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 09, 2018

OTP 2018 July 9: Why It’s Hard to ‘Stick to Sports’

A quote attributed to the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren reads: “I always turn to the sports pages first, which records people’s accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man’s failures.”

But even in Warren’s lifetime, the sports page was full of things that moved outside the realm of sports accomplishments into the political world of page one: Jackie Robinson breaking the baseball color line, Muhammad Ali’s successful fight to overturn his criminal conviction for refusing military service in the Vietnam War, Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ black power salute from the victory stand of the 1968 Summer Olympics, the enactment of Title IX to expand opportunity for girls in sports, and Curt Flood’s lawsuit to break baseball’s reserve clause.

 

The mix of politics and sports wasn’t unique to Warren’s time. The two worlds have never been, never were, and never will be as separate as many imagine or would like them to be. Sports isn’t immune from capital-P political oversight and opinions, which grow out of the small-p politics about how we as people organize our lives and societies. In other words, angrily telling sports media figures and athletes themselves to “stick to sports”—a popular demand these days when sports and politics mix on social media—is an impossible ask.


(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 09, 2018 at 08:02 AM | 1010 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 5 of 11 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   401. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5708340)

Another winner from Andy's favorite fact checking enterprise: Politifact evaluated Missouri GOP senate candidate Josh Hawley's claim that "Claire McCaskill voted for 100 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees." Now, did Claire McCaskill vote for 100 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees?

Spoiler Alert: Yes.

Did Politifact rate the statement as true?

Three guesses, and the first two don't count. (Spoiler Alert: Nope.)

They only called it Mostly true.
   402. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5708347)

This will be about whether Kavanugh hates women and black people, and whether he wants to personally drag poor people out of hospital beds and throw them into the gutter or leave that to Trump, and whether he thinks the president to be above the law.
I was mistaken. NARAL's approach is to call him a "frat boy." Seriously.
   403. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5708349)
@andrewfeinberg:
BREAKING: @realDonaldTrump @WhiteHouse releases Executive Order to end competitive selection process for Administrative Law Judges, making them political appointees who can be fired at will.

That's some serious, and incorrect, spin. Compare with the Washington Post - Trump Moves To Shield Administrative Law Judges In Wake Of Supreme Court Decision. The hiring process for ALJs will be similar to that for career attorneys, who are not usually considered political appointees and are seldom fired.
   404. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5708352)
Your point being what, exactly?

As seemed apparent, that you, too, don't share the view that voting against Kavanaugh would be a cost-free vote for Red State Democrats running this year.


My only point is that I'll leave it to those red state Democrats to form their own risk/reward assessment, and vote accordingly without any back seat driving from me.
   405. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5708355)
Hawley would probably get more sympathy on that front if his new site wasn't so clear that it's not hypocrisy he's calling McCaskill out for... rather, that he thinks it was more appropriate to vote 100% against Obama's nominees and 100% for Trump's.

I mean, he's not making any higher or principled point... he's saying nothing more than that he'll use the same mechanism for his votes.

So.... why do we care again? Or better yet - why do YOU care? Judicial confirmations have become a political exercise. Hawley is saying he'll very much be a part of that tradition, just in the opposite direction.
   406. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5708361)
Another winner from Andy's favorite fact checking enterprise: Politifact evaluated Missouri GOP senate candidate Josh Hawley's claim that "Claire McCaskill voted for 100 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees." Now, did Claire McCaskill vote for 100 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees?

Spoiler Alert: Yes.

Did Politifact rate the statement as true?

Three guesses, and the first two don't count. (Spoiler Alert: Nope.)

They only called it Mostly true.


If anyone bothers to read PolitiFact's reasoning, they'll be able to see why it called Hawley's statement "mostly true".** Not everything is binary, and much as "context" is a dirty word in your vocabulary, it's an important consideration when evaluating a politician's claim. We know you view yourself as a modern day Reed Irvine in righteous shining armor, but your anti-fact checking shtick is about as convincing as Trump's.

** And if you're going to quote from it, quote the whole response.
   407. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5708364)
The hiring process for ALJs will be similar to that for career attorneys, who are not usually considered political appointees and are seldom fired.


Where 'usually' does the heavy lifting for a President virtually allergic to 'usually'.
   408. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5708366)

Each chamber elects the leader of the chamber. The leader of the chamber has enormous power to determine what comes up for a vote and how that vote progresses. This same system likewise determines who chairs which committees - and each committee chair likewise has enormous, almost unilateral influence over things like oversight (and subpoenas) and the like.

So ultimately, I don't care if Joe Manchin votes 99% lockstep with the GOP... so long as that 1% is the difference between who holds the gavel, sets the agenda, and determines the course and method of oversight.


In the current system and political environment, this rationale makes good sense. But it's also the standard argument for the old DLC which moved the Party as a whole steadily to the right.... and it doesn't make the DINO safer in the long run.

The problem is the system itself is DINO.
   409. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5708369)
As seemed apparent, that you, too, don't share the view that voting against Kavanaugh would be a cost-free vote for Red State Democrats running this year.


No, he seems to trust in the various Senators to make the appropriate calculation all on their own, and no matter how they decide he doesn't plan to hold it against them.

EDIT: Coke
   410. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5708371)
From the fact checker in #401:
It’s worth noting, though, that the Republican ranks of senators that Hawley hopes to join also supported Obama’s judicial picks overwhelmingly. . . . In other words, 82 percent of Obama’s nominees received minimal opposition from Republicans. Eighty-two percent support is lower than the 100 percent support rate for McCaskill, but it does make Hawley’s seemingly black-and-white contrast between hard-line Republican opposition to Obama’s picks and blanket Democratic support a bit blurrier. . . . This may surprise people who tune in to judicial nominations only for Supreme Court seats, battles that have become increasingly acrimonious. But for Obama’s lower-court nominations — and particularly for district-court seats, which are the initial trial-level federal courts — most nominees were easily confirmed.

Seems like there are numerous Democratic claims about Obama's judicial nominations that would be clearly refuted by this info, although it's only being used to provide "context" to a GOP claim that is entirely accurate. Hmm.
   411. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5708373)
As seemed apparent, that you, too, don't share the view that voting against Kavanaugh would be a cost-free vote for Red State Democrats running this year.

No, he seems to trust in the various Senators to make the appropriate calculation all on their own, and no matter how they decide he doesn't plan to hold I against them.


