lol. Kinda funny though, no? Almost deserves it's own thread.

Please reply.....I'm so lonely.

[buttslinger]

I have had shit jobs, I was a telemarketer for one evening. I've never been the boss.
I guess you could ask "what if there had never been slavery in the US?" It seemed to make sense in 1819, but now it would be cheaper to hire an illegal alien to do the grunt work. Nobody is a Loser until someone says they are. If you want to control someone, give him a job. If you're lonely, get a dog. If you like to debate, get married.
I believe in Great Britain as well as the US, Brexit and Trump signify our weakness showing. Everything is great until it falls apart. Eleven Million undocumented laborers is a bad sign. Fifty five million voters for Trump is a bad sign.
The last day of work I did I was soaked in sweat from head to toe, working inside. I found out I was 100% disabled after working 25 years. My whole career I was sick. I was a lot more scared of being broke than being sick.

[Stavros]

Well..., because we simply don't know - it somewhat comes down to what you mean as "dirty work". In rural areas it seems to mean manual, backbreaking field work; in urban areas - I would guess it means working in the low wage areas in a restaurant or (at some of it's worst) hanging around Home Depot hoping someone would ask you to help with their bullshit home construction project; in the suburbs it would mean doing the grunt work for a landscaper or being a nanny or housekeeper, with the added risk of being paid sub par wages under the threat of being fired.
So, if for the most part, those options went away...what would happen?


It was just a moment of annoyance with Buttslinger's indifference to the distinction between England, the UK and even Great Britain, as well as his flippant indifference to the most brazen crook and liar to occupy the White House. But the dog thrives on beig rude and offensive, as was the case with both his atttacks on 'the Squad' and Elijah Cummings, because it diverts attention away fom the creeping erosion of the economy under his watch and his own indifference to the hate and outrage that trails in the wake of his barking, which is itself the equivalent of him pissing in the mouths and shitting in the face of every American, every day, just to prove he can do it with impunity.

It means there is little substance in the debates the Democrats are having, because the staggering fact is that the States that do so can openly and proudly remove 14 million Americans from the electoral roll, and they are not 'racist' because most of those voters are Black, because the fact is that being Black does not make them real Americans, so why should they have equal rights? And which segment of American society is most vulnerable to the attack on Planned Parenthood? Yep, you guessed it. But the Confederacy is not about to re-introduce slavery, it would cost too much and is inefficient, so maybe they should take their current loathing the logical step forward and expel Black people from their country and 'send them back', if not to the US, to Africa. The dog's supporters would love it, and who cares if the economy tanks? This is identity politics with a vegeance, and vengeance is all it would be if it did not so undermine the idea of a democratic vote that it might make more sense not to bother in Alabama, just appoint the legislators by decree, a medieval formula for their medieval world of child marriage, where raped women who become pregnant become the accused rather than the victim, in whose womb a throbbing membrane has more legal rights than a citizen.

The point about jobs is that it cuts to issues such as immigration and welfare -why not cut all immigration to zero, and end all forms of welfare? Either Charles Murray or one of his supporters had a simple solution to 'welfare dependency' -'take away their welfare, and those people will get jobs'. Channel 4 News in the UK earlier this year reported from Indiana where there is a thriving trade in mobile home manufacture, to the extent that one employer welcomed increases in immigration to keep his business going. It begs the question, should they prefer a Black 20-year old from Baltimore or a 20-year old from Honduras, but would the Black guy move from Baltimore to Indiana, and would he be welcome there? I wonder if there is a sterilty in the mobility of labour in a country where it was its flexibiity that enabed it to survive depressions and recessions? Maybe Indiana should be forced to give jobs to unemployed Black youth from Baltimore and DC? But none of this addresses the future of work, it is just sticking a bandage on a festering wound.

And for all the chatter about jobs, where is the debate on work and income as it changes oover the next 25 years? When jobs and the economy become headlines to bark about, where is the debate on the dignity of work, and the dignity of its fair reward? The US is mired in staggering levels of household debt, the national debt is being added to by over $1 trillion every year, that potent symbol of individual power, the motor car, is entering a new world, but one where the vehicles of the future will not be made by an army of workers, or run on fossil fuels. I doubt the mounting problems will reach a critical mass at the same time, but I do know the dog doesn't care, as long as he gets his wedge, has adoring crowds, and can boast in one sentence that under his paws, the US will end the AIDS epidemics and cure child cancer. Yet there he is, barking about the radical left as if they were an existential threat to the USA. Margaret Thatcher once likened socialist state subsidies to the State using other people's money to reward failure -sounds to me like the dog rustling up $12-14 billion a year to compensate soybean farmers for losing the contracts due to his tariffs on China as pure socialism, but I don't expect the 'Squad' to get down and dirty in the same kennel as the dog, there's only room for one Mutt in the White House, the one that wags its tail when it sees the portrait of Kim Jong-un, America's new hero, to be loved and admired along with Mohammed bin Salman, the Halal Butcher of Arabia. 'Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia! And if you can't find him, Jamal Khashoggi will do!'

The US has lost any sense of dignity it might once have had. Gone is all the talk of rights, responsibilities and freedom. Health care in the US is a business because the US does not value public service. People like James Comey, John McCain and Robert Mueller can serve their country for the whole of their lives, only to be ridiculed and abused by a dog that has no concept of public service other than the US tax-payer shifting their dollars from their pockets to his. His supporters in Congress such as 'Moscow' Mitch (I don't even know where the epithet came from), are in violation of their Constitutional Oaths but nobody cares. The dog's supporter from the UK via Hungary (Sebastan Gorka) is worth looking up if you want a flavour of what it is like for someone who claims affiniity with the Marines to insult Robert Mueller, who did what neither Gorka nor the dog did, put on the uniform and fight for their country. The language is debased to such an extent you wonder if the US is suffering from an epidemic of abuse. I have never known a man claiming to be President to spend so much time humiliating and abusing Americans, mostly because they don't like him! Now he swears in public and has started making that gesture with his hand which most people know, at the same time as most people assume he spends most of his spare time wanking to internet porn when he isn't barking on his twitter feed.

Is the US finished now? What happens if the lenders want their money back? If the way we all work changes and those not prepared now are left behind and in ten years time are out of work, and permanently out of work? Some will shrug their shoulders and say, it's just a terrm or two, and then he is gone. But the damage the dog is doing to the US is going to last, because the myth of American unity is broken, one segment of the country hates the other, and regards the Constitution as a scrap of paper that prevents them from doing what they want.

Perhaps nothing better expresses the dog's nihilism than the manufactured 'spat' with Iran which merely perpetuates a 40-year war with Iran that has seen the US so far lose every battle, doomed as it is in the Gulf to lose another. None of this is necessary, but with the abandonment of any control by the US and Russia on the development of new nuclear missile systems, are we seeing the slow but certain steps to their use on the battlefield? Is it Shakepeare to whom we must turn and that bitter speech about 'this bleeding piece of earth' where Caesar, 'with a Monarch's voice' cries 'havoc' to 'let slip the dogs of war'?

And who wins this war, and who pays for it? And what is the point of working if the only person who benefits is a dog that pisses in your mouth, and shits in your face?

[buttslinger]

Once again, Stavros, nice Post-Graduate thesis, now let's get down to Junior High School.
Death is not the end of Life, we distill life down to our own individual fate. And now the fate of the Nation is down to Individual One. It really is a Twilight Zone episode. I don't have to look up Sebastian Gorka, he is on the Sean Hannity show every night, when he's not performing at children's birthday parties as "Count Yorka, hypnotist and magician."
If you want to understand Donald Trump, don't look at the facts available, look to the Ocean of the Unknown and dive in. Trump is treading water with a noose hovering over his head. He's making this shit up as he goes. If your world is not Great Britain, Whales, Scotland, etc etc etc, if your world is Butthole, Kansas, born and raised, graduate of Butthole High, checkout clerk at the five and dime.....that is the world. Everyone you know in town agrees that the problem is the STRANGERS living in that house at the edge of town. And MONEY, of course.
The USA has the weapons to destroy the entire World many times over, that makes us #1. You break it you bought it. If what you know makes you cringe, think of all the stuff you don't know. Sometimes we lose a Nuclear Weapon, or accidently drop one on North Carolina. Obama has a 97% approval ratings among Democrats, Trump has a 90% rating among Republicans. Sometimes I think they just elected anybody that could match the Love those hippie libs have for THE BIG O. It's human nature, you trash the other side for doing something this week, then next week you do it. John McCain was every bit as bad as Trump 11 years ago, now I can't wait for Trump to be hung from the mast of the USS John McCain.
If the Democrats run on racism they'll lose. Boston and Chicago are every bit as racist as Montgomery and Selma. Jesus is White in the USA. Jesus is still White even if he isn't. Every American is just a lottery ticket away from being a big shot like Trump. Anyone can be President. That was a good thing until Obama got elected.
We won't know the full Trump Effect until ten or twenty years down the road, I probably won't be here. In the US you need to earn about 100 grand per year to live a life not dominated by money worries. That puts me solidly at THE LOSER TABLE in the Jr High Cafeteria. For most Americans Trump is a guy on TV. You can't expect the average American to understand the World's problems, putting them all in a Pandora's box is easier. The World has treated the US like a Criminal Enterprise for decades, just as it relies on it for World Peace. Well, now we really are a Criminal Enterprise, with a madman at the helm, a crooked Judge as AG, and a Senate full of backstabbers. How ya like us now?
If it took us a Bush to get an Obama, if it takes darkness to appreciate the Sunrise, nobody knows what comes next, except for the Secret Cabal that controls everything. Their first rule? Keep your mouth shut.
Nothing in any of my posts is as ridiculous, garbled, and pathetic as one episode of the Sean Hannity show. Nothing explains the Trump Presidency better than one episode of the Sean Hannity show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkBvI9wY4Bs

[buttslinger]

When I was a kid in Sunday School, sometimes a guest speaker would come talk to us, one was a Detective who chased Bank Robbers. They always got their man, always after all the money was gone. I think that's what we're going to get. Four years stolen, never to be replaced. I think we have a pretty good idea about what happened, Trump happened, and we're all going to suffer for it for a long time.

[Stavros]

I want to buy an island, not necessarily one with vast deposits of rare-earth minerals, but at least a pleasant climate, some good food, and of course, an opera house. So not Greenland -but where? Any suggestions?

[buttslinger]

Have your Travel Agent book a trip to Jeffery Epstein's pedophile island. fantasy island.
I told my psychologist once that if I had 8 million dollars, I wouldn't consider myself sick anymore. He said "no, buttslinger, you'll still have problems"
But I don't think so. Problems like the best physical trainer in town? Problems like the best dieticians and cooks in town? Problems like the hottest masseuse in town, Problems like a house I love and all the opportunities that open up when you have enough money that you don't have to answer to anyone?

Sick or not, these guys lead lives 100% better than mine. Guilty of being poor. I plead it everyday.

https://i.ibb.co/YWZ7R28/Bugatti-Veyron.jpg (https://ibb.co/9vt98n2)

[filghy2]

I want to buy an island, not necessarily one with vast deposits of rare-earth minerals, but at least a pleasant climate, some good food, and of course, an opera house. So not Greenland -but where? Any suggestions?

You're obviously not a forward-thinker like the Donald, Stavros. Global warming will probably turn Greenland into a fertile place with a pleasant climate, while all those tropical islands will become sweltering hell-holes. Perhaps his climate change denial is really just a real estate huckster's ploy?

[Stavros]

If the President uses the Emergency Powers Act to order US firms to remove production from China, will it also apply to the production of goods made for the Princess Royal, or will she be exempt from the ruling?

[filghy2]

Yeah, so much for the party of free enterprise and limited government. Where are all those principled Republicans who complained that Obama's use of executive orders was an unconstitutional and tyrannous abuse of executive power?

[broncofan]

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ex-labour-clp-chair-suspended-after-sharing-holocaust-denial-posts-1.487622

More from the party of "we don't hate Jews just the money-grubbing zio Khazar pigs"...

Congratulations to British Labour (and its supporters) on your 5th Holocaust denier among party officials. For a scandal that involves "Israeli partisans crying wolf" over anti-Semitism there sure are a lot of Holocaust deniers. This one apparently didn't get any mainstream coverage because people have been desensitized to it.

When the Labour anti-Semitism scandal originally started I was willing to give the party the benefit that maybe there were a lot of anti-semites in the party and they were trying to do something about it. After watching people be called "bastardized Ashkenazi khazars" by Labour accounts with lots of followers and seeing leadership that can't call it out except in the most general terms, I think it's something Labour helped create.

[Stavros]

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ex-labour-clp-chair-suspended-after-sharing-holocaust-denial-posts-1.487622

More from the party of "we don't hate Jews just the money-grubbing zio Khazar pigs"...

Congratulations to British Labour (and its supporters) on your 5th Holocaust denier among party officials. For a scandal that involves "Israeli partisans crying wolf" over anti-Semitism there sure are a lot of Holocaust deniers. This one apparently didn't get any mainstream coverage because people have been desensitized to it.

When the Labour anti-Semitism scandal originally started I was willing to give the party the benefit that maybe there were a lot of anti-semites in the party and they were trying to do something about it. After watching people be called "bastardized Ashkenazi khazars" by Labour accounts with lots of followers and seeing leadership that can't call it out except in the most general terms, I think it's something Labour helped create.

You can't damn the entire party because of one CLP Chair, but it her case is hopeless, not least her pathetic excuse: "Ms Collins claimed she had shared the articles to "create an interesting discussion" rather than to express her own opinions."

