Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 16, 2018

OTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?

As the World Cup finale plays in my living room, it’s seems like the right time to reflect on “America’s pastime” – baseball – and its curious standing these days.

The sport gets it close-up on Tuesday night, when the Major-League All-Star Game is played in the nation’s capital. President Trump is not expected to be attendance, though he easily could zip over to the festivities upon his return from his meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Dating back to William Howard Taft in 1910, every president has done the season’s ceremonial first pitch at least once. So far, Trump’s twice declined to participate in that ritual.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 16, 2018 at 10:24 AM | 1502 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 16 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   1001. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 19, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5712654)
Stop me if you have seen this already ... Another House Seat Moves to ‘Toss Up’

This week, Axne's campaign released an early July poll taken by ALG Research showing her leading Young, 45 percent to 41 percent. Republicans dispute that Axne is in the lead, but admit it's a very competitive race. Democratic businessman Fred Hubbell is also competitive against GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds and will likely need to carry the 3rd CD to win. He could help Axne. Young's race moves from Lean Republican to the Toss Up column.
   1002. BrianBrianson Posted: July 19, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5712677)

Because the "argument" was made that life in 1945 was better than life in 1876. My point is "better for whom?"

Was it better for Europeans? Well, sure, if you ignore the fact that in 1945 most of Europe was little more than a pile of rubble.

(Oh, and how about the 6 million Holocaust victims and their survivors? Was it better for them?)

Was it better for North Americans? Sure.

Was it better for the Japanese?

And so on. My argument is that the original claim was simplistic, and in need of many qualifiers. What was the life expectancy of a Brit born in 1890, or a German born in 1920? How did that expectancy turn out?


Better for everyone. And, of course to prop up the obviously moronic point, you're cherry picking just the end year, because one is pretty favourable. If you had the choice to be "a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945" and "a randomly selected person living between 1946 and 2015", you'd pick the latter without hesitation. If you have a choice between "a randomly selected person living between 1806 and 1875" or " a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945", you'd pick the latter in a heartbeat.
   1003. Ishmael Posted: July 19, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5712684)
Why is it that literally, without exception, you completely can never even type the slightest hint of an objection to anything your boy Trump does? .......Just do me one favor before you die, Clapper... Tell me why this is.

I wondered if Trump had ever come up on the site before the last election season. Anyway - there's this thread from 2012, just that page and the next I think.

There's a very strange sense of dramatic irony reading it here in the future.
   1004. McCoy Posted: July 19, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5712689)


Better for everyone. And, of course to prop up the obviously moronic point, you're cherry picking just the end year, because one is pretty favourable. If you had the choice to be "a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945" and "a randomly selected person living between 1946 and 2015", you'd pick the latter without hesitation. If you have a choice between "a randomly selected person living between 1806 and 1875" or " a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945", you'd pick the latter in a heartbeat.


How many Europeans born after 1876 lived to see 1945?

On this side of a pond if you were a white guy what was so hard about being born in 1810 and living in the 19th century?

If you were born in 1850 how wonderous and different was 1876 to 1910 or so than 1855 to 1875?
   1005. dlf Posted: July 19, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5712691)
When the opposition party had the votes to do so, it prevented filling a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year.


You've narrowed the definition down to something that has happened once since the turn of the last century, the Garland nomination. Treating a nomination that comes in the same calendar year (Garland) as categorically different than one happening within a twelve-month period (Kennedy or going back a little, Stevens) or even between the last mid-term and next general (Thomas) is, to use the old cliche, using facts to the way a drunk uses a lamp post: for support and not for illumination. If I wanted to play similar games, I could say that the last time a R controlled Senate approved a D nominated Justice was in '95 ... 1895 when the namesake of the guy played by Reagan in the movies nominated Rufus Pekham and the Republicans confirmed him.
   1006. McCoy Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5712693)
4357. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 23, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4281026)

"Trump is pushing it. Doesn't that automatically make it not credible?"



Pretty much, yes.
   1007. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5712694)
Without even looking - I can guarantee that if I were to go back to old OTPs around Sotomayor or Kagan, there wouldn't so much as a whiff of this sentiment. Guaranteed.

Zonk should be thoroughly ashamed for even suggesting such nonsense. I have long said that qualified nominees should be confirmed without fixating on ideology. GOP presidents get to appoint mainstream conservatives, and Democratic presidents should get to nominate mainstream liberals. What you can't have, although many here appear to want it, is a confirmation process that is a gauntlet for GOP nominees but a walk in the park for Democratic ones. This is my post reacting to Sotomayor's nomination:
151. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 26, 2009 at 05:26 PM (#3193948)
Sotomayor will offset the under-representation of Yankee fans on the Court. Absent a tax or nanny problem, she should be confirmed fairly easily given the makeup of the current Senate. However, since Obama voted against both Roberts & Alito (even filibustering Alito) he probably should be estopped from complaining about ideology-based opposition to his own choices.

And how did Zonk react? Among other remarks, by bringing up something that is largely irrelevant:
. . . does anyone else find it a bit... disturbing... that Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on SCOTUS?

I think my response holds up a bit better.
   1008. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5712702)
You've narrowed the definition down to something that has happened once since the turn of the last century, the Garland nomination. Treating a nomination that comes in the same calendar year (Garland) as categorically different than one happening within a twelve-month period (Kennedy or going back a little, Stevens) or even between the last mid-term and next general (Thomas) is, to use the old cliche, using facts to the way a drunk uses a lamp post: for support and not for illumination.

No, I'm using the terms in exactly the same manner the Senate has throughout American history. Kennedy was NOT a presidential election-year vacancy or nomination. Neither was Stevens or Thomas. There is overwhelming evidence that the Senate treats judicial nominations for presidential election-year vacancies differently. As #996 demonstrated, the Senate, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, doesn't confirm such opposition party nominees when it has the votes to delay or defeat them.
   1009. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5712703)
I wondered if Trump had ever come up on the site before the last election season. Anyway - there's this thread from 2012, just that page and the next I think.


Ahhh.... memories.... misty, water-colored meeeemmmmorrieesss.... of the way.... we werrrrrreee....

4357. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 23, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4281026)

Trump is pushing it. Doesn't that automatically make it not credible?



Pretty much, yes.


4383. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 23, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4281083)

An investor/CNBC personality claims Trump has some divorce papers the Obamas drew up in 2000 but did not execute. link

Pretty sure that would just about seal the deal.



I suspect that if anyone is worried about Trump pulling crap now, it's Romneys' people who are more worried than Obama's, Trump may actually engender sympathy for Obama or feed the perception that rightwingers are batshit insane


4387. The District Attorney Posted: October 23, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4281091)

Ehh, I'm totally falling into Trump's trap here by giving air time to all these crazy scenarios with no basis in fact. Is this how word got around that Jeff Bagwell used steroids? (And are we still trying to do it for Jack Morris?)


4396. Monty Posted: October 23, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4281132)
Romney's people absolutely want Trump to shut up. With a month to the election, the last thing they need is for people going off on their own. I imagine their preferred scenario would be for Trump to bring (whatever he's got) directly to them, and then they'd decide how to deploy it. But in Trump's hands, most of the message is going to be "HEY! LOOKIT ME!"