Ding, ding, we have a winner!
   412. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5708376)
Now, did Claire McCaskill vote for 100 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees?
She didn't vote for Merrick Garland on his Supreme Court nomination, and was an Obama nominee, so if I were going to be super pedantic like someone I know who posts here quite frequently, I'd say that Politifact is wrong, and the statement that McCaskill voted for 100% of Obama's nominees is categorically false. Pants on fire, even.
   413. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5708377)
Seems like there are numerous Democratic claims about Obama's judicial nominations that would be clearly refuted by this info, although it's only being used to provide "context" to a GOP claim that is entirely accurate. Hmm.

So why don't you and David spend the rest of your productive outs afternoon digging up all those other instances, hmmmmmm?
   414. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5708380)
So.... why do we care again? Or better yet - why do YOU care? Judicial confirmations have become a political exercise. Hawley is saying he'll very much be a part of that tradition, just in the opposite direction.
I don't care how she voted. I care about how some gullible people *cough*Andy*cough* take these fact-checking sites as gospel despite their unreliability.


EDIT: And to respond to Andy's 406, yes, they explain their wrong grade for the statement. It doesn't make the grade any less wrong. It's not "mostly" true; it's true. If they want to provide additional details, that's fine, but none of those details make the statement only mostly true instead of plain old true.
   415. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:35 PM (#5708395)
EDIT: And to respond to Andy's 406, yes, they explain their wrong grade for the statement. It doesn't make the grade any less wrong. It's not "mostly" true; it's true. If they want to provide additional details, that's fine, but none of those details make the statement only mostly true instead of plain old true.

Spoken like the lawyer you are. Fact checking isn't always a matter of context-free mathematical measurement, with "True" and "False" being the only allowable choices. Anyone who takes the trouble to read Politifact's explanation of their rating will find little reason to think that they're accusing Howley of any misrepresentation.
   416. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5708400)
Anyone who takes the trouble to read Politifact's explanation of their rating will find little reason to think that they're accusing Howley of any misrepresentation.

I will agree that they are like movie reviews. Sometimes a 'thumbs up' review doesn't make me want to see it and a 'thumbs down' review does.

In this case, politifact is trying to imagine everything that a reader might be inferring by the statement and wants to add a qualifier. "McCaskill voted for 100% of Obama's appointee" is true but they are imagining someone inferring "McCaskill blindly rubberstamped all of Obama's appointees no matter how bad they were" from the statement. They shouldn't use 'mostly true' for that because that's dumb. If they want to bait people into reading the clarifications in their article (and getting more clicks on their site) they should say 'true with a clarification'.
   417. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5708401)
Does accurately describing Gorsuch’s seat as stolen bother you because you don’t want to acknowledge it was an illegitimate power play to maintain a conservative majority? Would it bother you if the next time there’s a Democratic senate and president Gorsuch is impeached and replaced? That seems like a much better solution to me than court packing. (The ideal long term solution would be the various proposals for long, fixed, staggered terms, but that requires an amendment and is presumably more difficult).
   418. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:47 PM (#5708405)
Ah you need 2/3 of members present to impeach a justice, so my brilliant plan won’t work unless a lot of states secede
   419. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5708406)
I will agree that Gorsuch's seat was stolen. I think that's accurate. It's a done deal, though. Sometimes they get away with it. The coming confirmation is not for Gorsuch's seat.
   420. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5708412)
And impeachment starts in the House, not Senate. Alas, to get the stolen seat back they’ll have to wait until there’s a Democratic senate and a vacancy opens up under a Republican President.
   421. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5708414)
This may be inconvenient for some - Voters Oppose Abolishing ICE:
A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that most voters oppose eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the homeland security agency some liberal Democrats have called for abolishing. Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided.

But a plurality of Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE, the poll shows. Among Democrats, 43 percent say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34 percent say it should keep ICE. Majorities of Republicans (79 percent) and independents (54 percent) want the government to keep ICE.
. . .
A handful of liberal figures — including some potential 2020 presidential candidates, like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — have also called for eliminating or replacing ICE, as have other Democratic primary challengers, like Cynthia Nixon, who is running against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
. . .
“[C]ongressional candidates who embrace the ‘Abolish ICE’ movement could have a difficult time appealing to voters across party lines,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s managing director. “For example, over three-fifths (61 percent) of Republicans and 41 percent of independents say they would be less likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supported getting rid of ICE.”

The poll also shows an uptick in Trump’s approval rating, from 43 percent in late June to 46 percent in the new poll.

Might need a new slogan, eh?
   422. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5708415)
@juliaioff:
Ran into an old source from Moscow here in Brussels and asked him how Moscow sees Trump. “As a total idiot, a useful battering ram who goes after the American elite and NATO.”
   423. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5708416)
419- they almost certainly don’t have the votes to stop the nomination, but the next time they do they absolutely should prevent a Republican nominee from going through.
   424. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5708417)
Anyone who takes the trouble to read Politifact's explanation of their rating will find little reason to think that they're accusing Howley of any misrepresentation.

I will agree that they are like movie reviews. Sometimes a 'thumbs up' review doesn't make me want to see it and a 'thumbs down' review does.

In this case, politifact is trying to imagine everything that a reader might be inferring by the statement and wants to add a qualifier. "McCaskill voted for 100% of Obama's appointee" is true but they are imagining someone inferring "McCaskill blindly rubberstamped all of Obama's appointees no matter how bad they were" from the statement. They shouldn't use 'mostly true' for that because that's dumb. If they want to bait people into reading the clarifications in their article (and getting more clicks on their site) they should say 'true with a clarification'.


That'd probably be a slight improvement in this particular case, but I'd think that "Mostly true" would trigger the same sort of curiosity as "true with a clarification". In both cases a reader who cares about the rating one way or the other is going to wonder what was behind it, and proceed to the explanation.
   425. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 11, 2018 at 01:59 PM (#5708418)
My main takeaway from this summit is that Trump has gained so much weight he can't button his suit coat. He looks awful.
   426. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5708421)
419- they almost certainly don’t have the votes to stop the nomination, but the next time they do they absolutely should prevent a Republican nominee from going through.
Well, now that we have the McConnell rule, if the Democrats control the Senate, they should never approve a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a Republican president. I mean, that's the new rule under Mitch. Hell, I'd probably extend that to circuit nominees. Next election is always just around the corner.
   427. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5708425)
From the 'it would be funny if it wasn't so sad' files:

Trump spiritual adviser: Jesus would have been sinful if he broke immigration laws:
President Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White said this week that Jesus would have been sinful and “would not have been our Messiah” if he had broken immigration laws.

White, who recently toured an immigrant detention center in Virginia, said during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) on Monday that there was a difference between the immigrants being detained for illegally entering the U.S. and Jesus being a refugee in Egypt.