And not just Labour- the Brexit Party sacked its first Treasurer for his anti-Jewish slurs, and at least two of its MEPs "have appeared on an internet radio show that promotes Holocaust deniers and antisemitic conspiracy theorists."
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/brexit-party-meps-appeared-on-conspiracy-theory-radio-show-report-finds/

[broncofan]

You can't damn the entire party because of one CLP Chair, but it her case is hopeless, not least her pathetic excuse: "Ms Collins claimed she had shared the articles to "create an interesting discussion" rather than to express her own opinions."

And not just Labour- the Brexit Party sacked its first Treasurer for his anti-Jewish slurs, and at least two of its MEPs "have appeared on an internet radio show that promotes Holocaust deniers and antisemitic conspiracy theorists."
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/brexit-party-meps-appeared-on-conspiracy-theory-radio-show-report-finds/
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/suspended-labour-activists-using-unite-trade-union-to-continue-exercising-influence-1.487848

I appreciate what you say. The stuff about the Brexit party members going on the Richie Allen show is troubling.

Even if Ms. Collins were more senior in the party there is nothing one can do to prevent such comments before they're expressed. A party can only respond but they have to lead and I'm not convinced at the robustness of their disciplinary process.

People get suspended (and not expelled) when it's obvious their offenses are severe, malicious, and deliberate and they continue to hang around. Why is someone like Laura Stuart in the article above not persona non grata in left-wing circles? Why do these same cast of characters show up to grassroots events and the people who complain about anti-Semitism are vilified and screened out as troublemakers? Shouldn't someone who says the stuff she said be pushed out of anti-racist activism and hang out instead with the alt-right or their equivalents?

The problem is that from my observation anti-semites who have been disciplined are more popular among Labour supporters than the people who condemn them. I don't know what can be done about that.

[Stavros]

I find myself in a position where what I thought was not possible has become real. When I was a member of the Labour Party in the 1980s anti-Semitic remarks would have been unthinkable. In addition to what we learned as we grew up, our parents generation were first hand witnesses to the wars, the revolutions and the genocides of the 20th century, and knew who was responsible for crimes, and why. To find the same accusations against Jews of the 1930s resurrected in the 21st century is a shock, to the extent I cannot explain it other than it is caused by ignorance, an unforgiveable ignorance- or a genuine hatred of the Jews to rival the bleak hatred of Muslims that has expanded since 9/11.
I don't even understand it as being part of the criticism of Israel. I have said before there are plenty of real political issues that concern Israel to debate without losing one's reason in conspiracy theories. I am also puzzled as to how anyone claiming be a supporter of what is supposed to be a social democratic, maybe even a socialist party, can be associated with the ideas and the language of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and/or the Third Reich. To wish it away as 'interesting' will not do, because it is not remotely interesting, it is garbage, and always has been.

But I am also astonished that at a time when Capitalism is failing, European socialist parties are losing rather than winning support, as if the left has run out of ideas, and is incapable of offering the people a sane, rational vision of what the 21st century has to offer. Here in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn seems fixated on the revival of 1970s policies, oblivious to a world in which driverless, electric cars will become normal, along with driverless trains (overground and underground) and computer-operated aeroplanes. The simple demand to raise taxes and spend more on social services sounds reasonable, but where is the imaginative thinking about the education and the curriciulum the children of today need if they are to prosper tomorrow, or the demands of health care as more and more people live beyond the age of 80, while their younger cohorts are beset by obesity and 'lifestyle' health probems? For what is 'lifestyle' and how does it evolve, from whatever it is today to what it may become?

But even if you set aside socialism, the so-called 'conservative' parties have thrown away their values, seen at its most raw in the naked racism that overwhelmed the Republican Party in the US when Obama became Presidet, which no longer values Human Rights -a term officially deleted from government announcements-; which supports dictatorship over democracy, participates in the violation of the rule of law at home and abroad, and allows the President and his family to fill their pockets with tax-payers money and condemn all attempts to expose the truth of its extent as unwarranted intrusion. It is as if the US never really believed in rights, the rule of law, or democracy, and that all the Republican Party is doing now is being honest about its politics and saying 'so what? What are you going to do about it?

It is too early to know if the rage against falling living standards is caused by globalization, and will be remedied by conservative goovernment; just as I see no hope of improvement through nationalist attempts to shut the world -and its 'struggling masses'- out of 'Our Home'; but the war against truth is certainly something else I never expected to see.

Can we really imagine the day is coming, when to defend the draft-dodging coward from Queens, someone will claim the Vietnam War never happened, that it was all 'fake news'? When the answer to the question is yes, we know we are all in deep trouble.

So the specifics of the anti-Semitism we have now is bad enough, that it is part of a broader campaign (co-ordinated or not) against the truth must make us wonder who or how anyone benefits from it, and why we seem powerless to send back to the impotent margins of society, those who seek to dominate us all with their policies of revenge and hate, derived from lies, that benefits only a few people, so rich they don't care.

[Stavros]

If the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, does that mean he will not be invited to deliver the State of the Union speech in the New Year?

[broncofan]

Thought of the day: Peejaye downvote the rest of them. You only got about 3,420 more to go! I'm glad you're reading....much better than blocking people you disagree with.

[Stavros]

He is at it again:

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.....

....IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!

I guess that is why


The US announced Friday it would send additional troops along with enhanced air and missile defense systems to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in response to the attack on Saudi oil facilities, which the US has blamed on Tehran.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html

So is the US decreasing or increasing its military presence in the Middle East?

[Stavros]

And for those of you who wonder where the weird nonsense about the Kurds not being there for the US on the beaches of Normandy, at Inchon or Vietnam, the argument is not even his -what, you mean 'the President' has no original ideas?- but some provocative Republican called Kurt Schlichter who wrote this article in something called Town Hall. Read it and at least get an insight into the ignorance that deplores US involvement in the Middle East at the same time as it is being deepened not relieved. Oh, and though it might only have been marginal to the main theatre in Europe, the Kurds did play a role in the military engagement of Rashid Ali's pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad in 1941 -and helped the same Iraqforce as it was called, end Vichy rule in Syria, not least in the Kurdish heartlands of the North-East. But hey, why should any historic facts get in the way of a pugnacious defence of a man who it seems to me, puts the resources of the US at the disposal of Saudi Arabia, in exchange for, hmmm, what -'lovely dollars'?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/08/critics-aghast-as-trump-keeps-word-about-no-more-wars-n2554328

[Stavros]

President Trump on 2016: "And I didn't need Beyonce and Jay Z. And I didn't need Little Bruce Springsteen."

If Bruce Springsteen is 'little', what is he?

[broncofan]

Chris Williamson's resignation letter is a disgrace to honesty and yes decency.

In it he claims that the JDL, a terrorist group that originated in the U.S., and Britain First, led the campaign to get the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism adopted!

Does he honestly think that the only people who support the IHRA definition of anti-semitism are the JDL and Britain First? Does he really think they led the campaign to get it adopted?

More than 2,000 people liked this disgraceful, cobbled together pile of conspiracism to obscure the types of things Councilors and MPs have really gotten suspended for. Awful stuff.

[Jericho]

If that puts your knickers in a knot, this will really raise your blood pressure.

Labour should have never adopted the IHRA definition.
Even it's own author, Kenneth Stern said it was never meant to define antisemitism, and as such, isn't fit for purpose.

You want to stop antisemitism, stop fucking weaponising it.

You've seen exactly the same thing happening in your own country with A.O.C.



Chris Williamson's resignation letter is a disgrace to honesty and yes decency.

In it he claims that the JDL, a terrorist group that originated in the U.S., and Britain First, led the campaign to get the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism adopted!

Does he honestly think that the only people who support the IHRA definition of anti-semitism are the JDL and Britain First? Does he really think they led the campaign to get it adopted?

More than 2,000 people liked this disgraceful, cobbled together pile of conspiracism to obscure the types of things Councilors and MPs have really gotten suspended for. Awful stuff.

[broncofan]

If that puts your knickers in a knot, this will really raise your blood pressure.

Labour should have never adopted the IHRA definition.
Even it's own author, Kenneth Stern said it was never meant to define antisemitism, and as such, isn't fit for purpose.

You want to stop antisemitism, stop fucking weaponising it.

You've seen exactly the same thing happening in your own country with A.O.C.
Nobody is weaponizing it. Saying that the JDL led a push for something that 85% of the Jewish community wanted is anti-Semitism. If you don't like the IHRA you can argue about why but you shouldn't conflate members of the Jewish community with a terror organization.

Your party has had Holocaust deniers elected to office, violent threats from a Councilor, and a recent Councilor that called a Jewish woman Shylock. Every week it's some fresh example.

Just do your best in life. No need to blame us. Where have I said anything about AOC? I've said many MPs and Councilors in your party are anti-Semitic. And they are.

I've voted for the Democratic party my entire life and will continue to. I would not vote for a party where elected officials are saying Hitler is a great man or openly admitting they don't like Jews and being re-admitted.

[broncofan]

My opinion is you just don't read anything that outlines the behavior of actual people in your party. You seemed to have no clue who any of the Councilors and officials were when I posted them in the other thread. Do you know who the JDL is? They are a terrorist organization that has murdered a bunch of people. Did they lead the push to get the IHRA adopted or did most (though not all) mainstream Jewish organizations?

No person likes to be vilified for who they are. I would no more tolerate being called Shylock than I would being called Hasbara or being told I'm paid by a foreign government.

If I were claiming a few people represented the entire party it would be different from dozens of people making the worst comments I've seen. The Republican party in my country does not have as many officials who have made such baldly anti-Semitic comments as I've outlined.

As for AOC, I've never heard her say anything anti-Semitic.

[broncofan]

Something like 70% of Jews in the United States vote for the Democratic party, of which AOC is a member. I read a recent statistic that 94% of Jewish people would not vote for Labour.

You could choose to believe that there are all sorts of nefarious things going on behind the scenes and some conspiracy to demonize Labour or you can realize that it's never an accident when dozens of people from Councilors, to Mps to party officials have made comments ranging from those about Rothschild bankers, to debunked theories about Jewish genetic origins, to Holocaust denial, to violent threats against Jews. It runs the gamut of every type and form of anti-semitism...

[Stavros]

"Gideon Bull denied calling a Jewish councillor a Shylock directly, but admitted using the word during a private meeting.
The Haringey councillor, who was standing in Clacton, Essex, said he did not realise the Shakespearean character was a Jew".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50344324

Julius Caesar- woz e that mafia geezer in Chicago?

[broncofan]

If the defenses are true and this is now just a word in common parlance, the use of a conspicuously Jewish character who enforced debts by removing flesh to mean parsimonious is a sign of ingrained anti-semitism. It can be possible without being plausible but the defenses are often worse than the initial offense.

When Peter Willsman said that 68 Rabbis were working for the Israeli embassy, he also had a lot of support and solidarity. People were posting clips from the Al Jazeera documentary showing an Israeli named Shai Masot boasting about his influence over British politics. It is concerning that a lot of people think a single Israeli individual filmed in a bar is evidence that 68 British Rabbis are working for Israel.

I see a similar train of thought with Williamson’s claim about the JDL. I’m curious what role they play in the British Parliamentary process? They are a dangerous terrorist organization. It’s hard for me to believe that they, along with Britain First, were the prime movers to enact a definition of anti-semitism that has mainstream though not unanimous Jewish support. I’m concerned I will soon see a video of someone from JDL saying something positive about it as proof while sneezing.

There is a difference between a defense being possible and being plausible. If it is possible, Labour defenders will pretend it’s plausible. In aggregate, the picture is not good.

[Jericho]

"Gideon Bull denied calling a Jewish councillor a Shylock directly, but admitted using the word during a private meeting.
The Haringey councillor, who was standing in Clacton, Essex, said he did not realise the Shakespearean character was a Jew".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50344324

Julius Caesar- woz e that mafia geezer in Chicago?

As I read it, she informed him it was offensive to her, and he apologised.

The term shyylock's always been a name for a tallyman...Regardless of religion.
But, indeed, to deny knowing the character in the book was jewish, was, foolish to say the least.

[Jericho]

Something like 70% of Jews in the United States vote for the Democratic party, of which AOC is a member. I read a recent statistic that 94% of Jewish people would not vote for Labour.

Yah, right, and the other 30% are the wrong type of jews!
Like the 200 academics who wrote an open letter in the Guardian decrying the weaponizaton of anti-semitism against Labour.
Who ever ever quotes the JVL (an organiztion where you have to be jewish and labour)? No one.
Who quotes the JLM (An organization you need to be neither jewish or labour)? Every fucker!

But yeah, statistics...

[Jericho]

As for AOC, I've never heard her say anything anti-Semitic.

Did I say she had?
Did i even imply it?
The answer to both's no.
What I said is the same thing's happened to her, lies, smears, quotes taken out of context.

Like I said, you want to to stop antisemitism?
Not just pay it lip service. end it.
(Not just in the labour party (0.005% of half a million members), but through out the country as a whole)?
Really?
Stop weaponizing it and educate people.

[Jericho]

When Peter Willsman said that 68 Rabbis were working for the Israeli embassy, he also had a lot of support and solidarity. People were posting clips from the Al Jazeera documentary showing an Israeli named Shai Masot boasting about his influence over British politics. It is concerning that a lot of people think a single Israeli individual filmed in a bar is evidence that 68 British Rabbis are working for Israel.

Not just a single israeli though, was he. A single Israeli wording for the Israeli government.

And here we go...Now for the big one.

If you think Israel isn't involved in British politics, you're either stupid, naive, a dupe, or a plant.
Up to you, choose any two.


We're done here.

[broncofan]

Not just a single israeli though, was he. A single Israeli wording for the Israeli government.

What does he have to do with British Rabbis? That's my point. What does the JDL have to do with the IHRA? If you can use the existence of this one person to justify any statement about members of the Jewish community we're in trouble.

Does Israel play a role in British politics? I'm sure. Do you need evidence to accuse any person of being on their payroll? You should have it. Does the existence of one person lobbying for their government mean that anyone who criticizes you guys should be called a lobbyist? Again, I would think not.