Even if he's got something real, it's going to get tainted by coming out of Donald Trump's mouth.


4397. Tilden Katz Posted: October 23, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4281140)
Why did Romney ever even get in bed with Trump?


4411. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4281193)
It's hard to imagine a better way for the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than to have Trump start throwing bombs. In particular, the divorce story/rumor seems to have "Yosemite Sam" written all over it, unless, as someone said, there were allegations of domestic violence.


But....

Drum roll, please.... my two bestest favorites (and why doesn't BBTF has a 56 pt font capability?)....


4400. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 23, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4281150)
Since when is Romney in bed with Trump? Has he done more than give an endorsement and perhaps attend a fundraiser? Expecting Romney to muzzle Trump is asking a lot. Haven't heard anyone suggesting Trump is getting a Cabinet job (Secretary of Hotels?).


4416. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4281227)
I suspect Trump will merely have some self-promoting announcement tomorrow, such as inviting Obama to join Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton & both Bushes on the Ex-Presidents Edition of Celebrity Apprentice. But I could be wrong.


So.... I owe Clapper an apology. He has previously voiced non-complimentary words about Trump.... in October of 2012.
   1010. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5712713)
   1011. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5712715)
These pages are where I turn to for news about GOP judicial nominations. Things are suspiciously quiet here today on that front. Very suspicious. Hmmm.
   1012. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5712716)
Like a similar article posted not long ago by Zonk, the Cook Report followed the money on Wednesday:
Donald Trump is the best fundraiser Democratic candidates have ever had. Democrats only need to pick up 23 GOP seats for House control, but their donors' desperation to thwart the president helped Democratic candidates out-raise a jaw-dropping 55 GOP House incumbents in the last three months. And 18 Democrats in GOP-held seats raised more than $1 million (not including self-funders).

For context, in the GOP wave of 2010, 44 Democratic incumbents were out-raised by GOP candidates during the same period, according to Politico's Elena Schneider. But that year, Republicans needed to pick up 40 seats for control, nearly twice what Democrats need now.

.........In 37 GOP-held districts — including 16 held by Republican incumbents — a Democrat entered July with the most cash on hand (in 2010, only eight incumbent Democrats trailed a Republican at this point). In races like NJ-11, where Sherrill has a $2.9 million to $171,000 cash advantage, Democrats are poised to control the narrative in cost-prohibitive markets.

The GOP Congressional Leadership Fund raised an impressive $51 million between April and June and has $71 million on hand. The NRCC had an additional $61 million on hand at the end of May. But outside groups pay higher rates than candidates for ads, and as March's special in PA-18 showed, there's no substitute for candidates communicating directly. Soon, Republican groups will need to decide which seats are worth the expense of trying to save.

...........Of the 64 Republicans we rate less than "Solid," 49 were first elected in 2010 or after (meaning they haven't faced this kind of hostile political climate before) and few of the 15 others have been tested recently. Many aren't keeping pace.

...............Democratic donors' sky-high enthusiasm is the result of their antipathy to Trump and attraction to candidates' stories. Powerful, viral bio videos by M.J. Hegar (TX-31) and Amy McGrath (KY-06) have proven more effective fundraising tools than emails from 2020 aspirants or visits from Nancy Pelosi — which is why few Democrats express allegiance to the current leadership.



Hegar (the woman with the exceptional online "Doors" campaign video) outraised her Texas Republican incumbent this past quarter by just over 4 to 1. Her opponent, eight-term Congressman John Carter, has never faced a competitive race. M.J. Heger is one of six Democratic challengers in Texas who outraised their Republican House incumbents in Q2, with the O'Rourke-Beto Senate race being a seventh. Financial filings were this past Sunday. It's an unusual circumstance that's not just about bragging rights, but a ripple effect. The Texas Tribune just wrote:
The mood around [John] Culberson and [Pete] Sessions has markedly darkened in the past week, thanks in part to the fundraising of their rivals, attorneys Lizzie Pannill Fletcher of Houston and Colin Allred of Dallas, respectively. Even [Will] Hurd, who's built a reputation on his fundraising prowess, saw veteran Gina Ortiz Jones outpace him nearly two-to-one. But like Culberson and Sessions, Hurd has a distinct cash-on-hand advantage over his Democratic rival.

Hardly anyone in Texas will suggest that incumbents like [Pete] Olson and [Roger] Williams are in any significant electoral trouble because they were outraised. But the cumulative effect of so much strong Democratic fundraising is unnerving to many Texas Republican insiders.

One anxious Texas operative suggested these fundraising numbers are merely a first alarm bell. The second may come once incumbents go into the field en masse and poll. But two GOP sources say many incumbents have been reluctant to poll their districts amid what feels like a chaotic political environment and are waiting for a more stable period to get an accurate read of the electorate.

For most of the election cycle, Republican operatives have brushed off strong Democratic fundraising. Republican super PACs have been on a healthy fundraising streak. And in Texas specifically, Gov. Greg Abbott offers a massive financial and organizational umbrella to down-ballot candidates. He recently reported he had a $30 million war chest and had purchased $16 million in television advertising. Democratic nominee Lupe Valdez has yet to release her latest fundraising figures, but few Democrats are counting on her to provide strong coattails in the fall.

Yet, unsolicited, GOP insiders are beginning to chime in with the same refrain: As much as Abbott’s money and organization will offer cover, there is a growing concern about the fact that O’Rourke has so frequently outraised Cruz.

Some Republicans remain confident the center will hold in Texas............ Yet those victories will come at a cost. In Texas, often viewed as a "donor state" in Republican politics, incumbents having to spend big to protect their own seats could wreak havoc with the money race in other parts of the country.

GOP members of Congress here are expected to raise millions of dollars for the House campaign arm and for vulnerable members elsewhere in the country. For this reason, the state expects and succeeds in holding positions of leadership within the party and chairmanships on Capitol Hill.

Now, many of these members with choice committee assignments and positions of influence in the party may end up spending more of their money protectively back home to reinforce their own seats. Collectively, that could wind up to be a pile of money not being sent to hotly contested races in places like Tucson, Denver and southern California.

An even more dire situation for the GOP would be if national Republicans feel compelled to buy television ads for Texas members they’ve never had to worry about before, like Sessions, Culberson and [John] Carter.

It may all be a fluke or misdirected Democratic enthusiasm, but long-time operatives are hopeful that Democrats can lasso anti-Trump enthusiasm to, at the very least, do what scores of national strategists have previously come to Texas and failed to do: build the party.

The logic goes, even if most of these congressional candidates come up short, the money and organization they bring to the table is a major opportunity for party building at the local level.

   1013. dlf Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5712717)
No, I'm using the terms in exactly the same manner the Senate has throughout American history. Kennedy was NOT a presidential election-year vacancy or nomination. Neither was Stevens or Thomas.


Both Kennedy and Stevens were less than one calendar year before the next presidential election but admittedly the date did not end with the same digit, a difference without, to me, distinction. Thomas was more than 12 months out, but after the preceding mid-terms.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Senate treats judicial nominations for presidential election-year vacancies differently.