The Gospel of Matthew describes Jesus and his parents Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt shortly after Jesus’s birth to escape King Herod, who sought to kill the infant.

"I think so many people have taken biblical scriptures out of context on this, to say stuff like, 'Well, Jesus was a refugee,’ ” White told CBN. “And yes, he did live in Egypt for 3 1/2 years. But it was not illegal. If he had broke the law then he would have been sinful and he would not have been our Messiah."
   428. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5708429)
Might need a new slogan, eh?

"Build the wall and make Mexico pay for it!" How did that one poll? :-)
   429. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5708433)
The poll also shows an uptick in Trump’s approval rating, from 43 percent in late June to 46 percent in the new poll.

By coincidence, Trump's net aggregate rating is now negative double digits on RCP for the first time in a month, and on Gallup it's back to -15%.

Oh, and wake me when a Democrat in a swing state or district comes out for abolishing ICE, as opposed to calling for it to clean up its act when it comes to indiscriminate roundups.

And while you're at it, you can also throw in your estimate of how Trump would do in either approval polls or elections if white nationalist sympathizers were disqualified from either responding or voting. He'd quickly find himself in Alf Landon or Walter Mondale territory.
   430. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:09 PM (#5708435)
"Mostly true" would trigger the same sort of curiosity

Sure, but it'll also irk the pedants no part of the statement is not true. You could argue that pedants are a significant share of a fact-checking website's audience.
   431. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:09 PM (#5708436)
My main takeaway from this summit is that Trump has gained so much weight he can't button his suit coat. He looks awful.

He's just prepping himself for his visit to London, where his bloat will be compared to the Trump diaper baby float. It'll be a close match.
   432. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:13 PM (#5708443)
This goes out to all you feckless Trump cockholsters (you know who you are) who continue to parrot the Trump propaganda that asylum seekers need to do it the right way, present themselves at a port of entry to make their claim, if they don't want to have their children taken away:

At the border, my son was taken from me

I came to the United States on February 20, 2018, to seek political asylum. As I walked across the international bridge, which connects Brownsville, Texas, to Matamoros, Mexico, I felt fear rising in my throat.

I was walking toward an uncertain future. At the same time, I was leaving behind a life of known danger. I had fled my home country of Honduras with my 18-month-old son after government violence threatened our lives. Now, with my baby in my arms, I was approaching a US port of entry to seek refuge.

I knew that the asylum process could take a long time, and that it was possible that my son and I would be detained while we waited for a judge to decide our futures.

I never could have imagined they would take him away from me. But soon I discovered how the US immigration system truly works.

After I told the officers that I was here to seek asylum, they brought me into a room and asked me questions about why I had come to the United States. I told them of the danger that I had faced in Honduras -- resulting from a military crackdown against protests following a contested presidential election. Each day people were disappearing; I fled just after the military tear-gassed our home.

I turned over documents that showed both my identity and my son's, including my Honduran ID card, his birth certificate and his birth record from the hospital -- and the latter two documents listed me as his mother. The officers kept all these documents, and they never asked any questions about whether he was my son.

We spent that night in a facility -- it would be the last night that my son would sleep in my arms for months.

When we woke up the next morning, immigration officers brought us outside where there were two government cars waiting. They said that I would be going to one place, and my son would go to another. I asked why repeatedly, but they didn't give me a reason.


She did it all the right way. Went to a port of entry, made her claim (which was ruled to be credible and was granted asylum), had proper ID for her and her daughter, and immigration official separated them for 2.5 months.
   433. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:16 PM (#5708448)
"Mostly true" would trigger the same sort of curiosity

Sure, but it'll also irk the pedants no part of the statement is not true. You could argue that pedants are a significant share of a fact-checking website's audience.


Personally I don't give a rat's ass about what pedants think of PolitiFact. 99% of the objections to fact checkers are purely partisan ref gaming, mostly coming these from the defenders of the World's Biggest Liar.

But that said, I wouldn't object to your suggestion about a change in wording, even if the pedants would continue to nitpick as ever before.
   434. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5708453)
This goes out to all you feckless Trump cockholsters (you know who you are) who continue to parrot the Trump propaganda that asylum seekers need to do it the right way, present themselves at a port of entry to make their claim, if they don't want to have their children taken away:

At the border, my son was taken from me

She did it all the right way. Went to a port of entry, made her claim (which was ruled to be credible and was granted asylum), had proper ID for her and her daughter, and immigration official separated them for 2.5 months.


Don't worry, they'll find a way to blame her, and Trump will probably invite that immigration official to a special reception at the White House. He's Trump's kind of people.
   435. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5708455)
Judge Kavanaugh demonstrating his hostility toward women:
Of the 48 clerks who worked for Judge Kavanaugh over 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 25 were women, said Katie Wellington, who worked for him in 2014, when all four clerks were women, including Usha Chilukuri Vance, who now clerks for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The Class of 2014 “was the first year that any judge on the D.C. Circuit had hired four female law clerks,” said Ms. Wellington, now an associate at Hogan Lovells in Washington. “It was important to him. His mother was a judge,” she said, adding that 20 of Judge Kavanaugh’s female law clerks have clerked on the Supreme Court.

If only his father had been the District Attorney.
   436. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5708464)
Would it bother you if the next time there’s a Democratic senate and president Gorsuch is impeached and replaced? That seems like a much better solution to me than court packing.

The left's embrace of fanciful banana republic strategies knows no limits, apparently. You, sir, are an idiot, but feel free to encourage others to run on your "brilliant" platform.
   437. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:27 PM (#5708470)
The left's embrace of fanciful banana republic strategies knows no limits, apparently, You, sir, are an idiot, but feel free to encourage others to run on your "brilliant" platform.


Trumpkins are not allowed to raise any such complaints.

Doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't, but if you're a Trump cultist - you forfeit any credibility to proclaim anything ridiculous or banana republic or the like.

Stop being a Trumpkin and you're welcome to resubmit.
   438. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5708478)
"I think so many people have taken biblical scriptures out of context on this, to say stuff like, 'Well, Jesus was a refugee,’ ” White told CBN. “And yes, he did live in Egypt for 3 1/2 years. But it was not illegal. If he had broke the law then he would have been sinful and he would not have been our Messiah."


Are you sure this wasn't Eric Idle from Life of Brian?
   439. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5708480)
Does accurately describing Gorsuch’s seat as stolen bother you because you don’t want to acknowledge it was an illegitimate power play to maintain a conservative majority?
No; it bothers me because it's delusional. If you want to describe it as a power play, well, duh. If you want to characterize it as illegitimate, well, that's just like your opinion, man. But calling it "stolen" is nutty.