I don't trust the figures that have been provided about the prevalence of Labour anti-Semitism, much like you don't find a single pollster in Britain trustworthy. I don't trust them simply because I would expect Councilors and others running for office to be less likely to be anti-Semitic than the average person.

I also think the "wrong type of Jew" line of reasoning is wrongheaded. No individual speaks for the community. That is true whether that Jewish person has a minority or in the majority viewpoint.

The reason the majority is often cited is that it is a better reflection of the average view, though this too is a reduction. The majority can be wrong, but there is no reason to reflexively hold up a small number of individuals who agree with you as being invariable truth-tellers. Someone can respond that most Jewish people disagree and then you have to look at the evidence itself.

About that. I can't be responsible for those saying AOC is anti-Semitic any more than I can about some people who said Obama was. I can say I don't think a lot of people feel that way but I don't know. I've talked about things I thought were anti-Semitic and I've tried to include only those statements that seemed unambiguous to me.

Let's be done here.

[broncofan]

Like I said, you want to to stop antisemitism?
Not just pay it lip service. end it.

I'm sure you've had some good ideas but you'll have to excuse me if I don't think you have the antidote to antisemitism. My neighbor a few years ago said he had a billion dollar idea and he's still my neighbor and he doesn't have a million dollars.

What do you guys say over there? I'll take it on board?

Of course, I also disagree with the premise that I'm weaponizing it so there's that impasse too.:)

[Stavros]

I read that the President and his team regard the impeachment process as both a sham and unconstitutional, and for that reason only two of the thirteen subpoenaed to give evidence have bothered to comply. Yet, just as the identity of whistleblowers is protected by the law (but will the Department of Justice arrest Sebastian Gorka for revealing the whistleblower's identity, if true?), so an impeachment process is legal and constitutional.

it seems to me that the process taking place is designed to discredit the House of Represenatives and crucially, to detach it from the organisation of American government, and if the Senate rejects impeachment with McConnell and Graham insisting they won't even bother to read any of the testimony against their President, then Congress itself will no longer be a branch of government. The President, and any President, can do what he or she wants, and Congress can do nothing about it.

The choice is now simple: support the Constitutional separation of powers, or end it.

[Laphroaig]

Thought of the day: Peejaye downvote the rest of them. You only got about 3,420 more to go! I'm glad you're reading....much better than blocking people you disagree with.

What does peejaye make of his hero Farage the Fraud now?

Would be nice to get an actual answer rather than just the inevitable down vote but I'm not holding my breath...

[filghy2]

It's been a long time since peejaye expressed anything like an opinion, even though he seems to come here just about every day just in case one of us has posted a comment he can down-vote. That really is dedicated grudge-bearing.

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.

I assume you are referring to Farage's non-compete deal with the Conservative party.

[broncofan]

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.

From some of his posts I got the sense he tried to get comments censored or people banned from the site. What is strange is that what he objects to is never the really unconscionable things that have been posted on this side of the forum but that someone has criticized a hero of his or said Brexit was a bad idea.

I remember him expressing a few ideas years ago but I don't remember an outpouring of substance. Something like, every candidate who is not George Galloway or Ken Livingstone is a Blairite, an establishment candidate, or something or other. He also never seemed to remember the interactions he had with people, which is not a hallmark of a lucid thinker.

If he is traveling the world, more power to him, though of course it sounds a bit bourgeois. What the hell, I figure he can only downvote every single post I've made one time.

[filghy2]

From some of his posts I got the sense he tried to get comments censored or people banned from the site. What is strange is that what he objects to is never the really unconscionable things that have been posted on this side of the forum but that someone has criticized a hero of his or said Brexit was a bad idea.

I always thought it was hilarious (and a sign of his lack of self-awareness) that peejaye was always agitating for people to be banned when the most likely candidate was him - as happened eventually last year. I suspect he stopped participating in discussion because he knows he can't sustain arguments without resorting to personal abuse, which would get him banned again - so he resorts to more underhand methods instead.

[broncofan]

What does peejaye make of his hero Farage the Fraud now?

Would be nice to get an actual answer rather than just the inevitable down vote but I'm not holding my breath...
By not downvoting your post and downvoting Filghy's and mine he's offering you a truce. At some point in the future if you say something he doesn't like, he'll be back to it when his caseload is more manageable. An observation:)

[Stavros]

cant load photo dont know how to delete a post

[broncofan]

I've watched a few Andrew Neil interviews and while I'd say they are a step up from the interviews we have here, I do have a criticism.

In the U.S. we make the mistake of allowing politicians to filibuster and our interviewers often aren't prepared enough to step in and challenge falsehoods. It's also fair play if the interviewer comes prepared with inconsistencies in your statements or contradictions to challenge you with.

But I've seen a tactic that seems a bit confrontational and unfair. When you ask a politician to answer a question with a simple yes or a simple no, you're not giving them a chance to tailor their answer. I think at some point you have to let the audience decide whether the answer is an evasion and not keep demanding the politician frame the answer the way you want them to.

I know it's not much for a thought of the day...challenge people, point out inconsistencies, but pull back on the confrontation and don't demand they fit their answers into a set of binaries.

[Stavros]

To be fair to Andrew Neil, he is the most incisive interviewer we have, and does not always ask for a 'yes or no' answer and allows his guests to talk freely -often at their own risk, as was shown when Neil interviewed Boris Johnson on the eve of the vote for the leadership of the Conservative Party when Johnson exposed himself as the unprepared fool that he is. Indeed, the interview with Johnson will be the one worth watching. I would love to see Andrew Neil interview your corrupt President, if only to see the odious little creep storm out of the interview when Neil asks hard questions.
Corbyn has always had a problem answering questions that require a simple answer. He has always been less than honest when answering questions on his support for the Palestinians because he never makes explicit his own commitment to 'revolutionary' movements which has been part of his political life since the days when he -and I too, marched against the USA's war in Vietnam. It is fundamental to the explanation for the uncritical relationship Corbyn has with the PLO and HAMAS where 'relationship' is one of solidarity rather than marriage, just as his support for Provisional Sinn Fein was -and probably still is- based on the claim that they are a socialist party, and socialists don't dump their solidarity with socialist parties -the greatest irony being that on this basis, Corbyn ought to be close friends with the Israel Labour Party, which unlike the PLO/Fateh/HAMAS is a member of the Socialist International, as is the party of Juan Guaido in Venezuela that Corbyn is not fond of.
I am not a fan of Cornbyn as I have said before, for all sorts of reasons, and he will not be Prime Minister when this election result is announced, and Labour will be looking or a new leader by the end of January.
One only hopes when Johnson tells Neil his Brexit deal is 'Oven Ready' Neil will dig deep into his dour Scottish lexicon to persuade Johnson there are better ways of describing a negotiation that has not even started and is therefore raw, rather than cooked.

[Jericho]

Good luck watching the Johnson/Neil interview...He's ducked out of it.


I am not a fan of Corbyn as I have said before, for all sorts of reasons, and he will not be Prime Minister when this election result is announced, and Labour will be looking or a new leader by the end of January.

I think we all know where I stand on that! ;-)Whether you agree or not, this country needs a Jeremy Corbyn.

As a middle class, middle aged, white single male, apart from giving me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, Corbyn/Labour aint going to be doing much for me. But for the less fortunate, He's their last chance, the last hope they have left. Not to get all v for vendetta about it, but a symbol, a symbol of hope.

Or perhaps you think the Greens or libdems, are going to lift those people out of poverty, house them, eradicate the need for foodbanks and properly fund the nhs?

[Stavros]

Jericho, I think you know that I don't object to Labour's policies as much as I do the man, and I am not going to reverse the decision I made when Blair became leader to abandon support for the party. On the one hand your appeal for a different set of policies that benefits the people of the UK is laudable, on the other hand the IFS report today points out that Labour's spending plans do not include the reversal of around half of the welfare cuts that have been made since 2010. As most of the spending plans, Labour and Tory do not factor in the possible, and negative consequences of Brexit, if it happens, the manifesto contents of both parties are just aspirations, not promises.

[Jericho]

Then vote for the policies, you mooseknuckle, we're not voting for a president! (I'm sorry, I heard the term recently, and It amuses me). Corbyn's a politician, not a saint, he irritates the piss out of me too, sometimes. And like you, I left the party under Blairs tenure, it's just I'm not too stiff necked to U-Turn. But, during the leadership elections, who else would have brought the party back to the left? He was the joke candidate that turned round and bit the centrists in the arse.

Warning, virtue signalling ahead. I don't see my beliefs as 'laudable'. I do some work for a couple for local charities, mainly driving, health, a foodbank, and see the absolute desperation and shame on people's faces. How much further are they going to be pushed, how much further can they be pushed, before they start pushing back? I might have a social conscience, but I'm also quite practical. I've been on the front line, I don't want to be there again, thank you kindly.

Grrr, fucking Brexit. Cunting bastard Tories. Of all the divide and conquer con-tricks they've pulled on us, that was the worst. And again, Labour offer the only way out of it. Another vote and the softest of brexits or an end to it.

[Stavros]

Not enough there for me, and a confusing position on Brexit. Corbyn's and most of Labour's response to the 2016 Referendum was unequivocal: 'we will honour the result of the Referendum' -in other words, Labour must be a Leave party, and as the majority of Labour MPs voted for both Acts of Parliament that enable the UK to leave the EU, it is rank hypocrisy to suggest Remain is an option.
In some fantasy world, Corbyn claims a Labour government will re-negotiate the terms of withdrawal, offering the EU what, and getting what in return that has not already been done, twice? Then to put it to the 'people' in a Second Referendum is lunacy -a) it was a referendum that got us into this mess; and b) they only offer a referendum because they think Remain will win -what if it does not?
Throw in the economic downturn already happening and getting worse if the UK leaves, and how will a Labour government maintain the public services they are determined to improve?
I understand your position, but there is more to this than social justice, and if as I suspect Brexit is a mess, I don't see how the Conservatives can be re-elected if they win this election, and don't have a big enough majority to survive five years. In the interim Labour must re-organize itself, but you have to wonder if the party wants power or just wants to campaign. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I just can't believe Labour is failing to expose Johnson for the lies and sleaze that are his ID. Though I think the result may be closer than expected, I have this 1983 feeling all over again.

[Jericho]

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I just can't believe Labour is failing to expose Johnson for the lies and sleaze that are his ID. Though I think the result may be closer than expected, I have this 1983 feeling all over again.


BBC Trust: Laura Kuenssberg report on Jeremy Corbyn inaccurate, says BBC Trust
BBC Website: Still showing the 'edited' video

BBC: Johnson, You're not going on the Marr show until you do the Neil show.
Also BBC: Johnson, You can do the Marr show.


It's not 1983 I fear, it's 1990.

[filghy2]

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.


If he is traveling the world, more power to him, though of course it sounds a bit bourgeois. What the hell, I figure he can only downvote every single post I've made one time.

Looks like I was on the money. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?105891-Anyone-in-Colombia/page4

I seems that despite his class envy posturing, peejaye is definitely not a struggling member of the proletariat.

[AlexisDVyne]

Proletariat? Hahahha..

The proletariat died in 2008 and became the precarious..

You can now call them the prolecarious.. :geek:

[Stavros]

I might have asked this before, but are Mitchell McConnell and Lindsay Graham by openly taking sides with the President rather than judging him on the facts available in an objective manner, failing to defend the Constitution of the US, and in doing so, can they be impeached -indeed, can all the members of the Senate who reject the rule of law be impeached?

[filghy2]

Only holders of public office can be impeached, but members of Congress can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the chamber they sit in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

I'm not sure what happens to their seat - does their party get to replace them? In any case, it's a moot point unless the composition of the Senate changes significantly.

[blackchubby38]

I think the three pieces of shit that robbed and killed Tessa Majors should be charged as adults. Its obvious that they're not going to become productive members of society anytime soon, so its best just to keep them locked up as long as possible.

[Stavros]

If the President has been impeached by the House of Representatives, why would they then invite the same disgraced, impeached President to give them a 'State of the Union' speech? Would it not be better for the President to be told he cannot give a speech he has no moral authority to give, and also isolate him in his bedroom? Or would this be seen as spite, and backfire on the Democrats?

[AlexisDVyne]

The Dems are looking at the fact that Mitch has openly stated publicly that he will not be impartial (as have a few other republican senators) to see if there is a legal way to remove him from the process as he cannot swear to the oath required.. :geek:

[blackchubby38]

If the President has been impeached by the House of Representatives, why would they then invite the same disgraced, impeached President to give them a 'State of the Union' speech? Would it not be better for the President to be told he cannot give a speech he has no moral authority to give, and also isolate him in his bedroom? Or would this be seen as spite, and backfire on the Democrats?

Considering the fact it remains to be seen what kind of impact impeachment is going to have on the Democrats, I don't think they should do anything that can perceived as spiking the ball. Not allowing him to give the State of the Union would fall under that category.

[trish]

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/police-search-suspect-murder-trans-activist-oklahoma-n1110571

[Stavros]

Articles in The Guardian that reveal Evangelical Christians take the view their President is flawed and that they accept these flaws for his policies, not only begs the question about those policies, but more pertinently, what, as Christians are they doing to remedy his flaws? What would be the purpose of a Presidential Pastor if she is not challenging him to stop using filthy language -describing Americans as 'Human Scum' for example; to stop making outrageous claims about The Speaker of the House of Representatives, telling lies, threatening to kill people with bombs, and so on.
What is a committed, Evangelical Christian for if not to change people? So after three years, where is the change?