There is no evidence going back to 1900 other than Garland of treating nominees in election year for the Supreme Court in any form or fashion. Saying that a judicial nominee for the Court of Appeals is the same as a judicial nominee for the Supreme Court is like saying that an apple pie is the same as a pizza pie: both have the word pie, both will feed you, but they really aren't the same.

As #996 demonstrated, the Senate, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, doesn't confirm such opposition party nominees when it has the votes to delay or defeat them.


Nominees from an R President confirmed by a D Senate since WWII: Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Rehnquist (twice), Powell, Blackmun, Burger, Stewart, Whittaker, & Brennan

Nominees from a D President confirmed by a R Senate since WWII: ----------
   1014. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5712719)
This is my post reacting to Sotomayor's nomination:


Pretty weak sauce... so your evidence is comprised of three sentences: 1)One that is a throwaway line about Yankee fandom, 2)One that is NO DIFFERENT than I have said several times about Kavanaugh - Absent a tax or nanny problem, she should be confirmed fairly easily given the makeup of the current Senate. Duhhhh... the Senate was 60-40 Democrat. No #### sherlock, and 3)whining about Obama.

And how did Zonk react? Among other remarks, by bringing up something that is largely irrelevant:


But yes, yes... nice job clipping my post to make it stand out better - i.e., you know... the portions where I said that I am Catholic.

Not to mention - it precedes yours... and though you apparently managed to find it on page 1 of the thread, and your alleged whatever on page... you missed the not once, not twice, not three times - but four times that I said my word choice was wrong.

The thread... that Clapper didn't link to.... For reasons...
   1015. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5712725)
And so on. My argument is that the original claim was simplistic, and in need of many qualifiers. What was the life expectancy of a Brit born in 1890, or a German born in 1920? How did that expectancy turn out?

Better for everyone.


Everyone? Are you quite sure about that?

And, of course to prop up the obviously moronic point, you're cherry picking just the end year, because one is pretty favourable. If you had the choice to be "a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945" and "a randomly selected person living between 1946 and 2015", you'd pick the latter without hesitation. If you have a choice between "a randomly selected person living between 1806 and 1875" or " a randomly selected person living between 1876 and 1945", you'd pick the latter in a heartbeat.

I chose those endpoints for the obvious reason that if it were true that the arc of life on Earth from 1876 to 1945 was truly bending in the right direction, then you'd think that the end of that time span would show at least something close to the biggest improvement. But instead what we saw was long and steady improvement up to 1913, then Cataclysm I, then a 10 year recovery up through 1929, then 16 years of unending Depression and war.

Which gets us back to my original question: Better for whom? You talk about "cherry picking", but you've managed to cherry pick your way past two world wars, the Holocaust, and the worst and most prolonged economic Depression of the last 150 years. No wonder you have to resort to personal insults to get your point across.
   1016. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5712726)
Hegar (the woman with the exceptional online "Doors" campaign video) outraised her Texas Republican incumbent this past quarter by just over 4 to 1.

I liked that ad. I’m glad my daughter can grow up in a world where she too can realize her dream of killing Muslims all over the world. SMASH THE PATRIARCHY, YASSS QUEEN!!!!
   1017. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5712727)
Hot Wheeling, #1011:
These pages are where I turn to for news about GOP judicial nominations. Things are suspiciously quiet here today on that front. Very suspicious. Hmmm.

It seems like the Republican Party is... out of Bounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o


Oh well, they'll have a replacement nominee through the process and ready for a confirmation vote before a 56-44 Senate sometime in Feb/Mar 2019.
   1018. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5712728)
SMASH THE PATRIARCHY, YASSS QUEEN!!!!


Somebody get Davos and tell him that there's a poster named Davos who is breaking Davos' rules.
   1019. McCoy Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5712732)
Nunes spending tens of thousands of PAC dollars on things like Celtic playoff games and California winery tours.
   1020. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5712733)
Nunes spending tens of thousands of PAC dollars on things like Celtic playoff games and California winery tours.


Makes sense.

He's already spending his own campaign money running against the local paper reporting those things.
   1021. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5712734)
Somebody get Davos and tell him that there's a poster named Davos who is breaking Davos' rules


If he could weasel his way to become Trump’s (tiny) Hand of the King he could be Ser Davos Peeworth
   1022. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5712736)
Nominees from an R President confirmed by a D Senate since WWII: Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Rehnquist (twice), Powell, Blackmun, Burger, Stewart, Whittaker, & Brennan

Nominees from a D President confirmed by a R Senate since WWII: ----------

That's a a rather misleading comparison that fails to account for how few years the GOP has controlled the Senate, only about 20 years over that 73-year period. The only unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees by Democratic Presidents during that time were near-crook Abe Fortas, who faced bipartisan opposition, and Merrick Garland, who was blocked by the bipartisan practice of not acting on opposition party judicial nominees during presidential election years. The GOP gave overwhelming support to Democratic nominees as recent as Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) & Breyer (87-9), a gesture that was repaid by much greater Democratic opposition to Roberts & Alito.
   1023. Greg K Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5712739)
One of the threads of the 2012 thread I find interesting is the discussion of anonymity in message boards. I think the theory that using your real name tends to bring civility to online discussions has been disproven by facebook. I'm not sure when it happened, (2016 certainly accelerated a process that I'm sure already existed), but good Lord this thread is a million times for civil than facebook comments.
   1024. dlf Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5712743)
That's a a rather misleading comparison that fails to account for how few years the GOP has controlled the Senate, only about 20 years over that 73-year period.


Misleading? Yeah, that is why I prefaced a similar stat it in the earlier post (#1005) by saying "if I wanted to play similar games" specifically in response to YOUR claim that, "When the opposition party had the votes to do so, it prevented filling a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year." The ONLY time since Andy's parents were born that specific situation arose was Garland. It would be just as fair to say that EVERY TIME since before 1900 the R's have had the power to block a D nominee, they have done so while in the listed occasions I noted in #1013, the D's did not. Or alternatively and equally factually true, harkening back to the brief interludes about Thomas & Stevens, that the D's did not, despite control of the Senate, block a nominee less than twelve months before a presidential election, but in Garland, the R's did.

And to circle back, this sub-thread started with me calling out Zonk's approach of throwing sand in the gears for the Kavanaugh nomination. I think that both parties bear responsibility for the state we have gotten where the nomination process for what should be an independent judiciary is now highly political and, as a result, many think the results of judicial decision making is equally political. You, apparently, think the fault for this lies solely with the Ds, a position that I strongly believe to be historically inaccurate at best.
   1025. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5712748)
And to circle back, this sub-thread started with me calling out Zonk's approach of throwing sand in the gears for the Kavanaugh nomination. I think that both parties bear responsibility for the state we have gotten where the nomination process for what should be an independent judiciary is now highly political and, as a result, many think the results of judicial decision making is equally political. You, apparently, think the fault for this lies solely with the Ds, a position that I strongly believe to be historically inaccurate at best.


At least the Zonk problem can be fixed pretty easily.

Put me in the Senate.

Like I said, were I actually a sitting Senator - my confirmation approach would actually be different than it is a nothing more than a digital citizen yapper recognizing the reality of the world.