Would it bother you if the next time there’s a Democratic senate and president Gorsuch is impeached and replaced? That seems like a much better solution to me than court packing.
Really? Violating their oaths of office by impeaching someone who hasn't committed any high crimes or misdemeanors is a better solution to you? I mean, court packing is kind of banana republic, but it's legal. Impeachment, not so much (though it would be nonjusticiable). Either approach depends on an awful lot of election victories for Democrats, though.
   440. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5708499)
Yeah as I wrote right after that post, impeachment isn’t feasible. But given that the seat was stolen, removing the person who is illegitimately in the seat now would be the cleanest solution, better than court packing (which I don’t like at all, to be clear) or just waiting around until the situation is reversed.

Also you’re fine with illegitimate but not stolen? Weird parsing.
   441. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5708500)
My main takeaway from this summit is that Trump has gained so much weight he can't button his suit coat. He looks awful.

He rarely buttoned the suit coat, from 11/8/16 on. I haven't noticed any weight gain. Hes been a fat guy for many years now. I hear he doesn't eat well.
   442. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 11, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5708509)
Manafort is being transferred. He requested the transfer. Then he withdrew the request after he found out the new accommodations would be less cushy than his current digs. The judge had already approved the transfer before Manafort withdrew the transfer request, and won't allow Manafort to stay where he currently is. Sad!
   443. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5708516)
I hear he doesn't eat well.


Well, he does make a few mistakes.
   444. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5708517)
Well, now that we have the McConnell rule, if the Democrats control the Senate, they should never approve a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a Republican president.

Let say by some miracle the Democrats (it doesn't seem likely) take the Senate in this election, you wouldn't allow any Scotus or judge nominees to go through? What if Trump won relection? How many years would it go?

I am not a fan of what McConnell did. The President gets to name the judges, Senate should confirm if reasonable. Kavanaugh seems reasonable.
   445. Count Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:07 PM (#5708520)
444- I would block him from appointing a conservative nominee for SCOTUS (as in, one- after the theft of the seat is rectified, I would go back to voting on nominees as usual).
   446. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5708525)
Let say by some miracle the Democrats (it doesn't seem likely) take the Senate in this election, you wouldn't allow any Scotus or judge nominees to go through? What if Trump won relection? How many years would it go?

I am not a fan of what McConnell did. The President gets to name the judges, Senate should confirm if reasonable. Kavanaugh seems reasonable.


Well, he gospel according to Clapper is that if someone in the opposition suggest something, one is perfectly justified in doing it. Cll it the Burr-McCain rule

Some Republicans say if Hillary Clinton becomes president, they’re prepared to leave one or more Supreme Court seats vacant long-term – a political maneuver that could result in Americans living under a variety of legal decisions and uncertain about their fundamental constitutional rights, law experts say.

North Carolina’s U.S. Sen. Richard Burr this week became the latest to pledge he’ll stonewall Clinton’s nominee for the current Supreme Court vacancy if she beats Donald Trump.



From a link in the article:

Burr says he’ll oppose any Clinton Supreme Court nominee: “If Hillary becomes president, I’m going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we’re still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court,” he said.

Burr’s position matches that of U.S. Sen. John McCain, who recently said Republicans will block anyone Clinton might nominate to the Supreme Court.

   447. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5708534)
In polling news yet to be noted here - Hawley Leads McCaskill by 2% for Missouri Senate.
   448. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5708536)
Let say by some miracle the Democrats (it doesn't seem likely) take the Senate in this election, you wouldn't allow any Scotus or judge nominees to go through? What if Trump won relection? How many years would it go?
As long as Democrats hold the Senate under a Republican president. That's the McConnell Rule. It's actually kind of a hybrid McConnell/Grassley rule. The Grassley rule is that open seats on the DC Circuit shouldn't be filled by a Democratic president because the DC Circuit isn't really all that busy, and furthermore, filling open seats on a court is the same thing as court packing. Basically, under the Grassley rule, Trump has been packing the Supreme Court. So I would argue that the Supreme Court really isn't that busy and doesn't need all of its seats filled as long the Democrats have the Senate (were they to flip in in November) under a Republican president.

And does anyone who isn't totally credulous believe that Hillary would have been able to seat a SCOTUS justice while McConnell was in charge?* Especially with Breyer or Ginsburg the odds on favorites to be the next to kick the bucket? He would have rolled with 8 and a 4-4 split until one of them croaked and the right had 4-3 majority again, and he would have rolled with 7 until he either got a Republican president or the Republicans lost the Senate. Plenty of time to do damage in the interim.
I am not a fan of what McConnell did. The President gets to name the judges, Senate should confirm if reasonable. Kavanaugh seems reasonable.
Your faith in the idea that there are still "norms" is precious. I mean, sure, that used to the case. But once a "norm" is destroyed, it's gone forever.

*was typing this while Miserlou posted the Burr-McCain rule.
   449. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5708547)
Well, he gospel according to Clapper is that if someone in the opposition suggest something, one is perfectly justified in doing it. Cll it the Burr-McCain rule.

As usual, Misirlou is just making stuff up. McCain backed off that stance almost immediately, and it was never embraced by the GOP Senate leadership. There was never any GOP plan to block any Supreme Court nominees for 4 years, and, of course, those convinced that Hillary would be elected, were also certain that she would bring a Democratic Senate with her, hence the Democratic calls to remove the filibuster to confirm her nominees.
   450. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5708551)
And does anyone who isn't totally credulous believe that Hillary would have been able to seat a SCOTUS justice while McConnell was in charge?

I don't want to go too far down an alternate history path, but before the election, Ted Cruz floated the idea of stopping confirmations indefinitely. I'm sure that was debated here at the time.

Edit -- major cokes today... I'm way behind.
   451. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:26 PM (#5708556)
As usual, Misirlou is just making stuff up. McCain backed off that stance almost immediately


If he put it in a tweet it is valid forever and will serve to his eternal discredit.
   452. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5708577)
As usual, Misirlou is just making stuff up.


As usual, I did not. He said it. McCain said it. Apparently Cruz said it. These things can be verified you know.
   453. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5708579)
As long as Democrats hold the Senate under a Republican president. That's the McConnell Rule.