[broncofan]

My thought of the day is that I read about a new epidemic or potential pandemic and don't really know what kind of threat it is. Has anyone read anything about Coronavirus? I've read it's an airborne virus that has killed more than a dozen people in China, that the Chinese have quarantined many large cities and are building hospitals just to deal with it. There is speculation that it may have originated in a "wet market", where exotic animals are slaughtered in conditions that are unsanitary and promote the spread of disease. Beyond that, we'll see in the coming weeks whether the hospitals in China are able to treat it, whether the antivirals we have are effective against it, or if supportive measures can keep people alive.

[Stavros]

WHO has some useful Q&A here-
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

Ps if you are ever in Geneva, the WHO has an excellent library- open to the public-, and the view from the 6th floor is stupendous. Also recommended is the International Red Cross Museum near the old League of Nations building.

[filghy2]

First case in Australia has just been confirmed (Chinese man who had visited Wuhan). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-25/first-confirmed-coronavirus-case-australian-as-china-toll-rises/11900428

[broncofan]

Ps if you are ever in Geneva, the WHO has an excellent library- open to the public-, and the view from the 6th floor is stupendous. Also recommended is the International Red Cross Museum near the old League of Nations building.
I'll make sure I do that one day. Thanks.

[broncofan]

Stavros had a good idea, which is that we can use an amendment fleshing out what is impeachable, and whether the President can be held accountable for crimes. I apologize if I misrepresented the post, but I didn't want to take credit for the idea, and I don't recall all of the details of it.

I think there should be an amendment codifying what is impeachable, with guidance about what is a high crime and misdemeanor. I think there should be an amendment specifying what the procedures are for impeachment, and I think the amendment should state that all statutes of limitations for crimes that would prevent the President from facing criminal prosecution should be tolled while he or she is President. If there are Constitutional concerns about a President facing jeopardy while in office, don't allow that to preclude prosecution after the fact because the statutes of limitations ran even though he or she did not actually face jeopardy.

As an alternative, I think impeachment and removal should be decided by the Supreme Court. The framers rejected this idea because the President appoints Justices but the appointments are for a lifetime, which means they are no longer beholden to anyone and in any given Presidential term most have been appointed by previous Presidents. Impeachment is not meant to look like a vote of no confidence, or a review of the job the President has done generally. It's a decision about whether the President engaged in misconduct, using standards that are constitutionally based, though not fully articulated. That's not something legislators are especially qualified for, and what's more, the requirement that Justices write opinions stating the reasons for their decisions provides accountability, to posterity and history, that a single vote by hundreds of members in a chamber never could.

[broncofan]

Actually, the place for my last post should have been the impeachment puzzle thread, where many of these ideas have already been discussed. I still feel this is a reasonable synthesis and it's becoming more apparent that the entire process suffers both from a lack of honesty on one side, but also a lack of rigor in spelling out what to look for.

Another reason it would be better if impeachment were judicial is that opinions don't just provide accountability, but future consistency. Once a decision is made based on a fact set, standards are laid out that can provide a useful comparison that might cut through partisanship. Imagine if Justices wrote full sets of opinions on the Clinton impeachment trial. There would be a record, with reasons, that could be compared to the present set of facts...

[broncofan]

Stavros had a good idea, which is that we can use an amendment fleshing out what is impeachable, and whether the President can be held accountable for crimes. I apologize if I misrepresented the post, but I didn't want to take credit for the idea, and I don't recall all of the details of it.
I found the post. I think Stavros said there should be clear rules governing executive privilege and financial conflicts of interest, as well as allowing the President to be indicted. The above then is an alternative, setting clear rules for impeachability, and preserving the ability of the President to be prosecuted out of office for any crimes he committed while in office.

[Stavros]

Briefly, as this really belongs in the Impeachment thread, the clear point I take from last week's blistering presentation in the Senate, is that the law has been broken, while the President boasts 'I can do anything I want'. You have to decide, as Americans, whether or not you want to amend your Constitution to make explicit what the President can and cannot do, or trust in the generalist language that makes the assumption that the kind of person elected to the Presidency will respect the Office, adhere to the Oath of Office, and not stretch the boundaries of acceptability for personal gain, daring Congress to act. Perhaps the 45th President will mark a boundary line in behaviour, tone and outcome that no other dares, or wants to reach. But he could be there for another 4 years, and the potential damage to the US is, to me, even at this distance, scary. There seems to be no future for the EPA or its increasingly weak protection of the American environment in general, its Wilderness and water resources in particular. I won't go into the Foreign Policy options, even more scary. But here we are, and the tamed, cowered Republicans, it seems to me don't want to hear the evience from Bolton, Mulvaney, least of all Giuliani or the President himself, and will vote for more of the same, as if the clear breaches of the law just didn't matter.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1222335747992248322?s=20

Less my thought of the day than my laugh of the day. Love the laugh in the background from a fox person.

[Stavros]

Scary not funny.
And two days ago when presenting the Palestine: Surrender to Israel Plan, the President managed to re-name the third most important Shrine in Islam as 'al-Aqua Mosque', proving thorugh his pathetic ignorance that his son-in-law's plan is not worth the paper it is written on.

[filghy2]

It always amuses me that Trump refers to his opponents as "Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats". What sort of radicals are they if they want to do nothing?

[Stavros]

From the State of the Union last night-

"“Socialism destroys nations,” said Trump after welcoming Venezuela’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido"….leader of the Popular Will party, a member of the Socialist International since 2014...

[Stavros]

I dont know much about Tucker Carlson other than what I read in the UK press, but what struck me about his 'outing' of a Juror in the Roger Stone trial, publishing her personal details as well, is that I thought Jurors were supposed to be anonymous. It seems to me that if each Juror has sworn to be impartial at the start of a trial, then that must be it and that they should remain anonymous to each other as well as the General Public. I can only assume the law has changed to enable the identification of jurors, but as no juror will be impartial once the trial has produced evidence for or against a conviction, surely anonymity must be protected?
As for Tucker Carlson, does he have the right to identify a Juror and make claims about their political bias which he claims has influenced the outcome of the trial? The rule of law is under a lot of pressure right now, this cannot help reduce that tension.

[broncofan]

I don't have an issue with most of the policies of Bernie Sanders but I don't understand the way they're marketed. Last night Bloomberg brought up the fact that Sanders has three homes and is worth about 3 million dollars. There is a world of difference between having a net worth of 3 million dollars and billions. But when I hear Sanders' rhetoric I often hear buzz words and invective. How wealthy does someone have to be before they are suspected of being corrupt and is wealth the best metric?

The best argument for taxing the rich is that they can afford to pay and what they pay funds extremely useful programs. The best justification for casting aspersions on someone's business activities is that they were unethical, broke the law, or were involved in an activity that was by its nature predatory. The best argument for regulating business is that there are collective action problems or some significant public good can be achieved through the regulation at an acceptable cost.

So while I think it's a bit braindead to compare Sanders to the extremely wealthy people he vilifies I do blame him for relying on slogans and clichés about a rigged system without saying what's rigged and what's not. What are the rules we play by? When does he think regulation is useful and when would he think it's too much of an encroachment on commerce?

[filghy2]

So while I think it's a bit braindead to compare Sanders to the extremely wealthy people he vilifies I do blame him for relying on slogans and clichés about a rigged system without saying what's rigged and what's not. What are the rules we play by? When does he think regulation is useful and when would he think it's too much of an encroachment on commerce?

Sanders is a populist and the essence of populism is to target some 'other' as being at the root of problems. For populists of the right the targets are usually immigrants, minorities and globalist elites: for populists of the left it is the rich. Of course there may be an element of truth in their complaints, but populists are not really interested in analysing the best way to deal with problems. It's all about using rhetoric to appeal to peoples' emotions and build a feeling that you are the only one who understands their concerns.

[broncofan]

It's all about using rhetoric to appeal to peoples' emotions and build a feeling that you are the only one who understands their concerns.
In his case it seems he really believes it as well. To hear some of his supporters talk, their support sounds almost messianic. "He's been fighting for you his whole life." "He's taken on yada yada". But if you look at his accomplishments they're quite modest. There's definitely a problem with massive income inequality, the growth in the number of super wealthy, and a minimum wage that hasn't changed here for more than ten years. As you say, he's identified a real problem but his explanation of its causes is not complex enough, nor are the solutions.

[filghy2]

The main reason that Trump is still generally favoured to win the election is that the US economy is doing well. Nor has there been any crisis that has affected undecided voters in ways that could change their perceptions of his Presidency. A corona-virus epidemic is the most likely risk that could test those propositions between now and November. Could this be Trump's Hurricane Katrina - the event that finally exposes the implications of his Administration's incompetence?
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21150574/trump-coronavirus-cdc-cuts
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/trump-officials-defend-coronavirus-request-117329

One thing that seems likely is that the Administration will continue to downplay the risks. This is exactly the sort of situation in which people need to be able to trust what officials tell them, yet Trump and his acolytes have completely trashed that credibility.

[broncofan]

You're right about this. I want Trump to be right because the idea of a pandemic is terrifying. Yet how is novel coronavirus going to be contained given how easily it's spread (including the possibility of asymptomatic transmission) and tests for it aren't great right now? Look at how quickly it's spread in South Korea and Italy.

There are a couple of treatments for it that doctors in China have reported are effective. At least two anti-virals. One is called Remdesivir, which apparently is also effective against other coronaviruses, SARS and MERS. The other is an anti-malarial drug called Chloroquine. The testing for the former's anti-viral activity is in vitro and so it's not clear how effective it is clinically. The latter seems to be effective once the novel coronavirus has caused pneumonia, but the evidence is anecdotal and the recommendations are from clinicians not based on trials.

Early on it was reported the disease caused death in about 2% of people but that the number is probably lower because minor cases were underreported. As it is, it hasn't seemed to be a lot less lethal than that when you look at the overall numbers. The CDC in the U.S. has said been quoted as saying that it's not a matter of if but when novel coronavirus spreads throughout the U.S.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/us-plans-trial-of-gilead-coronavirus-drug-remdesivir.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32075365

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32075365

[tovosan]

The corona virus frightens me. I hope a vaccine is coming soon.

[broncofan]

The corona virus frightens me. I hope a vaccine is coming soon.
Anthony Fauci from NIH was on msnbc just now. He said a vaccine will be ready at earliest in a year. I think he said the timeline was to get a vaccine ready for testing within 3 months, to do an initial trial looking at safety first and then a 6 month trial for efficacy and safety in a larger cohort. Hopefully the containment strategy is effective at keeping the number of people infected fairly low until the vaccine is ready to be used. But the CDC head sounded confident the virus will not be contained in the long run.

In the meantime, Fauci also said they are doing clinical trials for remdesivir right now. If it's effective, Gilead, the company that makes it, is going to have to produce lots of it.

It is scary. People keep pointing out that influenza kills many more thousands every year but that's because it is already everywhere. The mortality rate per infection for Covid-9 (the latest name for this coronavirus) is anywhere from 20 to 40 times higher per infection than the flu. And it seems highly transmissible.

[filghy2]

Early on it was reported the disease caused death in about 2% of people but that the number is probably lower because minor cases were underreported. As it is, it hasn't seemed to be a lot less lethal than that when you look at the overall numbers. The CDC in the U.S. has said been quoted as saying that it's not a matter of if but when novel coronavirus spreads throughout the U.S.

It is looking increasingly likely that it won't be contained. The problem seems to be the long delay between infection and symptoms showing up, as well as the fact that many carriers have only moderate symptoms to they don't go to hospital. The Spanish flu after WWI is estimated to have affected around a quarter of the world's population, so if you do the numbers it's potentially very scary.

This is an example of the sort of nonsense we will have to deal with. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/trump-backers-coronavirus-conspiracy-117781

[filghy2]

It looks like socialism is being brought to the USA, and not by Bernie Sanders but by Donald Trump. In recent days we've had announcements about government mailing out checks, bailing out businesses and directing companies to produce essential supplies, as well as restrictions on what people can do. Just as they say there are no atheists in foxholes, there don't seem to be many small government believers in a crisis.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/19/trump-economy-coronavirus-democrats-136462

It's the right thing to do, but I can't help noting the contrast between what Republicans are wiling to do now and what they were willing to do under Obama.

[Stavros]

And two of the sectors worst hit by Covid 19, certainly in the UK, are the Hotel and Sport sectors. I assume people are no longer boooking themselves into Turnberry for a weekend of Golf and Beef Wellington, and assume this will also mean in the US that 'prestigious' Golfi Clubs and Hotels will suffer from a lack of business, and may even need a handout from the Government/Tax Payer...

[Stavros]

Two thoughts connect here:

a) the remarkable claim by President 45 with regard to proposals in the rescue package that never made it to the final text:
“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox and Friends.

b) a campaign to end gerrymandering in Michigan, now in a documentary called Slay the Dragon.

If the Republican Party is so worried about losing votes, maybe it should make a better effort to appeal to a wider variety of American people? Just as in the UK the Labour Party has lost votes because it does not appeal to enough voters, so there is a good argument for ditching ideology for pragmatism, and seeking election on the basis of practical poltical proposals. Or is that too much to ask of any party?

Slay the Dragon article here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/02/katie-fahey-slay-the-dragon-gerrymandering

President worried more people may vote (and not for him)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus

[Stavros]

Has the USA now reached a point where it must decide if it wants to replace a private health business with a public health service, one that guarantees health care to every American from the moment they are born, to the moment that they die?

It has been one of the longest lasing and supposedly impossible policies to agree upon, but can the US now carry on disagreeing when it is clear there needs to be change?

[filghy2]

Trump refused to reopen Obamacare enrolment in response to the coronavirus and they're still backing a lawsuit to abolish it, so no sign of any change of heart there. On past form they are more likely to use the budgetary impact of the virus as an argument for cutting health spending once the crisis has passed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/trump-obamacare-coronavirus-157788

[Stavros]

Boris Johnson, on leaving St Thomas's Hospital in London-

"On Saturday, the PM issued a statement thanking the National Health Service staff at St. Thomas' Hospital. "I can't thank them enough. I owe them my life," he said.