In fact, I might even tab you and David cooperatively to compose my questions to ask nominees.
   1026. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5712750)
With recent events what they are, this just seems like good messaging and smart politics.
House GOP refuses to renew election security funding as Democrats fume over Russian interference

The election security funding vote came amid a national controversy over Russian election interference, and it comes days after President Trump appeared to accept Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s contention that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 presidential race — even though U.S. intelligence agencies say otherwise.

....................Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, discounted the need for any new security spending. “I know what we need for safe and secure elections, and that’s voter ID,” Jordan said.

...............The Senate version of the financial services spending bill also excluded new money for election security grants. It passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan vote.

....................The debate highlighted the fitful commitment from Congress and the Trump administration to ensuring state election security at a moment when the debate over Russian attempts to hack U.S. elections is at a fever pitch.

The federal Election Assistance Commission that administers the election security grant program to states currently has only two of four commissioners, not enough to form a quorum and approve new “Voluntary Voting System Guidelines” against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they meet required standards.

Moreover, the bulk of $3.6 billion authorized under the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the wake of the contested 2000 presidential election, was sent to states well over a decade ago to upgrade voting systems. In many cases, those systems now need new upgrades. With states responsible for administering their own elections, a patchwork of voting systems exists across the country, with varying degrees of reliability and sophistication.
   1027. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5712756)
Meanwhile, this morning the House Intelligence Committee voted down a motion to subpoena the U.S. interpreter for the Trump-Putin "KEEP OUT" canoodle session. Guess that'll have to wait until January.
   1028. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5712758)
Meanwhile, this morning the House Intelligence Committee voted down a motion to subpoena the U.S. interpreter for the Trump-Putin "KEEP OUT" canoodle session. Guess that'll have to wait until January.


The most disappointed person here might be Dan Coats, who in the hourly BONKERS! Trump brouhaha answering questions at a security summit, said:

- He doesn't know what 'agreements' Trump and Putin reached

- He learned a via question that there is a 2nd summit now apparently to happen
   1029. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 19, 2018 at 06:41 PM (#5712778)
- He learned a via question that there is a 2nd summit now apparently to happen


And his response was "Well, that will be special."

#### Ray and his nihilism. This #### is serious. The person who is supposed to know what is going on, does not know what is going on.
   1030. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 06:59 PM (#5712781)
Ishmael gave me an itch - and I tracked down more pre-2015 posts on Trump...

I'd share them - I was planning to share them, but the truth is that the more of them I found... it just made me depressed. Not even mad, just depressed.

It was friggin UNANIMOUS that he was an idiot. Not one single person - including some of our regular Trumpkins nowadays - had anything positive to say about him. I think I found half a dozen Ray posts alone that if I re-posted them with a few modifications for currency, he'd label symptomatic of TDS.

The only time making fun of, pillorying, or otherwise speaking ANY amount of ill about Trump rankled anyone - and that includes even departed hardcore cons like Kehoskie - was when certain people (Looking mainly at Clapper) got annoyed, angry on a couple occasions, that people associated Trump with Republicans... as if it was (then) just beyond the pale or ridiculous that anyone would associate a cretinous dumbass like Trump with Republicans.

Tell me more about this TDS... because I feel like I've found a lot of patient zeros.
   1031. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:07 PM (#5712782)
- He learned a via question that there is a 2nd summit now apparently to happen

And his response was "Well, that will be special."

And the printed transcript doesn't convey the tone of the exchange, which you can see and hear here.

Given the subject matter and the person involved, it's like nothing anyone has ever seen before: A National Intelligence Director openly laughing in implicit astonishment at his own president. You could practically hear Coats saying to himself, "JESUS, WHAT IN THE HELL IS THIS LOON IN THE WHITE HOUSE GOING TO SPRING ON US NEXT?"
   1032. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:10 PM (#5712783)
It was friggin UNANIMOUS that he was an idiot. Not one single person - including some of our regular Trumpkins nowadays - had anything positive to say about him. I think I found half a dozen Ray posts alone that if I re-posted them with a few modifications for currency, he'd label symptomatic of TDS.

The only time making fun of, pillorying, or otherwise speaking ANY amount of ill about Trump rankled anyone - and that includes even departed hardcore cons like Kehoskie - was when certain people (Looking mainly at Clapper) got annoyed, angry on a couple occasions, that people associated Trump with Republicans... as if it was (then) just beyond the pale or ridiculous that anyone would associate a cretinous dumbass like Trump with Republicans


And yet even if they knew then what they know today, if given the choice they'd still have voted for him over Clinton.
   1033. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:10 PM (#5712784)
It was friggin UNANIMOUS that he was an idiot. Not one single person - including some of our regular Trumpkins nowadays - had anything positive to say about him.


I've been calling him a clown virtually nonstop since 1989, when he was the top target of SPY Magazine. It's continued on these boards, again virtually non-stop.

What that has to do with TDS or by-any-means-necessary-ism, however, remains a complete mystery. Cure, disease, and all. You, OTOH, appear to have thrown in a bit (or more) with things like Sammy Rotten traitorously proposing to dispense with the Constitution. As between a clown temporarily holding the constitutional office of President, and dispensing with the Constitution ... well, it's not really that tough a choice.
   1034. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:11 PM (#5712785)
@spdustin
In which the "president" uses his official Twitter account to spread Russian propaganda; that "1" logo bug in the upper-right is from Russian state media outlet, Channel One.

The video itself? Older than Putin's presidency.
   1035. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:43 PM (#5712790)
An interesting Longreads excerpt on ... Shakespeare and ahem, Richard III: The Tyrant and His Enablers


From the early 1590s, at the beginning of his career, all the way through to its end, Shakespeare grappled again and again with a deeply unsettling question: how is it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?

“A king rules over willing subjects,” wrote the influential sixteenth-century Scottish scholar George Buchanan, “a tyrant over unwilling.” The institutions of a free society are designed to ward off those who would govern, as Buchanan put it, “not for their country but for themselves, who take account not of the public interest but of their own pleasure.” Under what circumstances, Shakespeare asked himself, do such cherished institutions, seemingly deep-rooted and impregnable, suddenly prove fragile? Why do large numbers of people knowingly accept being lied to? How does a figure like Richard III ascend to the throne?

Such a disaster, Shakespeare suggested, could not happen without widespread complicity. His plays probe the psychological mechanisms that lead a nation to abandon its ideals and even its self-interest. Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?
   1036. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:45 PM (#5712791)
Putin Tells Diplomats He Made Trump a New Offer on Ukraine at Their Summit

Maybe US DNI Dan Coats can ask Putin what was discussed and agreed to in their private chats... you know, since the US President doesn't seem all that interested in telling the US folks and the US state depts, intelligence agencies, etc what was discussed and agreed to.
   1037. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5712792)
Dershowitz:

Alan Dershowitz concedes: He didn’t realize ‘how emotionally people are invested in opposing Trump’

VINEYARD HAVEN — Alan Dershowitz picked a bad week to defend President Trump. Nonetheless there was the famed former Harvard Law professor Wednesday night, sitting on the stage at the Katharine Cornell Theater on Martha’s Vineyard, arguing that a special counsel should not have been appointed to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia.

A polite, somewhat subdued, crowd turned out to hear Dershowitz, who is a longtime summer resident, tell the gathering why he defends the man so despised by many on the island.