The Fact Checkers say you're wrong, but you knew that before you posted your claim. The "McConnell Rule" was merely the application of the Senate's long-time practice of acting on few, if any, presidential election-year judicial nominations. That's practice that has affected hundreds of nominations in recent decades, including John Roberts & Elena Kagan. Of course, since Democrats eliminated the filibuster for nominations, you now need a Senate majority to enforce the rule.
   454. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5708586)
@juliadavisnews:
#Russia's state TV:
Tatyana Parkhalina:
"I never thought I’d live to see this—neither the USSR nor Russia, who tried many times to drive the wedge between transatlantic allies, but Washington is doing everything to break down the foundations of transatlantic alliance & unity."©️
   455. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5708587)
I just learned that Clapper has been erroneously calling the 'Thurmond rule' by the wrong name... Golly, if one cannot trust Clapper to present an honest and objective case, who CAN we trust?
   456. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5708588)
The "McConnell Rule" was merely the application of the Senate's long-time practice of acting on few, if any, presidential election-year judicial nominations.
That's your interpretation. If Republicans can just make #### up and call it "the Biden Rule", then Democrats can just make #### up and call it the "the McConnell Rule". The fact is that by the Republicans' very own words and actions, if Democrats were to flip the Senate this year, they'd be perfectly justified in never filling an open seat under a Republican president. And even if slimy little weasels like Clapper disagree, who cares? There are no norms anymore. Anything goes in the new Wild Wild West of DC.
   457. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5708591)
From Monday, @danielbshapiro:
1. I don't think we are fully grappling with the possibility that we could be on the on the cusp of a completely new era, a fundamental reshaping of the international order. And I don't mean over the course of the Trump Administration. I mean by next week.

2. It sounds outlandish to even say it out loud, and some can easily call this hyperbole. I hope to God it does not happen. But we would be insane not to grapple with the possibility.

3. Trump clearly wants to pull the US out of NATO. He doesn't believe in the alliance (or any alliances); he thinks our allies take advantage of us; he complains that NATO is worse than NAFTA(whatever that means); he seeks purely transactional relations with our closest partners.

4. Should other NATO members meet their 2% of GDP defense spending targets? Absolutely. Trump is on solid ground to push for it. But to consistently trash allies, undervalue their contributions to our security, threaten to withdraw US troops -- that's him wanting out.

5. Perhaps most damaging is that his rhetoric is building up hostility to NATO among his supporters. It's a huge breach in the consensus American support for the alliance that has undergirded Western security for 70 years, and it won't disappear when Trump does.

6. What's more, his passionate desire for friendship with Putin is emboldening Russia & risks doing further damage to European security. If he recognizes Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, if he seeks to tone down sanctions on Russia over its aggression vs Ukraine, watch out.

7. This could play out in the next 2 weeks. If he sabotages the NATO summit the way he did the G-7, don't be surprised if he actually makes a move toward exiting NATO. Think he won't? On what basis? Because his staff restrains him? Because of his strategic understanding? Please.

8. If we get there, the implications are innumerable & terrifying: Russia pawing at Baltics &other; E & C European states; breakdown of joint defense structures; withdrawal of US troops from Euro bases; less restrained German foreign policy; weaker US power projection to Eurasia.

9. That just scratches the surface. We honestly cannot begin to imagine living in a new era without these international organizing structures. Because for all of NATO's challenges, no sane person or American political leader has or would contemplate such a reckless move.

10. But it could happen. Our President doesn't know the history or strategy, doesn't listen to experts, personalizes everything & makes it transactional, & loves the drama of the outrageous move that dominates cable TV coverage. For him, pulling out of NATO is all gain, no cost.

11. Even as I write this, it sounds fantastical. I will be the happiest person on the planet if I look back at this thread and say, man, you were way overreacting. But we need to be ready for this awful scenario to play out.

12. I repeat: we are potentially on the verge of a wildly dangerous cascade of events that will devastate our interests, weaken our leadership, abandon our allies, embolden our adversaries, and make the world a darker and more brutal place.

13. We have done no planning for this course of action. No one thinks it is a good idea. But one man, whose knowledge and values are wanting, whose motivation is suspect, and whose supporters follow him blindly, could take us there. END


Imagine supporting this and thinking you're a serious person with this country's best interests at heart.
   458. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5708593)
Since Republicans said mean things about Democrats I think they are morally obligated to block any GOP judicial nominations once they gain a majority in the Senate. Just saying.
   459. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5708599)
The GOP owns everything Trump does. All the lies and idiocy and damage. They own it.

I really hope the tax cut and SCOTUS appointments were worth it to you short sighted idiots.
   460. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5708601)
That's your interpretation. If Republicans can just make #### up and call it "the Biden Rule", then Democrats can just make #### up and call it the "the McConnell Rule". The fact is that by the Republicans' very own words and actions, if Democrats were to flip the Senate this year, they'd be perfectly justified in never filling an open seat under a Republican president. And even if slimy little weasels like Clapper disagree, who cares? There are no norms anymore. Anything goes in the new Wild Wild West of DC.


Exactly. Clapper doesn't get to define the terms. Republicans were justified in doing something because some Democrats once said they might do that thing, but Democrats can't do something because some Republicans once said they would do something, because the second something isn't the exact same thing as the first something. It's quite a load of bullshit you are selling, but we aren't buying.
   461. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5708606)
I really hope the tax cut and SCOTUS appointments were worth it to you short sighted idiots.


Haven't you heard? Democrats are responsible for Trump.
   462. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5708609)
That's your interpretation. If Republicans can just make #### up and call it "the Biden Rule", then Democrats can just make #### up and call it the "the McConnell Rule". The fact is that by the Republicans' very own words and actions, if Democrats were to flip the Senate this year, they'd be perfectly justified in never filling an open seat under a Republican president. And even if slimy little weasels like Clapper disagree, who cares? There are no norms anymore. Anything goes in the new Wild Wild West of DC.

The Fact Checkers cited in #453 say you're wrong, but everyone already knew that. Some Democrats here want to impose all kinds of banana republic measures - packing the courts, impeaching judges appointed by the opposing party, and blocking all judicial appointments - while trying to suggest that the GOP made them embrace the banana republic measures. It's a ridiculous claim.
   463. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5708616)
It's a ridiculous claim.
The McConnell-Grassley and McCain-Burr-Cruz rules say otherwise.
   464. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5708626)
Brace yourselves, Chinese trout and badger hair is about to get more expensive.

The US is running out of Chinese exports to tax

Tuesday's list includes live trout, which hasn't been imported from China for decades, as Bloomberg first noted, as well as obscure items such as badger hair.
   465. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5708629)
Exactly. Clapper doesn't get to define the terms. Republicans were justified in doing something because some Democrats once said they might do that thing, but Democrats can't do something because some Republicans once said they would do something, because the second something isn't the exact same thing as the first something. It's quite a load of bullshit you are selling, but we aren't buying.