In a video statement posted online on Sunday, Johnson personally named some of the health care workers who looked after him, including two nurses -- one from New Zealand and one from Portugal -- who stood by his bedside "for 48 hours when things could have gone either way."

"I have today left hospital after a week in which the NHS has saved my life, no question," Johnson said in the video. "It's hard to find the words to express my debt."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/uk/boris-johnson-coronavirus-discharged-from-hospital-intl-gbr/index.html

[broncofan]

The President cannot force states to open businesses. The Commerce Clause is in Article I and permits Congress to pass laws in order to regulate interstate commerce. Congress is not allowed to delegate its authority to the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it's not clear that Congress would be able to pass a law forcing states to open businesses. During the Affordable Care Act case Republicans argued that one reason the Act couldn't be passed under the Commerce Clause is that it didn't regulate commerce but instead created it. They construed the power given to Congress as being regulatory, meaning that you can define the parameters of commerce and prohibit certain activities but not force anyone to engage in it. When the Affordable Care Act passed, the contested portion called the individual mandate was passed under Congress' power to tax.

Either way, the President does not have Commerce Clause power because we're a nation of laws and it's Congress that passes laws. There's also something called the dormant commerce clause. I'm not going to bore you with a basic application but in essence it prohibits states from passing laws that, even in the absence of federal legislation, interferes with Congress' regulatory ability. Anyhow, under that analysis states always have the ability to pass laws protecting their citizens' health, welfare, and safety.

Yes I'm bored or I wouldn't have written this.

[Stavros]

Proof that the devil is always in the detail, something that one is not surprised has escaped the attention of your President, who, as a devout Christian cannot be tempted by the devil but resists him at all times.
Don't be bored, Bronofan, you have enlightened me and probably a lot of others too. Now, about them pesky Governors...

[Stavros]

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

[fred41]

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

I guess while hygiene is always going to be a problem among markets that sell any type of animal,especially in crowded, cramped and sometimes unclean condition...and putting aside for the moment, the fact that there are also unsavory folk selling endangered species (or exotic endangered species parts) at ‘some’ of wildlife Markets...it seems that some animals are simply more likely than others to carry a deadly virus...https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-bats-are-breeding-grounds-for-deadly-diseases-like-ebola-and-sars

...still, any type of market selling produce, live or otherwise, should be held to stringent rules of hygiene. I just don’t believe that a large portion of them are.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link to a fascinating article, Fred. I think -I hope we are moving into a new era of self-awareness in regard to public hygiene.

Last year before Christmas I had to use the toilet in the Mall in town, and while I was washing my hands I noted three men who were at the urinals but left without washing their hands. The entrance to the Gents is by an L-shaped corridor so there were no handles on doors to touch, but I do find this aspect of male behaviour worrying, but these days if I had suggested to the men that they wash their hands before leaving I think I would have got a volley of verbal abuse, so I hope this is one area of behaviour that people now realize they must change. And, in contrast to some public places, the Mall toilets do have hot water, soap and dryers that work.

I have also noted in the town's three supermarkets, that fresh pastries, such as croissants, bread rolls, and sweet pastries such as muffins and tarts that were on open display before, are now packaged in transparent bags, something I think should have happened a long time ago.

Markets are attractive places the world over, be it for their fruit and veg, their meat and fish, and the 'street food' stalls which is often the only reason why outsiders go -in London, Borough Market on a Satuday morning has a lot of street food stalls as well as produce, and may attract more tourists as is also true of Portobello Road in Notting Hill, but I do wonder if these open stalls have a future, though in Portobello Road there is a lot of antques/junk rather than food.

Are we going to to become more sensitive to what happens in our urban spaces? I think we must, though there is also the potential for social conflict if identifiable social groups are ostracised or unwelcome in public spaces -adopting a procedure for public safety could become an instrument of public discrimination. We have to be careful in all the things we do.

[Stavros]

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

In the UK we have not had as many Coalition Governments as they have had on the Continent but we have had them, the most obvious being the National Government and Wartime Coalition that lasted with various personnel changes from 1931-45, and the most recent being the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition of 2010-15 which was a matter of expediency because no party had overall control of the House of Commons.

In the US there are some similarities to the UK -House Representatives and Senators represent a Place, not a Party, but differences, so that the Executive Power is separated into the Office of the President. Thus, most of the literature that I have found tends to limit discussion of coalition poitics to Congress, where if there have been Coalitions they have been loose 'Coalitions of Interest' rather than bi-partisan politics operating at every level. Oddly, such coalitions in the US ought to be easier to organize precisely because the party system is weaker and less co-ordinated than it is here.

Here is a legal view which limits itself to these bi-artisan coalitions of interest but I think is wrong to argue that the option for a more comprehensive form of Coalition politics is limited because of the 'District' basis of political representation-
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2014/08/TUSHNETDYSFUNCTION1.pdf

And this article pleads both for a multi-party system on the basis of what the Founding Fathers wanted, but also fails to address the topic as I present it-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/19/us-democracy-two-party-system-replace-multiparty-republican-democrat/

For the idea I am proposing is a Government of National Unity in which the President, even if his or her VP is of the same party, selects for Cabinet posts a range of people chosen because they are from different parties -ie A Democrat President chooses Republicans and Independents to be various Secretaries (State, Education, Energy etc), but also Congress puts together a cross-party organization -say a Special Committee to process national decisions in Senate and House-, while the President brings Governors and even Mayors into a National Council so that there is a 'one size fits all' public policy structure which at the very least ensures the eye-watering trllions of dolars being raised is spent on the USA, not just some of its citizens.
The job is thus for all to work with the President, as National Leader, on the basis that the only way -or the best way for the US to see itself through this crisis is to set aside the differences which to outsiders makes the US look increasingly dysfunctional.

So far, so daft, because it seems inconceivable that Mitch McConnell will even contemplace such a thing -but maybe this is how the Democrats can break the impasse, if they can wean enough 'moderate Republicans' away from the members of their party who they do not feel they relate to. In doing so, this 'National Plan' would, or could isolate the extremists and expose them for their lack of relevance. For what is crucial is that in presenting this as an option, in November, American voters could be confident that if they vote for, say, Biden, they are not voting for a Partisan Democrat who eulogizes 'America', but assembles a team that truly resembles it.

In the UK we were facing a break-up of the Union because of Brexit, and though I think that Northern Ireland may go in the next 10 years, I am now less confident of an independent Scotland because I think the SNP is in big trouble and may not even survive in its current form if Alex Salmond sues the party as he has said he will. I see too that there is little sign of Coalition politics ending in Germany and Italy, while France poses an unusual problem as I don't think it has ever been so divided while having such weak party representation at the same time.

But the US looks increasingly fragile, and I am not sure how the Democrats, if they want to win in November, can do it without persuading Republican voters who detest the leader of their party to vote for them instead, and it seems to me that instead of the tired political rhetoric about national unity, politicians need to replace it with a practical plan that actually does commit to a cross-party coalition at every level- the Executive, the Legislatures, and the States. It sounds crazy, but maybe it is the only rational way out of the crisis--??

[filghy2]

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

[holzz]

unpopular opinions - mental health treatment is bullshit because they try and reinforce conservative conformity. by merely being on this site, most professionals reckon we're "ill". they can go fuck themselves.

and that Trump is a good guy who will beat Biden and only says/does what most Americans secretly think.

[Stavros]

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

I know it is a weak argument, but I do think there must be doubts about this 'base' since Covid 19 started, because I am sure some of them must now know someone, maybe from their own family who has either died from Covid 19 or fallen ill, and I don't think all of them can blame it on China.

The key to re-election in 2020 was always going to be the economy, but now that the economy is in deep trouble, willl that 'base' remain solid? My point is that there has been a degree of alienation in the Republican party that the Demoocrats could exploit while trying to rescue their own base from its lukewarm faith. By creating a synthetic coalition, could the appeal to a broader mass of voters succeed? Maybe not, but is it worth trying?

Consider what has happened with Brexit, and the way in which it split the Conservative Party so that it is not the same party as it was from 1832 to 2016- then consider the fact that Labour's identity crisis post-Blair so weakened it as to make it incapable of Government, a task that it has so far failed to achieve, while the days of the SNP's supremacy in Scotland may be numbered. Yet these changes to the foundations of Liberal Democracy have not produced a coherent alternative at any level. It is as if the parties entrusted to manage capitalism have not only failed at management, the opposition has failed to offer a vision of something else that does not look like all that went before. I can thus understand the anger of 2016, but anger is a limited basis for political success, and I think across the Atlantic, voters want something more, and something different.

But where are the visionary politicians who are committed to radical change?

[Stavros]

unpopular opinions - mental health treatment is bullshit because they try and reinforce conservative conformity. by merely being on this site, most professionals reckon we're "ill". they can go fuck themselves.


If I take issue with this claim, it is because of the two people I know who work in mental health, both would say that their priority is to prevent a patient or a client from harming themself or other people.

[broncofan]

Psychiatric illnesses cause the person suffering from them enormous distress. People with these disorders often seek treatment not because the mental health field pathologizes difference but because the disorders interfere with daily life and impair functioning. This is true for all of the recognized neuroses and psychoses from panic disorder to social anxiety disorder to depression to bipolar disorder and its subtypes and finally schizophrenia. A schizophrenic hallucinates and/or has delusions, which are not merely differences in personality but a qualitative difference in the way they experience reality.

It's true that if someone is eccentric a layperson might ask what mental health condition afflicts them, but a psychologist or psychiatrist might say, "Nothing." Being different is not a disorder.

There is some discussion about whether what holzz is saying is valid in the case of personality disorders, though many of these personality types involve very severe emotional limitations that are destructive to other people.

[holzz]

If I take issue with this claim, it is because of the two people I know who work in mental health, both would say that their priority is to prevent a patient or a client from harming themself or other people.

No, it's not.
It's about enforcing their morals.

[holzz]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/06/coronavirus-threatens-future-eurozone-brussels-economic-social-divisions-pandemic

Odd how Europe is the most affected from this.
The lizard shape-shifters hate Europeans, seemingly.

[Stavros]

No, it's not.
It's about enforcing their morals.

Anorexia kills- so what is your moral judgment- go ahead and die because I/society cannot impose my conservation of life ideology, Christian or otherwise, on you? Anorexia is not a normal condition, its treatment seeks to return the person affected to a condition of life in which whtever the source of their problem is, it is not expressed through starvation. It does not mean that the person concerned must change the way they dress, the music they listen to, their voting preference. They can be as eccentric as they want to be, but in order to be they must be alive.
Szasz and Laing make interesting reading, but may not always offer the best practical therapy for specific cases. And have you not in your posts, made a moral judgment?

[holzz]

it's all a conspiracy theory.
what defines a "normal" person?
they actively disregard their own practices, and just use their own personal belief systems.

[holzz]

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/coronavirus-fuel-recession-forecast-us-europe-economic-july-market-jpmorgan-2020-3-1028994637

[holzz]

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-economic-effects-of-coronavirus-in-the-uk/

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-africa-g20-prepares-rescue-package/

This Africa one is interesting. Most African countries export raw materials. Less Western demand for cocoa, or precious metals, will fuck their economies. It would fuck developed countries with large agro sectors too like the US.

[holzz]

https://www.arc2020.eu/effects-coronavirus-agricultural-production/

[Stavros]

it's all a conspiracy theory.
what defines a "normal" person?
they actively disregard their own practices, and just use their own personal belief systems.

I think you are confusing the difference between 'normal' behaviour and 'manageable' behaviour. Mental health is a mixture of clinical and moral judgment so that that 'this behaviour is not normal', is not as important a statement as 'this behaviour is causing harm to this person, and may harm others'- it is on balance more clinical even though it must contain a moral ingredient because all thought requiring a judgment does. Therapy has the intention of reducing the opportunity for harm, and then making an attempt to understand why harmful behaviour is taking place and seek to manage it so that the person concerned can stop it.

[broncofan]

I think a good way to separate what the field of psychiatry should be trying to treat is to look at some disorders in detail. Let's examine the difference between obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality.

The obsessions and compulsions a person with obsessive compulsive disorder experiences are ego dystonic. This means the person with ocd may feel compelled to touch something three times in order to stave off disaster but is aware that the compulsion is irrational. They may wash their relatively clean hands a dozen times to get rid of contamination but know they've washed their hands enough after one washing. To the person with the disorder the need to carry out the compulsion is burdensome but the inability to carry it out can in the short term causes severe distress. This is not a mental illness simply because touching things a magical number of times is culturally abnormal but because of the impairment and distress it causes to the person suffering from it. The person with ocd also has great insight into the lack of logical nexus between their compulsions and their goals.

Compare this to someone who has an obsessive compulsive personality or who is otherwise described as "perfectionistic". They may sleep with a room temperature of 68 degrees because they think it's the perfect temperature for good sleep. They may drink one and a half cups of coffee because they think it's the perfect amount. But they aren't compelled to do anything burdensome just to assuage feelings of anxiety and inner tension. If they have to sleep at 67 degrees it may not be optimal but it's far better than 74. They may be different from the norm and others may find them particular or difficult but they would not have an illness whereas the first person does.

It is a relevant consideration for psychologists to ask themselves whether they are enforcing cultural norms or treating maladaptive, distressing psychological conditions. I have no doubt that psychology done poorly carries forward cultural judgments, but most mental illness involves thinking and behavior that is different from what is typical by type rather than degree and experienced as painful to the person with the condition.

[holzz]

it's a mistake for BoJo to release the lockdown.
maybe open food places, and parks, or allow shopping centres to open.
not full on as it is normally.
Not with the highest death rate in Europe.