“Look, I was born provocative. That’s why I was a successful teacher. My job is to provoke conversation,” he said, commenting on the backlash to his defense of Trump. “Maybe I didn’t realize enough how emotionally people are invested in opposing Trump. I was talking to their minds and I probably wasn’t sufficiently in tune to their heart and soul and emotions,” he said.

“I’ve lived a contentious life all of my life and this is the first time that this kind of contentious approach has had such a profound impact on friendships and personal relationships.’’

...

“So it’s a great challenge for me to make constitutional arguments that have the effect of helping somebody with whom I so strongly disagree,” said Dershowitz, adding that he’s never voted for a Republican in a national election and only one — William Weld for Massachusetts governor — in a state election.


If you read between the lines there Dershowitz is essentially making the point that people who are letting emotion drive them probably aren't being logical.

And if he's not making that point -- I will.
   1038. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:47 PM (#5712794)
Alan Dershowitz: 'Terrible mistake’ for DOJ to indict Russian officials ahead of Trump’s meeting with Putin
by Diana Stancy Correll
| July 19, 2018 11:15 AM
| Updated Jul 19, 2018, 03:15 PM

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said it was a “terrible mistake” for the Justice Department to announce indictment of Russian officials ahead of President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this week.

“I think it was a terrible mistake for the Department of Justice to issue that indictment on the eve of a foreign policy trip,” Dershowitz said in an interview with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt on Thursday. “The Justice Department is not supposed to be intruding on the foreign policy of the United States. They should have, on their own, held off.”

“The issue is timing. You know, the Justice Department policy say[s] you don’t issue indictments just before an election, because you’re not supposed to be influencing policy,” Dershowitz added. “And embarrassing the president by issuing these indictments before he meets Putin was a serious blunder.The Justice Department should not have done that.”


Link
   1039. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:50 PM (#5712795)
Dershowitz: Trump Critics 'Going Over the Top' With Treason Cries

Alan Dershowitz said that Democrats and those calling President Donald Trump's performance in Helsinki an act of treason have gone "completely over the top," the noted law scholar and professor told conservative voice Hugh Hewitt on Thursday.

"You might not like what Trump did. I didn’t like what he did. But to call it treason is just wrong as a matter of constitutional law," Dershowitz said on Hewitt's radio show.

"What President Trump is alleged to have done, you know, making the image of Putin stronger and helping him gain international credibility around the world doesn’t even come close to treason under the Constitution," Dershowitz said.

It's another example of shrill Democrats making Trump even stronger with his base, Dershowitz said.

"It shows that the Democrats and the opponents of Trump are not making nuanced, carefully thought through, calibrated criticisms. They’re going completely, completely over the top," Dershowitz said.

However, there's a reason that Democrats and Trump haters are intentionally choosing the word "treason," even though it's not remotely applicable.

"Treason is one of the two crimes specified for impeachment, and that’s why I think so many of the Trump opponents are focusing on treason, because if he did commit treason … then he would be subject to impeachment," Dershowitz said.

"But the criteria for treason is laid out clearly in the Constitution, and people shouldn’t just be making up crimes," Dershowitz said.

   1040. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:50 PM (#5712796)
If you read between the lines there Dershowitz is essentially making the point that people who are letting emotion drive them probably aren't being logical.


It's the urbane and polite and literate way of saying, "I had no idea how deep the TDS runs."

It bears repeating that in the modern liberal world of 2018, Alan Dershowitz is an enemy and a banished to HR, bent FBI agent is a hero. Pretty much says it all.
   1041. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5712798)
"It shows that the Democrats and the opponents of Trump are not making nuanced, carefully thought through, calibrated criticisms. They’re going completely, completely over the top," Dershowitz said.


Correct in every particular.

However, there's a reason that Democrats and Trump haters are intentionally choosing the word "treason," even though it's not remotely applicable.

"Treason is one of the two crimes specified for impeachment, and that’s why I think so many of the Trump opponents are focusing on treason, because if he did commit treason … then he would be subject to impeachment," Dershowitz said.


Gives them too much credit. It's just an unthinking, frothing word they throw out there, and they're too hysterical to even make the "treason can be impeachment" argument.
   1042. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:55 PM (#5712799)
“So it’s a great challenge for me to make constitutional arguments


like

embarrassing the president by issuing these indictments
   1043. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 07:57 PM (#5712800)
It's the urbane and polite and literate way of saying, "I had no idea how deep the TDS runs.


Undoubtedly.
   1044. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5712802)
Thankfully, a cure exists for Trump Derangement Syndrome...

Rezine.
   1045. Greg K Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5712806)
“A king rules over willing subjects,” wrote the influential sixteenth-century Scottish scholar George Buchanan, “a tyrant over unwilling.” The institutions of a free society are designed to ward off those who would govern, as Buchanan put it, “not for their country but for themselves, who take account not of the public interest but of their own pleasure.” Under what circumstances, Shakespeare asked himself, do such cherished institutions, seemingly deep-rooted and impregnable, suddenly prove fragile? Why do large numbers of people knowingly accept being lied to? How does a figure like Richard III ascend to the throne?

Such a disaster, Shakespeare suggested, could not happen without widespread complicity. His plays probe the psychological mechanisms that lead a nation to abandon its ideals and even its self-interest. Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?


Heh.

Two things come to mind. One is that Buchanan was tutor to James VI (eventually James I of England). James was perhaps one of the most scholarly kings England ever had, largely, I think, thanks to Buchanan. But one thing he certainly did not get from Buchanan was his understanding of tyranny. If you wanted to be a bit simplistic you could argue that in the 1640s the ideas of tutor and pupil smashed together and destroyed British society.

The second thing is that I literally just 5 minutes ago finished a podcast episode on Martha Mitchell and Watergate. Apparently one of the things that perplexed her was how her intelligent, confident husband could have been manipulated into carrying water for a guy like Nixon (which the podcast frames almost exactly the same as the excerpt above).

Also, bonus third point, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the "Early Stuart England" podcast now available on iTunes and Spotify is a fine place to investigate how Englishmen a generation after Shakespeare approached the same question he was asking.
   1046. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:06 PM (#5712809)
The admission by Dershowitz that he didn't see this coming is stunning, if you think about it. Here is a person who has debated and discussed a great many controversial ideological, political, and legal issues over the past half century. About US policy, about constitutional law, about unsavory defendants he was representing, etc.

And even HE didn't understand how utterly deranged, emotional, and childish a great many of the people opposing Trump are.

That is quite a thing.
   1047. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5712813)
And even HE didn't understand how utterly deranged, emotional, and childish a great many of the people opposing Trump are.


I know, right?
   1048. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5712814)
Big picture is that at some point the adults in the room need to take control or this will spiral to the point where we will never confirm any judicial appointee if there is a split between R & D at 1600 and further down the mall.
The problem is that each side fervently believes -- one side is right, but I won't say which -- that the other side started it and/or dramatically escalated it. So neither side wants to be the one to do what they see as unilaterally disarming; that side would feel like they're the chumps because they got screwed when they were out of power and then failed to retaliate when they got into power. I don't see how to wipe the slate clean at this point.