Even more to the point, who care? The GOP has shown very convincingly over the last 10 years or so that the voters don't care. They will not punish politicians who act that way. So even if Clapper is 100% correct, so what? Suddenly voters are going to notice when the Democrats refuse to vote on a Trump appointee? Yeah, I bet not.

So unless Clapper or someone else can explain why Democrats should care about the norms, This-That rule or The-Other Rule, I don't care since the voters don't care.

Plus Republicans said mean things about some Democrats, so we have the total moral high ground.
   466. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5708639)
It isn't enough for Clapper to stand in on his balcony twiddle this thumbs and gleefully mutter "excellent...", he has a troll a bunch of grieving lefties.

Yes, yes, the right are the aggrieved ones here. Democrats are banana republic dictators. I can't believe they are saying such mean things and breaking the norms of our democracy. We need to ensure that they don't act out like this in the future. It's an outrage I say. Outrage.
   467. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:07 PM (#5708646)
Brace yourselves, Chinese trout and badger hair is about to get more expensive.


Meanwhile, China's retaliatory tariffs have been surgically targeted to hit hardest areas with the highest level of Trump support.

It is a truly, truly, truly a ###### up world where Chinese retaliatory tariffs aimed directly at Trump supporting areas are the best way to show some folks that they elected and continue to support a ####### moron.

There are not words...

   468. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5708648)
Word is the Chinese are targeting Trump's electorate down too the county level. Believable, considering Chinese investment in our economy.

Also Trump backchannel envoy Erik Prince.
   469. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5708652)
That's twice I've been trumped by a minute today.
   470. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5708655)
The Fact Checkers cited ...


It is cute how now Clapper cares about fact checking. If only Clapper cared about facts when any subject but judges came up. Sadly he does not. Oh well.
   471. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5708665)
Word is the Chinese are targeting Trump's electorate down too the county level. Believable, considering Chinese investment in our economy.


More than that - they're also specifically aiming at GOP leadership district at the House level... and guess what three of the top 10 soybean producing states are? Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota.

I mean, this is not a good thing by any stretch.... but it just boggles my mind that the best avenue to get rid of the dumbass is a totalitarian regime using retaliatory tariffs to whack areas the Trump regime needs in its pocket.

   472. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:19 PM (#5708668)
So even if Clapper is 100% correct, so what? Suddenly voters are going to notice when the Democrats refuse to vote on a Trump appointee? Yeah, I bet not.

In light of the stance of BBTF-OTP Team Blue - which seems fairly representative of partisan Democrats generally - in favor of blocking all Trump judicial appointments if Senate Democrats obtain a majority, it seems only fair that the midterm election be contested on that issue. Certainly the voters have a right to know if Democrats are going to impose such a fundamental change to the confirmation process. One can't really argue in favor of stealth here, right? I look forward to the debate.
   473. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5708682)
Russia pawing at Baltics


There's something pornographic about these political fantasies.

I might suggest Trump's bluster makes good cover for plans long ago worked out to pull the US back from it's role as world police. It was gonna happen eventually. The rest of the world has been planning for this contingency, particularly China as Eurasia's central power.
   474. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5708693)
it seems only fair that the midterm election be contested on that issue.


Since when have you ever given 2 shits about fairness?
   475. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5708694)
In light of the stance of BBTF-OTP Team Blue - which seems fairly representative of partisan Democrats generally - in favor of blocking all Trump judicial appointments if Senate Democrats obtain a majority, it seems only fair that the midterm election be contested on that issue. Certainly the voters have a right to know if Democrats are going to impose such a fundamental change to the confirmation process. One can't really argue in favor of stealth here, right? I look forward to the debate.


<Yawn>

You go ahead and talk about whatever you want. I am pretty sure Democrats won't bother taking their talking points from Concern Troll central though.
   476. Shredder Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5708697)
...going to impose...
Funny how the slimy little weasel ignores the reality of the McConnell-Grassley era.
   477. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5708723)
What really makes me feel for the farmers - Trump voters or not, my grandparents were farmers, most of my friends from HS are farmers - is how horrifically screwed lots of them are.

I mean, people who point to the cliff diving in the nearer term futures markets miss the point. These contracts are already fairly long removed from the farmers that grew them, essentially - we're talking mostly about the intermediaries suddenly taking a bath.

The real hurt for farmers - and they're well aware of this - is yet to come. Unlike non-perishables and manufacturing, where you can manage stock/production/etc and react - farmers operate in an eternal flush/poor cycle... you make your picks on what to plant, you buy seed, you buy various other elements (fertilizer, pesticide, etc), you make your investments in equipment or even land... and you hope you made the right call. My grandfather was actually a master at timing the futures markets - during his twilight years (the late 80s), in an era where a helluva lot of farmers went bust when commodities took a real bath. But there's only so much looking ahead you can do -- planting season comes every spring and it's not like you can wait and not make your decisions because the situation looks unsettled. You gotta place your bets and hope.

The more immediate farmers - the hog farmers and what not - are feeling more immediate pain.... but the planters? They're bracing for the fact that the seed they paid X for ~4 months ago is now looking really, really bad.
   478. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5708730)
What really makes me feel for the farmers - Trump voters or not, my grandparents were farmers, most of my friends from HS are farmers - is how horrifically screwed lots of them are.


I suspect that's the real reason congressional Republicans are calling Trump out on this. They are scared to death that their voters will take out their frustration with Trump on the only people on the ballot in November. It's pure damage control.
   479. Lassus Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:54 PM (#5708733)
Imagine supporting this and thinking you're a serious person with this country's best interests at heart.

I'm sure Clapper will speak up on this point at any moment.
   480. Traderdave Posted: July 11, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5708734)
What really makes me feel for the farmers - Trump voters or not, my grandparents were farmers, most of my friends from HS are farmers - is how horrifically screwed lots of them are.


I suspect that's the real reason congressional Republicans are calling Trump out on this. They are scared to death that their voters will take out their frustration with Trump on the only people on the ballot in November. It's pure damage control.


I recall watching the returns on Election Night '16 and wondering why the rural Midwest was a sea of red? Didn't those voters understand their livelihoods depended on trade?

Maybe now they'll see the light
   481. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5708744)
I suspect that's the real reason congressional Republicans are calling Trump out on this. They are scared to death that their voters will take out their frustration with Trump on the only people on the ballot in November. It's pure damage control.


It's happened before - ironically, in the other direction.

In the late 80s/early 90s - the last time farmers took a really big whacking when the bottom really fell out on commodities - you actually saw some far closer than expected races and some partisan-odd results here and there. No, it doesn't show up at all in the R/D spits and results -- but remember, of course, this was an era when the GOP was mostly free trade and the Democrats were pretty split on protectionism vs free trade.