If he wants another term in office, then people WILL remember how he handles this. Any empathy he got for being on death's door (which I don't think is a lie since I doubt NHS staff would go along with this "conspiracy". Well I hope not....) would diminish.

[holzz]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1279146/vladimir-putin-news-ve-day-warning-will-not-surrender-uk-russia-spt

[holzz]

ms. c - it was my fault - i didn't need to fuck your things up. my demons, my fault, my responsibility. i got triggered and it's my past and my own demons.

[Stavros]

"On Thursday Trump said at the White House: “What they did, what the Obama administration did, is unprecedented … and I hope a lot of people will pay a big price because they are dishonest, crooked people. They are scum, human scum.” "

Americans are Human Scum, its women are Dogs.

When are the Democrats going to use the words of this man to highlight their campaign to remove him from office? Even knowing that Nixon and LBJ were foul-mouthed in private cannot match the astonishing public insult and abuse that has become part of the discourse of American politics -it has never happened before as far as I know, and not even Boris Johnson on a bay day comes close -Is it not time for the Democrats -somebody- to make the President's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the USA the major issue with which to confront him and Murdoch's minions on Fox News?

[holzz]

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/

worst recession since the Great Depression?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

"On Thursday Trump said at the White House: “What they did, what the Obama administration did, is unprecedented … and I hope a lot of people will pay a big price because they are dishonest, crooked people. They are scum, human scum.” "

Americans are Human Scum, its women are Dogs.

When are the Democrats going to use the words of this man to highlight their campaign to remove him from office? Even knowing that Nixon and LBJ were foul-mouthed in private cannot match the astonishing public insult and abuse that has become part of the discourse of American politics -it has never happened before as far as I know, and not even Boris Johnson on a bay day comes close -Is it not time for the Democrats -somebody- to make the President's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the USA the major issue with which to confront him and Murdoch's minions on Fox News?Once again the Clueless Buffoon Donald Trump can't keep Barack Obama's name out of that foul mouth of his. and his latest comments show that he has a very unhealthy obsession with the previous administration and loves to blame them for his failures as a leader. and is pissed off that the previous president is still more popular than he'll ever be and he doesn't like it. and has been abusing his power over the last 3 years to undo everything Barack Obama has done. The Democrats already tried to remove him from office by impeaching him earlier this year, but the Senate Republicans decided to keep him in office. and completely agree it is for the Democrats to make the president's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the United States the major issue to confront him and Murdoch Minions on FOX News {Propaganda News Channel} and get him out of office by November 3rd. and the Republican Party to grow a pair and do the same.

[Stavros]

It is depressing to see so much bad language from people in positions of power becoming part of the public discourse.
Today we have the absurd evaluation from the President that the invesigation into his 2016 campaign team's links to the Russians amounts to -
“The biggest political crime in American history, by far!”

In addition, retweeting stuff from someone called Buck Sexton, the aim is to completely re-write the history of that campaign so that facts become fiction, straight out of 1984. Thus, in spite of the fact that the campaign team had over 100 meetings with Russians close to Putin, and in spite of the fact that Obama warned his successort that Flynn was vulnerable to accusations of complicity in breaking the law, now we are told Sexton claims that
" Barack Obama “used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration”."
Then he describes Andrew McCabe as
-"“a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/trump-obama-biggest-political-american-history-russia-michael-flynn

It is not just the foul language that is giving this discourse such an ugly, even desperate tone. It is the fact that it runs completely counter to the beliefs that we assume are fundamental to the religious beliefs of the Vice-President and the 'Evangeical Christian' base, and thus the President himself, if they truly believe GOD gave them a new redeemer to save the USA from the hell into which it was being taken by a Black Man.

For the one cardinal value so absent from all this discourse is the Forgiveness that is at the heart of the Christian message. We hear the language of resentment and vengeance, but not one word of love and certainly not of forgiveness. The humility that forgiveness requires appears to be so distant from the character of the President there is no hope of him ever expressing it.

Indeed, it is being argued that the arguments over 'mail-in' voting will become part of a refusal, should he lose the 2020 election, by the 45th President to concede to the 46th and to thus challenge the outcome if it doees not result in his victory. The danger is that resentment is aso a driver of violence, with the chilling prospect that this particular President, and many of his supporters don't care what happens, may even desire to see the existing political system fall apart in a riot of refusal and violence.

As the Commander-in-Chief abandoned Command in January, and appears to have abandoned the campaign against Covid 19 on a 'what the hell, let 'em die' basis, so the language of politics deteriorates into vicious slander and accusation, while elevating resentment, vengeance and contempt for the law to the status of convenient and normal rhetoric.
Boris Johnson may give his darker purpose some literary flair, what we have in the US is just dirty, vulgar and pernicious in its determined attempt to destroy the public faith's in Government, the Rule of Law, and ultimately, the Truth.

[holzz]

relaxed lockdown?
is it worth the risk of escort meet-ups? hmmmm.

on one hand, the police won't catch you, now that there is "unlimited exercise" outdoors.
But then it isn't social distancing.
i get the feeling more will risk it.

[Stavros]

The risk factor is on the 'other side of the mountain' -an epidemic normally follows a clear trajectory, the first cases surging to create a large mass of infections which rise until a combination of therapies and declining hosts reduces the rate of infection. The details of the plan the Johnson Government released yesterday are confusing some people in the detail, but the broad trajectory to gradually relax restrictions is the right one, and for all the flaws in the Goverment's management of the crisis, from the negect of care homes -on a par with the neglect of safety at Grenfell Tower- the sloppy sometimes non-existent provision of PPE to frontlne staff, and the paucity of testing, tracing and tracking for the general population, means the risk facor is due to the lack of knowledge of how this virus is going to behave.
Will it decline as the hosts decline due to distancing strategies?
Will the relaxation of rules enable the virus both to persist, albeit in fewer new infections, or worse, mutate and infect previously less vulnerable groups such as young children?
We also do not yet know if there are long term effects on survivors, such as lung damage and related illnesses -Boris Johnson does not look 100% though fatigue in his case may also be due to a baby crying at 3am.

The calculation appears to be that the majority of the population are safer now than they were but that risks remain, and without doubt the costs of shutting down the economy have already worsened the recession the UK was sliding into because of Brexit.
That said, I think the majority of people -but I don't know how large the majority is- remain committed to staying at home rather than putting themselves and others at risk.

Compare that to the relaxation taking place in Russia where cases are still on an upward curve, and the worthless rubbish that the spewed out of the US President's mouth when he declaimed "We have met the moment and we have prevailed,” on the day when recorded deaths in the US passed 80,000.

The President is a cretin, and utterly indifferent to human suffering.

The comparison may be inevitable but one compares the vanity of an incompetent fool in the US, to the simplicty of the language, the sincerity of compassion, the the composure of Jacinda Ardern. One appears to be blessed, the other is a curse. New Zealand may have just got lucky, but I wonder, if people could choose, if they would prefer a leader like her to the superstars of stupidity who occupy Presidential Palaces and Prime Ministerial residences across the world.

[holzz]

Trump being "racist" to that reporter.
Well, what the f do people expect?
He's been POTUS for a ew years. could well be POTUS until his maximum two terms extends (unless he gets the GOPs in Congress to amend the Constitution).
He's a boorish ass.
How the media always go irate over every "negative" thing he says. Get over it. he won't change!!!
What he said was wrong, don't get me wrong. She wasn't rude to him, and he made a borderline racist insinuation.

But then he's like an uncle with no filter, who embarrasses people at family functions. just get over it and move on.
And considering the Democrats are in a shit position, the media has until 2025 to get used to it...
Just pray he doesn't change the Constitution to alter the two-term amendment.

[trish]

No. We refuse to normalize this ignorant asshole's bigoted behavors. Overlooking your uncle's boorish behavior at a holiday diner is one thing. To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.

[filghy2]

To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.

Especially when it is reflected in his policies; eg immigration policy and winding back efforts to combat violent white supremacists or police shooting of blacks. Some people have even argued that it partly explains his unwillingness to take the coronavirus seriously. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/americas-racial-contract-showing/611389/

[holzz]

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1260450147256975363?s=20

no surprises

[broncofan]

No. We refuse to normalize this ignorant asshole's bigoted behavors. Overlooking your uncle's boorish behavior at a holiday diner is one thing. To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.
I never really understood when people say the media is taking the bait. They can either ignore Trump insulting an Asian woman based on her heritage or they can treat it as an outrage. As you say, to ignore it is to treat it as a new normal, which is not what we should aspire to. Of course, there are all sorts of illusions people have about racial justice that are often intended to make themselves feel better.

Do people respond the same way to black people dying as they do to white people being shot or dying of a disease? The answer is no. This sort of racism, unconscious though it sometimes is, has been the norm for society since there's been an America and persists without Trump reigniting more obvious forms of it. There was an article about a black woman in her early thirties who had covid-19 who was told by EMTs that she couldn't breathe because she was having a panic attack. When they asked her what her goals were in order to take her mind off of her "panic attack" she said, "not to die." She was not taken to the hospital and died a day or two later.

There are videos being circulated in right wing circles of Ahmaud Barbery walking into a construction site. It looked entirely harmless and of course was irrelevant because he was murdered, but it's the kind of mind trick Republicans want to play in order to treat his death as less than tragic. He wasn't just a young man jogging who was accosted by crazed racists who proceeded to execute him. To them, he must have been up to no good and so he should be presented as dangerous after he's dead.

We are going to have to unwind the damage Trump has done to the public discourse but as a country we're also going to have to deal with the racism that's there and has always been there. Anyway, the Atlantic article says it better than I can. But I just wanted to chime in that I definitely think part of the callousness we're seeing in the Republican response to Covid-19 reflects their dehumanization of minorities who have been disproportionately affected.

[Laphroaig]

Trump being "racist" to that reporter.
Well, what the f do people expect?
He's been POTUS for a ew years. could well be POTUS until his maximum two terms extends (unless he gets the GOPs in Congress to amend the Constitution).
He's a boorish ass.
How the media always go irate over every "negative" thing he says. Get over it. he won't change!!!
What he said was wrong, don't get me wrong. She wasn't rude to him, and he made a borderline racist insinuation.

But then he's like an uncle with no filter, who embarrasses people at family functions. just get over it and move on.
And considering the Democrats are in a shit position, the media has until 2025 to get used to it...
Just pray he doesn't change the Constitution to alter the two-term amendment.

Are you just hoping we'll all ignore your usually ignorant trolling behaviour rather than calling it out as well?...:shrug

[holzz]

people know what kind of person he is. if he wins the election, then this tactic of shaming him isn't working.

[holzz]

https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2020/05/13/gta-v-free-download-play/

[broncofan]

people know what kind of person he is. if he wins the election, then this tactic of shaming him isn't working.
Reporters write articles about what is newsworthy regardless of whether it achieves some political objective. Reporters are not election strategists. What is newsworthy? How prominent is the person involved? How significant is what they said or did? Is it a departure from the norm?

Even three and a half years after Trump was elected, it's newsworthy that a U.S. President is openly denigrating an ethnic minority at a press conference. Was this something Obama did? Bush? Clinton? Bush Sr? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Even Nixon would only say these sorts of things in private, which is not much better but harder to report and less shameless.

There's also the fact that if this became normal in the U.S. it would be considered abnormal everywhere else, given that expressions of bigotry are stigmatized in most countries.

As far as Trump winning elections, however slight his margin of victory, it does point to a problem with political tribalism. His supporters like him despite the fact that he has no integrity, lies constantly, and behaves like a child. He is provably corrupt and incompetent and it matters more to them that he dislikes people they also dislike. They've given up on the idea that a society doesn't have to be a zero sum game and that a President can enact policies that benefit everyone. He is a referendum on the very idea of having a society.

[holzz]

And the point of these articles is the same narrative as itg was when he was running for office. as in "we can't allow this bigot and uncouth man to be POTUS!!" well he IS POTUS.and he may well be for some time. The "calling him out" angle is tired, and ineffectual, as it doesn't stop his base from voting for him. It won't stop foreign countries or businesses dealing with him or the USA, since it's still the superpower.
They need a new angle if they really want to dissuade him or their supporters. The European attitude - which I share incidentally - is that he's a cunt but then we have no choice but to deal with him.
Bush Jr. for me was worse, since he invaded a country with to date no cause. Trump has done nothing on that scale - well yet.

[Stavros]

And the point of these articles is the same narrative as itg was when he was running for office. as in "we can't allow this bigot and uncouth man to be POTUS!!" well he IS POTUS.and he may well be for some time. The "calling him out" angle is tired, and ineffectual, as it doesn't stop his base from voting for him. It won't stop foreign countries or businesses dealing with him or the USA, since it's still the superpower.
They need a new angle if they really want to dissuade him or their supporters. The European attitude - which I share incidentally - is that he's a cunt but then we have no choice but to deal with him.
Bush Jr. for me was worse, since he invaded a country with to date no cause. Trump has done nothing on that scale - well yet.

There are aspects of this Presidency that I think you need to factor in to change your view-

1) This President has tried and failed to reduce US military engagements overseas, be it in Afghanistan or Iraq, while military engagements in Yemen and Mali have flopped -these may not be on the same scale as Iraq, but the foreign policy profile is radically dfferent from all previous Presidents reaching back to Eisenhower, who put US troops into Lebanon in 1958. His successor has broken with decades of policy which, while not being pro-Palestinian had at least sought to act as a go-between with israel, where this new man has been so aggressive in the dismissal of Palestinian rights the fear in the last three days has been that Pompe was in Israel to tell them the US would endorse an Israeli annexation of the Occupied Territories, though it seems even Pompeo may have now cautioned against this, but we shall see.
GW Bush and Tony Blair insisted that regime change in Iraq was justified by Security Council Resolutions -the annexation of the Jabal al-Jawlan from Syria on any measure is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and International Law, and the point is precisely that the US has, in effect, repudiated the authority of the UN and its Security Council, indeed, incuding the USA's own commitments.