The only way it could work is to (a) come up with some binding rules that can prevent game playing, and (b) implement said rules by a start date far enough out that neither side is sure who will be the first to benefit from them. But absent a constitutional amendment, there's no way to have binding rules; all one can have is norms, and norms only hold as long as people want them to.
   1049. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5712815)
iTunes and Spotify only, Greg?
   1050. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5712816)
Here is a person who has debated and discussed a great many controversial ideological, political, and legal issues over the past half century. About US policy, about constitutional law, about unsavory defendants he was representing, etc.


And written a bunch of thoughtful books and been a great civil libertarian ....

And even HE didn't understand how utterly deranged, emotional, and childish a great many of the people opposing Trump are.


It's an abject embarrassment.


   1051. Greg K Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5712817)
iTunes and Spotify only, Greg?

There is a website, with a fancy map and character cheat sheet too. But it would be gauche to link such a thing.
   1052. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:17 PM (#5712818)

No, the really stupid thing is to think that averages override all other considerations, and that there's a binary choice between 1876 and 1945.
Averages do override all other considerations, and there is a binary choice, because the question is "Which was better, A or B?" (But despite your attempt to move the goalposts, the choice was between the 1806-1875 time period and the 1876-1945 time periods -- not just between the last year of each grouping).
   1053. zenbitz Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:21 PM (#5712821)
If you read between the lines there Dershowitz is essentially making the point that people who are letting emotion drive them probably aren't being logical.


Just because people are being emotional (and sure they are, politics is and has always been particularly emotional) doesn't not mean that one cannot LOGICALLY oppose Trump and everything he "stands" for.
   1054. Morty Causa Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5712824)
Dershowitz is just one more voc-tech mechanic who thinks his picayune legalistic pedantry passes for genuine political analysis.

People have a lot of reasons to be deranged, to use a term of art, over Trump. We're talking here about a know-nothing bumfucck/dumfucck who is without substance or character and is bent on antagonizing allies and dismantling associations establishing long ago that have worked successfully and productively. And for what? Yeah, there is some reason to be a little unhinged with fear and worry. Trump is like the blind character in the W.C. Fields movie wildly swinging his cane about the display of electric bulbs
   1055. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5712825)
There is a website, with a fancy map and character cheat sheet too. But it would be gauche to link such a thing.


Not at all, that's perfect, thanks!
   1056. greenback made it work, honey Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:23 PM (#5712826)
The second thing is that I literally just 5 minutes ago finished a podcast episode on Martha Mitchell and Watergate. Apparently one of the things that perplexed her was how her intelligent, confident husband could have been manipulated into carrying water for a guy like Nixon (which the podcast frames almost exactly the same as the excerpt above).

I just read Carreyrou's book Bad Blood, which in effect deals with the same issue. Elizabeth Holmes was a bright, passionate young woman who managed to convince a ####-ton of older men to support her (mostly fraudulent) company. Her idea for the company, to be sure, would have changed medical care dramatically, but this fantastic idea was treated by most of the experts as virtually impossible (Holmes dropped out of Stanford midway through her sophomore year). Carreyrou kinda makes it sound like she found one Stanford professor who believed in her idea, and from there she gradually expanded her circle of influence. By the end, her company's board had two former Secretaries of State, a former Secretary of Defense, the current Secretary of Defense, two former US Senators, and the lead attorney for Gore's side in Bush v. Gore. They all defended Holmes until the bitter end, and some folks with more money than sense (Tim Draper came up yesterday) still defend Theranos.
   1057. zenbitz Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5712829)
And yeah ,while "Treason" is an overreach so is 90% of everything negative ever said about Obama or a Clinton or 2 Bushes or Reagan. Didn't people call Jimmy Carter history's greatest monster?
   1058. perros Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:30 PM (#5712831)
Alan Dershowitz is a vindictive, thin-skinned creep, just like Trump, who will try to ruin anyone who challenges his privilege and power. Maybe those Vineyard folks knew what they wete doing hooking him up with Jeffrey Epstein.

I’m a victim. That’s why I’m speaking out. I’m a victim.”
   1059. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:34 PM (#5712833)
There is a website, with a fancy map and character cheat sheet too. But it would be gauche to link such a thing.


FWIW, I heartily endorse Greg's podcasts (there... no gauche link!)... if impressing your family and friends with your knowledge of the lead-up to and first few years of the Stuart period isn't enough - you also get to read Greg's posts forever thereafter in his own voice in your head!
   1060. baravelli Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5712836)
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said it was a “terrible mistake” for the Justice Department to announce indictment of Russian officials ahead of President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this week.


Trump was apparently consulted on the timing of the announcement and asked for the indictments to be announced before the meeting rather than after.

President Donald Trump gave the go-ahead to announce new Russian election-hacking indictments before his meeting with Vladimir Putin rather than after -- in the hopes it would strengthen his hand in the talks, according to accounts from people familiar with the decision.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went to Trump last week and offered him the choice: before or after the Putin summit on Monday in Helsinki? Trump chose before, ultimately putting the issue into the spotlight just 72 hours before the high-stakes meeting, the people said.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/trump-said-to-decide-russia-indictments-should-come-pre-summit
   1061. Morty Causa Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5712837)
Minimizing the effect and danger of Donald Trump is the very perfection of (to quote TS Eliot, I think) rottenness. It, in American national politics, doesn't get any more cynical and odious.
   1062. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:40 PM (#5712838)

The admission by Dershowitz that he didn't see this coming is stunning, if you think about it.
Yep. It shows how deeply clueless Dershowitz is, and why he probably should stop commenting on the topic.
   1063. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:45 PM (#5712843)

And yeah ,while "Treason" is an overreach so is 90% of everything negative ever said about Obama or a Clinton or 2 Bushes or Reagan. Didn't people call Jimmy Carter history's greatest monster?
I've had a long day, but I can't tell if you're serious or not. The HGM thing was from the Simpsons.

(I just had a discussion the other day online in which I said "Attempted murder! Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" And the person had no idea what I was talking about.)
   1064. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5712848)
Trump was apparently consulted on the timing of the announcement and asked for the indictments to be announced before the meeting rather than after.
President Donald Trump gave the go-ahead to announce new Russian election-hacking indictments before his meeting with Vladimir Putin rather than after -- in the hopes it would strengthen his hand in the talks, according to accounts from people familiar with the decision.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went to Trump last week and offered him the choice: before or after the Putin summit on Monday in Helsinki? Trump chose before, ultimately putting the issue into the spotlight just 72 hours before the high-stakes meeting, the people said.
So you're saying that in addition to Dershowitz's opinion being stupid, it was also based on him not having the first ####### clue what he was talking about?
   1065. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:51 PM (#5712850)

Alan Dershowitz is a vindictive, thin-skinned creep,
He's falsely accused of being a pedophile, and you think he's the creep?
   1066. Greg K Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:52 PM (#5712853)
(I just had a discussion the other day online in which I said "Attempted murder! Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" And the person had no idea what I was talking about.)


A friend of mine once told me about a business meeting he was in. I forget the exact details, but someone was trying to open up a laptop and there was a dispute over how many screws were on the panel. One guy said three, the other said four. My friend stood up and in his best Picard shouted "THERE ARE FOUR SCREWS!"

At which point they stopped inviting him to meetings.
   1067. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 08:53 PM (#5712856)
So you're saying that in addition to Dershowitz's opinion being stupid, it was also based on him not having the first ####### clue what he was talking about?