The prevailing CW on something like NAFTA is that it was all about corporate globalism sell-outs... but that completely discounts the fact rural America - i.e., farmers - both supported and VERY MUCH benefited from NAFTA. Hell - forget China, the US owns the lion's share of Mexico's dairy market (and guess where Mexico has aimed its own retaliatory tariffs).

Harkening back to my grandfather -- a man who never graduated the 6th grade, but was certainly a more successful businessman than anyone I've ever met -- I don't think he's ever hated any politician as much as he hated Ross Perot and his "giant sucking sound"... He was a ordinarily a very jolly guy - not that he was averse to dropping a profanity here or there - but I've never heard him utter as many profanities in a single sitting as I heard him say watching one of Perot's appearances just before I left for college.

   482. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5708746)
Both the Brexit vote in the U.K. and — less than six months later — the presidential election of Donald Trump in the United States were unparalleled and unprecedented acts of political, social, and economic self-harm. Both have become bywords for dysfunction, disunity, and dishonesty. And every passing week brings new evidence of the sheer blatantness and shamelessness with which the president of the United States and the leaders of the “leave” camp are just making it up as they go along. The attendant chaos, therefore, is not a bug, it’s a feature; Trump and Brexit have chaos in common.

Who’d have guessed that voting for a reality TV star with a long history of bankrupting his businesses, stiffing his contractors, and defrauding his customers, and with zero knowledge or understanding of public policy, macroeconomics, or international affairs, would be fundamentally incapable of leading or governing the world’s only superpower?

Who’d have imagined that voting to quit the biggest single market on earth — and the country’s largest export market in goods — in proud defiance of the economic experts, and without a clear plan or exit strategy, would result in political and economic disarray?


https://theintercept.com/2018/07/11/brexit-trump-populism/
   483. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5708747)

That's your interpretation. If Republicans can just make #### up and call it "the Biden Rule", then
You misspoke. You meant to say, "If Republicans can just make #### up, travel back in time and hold a gun to Biden's head to force him to say it, and then call it 'the Biden Rule', then..."
   484. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5708750)
The problem is a lot of people were getting ###### by the neoliberal economic order, and shouted out through the transparently fake populism of Trump and Brexit.

The choice of good cop vs bad cop is not a real choice. The financial collapse of 2008 was incredibly real downstream, as were economic austerity measures in Europe and beyond. The idea that right-wing populism arose in a political vacuum, and that the world economic order is either profitable or sustainable for the vast majority of the world's population, is a bad joke.

The European refugee crisis wasn't driven by the right.
   485. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5708751)
I recall watching the returns on Election Night '16 and wondering why the rural Midwest was a sea of red? Didn't those voters understand their livelihoods depended on trade?

Maybe now they'll see the light


Well, that's the thing... it's not all farm country. And in a lot of places - you've got a mix of rust belt industry AND farm country. That's without even getting into the "take Trump seriously or take Trump literally" depending nonsense. I mean, while the guy was promising easy to win, holy trade wars - he was also claiming to be an advocate of free trade... to say nothing of his own defenses of producing his various branded crap in the places that were 'screwing us'.

My own little corner of the midwest - NW Indiana - is something of a perfect encapsulation of this industrial/agricultural mix. You've got a fair number of hallowed out, heavy industry burgs (Gary, South Bend, etc) surrounded by a whole lot of corn/soybean/wheat fields.

It's really a perfect storm of why an unthinking moron like Trump is such a disaster. Balancing the various interests in terms of economics/trade is not an easy or binary thing. Strictly from a national interests perspective - it means you really can't be totally free-trade... but you also shouldn't be totally protectionist. Obviously, to satisfy all constituencies - you need to be both, but that's also obviously not easy to pull off.... so you take a lot of half deals.

Then, enter dumbass Trump - where everything is easy and it's really just a problem because a bunch of poindexters fail to see how easy everything is.

And here we are.

   486. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 11, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5708760)
Looks like Bill Nelson is in a tight spot - Scott Ahead Of Nelson Among South Florida Hispanics:
Gov. Rick Scott is narrowly leading Sen. Bill Nelson among South Florida Hispanic voters, according to a new poll that underscores the Democrat’s potential struggles with Latinos.

Scott’s 42 percent to 39 percent lead over Nelson among likely South Florida Hispanic voters is buoyed by strong support for the Republican governor by Cuban-American voters and relatively weak backing for the Democratic incumbent by non-Cuban Hispanic voters, according to the Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy survey conducted for Telemundo 51 in Miami. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker said the survey is bad news for a Democrat who needs solid Hispanic support statewide. Echoing criticisms from Democratic consultants and Latino activists, Coker said Nelson is to blame for not tending to this growing constituency over his three terms in office. “It’s typical Nelson,” Coker said. “He goes to Washington and he more or less blends in for five years; you don’t hear much from him. And then comes back a year, or a year-and-a-half before the election and he starts putting his coalition together. He has been able to get away with that because he has had historically weak opponents. Not now.”

The survey follows a poll last month that showed Puerto Rican voters in Florida knew and liked Scott better than Nelson — by a 21 percentage-point margin — even though 57 percent of the sample was Democratic. Earlier in June, POLITICO first reported that Democrats were nervous about Nelson’s Latino outreach and were concerned that focus groups also showed Scott was relatively better known and liked among Orlando-area Puerto Ricans, in large part because of his welcoming of Hurricane Maria evacuees in Florida.

That seems to dispute some of the prior chortling here about what a boon Hurricane Maria evacuees from Puerto Rico would be for the Democrats.
   487. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:00 PM (#5708767)
Bill Nelson is a bit of a joke here. I'd rather have him than Skeletor, but it's not surprising he's getting his head handed to him.
   488. BrianBrianson Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5708769)
I might suggest Trump's bluster makes good cover for plans long ago worked out to pull the US back from it's role as world police. It was gonna happen eventually. The rest of the world has been planning for this contingency, particularly China as Eurasia's central power.


It's bizarre that Trump wants to (or has) pulled out of TPP, NAFTA, NATO, and the WTO, - in essence, to dismantle the American Empire - and the far left hates his guts.
   489. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:14 PM (#5708773)
It's bizarre that Trump wants to (or has) pulled out of TPP, NAFTA, NATO, and the WTO, - in essence, to dismantle the American Empire - and the far left hates his guts.


And conversely, the right loves him. Strange bedfellows and all that.
   490. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:36 PM (#5708783)
The Hill:

Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overturn a Trump impeachment
By Aris Folley - 07/10/18 10:52 AM EDT

Alan Dershowitz in a new book says that in the event President Trump is ever impeached, the Supreme Court could intervene and overturn the vote to remove him from office.