2) there need be no major war abroad, because the battlefield is now the USA, as has been seen with the most radical reversal of inherited policy. It is not enough that the attack has focused on Health Care with a shambolic attempt to repeal the Affordable Health Act, it includes Medicaid and if the most vulnerabe, Disabled Americans are in the front line of attack, this chimes wth the disgusting ridicule of disabled Americans that was evident in His rally in 2016 -as if this entire policy was revenge agaist an unfriendly reporter.

Not enough to strip disabled Americans of their rights in law, not enough to remove rights from women, transgendered Americans, refugees, migrants, illegal/undocumented immigrants and their children but a raft of over 34 decisions has sought to reverse environmental policy dating back to the 1960s that makes it easier now for motor vehicles to poison the streets on which people live, while energy companies can trash as much as the environment as they want and let slurry slide into lakes rivers and streams and pollute the groundwater -and why not?

3) Lastly, there is this thing called 'statecraft' which is what academics call the analysis of Presidential style. It used to be said the most successful Presidents built a relationship with Congress that was was not based on party but on policy. Reagan was the last President to achieve this, indeed, the Conservatives who hailed his election in 1980 were so repelled by his accommodation of policies 'across the aisle' they were opposed to -arms reduction with the USSR for example- they created a 'Neo-Con' ideology on the 'never again' basis.
This President has no social skills, no political skills, and no negotiating skills -all he has is confrontation, laced with the most vitriolic abuse of Congress that has probably ever been recorded outside the Civil War, indeed, most of this man's language is the language of hatred and resentment, of endless accusation, debasing the very nature of debate.
You may say, 'that's just his shtick', but it has undermined the norms and values of politics in the USA, and in my view is a deliberate attempt to so demean and defame the practice of politics that the 'angry citizens' of 2016 will withdraw their support for Federal Government, and seek to secede in all but name from the Union.

That these radical changes are being led by a man most Americans did not vote for, underlnes the worry that either this is a blip the Union will survive, or it is the beginning of the end.

[holzz]

There are aspects of this Presidency that I think you need to factor in to change your view-

1) This President has tried and failed to reduce US military engagements overseas, be it in Afghanistan or Iraq, while military engagements in Yemen and Mali have flopped -these may not be on the same scale as Iraq, but the foreign policy profile is radically dfferent from all previous Presidents reaching back to Eisenhower, who put US troops into Lebanon in 1958. His successor has broken with decades of policy which, while not being pro-Palestinian had at least sought to act as a go-between with israel, where this new man has been so aggressive in the dismissal of Palestinian rights the fear in the last three days has been that Pompe was in Israel to tell them the US would endorse an Israeli annexation of the Occupied Territories, though it seems even Pompeo may have now cautioned against this, but we shall see.
GW Bush and Tony Blair insisted that regime change in Iraq was justified by Security Council Resolutions -the annexation of the Jabal al-Jawlan from Syria on any measure is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and International Law, and the point is precisely that the US has, in effect, repudiated the authority of the UN and its Security Council, indeed, incuding the USA's own commitments.

2) there need be no major war abroad, because the battlefield is now the USA, as has been seen with the most radical reversal of inherited policy. It is not enough that the attack has focused on Health Care with a shambolic attempt to repeal the Affordable Health Act, it includes Medicaid and if the most vulnerabe, Disabled Americans are in the front line of attack, this chimes wth the disgusting ridicule of disabled Americans that was evident in His rally in 2016 -as if this entire policy was revenge agaist an unfriendly reporter.

Not enough to strip disabled Americans of their rights in law, not enough to remove rights from women, transgendered Americans, refugees, migrants, illegal/undocumented immigrants and their children but a raft of over 34 decisions has sought to reverse environmental policy dating back to the 1960s that makes it easier now for motor vehicles to poison the streets on which people live, while energy companies can trash as much as the environment as they want and let slurry slide into lakes rivers and streams and pollute the groundwater -and why not?

3) Lastly, there is this thing called 'statecraft' which is what academics call the analysis of Presidential style. It used to be said the most successful Presidents built a relationship with Congress that was was not based on party but on policy. Reagan was the last President to achieve this, indeed, the Conservatives who hailed his election in 1980 were so repelled by his accommodation of policies 'across the aisle' they were opposed to -arms reduction with the USSR for example- they created a 'Neo-Con' ideology on the 'never again' basis.
This President has no social skills, no political skills, and no negotiating skills -all he has is confrontation, laced with the most vitriolic abuse of Congress that has probably ever been recorded outside the Civil War, indeed, most of this man's language is the language of hatred and resentment, of endless accusation, debasing the very nature of debate.
You may say, 'that's just his shtick', but it has undermined the norms and values of politics in the USA, and in my view is a deliberate attempt to so demean and defame the practice of politics that the 'angry citizens' of 2016 will withdraw their support for Federal Government, and seek to secede in all but name from the Union.

That these radical changes are being led by a man most Americans did not vote for, underlnes the worry that either this is a blip the Union will survive, or it is the beginning of the end.

I'm ambivalent towards him, to be honest. He is uncouth and divisive, but he does stand for a large bulk of what Americans think. And the Western world has got too PC - for every action, there is a reaction.
That said, I still do think that the continual outrage is tiring now. When he said to ban all Muslims from entering the country in his campaign, which was bad at the time and something I agree was out of sync, then it was right to highlight. Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. never said that. The worst Bush Jr. said was that he wanted to put food on voters' families. But the narrative is STILL that he's this bad and rude man and "how dare he say that!!" Well he WILL say it.
If a strategy isn't working,then change it. The continual calling him out for his rude behaviour isn't working.
US liberals need another avenue, since if he gets another term and can implement more of his policies (even if the Dems win back Congress) he won't care if liberal media houses condemn his racist or bigoted talk. He won't need to care. It's more the outrage of his comments and the "what kind of man do we have in office" that I don't like - by itself that does nothing.

[holzz]

https://twitter.com/pitchfork/status/1261014053431975944?s=20 Interesting. best gangster film was goodfellas or the godfather.

[Stavros]

You don't seem to 'get it', Holzz. This is not a tv show, it is real life. The man is not rude, he is abusive, insulting and makes threats against the liberty of the people he relentlessly attacks. Who in American history before has so publicy vilified Americas as 'total scum, human scum'? This is not a man seeking to unite the country, but deepen its dvisions, at a time when the US is in desperate need of leadershp and a co-ordinated strategy to combat Covid 19.
You need to ask what the end game is for this man and his supporters in Congress who are now openly talking of not just forcing Obama to appear before a made-up Committee to be insulted, but is threatened with '50 years' in prison, yet when asked to identify the crime, the President can't produce one.
This must surely be the deliberate intent, to undermine and ultimately devalue and degrade the three branches of Government in their current form. You may dismiss it all -'Liberate Michigan! 'Lock him up!'- as TV, but behind this man are the armed militia, the super rich, and the foreign donors who care nothing for democracy. Indeed, when you realize that what Putin wants is a weak, divided USA incapable of challenging Russian ambitions, you can begin to see why it is most curious that in 2016 the campaign team had over 100 meetings with the Russians -just as the flagrant attempt to reverse the rule of law, is accompanied by claims that Michael Flynn is a heroic figure now, a 'patriot'. This is serious business, on a par with the calamity of Brexit in the context of the UK.
And it is pathetic to blame all this on 'liberals' when Conservatives have been in power for most of the last 50 years with their tax cutting fantasies and now their cheap bargain basement Nationalism. I don't approve of comparisons with the 1930s, but just as the international order collapsed as economies reeled, and then stagnated from the Crash, so the politics became infused with the same language of hatred and resentment we hear today. The danger is that today we have nuclear weapons, and though I don't see any rationale for a conventional war, the question -is there a head of state stupid enough to use such weapons? The answer is a gloom infused 'yes'. Which is good enough to get rid of this shabby excuse for a man.

[holzz]

You don't seem to 'get it', Holzz. This is not a tv show, it is real life. The man is not rude, he is abusive, insulting and makes threats against the liberty of the people he relentlessly attacks. Who in American history before has so publicy vilified Americas as 'total scum, human scum'? This is not a man seeking to unite the country, but deepen its dvisions, at a time when the US is in desperate need of leadershp and a co-ordinated strategy to combat Covid 19.
You need to ask what the end game is for this man and his supporters in Congress who are now openly talking of not just forcing Obama to appear before a made-up Committee to be insulted, but is threatened with '50 years' in prison, yet when asked to identify the crime, the President can't produce one.
This must surely be the deliberate intent, to undermine and ultimately devalue and degrade the three branches of Government in their current form. You may dismiss it all -'Liberate Michigan! 'Lock him up!'- as TV, but behind this man are the armed militia, the super rich, and the foreign donors who care nothing for democracy. Indeed, when you realize that what Putin wants is a weak, divided USA incapable of challenging Russian ambitions, you can begin to see why it is most curious that in 2016 the campaign team had over 100 meetings with the Russians -just as the flagrant attempt to reverse the rule of law, is accompanied by claims that Michael Flynn is a heroic figure now, a 'patriot'. This is serious business, on a par with the calamity of Brexit in the context of the UK.
And it is pathetic to blame all this on 'liberals' when Conservatives have been in power for most of the last 50 years with their tax cutting fantasies and now their cheap bargain basement Nationalism. I don't approve of comparisons with the 1930s, but just as the international order collapsed as economies reeled, and then stagnated from the Crash, so the politics became infused with the same language of hatred and resentment we hear today. The danger is that today we have nuclear weapons, and though I don't see any rationale for a conventional war, the question -is there a head of state stupid enough to use such weapons? The answer is a gloom infused 'yes'. Which is good enough to get rid of this shabby excuse for a man.

I agree he is an ass. But his message speaks to many. And I agree that he will get called out for being an ass.

but then what effect is calling him out doing? Whether dangerous or not, he WILL get many voters and could well win a second term. A new mode is needed to stop him, since it isn't working.
I get that he is divisive.
Short of a coup, or worse, then stopping him is futile at this point. For me, that's the point. How does one stop him? He was impeached but that didn't pass.

[broncofan]

Trump's actions in total must be unprecedented for a U.S. President. He has corrupted the Justice Department completely and the enforcement arm of the federal government now acts or fails to act based on political expediency rather than rule of law where they conflict. He has floated the idea that he can exceed his authority as President and order states to open. When getting pushback on that and having no practical mechanism of accomplishing it, he tries to stir defiance of the public against public health orders instituted by the states. He has obstructed justice multiple times to protect people around him and used foreign policy as a tool to try to secure his re-election. And finally, he will use people's fear of going to the polls during a pandemic along with bogus accusations of voter fraud to achieve voter suppression, forcing people to risk their lives to vote him out of power, which he likely won't give up without claiming he was cheated and trying to stir insurrection.

Whether it accomplishes its purpose of blocking his corruption or not, the media has an obligation to report what he does and says.

[holzz]

the USA isn't my country. i get fully why people don't like Trump - and he shouldn't have used borderline racist languagfe to that reporter. but if he is successful, i'd look at WHY. every issue in life has a cause.

[holzz]

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/05/10/brazil-gay-bisexual-men-blood-donation-restrictions-lifted-coronavirus-covid-19/

I thought mr. bolsonaro hated LGBT? desperate times, desperate measures.

[holzz]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/renter-sexually-harassed-by-landlord-during-coronavirus

[Stavros]

the USA isn't my country. i get fully why people don't like Trump - and he shouldn't have used borderline racist languagfe to that reporter. but if he is successful, i'd look at WHY. every issue in life has a cause.

Where have you been for the last three years?
-People were angry because they felt let down by the decades in which their wages stagnated, their costs rose, and they saw a fraction of people becoming super-rich billionaires as the beneficaries of Globalization: have their lives improved, especially now, when they have lost the jobs they did have?

-Most Americans never voted for him, he won the votes of the Electoral College.

-He won the vote with the co-operation of the Russians, and has admitted this is true.

-Like Mussolini before him, whom he quoted, he was going to 'drain the swamp' but has smothered DC in his own swamp of corruption and lies.

-He was going to repeal Affordable Care and replace it with something better -he failed.

-He was going to repatriate manufactuing jobs from China -so far, he has failed, but Ivanka still has her tat Made in China.

-He was going to deliver peace between Israel and the Palestinians -he failed.

-He was going to withdraw the US from Iraq and Afghanistan -so far, he has failed.

-He was going to cut taxes -and he has -and who has benefited most from this? Joe Public or Steve Mnuchin?

-He is pledged to appoint as many 'Conservative' Judges as possible -so far, so successful -but are they qualified to judge?

-He is obsessed with Obama- "Between 22 November 2010 and 14 May 2020, he tweeted about Obama 2,933 times", and
“There’s some racism there but, most of all, it’s driven by the fact that Obama has the thing that Trump has always craved but never achieved, and that’s respect. I’ve always thought that the respect that Barack Obama that gets from people in this country and around the world is something that just eats Trump alive inside.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/16/trump-obama-obsession-coronavirus-president

-What he claimed the US had lost he was going to restore, but he has taken away the rights of Transgendered Americans; he has aken away the rights of Disabled Americans; and he has facilitated the right of States to take away the rights of women.

-The President as Commander-in-Chief was presented with the opportunity to lead the USA when it was attacked by Covid 19. His natural instinct was to say 'I take no responsibility at all' and run away, just as he ran away from Vietnam and spent most of the last 5 years sneering at John McCain who did serve, while rubbishing the reputations of HR McMichael and John Kelly, who wore the uniform he refused.

-He resents anyone better than himself at something, so trashes their reputation as 'frauds' to compensate for his own weakness.

-He set himself up as an example, but has made a lamentable example of the USA -dysfunctional, resentful, incompetent.