Hallucinations are a symptom of TDS.
   1068. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:01 PM (#5712867)
Matt Glassman, Twitter:
I'll go out on a limb an say that a repeat of the Helsinki press conference at the White House a couple of weeks before the election is probably not what GOP congressional leaders have in mind.
   1069. McCoy Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:12 PM (#5712873)
So a judicial pick is forced to be withdrawn because of GOP concerns. All we really want to know is will voters punish them for this.
   1070. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:20 PM (#5712879)

At which point they stopped inviting him to meetings.
So... mission accomplished?
   1071. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:23 PM (#5712881)
If you read between the lines there Dershowitz is essentially making the point that people who are letting emotion drive them probably aren't being logical.


Actually he’s admitting that he’s trolling. The best trolling is when you can get the rubes to think you’re sincere. That’s been my gimmick on Stormfront for s decade, it never gets old.

“Look, I was born provocative. That’s why I was a successful teacher. My job is to provoke conversation.” Well sure, your job isn’t to search for objective truth because as a lawyer you have to convince the yokels that there’s no such thing.
   1072. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:33 PM (#5712890)
Man, lots of Trumpkins are going to be pissed they bought early...

The Russian foreign ministry is having a closeout sale on Mariia Butina's.... Apparently, buy one, get one free.
   1073. perros Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:38 PM (#5712894)
He's falsely accused of being a pedophile, and you think he's the creep?


He could have dealt with the girl's affidavit through the proper legal channels rather than waging a bloody press battle with the lawyers involved, but that's Dershowitz, who claimed there were no underaged girls on Epstein's plane when he flew on it (untrue), that he never got any massages (untrue), then that it was one massage from a 40-year-old named Olga and that he didn't like it and he immediately informed his wife.

AFAIK, he's not buddies with Al Gore.
   1074. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:55 PM (#5712906)
Town Hall meeting, yesterday:
TEENAGE ACTIVIST ROSE STRAUSS: Hi!

REPUBLICAN PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR CANDIDATE SCOTT WAGNER: How are you?

STRAUSS: Good, thanks. How are you?

WAGNER: I'm great!

STRAUSS: Awesome. My name is Rose, I'm 18, and I'm really concerned about the future of our country. Two-thirds of Pennsylvanians think that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed. But you've said that climate change is a result of people's body heat, and are refusing to take action on the issue. Does this have anything to do with the $200,000 that you have taken from the fossil fuel industry?

WAGNER: Rose, you know what? I appreciate you being here. You're 18 years old. You know, you're a little young and naive. Rose, let's talk about something else.

AUDIENCE: Answer the question.

WAGNER: Listen, Rose. And I appreciate--

AUDIENCE: Answer the question!

WAGNER: And here, here, here's the. Are we here to elect a governor, or are we here to elect a scientist? Okay? I'm here to be the governor. Now, Rose, I understand, and I appreciate, you know, the question. But I have one for you, Rose. Climate change is important. We all hear about it. [recounts unrelated news story about sinkholes in Harrisburg, PA, causing sewage leaks] You want to talk about that, or you want to talk about climate change? I'm more interested in sewage that's going into the Susquehanna River.


Wagner is trailing by ~15% to the incumbent Democratic governor. Last year, Wagner said, "I haven't been in science class for a long time, but the earth moves closer to the sun every year. You know, the rotation of the earth. We're moving closer to the sun. We have more people. You know, humans have warm bodies. So is heat coming off? Times are changing, but I think we are, as a society, doing the best we can."
   1075. perros Posted: July 19, 2018 at 09:55 PM (#5712907)
According to The Forward, Dershowitz is advising Harvey Weintein's legal team. He's made a career of defending rich and powerful creeps, not to mention a public defense of torture where he once again accused the other side of arguing from emotion while he rationalizes its use with spurious claims to empiricism.

Maybe I'm swayed by emotion here, and the evidence for his creepiness is more anecdotal than empirical but, he sure has made his fame and fortune defending creeps at every chance.

Poor guy.
   1076. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:00 PM (#5712909)
Everyone is entitled to a defense when the state seeks to put them in prison.

This is axiomatic to a just society.
   1077. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:04 PM (#5712911)
Everyone is entitled to a defense when the state seeks to put them in prison


Sounds like socialism.
   1078. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:04 PM (#5712912)
Everyone is entitled to a defense when the state seeks to put them in prison.

This is axiomatic to a just society.


LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

But just to be clear - you mean every citizen... right? Not those foreign people. Because they're not entitled to a defense.

Unless you're saying that makes the US not a just society?
   1079. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5712914)
Donald Trump:
The summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media.

Mark Harris:
What does it mean when a traitor calls you "the real enemy of the people"? Is that one of those "double negatives" Trump likes so much?
   1080. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM (#5712918)
But just to be clear - you mean every citizen... right?


No.
   1081. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM (#5712920)
What does it mean when a traitor calls you "the real enemy of the people"? Is that one of those "double negatives" Trump likes so much?


I think he meant to say what doesn't mean
   1082. -- Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:10 PM (#5712923)
What does it mean when a traitor calls you "the real enemy of the people"?


It means using the word "traitor" in the jackass, delusional way you did makes you a delusional jackass.
   1083. perros Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:10 PM (#5712926)
Everyone is entitled to a defense when the state seeks to put them in prison.


How about those the state chooses to torture or assassinate?
   1084. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5712928)
WAGNER: And here, here, here's the. Are we here to elect a governor, or are we here to elect a scientist? Okay? I'm here to be the governor. Now, Rose, I understand, and I appreciate, you know, the question. But I have one for you, Rose. Climate change is important. We all hear about it. [recounts unrelated news story about sinkholes in Harrisburg, PA, causing sewage leaks] You want to talk about that, or you want to talk about climate change? I'm more interested in sewage that's going into the Susquehanna River.


Conservatives absolutely HATE science. It’s pretty much a prerequisite for joining the movement.
   1085. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 19, 2018 at 10:46 PM (#5712958)
Conservatives absolutely HATE science. It’s pretty much a prerequisite for joining the movement.


Every once in a while they find a result they like and parrot it, but yeah pretty much.
   1086. OCF Posted: July 19, 2018 at 11:00 PM (#5712964)
Last year, Wagner said, "I haven't been in science class for a long time, but the earth moves closer to the sun every year. You know, the rotation of the earth. We're moving closer to the sun."

OK,maybe I'm not the right person to react to this, since I am a mathematician and I've taken vastly more courses in physics and chemistry and know more about the historical importance of (for instance) Johannes Kepler than the average citizen. But ... yikes. Just yikes.
   1087. spycake Posted: July 19, 2018 at 11:06 PM (#5712968)
The admission by Dershowitz that he didn't see this coming is stunning, if you think about it. Here is a person who has debated and discussed a great many controversial ideological, political, and legal issues over the past half century. About US policy, about constitutional law, about unsavory defendants he was representing, etc.

And even HE didn't understand how utterly deranged, emotional, and childish a great many of the people opposing Trump are.

That is quite a thing.


Or, you know, Dersh is just saying that so they keep putting him in the Washington Examiner, etc.