-Like no other President in US history, he insults and abuses the citizens of his own country on a regular basis, calling American women 'dogs' and the American people 'total Scum. Human Scum'.

-He wanted to restore the respect for American he claimed it has lost under Obama -but he has no respect for the USA, no respect for a Constitution he has never read, and no respect for the rule of law.

Whatever the reason Why might have been in 2016, the reality of the last three years is that this wretched little man did not understand it fully, and never intended to, and has done nothing to address the gievances that existed then. Indeed, by faiing to take control of Covid 19 in January, the situation in the US now is the worst it has been since the 1930s.

2016 was his moment to make some more money, and show off on TV, and give the reins of power to the horsepowered 'Conservatives' determined to roll back 50 years of law even if means breaking the Union.

As to Why? This reaches back to the most basic questions that have driven American history since the 14th of May 1607, punctuated by 1776, 1861 and 1965. Deal with that.

[Stavros]

I forgot to add: the people who were so angry in 2016 are even angrier now- who is to blame, Obama? The ' Deep State'?

[holzz]

i get that and get your points.
But i'll end by saying I'm just reiterating myself.

He is popular, despite his negatives.
Bitching and calling him out won't stop him.

[holzz]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1261778453046706177?s=20

interesting.
are dogs immune from it then?

[holzz]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261747580666552320?s=20

omg

[holzz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-52682358

Jair needs to buck up.

[filghy2]

He is popular, despite his negatives.

You must be holding the chart upside down. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?cid=rrpromo

[broncofan]

Having looked through the Covid and Coronavirus threads and seeing every informative post voted down, presumably by some very pathetic user who calls himself vivid, I can't help but think about what sad, servile ignoramuses most Trump supporters are.

They support him even when his actions are indefensible and proof of this is that they don't even feel capable of offering a defense, but just lash out or fall back on conspiracy theories. He is a man who would sacrifice their entire families for one percentage point in the polls and whose daughter openly laughs at them, but who they see as their champion simply because he's stupid and apparently unaware of that fact. Thank you for waving our flag in crass displays of false patriotism while you desecrate our Constitution by tolerating the most flagrant corruption because the man you worship is doing it. Fools.

[Stavros]

The US commits $3 trillion as a consequence of Covid 19. Had AOC introduced a bill in Congress to spend $1 trillion on state education, what would be the response? The first signs of 'American Communism'?

The UK Govt pledges £30 billion to deal with Covid 19. Had Corbyn been Prime Minister and done the same, it would be the end of civilization as we know it, Communism in control. Compare that to the approx £850 it cost the previous Labour Governmen to save the banks in 2008. And they wonder why the Frst Secretary to the Treasury left a note to his incoming Conservative -'there's no money left'...

On both sides of the Atlantic, one thing they share whoever they are: an aversion to raising taxes.

How, over the next 5-10 years will we pay back what we owe? By raising taxes.

[sukumvit boy]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1261778453046706177?s=20

interesting.
are dogs immune from it then?
Yes , for now at least.

[sukumvit boy]

Yes , for now at least.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html

[Stavros]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html

Genesis 1:26 - 1:31. 1:26 And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. '

-Or maybe not.

[Laphroaig]

Having looked through the Covid and Coronavirus threads and seeing every informative post voted down, presumably by some very pathetic user who calls himself vivid, I can't help but think about what sad, servile ignoramuses most Trump supporters are.

They support him even when his actions are indefensible and proof of this is that they don't even feel capable of offering a defense, but just lash out or fall back on conspiracy theories. He is a man who would sacrifice their entire families for one percentage point in the polls and whose daughter openly laughs at them, but who they see as their champion simply because he's stupid and apparently unaware of that fact. Thank you for waving our flag in crass displays of false patriotism while you desecrate our Constitution by tolerating the most flagrant corruption because the man you worship is doing it. Fools.

Vivid and Paladin. As Trump himself would say, so sad.

[holzz]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-inside-brazils-slums-where-covid-19-is-at-risk-of-spreading-like-wildfire-11995283

impeach this mofo.

he's alowed the Amazon to burn down and then this?
when brazil won Copa America, did the government spike people's booze in celebration so they'd vote for this fucker?

[broncofan]

Vivid and Paladin. As Trump himself would say, so sad.
Sometimes responding is too much for me to stomach. His posts were very similar to African1's and seemed to contain the same primary fallacy which is that it matters more whether a virus gets into your country than the public health measures taken once it's there. He also seems to believe that the worse he casts China's actions as the better our response must be. That's clearly illogical.

There is also something weird about someone using a portmanteau like "chicom" that they think is clever rather than a signifier that they're a cretin.

I noticed he gave me a negative vote for a post that was entirely about what treatments were in the pipeline. I can see why a post only listing treatments with support from controlled studies might seem like an insult to Trump, but only if you accept that anything supported by evidence is an indirect insult to him.

[Stavros]

I watched some of the video of George Floyd being 'detained' by the police in Minneapolis, and as with shootings of black men by Law Enforcement in the US, I am genuinely puzzled by the police methods of detention. Why not cuff the guy and put him in the back of the car? To see a large cop with his knee on the neck of a man already in handcuffs looks more to me like something you might expect in Guantanamo, or an obscure rendition site in Bulgaria. The line of urine emerging from under the police car is surely the victim's? I just don't get it, as far as police tactics go -but as far as the now standard response by the police when apprehending a 'suspect', I guess it is their m.o.. After all, a man accused of fraud must be about to attack the police, right?

[Stavros]

I have not visited Minneapolis, the closest I have got is the airport, a stopover from London to LA. It was the best airport I have seen in the US as both JFK and LAX are grim unfriendly places, whereas in Minneapolis there were shops and cafes.

This article from today's Guardian offers a perspective on the 'Minnesota Paradox' -

"Rated in 2018 second in terms of overall best states in which to live in the US, in the same year Minnesota also ranked close to the bottoms for employment gap by race (47th) and in income gap by race (38th).
According to a report released last year, even before the mass unemployment triggered by the coronavirus (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/28/jobless-america-unemployment-coronavirus-in-figures) took hold, some 10% of black Americans were unemployed in the Twin Cities compared with just under 4% of white Americans. Given the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on communities of color, that already bad situation has now worsened.
The reality of Minneapolis and St Paul is that behind the veneer of “Minnesota nice”, behind the reputation of a socially liberal and highly tolerant metropolitan area (in contrast with the state’s more conservative rural areas), there have long been glaring divisions along racial lines in a place where 20% of the population is African-American."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/29/the-minnesota-paradox-how-race-divides-prosperous-minneapolis

Race, always race.

[Stavros]

"Former New York mayor and current Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani waded into the action to criticize Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey the “criminal friendly policies” of all “so-called Progressive Democrat mayors and governors”.
Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) When the Mayor of Minneapolis asked his police to flee from their police precinct, he proved he is incapable of protecting his own people, their property or their lives.

This is the result of the criminal friendly policies of so-called Progressive Democrat mayors and governors
May 30, 2020" (https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1266541234014781440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/29/george-floyd-killing-protests-minneapolis-minnesota-us-twitter-donald-trump-latest-news-live @02.46am

Number of suspects killed by law enforcement officers in New York City when Conservative Giuliani was Mayor, 1994-2001: 160.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7DSHn3RZ_O0J:https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rudy-giuliani-black-kids-99-chance-killing-article-1.2706349+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[Laphroaig]

1252923

[holzz]

why is the USA still racist? OK, Europe isn't better.
But looking at the USA, it is a white country. Founded by white people. Whites hold the power economically, socially, culturally. Hollywood is run by whites. Major sports are run by whites. Fortune 500/Wall Street is run by whites.
Is that the issue? Becuase Jefferson and Washington and Franklin were white it's something that's stuck and may always stick?

[Stavros]

"In 1855, [Lincoln on the Know Nothings]...wrote that if the movement ever won power it would rewrite the Declaration of Independence: “When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
Two years later, running for the Senate, Lincoln declared that immigrants who believe in the Declaration of Independence’s precept that “all men are created equal” are “our equals in all things … as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/jared-kushner-know-nothing-donald-trump-republican-platform-sidney-blumenthal

Is it the case that in the 2020 election candidates claiming to be 'America First' will also be Republicans, or is there a dual membership, or America First in effect replacing the Republican Party?

[blackchubby38]

So I guess since the cable news networks are no longer showing the Coronavirus statistics (all except for those who have recovered), the pandemic must be over right?

[broncofan]

So I guess since the cable news networks are no longer showing the Coronavirus statistics (all except for those who have recovered), the pandemic must be over right?
I know you're being facetious but I don't watch cable news much so I haven't seen what you're saying. I am happy to see the numbers are definitely improving even as we open up. If you look at 7 day moving averages, deaths nationally have decreased something like 40% per day from our peak.

It's clear as you said that we have to move to our next phase and people aren't going to stay locked in indefinitely. It would be nice to see more people wearing masks as we're all going out in public.

The protests around the country that cable news is probably showing are definitely important. Will be interesting to see whether they bring lasting change in police tactics. Chokeholds and pressing a knee on someone's carotid artery should have no place in restraining people. Yes police have to use force sometimes but I'm seeing a lot of sadistic behavior and abuse of power in the videos that are coming out. Yes, there is vandalism and looting and I'm not defending that, but there's also a lot of senseless policing, from shooting rubber bullets at people for no reason to assaulting protesters.

[blackchubby38]

I know you're being facetious but I don't watch cable news much so I haven't seen what you're saying. I am happy to see the numbers are definitely improving even as we open up. If you look at 7 day moving averages, deaths nationally have decreased something like 40% per day from our peak.

It's clear as you said that we have to move to our next phase and people aren't going to stay locked in indefinitely. It would be nice to see more people wearing masks as we're all going out in public.

The protests around the country that cable news is probably showing are definitely important. Will be interesting to see whether they bring lasting change in police tactics. Chokeholds and pressing a knee on someone's carotid artery should have no place in restraining people. Yes police have to use force sometimes but I'm seeing a lot of sadistic behavior and abuse of power in the videos that are coming out. Yes, there is vandalism and looting and I'm not defending that, but there's also a lot of senseless policing, from shooting rubber bullets at people for no reason to assaulting protesters.

I think at this point, the country needs to be opened completely with no restrictions in place. The most vulnerable can continue to shelter in the place and wear masks in public. I think between states being re-opened and the protests, we are probably going to see a spike in the infection rate anyway. I think most hospitals can deal with a surge in patients now. But we need to get people back to work immediately and we need things like sports and recreational activities as stress relievers.

This country can't handle people being out of work and angry at the same time. Its also not fair to business owners who had to see their business first destroyed economically and now physically.

[fred41]

I think at this point, the country needs to be opened completely with no restrictions in place. The most vulnerable can continue to shelter in the place and wear masks in public. I think between states being re-opened and the protests, we are probably going to see a spike in the infection rate anyway. I think most hospitals can deal with a surge in patients now. But we need to get people back to work immediately and we need things like sports and recreational activities as stress relievers.



This country can't handle people being out of work and angry at the same time. Its also not fair to business owners who had to see their business first destroyed economically and now physically.

I agree with a lot of what you said and the sentiment behind it. Robert A. George said something similar in a N.Y. Daily News Op-Ed. I didn’t link it because paywalls have come up pretty quickly with that paper in the past.

I don’t think you can lift all restrictions everywhere, since not all places are the same. For instance, New York nursing homes are probably going to be off limits to visitors for some time. This is unfortunate (many folks in nursing homes know they only have a little time left on the planet and not being able to see their relatives is like being in jail), but necessary. Indoor sporting arenas are probably going to be off limits for a while too...the virus spreads better in an enclosed environment. But regular businesses should be allowed to open. There can be common sense restrictions. But this lock down is absolutely crushing many people.

[Yvonne183]

Oh my, I am so glad that I got my supply of toilet paper before the riots began.

[filghy2]

The protests around the country that cable news is probably showing are definitely important. Will be interesting to see whether they bring lasting change in police tactics. Chokeholds and pressing a knee on someone's carotid artery should have no place in restraining people. Yes police have to use force sometimes but I'm seeing a lot of sadistic behavior and abuse of power in the videos that are coming out. Yes, there is vandalism and looting and I'm not defending that, but there's also a lot of senseless policing, from shooting rubber bullets at people for no reason to assaulting protesters.

The US seems to have massive problem with police discipline. As this article notes, police involved in these kinds of incidents generally have a long history of complaints against them, which rarely result in any serious punishment. Even when they are dismissed for misconduct I read somewhere that half of them are eventually reemployed somewhere.
https://theconversation.com/police-officers-accused-of-brutal-violence-often-have-a-history-of-complaints-by-citizens-139709

[Stavros]

Does anyone here believe Officer Chauvin can get a fair trial? The legacy of Rodney King, and 'the Zimmerman paradox' lie in wait along the road, to mug anyone who thinks justice is at the end of it.

[blackchubby38]

Does anyone here believe Officer Chauvin can get a fair trial? The legacy of Rodney King, and 'the Zimmerman paradox' lie in wait along the road, to mug anyone who thinks justice is at the end of it.

Can he get a fair trial, Yes. Will he be found guilty, that's a different story.

[fred41]

Defund the police...hmm... can anyone on this site that agrees with that sentiment, please explain how it would work in the real world, and what would effectively take its place.

[blackchubby38]

Defund the police...hmm... can anyone on this site that agrees with that sentiment, please explain how it would work in the real world, and what would effectively take its place.

I want to see justice done in George Floyd case too. But this is one of the problems I have with the progressive moment. Police misconduct and brutality should be dealt with. There are parts of the criminal justice system that needs to be reformed . But I still I want to live in a society where there are laws, there are people to enforce them, and those who are found guilty in a court of law are made to be punished for their crimes.

I just don't understand how some of them think that making sure the police don't abuse their power means they also can't do their job either.