Moreover, it's fundamentally the same argument as Trump saying "I didn't think that my words in Helsinki could be misinterpreted so badly" -- maybe the error lies not with the listener or the "other side" in Dersh's case, but the "incredulous" observer making the statement.
   1088. Howie Menckel Posted: July 19, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5712976)
Trump was apparently consulted on the timing of the announcement and asked for the indictments to be announced before the meeting rather than after.

Limbaugh claimed this, in fact. I can't, er, vouch for the accuracy of his claim. but he did say it on his show.
   1089. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 19, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5712979)
No, the really stupid thing is to think that averages override all other considerations, and that there's a binary choice between 1876 and 1945.

Averages do override all other considerations, and there is a binary choice, because the question is "Which was better, A or B?" (But despite your attempt to move the goalposts, the choice was between the 1806-1875 time period and the 1876-1945 time periods -- not just between the last year of each grouping).


Right, and on average German Jews were better off between 1876 and 1945 than they were from 1806 and 1876. We don't want to let a flukish 12 year blip throw a monkey wrench into such a precise mathematical judgement. You have to throw out these small sample sizes and concentrate of The Big Picture.
   1090. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 19, 2018 at 11:47 PM (#5712980)
People have a lot of reasons to be deranged, to use a term of art, over Trump. We're talking here about a know-nothing bumfucck/dumfucck who is without substance or character and is bent on antagonizing allies and dismantling associations establishing long ago that have worked successfully and productively. And for what? Yeah, there is some reason to be a little unhinged with fear and worry. Trump is like the blind character in the W.C. Fields movie wildly swinging his cane about the display of electric bulbs

....who's close to closing down the postwar network of alliances on account of molasses.
   1091. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 12:02 AM (#5712982)
If you read between the lines there Dershowitz is essentially making the point that people who are letting emotion drive them probably aren't being logical.


Just because people are being emotional (and sure they are, politics is and has always been particularly emotional) doesn't not mean that one cannot LOGICALLY oppose Trump and everything he "stands" for.


People who are being emotional are more likely to not be thinking logically. This is axiomatic.
   1092. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5712983)
The admission by Dershowitz that he didn't see this coming is stunning, if you think about it.

Yep. It shows how deeply clueless Dershowitz is, and why he probably should stop commenting on the topic.


He was surprised to find that he was surrounded by loons. The post-Trump law professor would never be surprised by this.
   1093. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 12:14 AM (#5712985)
maybe the error lies not with the listener or the "other side" in Dersh's case, but the "incredulous" observer making the statement.


There are two things about TDS:

1. It can't be self-diagnosed.
2. One who has it can't diagnose it in another.

If you don't think you have TDS there are two possibilities:

1. You don't have it.
2. You do have it.

But you can never determine on your own which it is. You'll need an observer who isn't inflicted with TDS to diagnose it in you.
   1094. tshipman Posted: July 20, 2018 at 01:51 AM (#5712989)
There are two things about TDS:

1. It can't be self-diagnosed.
2. One who has it can't diagnose it in another.

If you don't think you have TDS there are two possibilities:

1. You don't have it.
2. You do have it.

But you can never determine on your own which it is. You'll need an observer who isn't inflicted with TDS to diagnose it in you.


"Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!"
   1095. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:10 AM (#5712990)
Ray, #1093:
There are two things about TDS:

1. It can't be self-diagnosed.
2. One who has it can't diagnose it in another.


3. It doesn't exist, except as a false rhetorical banality that unprincipled egotists and trolls use to ennoble their poor choices and crappy observational skills.


Ray, #1093:
If you don't think you have TDS there are two possibilities:

1. You don't have it.
2. You do have it.


3. There is no it.



Ray, #1093:
But you can never determine on your own which it is. You'll need an observer who isn't inflicted with TDS to diagnose it in you.


Wouldn't it be marvelous for you if real life were remotely like this?

Once your self-worth has become tied up in the rigid insistence that all your opponents are mentally ill, the bothersome fact that all of your opponents AREN'T mentally ill is one of your smaller problems.
   1096. -- Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:02 AM (#5712992)
3. There is no it.


That's not actually a possibility -- any more than it is for something like, say, global warming.

   1097. BrianBrianson Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:05 AM (#5712993)
On this side of a pond if you were a white guy what was so hard about being born in 1810 and living in the 19th century?


Uhm, seriously? You want to be a child in eighteen hundred and froze to death? And, of course, you've already had to specify "white guy". But, In 1810, the inflation adjusted GDP per capita in the US is ~$1000/year, in 1880 it was ~$4000/year - you don't think being born into a family that's (on average) four times wealthier is going to make your life better? From 1810 to 1880, life expectancy increased from ~40 to ~45 (which I'd assume was driven by infant mortality rates dropping, though I couldn't find it explicitly broken out). For all the brew-ha-ha about WWI, about 15000 Americans died in the War of 1812 from a population of ~10 million, about 110k Americans died in WWI from a population of 90 million - it's not like War was invented in the 1900s.

People born in 1880 lived longer, were wealthier, and had more rights than those born in 1810. What's not to prefer?
   1098. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:06 AM (#5712994)
Limbaugh claimed this, in fact. I can't, er, vouch for the accuracy of his claim. but he did say it on his show.

Oh, ok. Thanks.
   1099. spycake Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:48 AM (#5712996)
But you can never determine on your own which it is. You'll need an observer who isn't inflicted with TDS to diagnose it in you.


And no observer better to do that than famed former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, making the rounds of conservative media! Or one of the trolls sane, rational observers that Dersh has trained through said media appearances.
   1100. spycake Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:49 AM (#5712997)
Flip
Page 11 of 16 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-16-2018
(50 - 1:42am, Aug 17)
Last: Hank Gillette

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (August 2018)
(857 - 1:28am, Aug 17)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOTP 2018 August 13: 'Don't confuse sports with politics,' Kosovo tells Bosnia
(1149 - 1:11am, Aug 17)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogRays Disrupt Baseball’s Tanking Industry by — Get This — Trying to Win - The New York Times
(26 - 12:51am, Aug 17)
Last: Stormy JE

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(93 - 12:44am, Aug 17)
Last: CFBF Rides The Zombie Ice Dragon

Gonfalon CubsThe Third Third
(154 - 12:23am, Aug 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogLooking back at the Gio Gonzalez trade.
(26 - 12:16am, Aug 17)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogLatest bigotry reminds us that baseball is a white man's game.
(251 - 11:49pm, Aug 16)
Last: spanx for the memories

NewsblogRonald Acuna elbow OK | MLB.com
(31 - 11:08pm, Aug 16)
Last: Endless Trash

NewsblogYou make me feel like a natural OMNICHATTER! for August 16, 2018
(164 - 10:58pm, Aug 16)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(293 - 9:57pm, Aug 16)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Cincinnati Reds
(62 - 9:38pm, Aug 16)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogShane Baz is the player to be named later in the Chris Archer deal | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(35 - 9:20pm, Aug 16)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogRamon Laureano threw the s**t out of this baseball.
(150 - 7:10pm, Aug 16)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1945 Results
(12 - 6:33pm, Aug 16)
Last: Chris Fluit

Page rendered in 0.8409 seconds
46 querie(s) executed