Dershowitz pens in “The Case Against Impeaching Trump” that if evidence of collusion with the Russian government arose that incriminated Trump, it would not be a criminal offense.

“It's not a crime to collude with a foreign government. Maybe it should be, but it's not,” Dershowitz told the Washington Examiner prior to his Tuesday book release.

Dershowitz further explained that though such collusion would be a “political sin,” it does not entirely meet the Constitution’s specification of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” needed for impeachment.

The Harvard law professor says in his book that such a development could prompt judicial review, because “this president (and perhaps others) might well refuse to leave office if Congress voted to impeach and remove him based on ‘offenses’ that were not among those enumerated in the Constitution.”

“A Supreme Court that inserted itself into the Bush v. Gore election in order to avoid a constitutional crisis might well decide to review a House decision to impeach and a Senate decision to remove a president who is not accused and convicted of a specified constitutional crime,” Dershowitz continues.

...

Dershowitz writes that impeaching Trump would be possible, though, “if he did it because he was paid or extorted.”
   491. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5708786)
How President Donald Trump could be impeached, according to constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz

Why Dershowitz contends Johnson’s 1868 and Clinton’s 1998 and 1999 impeachment proceedings were illegitimate

July 11, 2018 12:00pm (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz, the famed attorney, constitutional scholar and author of the new book "The Case Against Impeaching Trump," revealed Monday how the president could be impeached in an interview with Salon.

Given the parameters of the U.S. Constitution, the president's actions may amount to grounds for impeachment "only if you can demonstrate that he or she has committed a specified crime — treason, perjury, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," Dershowitz explained.

However, if you cannot prove such a crime, "impeachment becomes an unconstitutional process."

Only three U.S. presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but acquitted and remained in office; Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.

Johnson "didn't commit any high crimes or misdemeanors," while Bill Clinton "committed a low crime in the Oval Office and then testified falsely," Dershowitz said. But Clinton's "wasn't the kind of crime Hamilton and Madison had in mind when they adopted the framework of high crime and misdemeanors," he argued.

Dershowitz believes it is necessary to distinguish between a high crime for impeachment. Although he revealed people are calling him a "Nazi" for defending Trump's right not to be impeached, Dershowitz said , "If he commits a crime, he's not going to be able to count on my defense."

"If he or the next president is impeached for something that isn't a crime," Deshowitz added, "I'm going to stand up for him the same way I stood up for Bill Clinton and probably Andrew Johnson . . . I even defended Nixon's civil liberties, even though I strongly supported his impeachment."

"He committed impeachable crimes. "He paid hush money, he told his people to lie to government officials, he destroyed evidence," Dershowitz continued. "Those are crimes – real obstruction of justice – and I would support any president's impeachment if they committed a misdemeanor or high crime."


Link
   492. perros Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5708787)
It's bizarre that Trump wants to (or has) pulled out of TPP, NAFTA, NATO, and the WTO, - in essence, to dismantle the American Empire - and the far left hates his guts.


And conversely, the right loves him. Strange bedfellows and all that.


Not really. White nationalists oppose globalism in all its facets, and isolationism has always been a component. Read Pat Buchanan, the American Conservative, etc -- the smart ones realize empire building is not ultimately good for their cause.

As for the left, all those orgs are incredibly problematic and largely to be opposed... in favor of something better, not xenophobic willy-nillyism that will be an even worse option. The left wants internationalism, not global dominion rooted in American exceptionalism.

The world is incredibly complex and getting moreso, with ecological and the resulting economic crises bad news for us all. Contradiction and struggle are a given.
   493. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:39 PM (#5708789)
I came to the United States on February 20, 2018, to seek political asylum. As I walked across the international bridge, which connects Brownsville, Texas, to Matamoros, Mexico, I felt fear rising in my throat.

I was walking toward an uncertain future. At the same time, I was leaving behind a life of known danger. I had fled my home country of Honduras with my 18-month-old son after government violence threatened our lives. Now, with my baby in my arms, I was approaching a US port of entry to seek refuge.

I knew that the asylum process could take a long time, and that it was possible that my son and I would be detained while we waited for a judge to decide our futures.

I never could have imagined they would take him away from me. But soon I discovered how the US immigration system truly works.

After I told the officers that I was here to seek asylum, they brought me into a room and asked me questions about why I had come to the United States. I told them of the danger that I had faced in Honduras -- resulting from a military crackdown against protests following a contested presidential election. Each day people were disappearing; I fled just after the military tear-gassed our home.


Why can't these countries live up to the US's standards? What can we do to help them?
   494. Lassus Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5708790)
I might suggest Trump's bluster makes good cover for plans long ago worked out to pull the US back from it's role as world police. It was gonna happen eventually. The rest of the world has been planning for this contingency, particularly China as Eurasia's central power.

I guess snapper's back, as we're pushing for war with China.
   495. Lassus Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:51 PM (#5708792)
One more story of some 6-year-old hurled into the abyss
“Papa, I thought they killed you,” Jefferson told his father, crying. “You separated from me. You don’t love me anymore?”

“No, my son,” Che Coc told him. “I’m crying for you. I promise, soon you will be with me.”

Each day since, Che Coc waits anxiously to hear from two caseworkers, a woman and a man he knows simply as Nancy and Guario.

They tell him that Jefferson is in school, that he’s clothed, fed and cared for.

This brings the father little comfort. He worries he won’t be with his boy for his birthday, which is next Friday. He also worries his son may feel even more isolated than other children because he mostly speaks Mayan Q'eqchi'.

The last time Che Coc spoke to Jefferson, about a week ago, he saw his son’s face via video. There was a prominent bruise on his forehead.

“I fell off the bed,” the boy said, crying.

“It’s OK, this happens sometimes,” Che Coc told him, struggling to find the right words.

He wanted to comfort his son, to tell him that he was going to heal and be OK, but the reception was bad.

Maybe someone should take Clapper from his family. Probably be doing them a favor, though.
   496. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:56 PM (#5708795)
Why can't these countries live up to the US's standards? What can we do to help them?


Assuming this is a serious question, let's start by ending the insane war on drugs.
   497. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:58 PM (#5708796)
It's going to be super exciting when a Democratic House impeaches Justice Gorsuch, at the same time that the Supreme Court overturns Donald Trump's impeachment.

I just hope they get all of that wrapped up by the end of March 2019, so we can concentrate of the blockbuster last season of "Game of Thrones." Reportedly the show was considering the identical storyline, but decided it wasn't realistic.
   498. BrianBrianson Posted: July 11, 2018 at 06:59 PM (#5708798)
And, of course, while the US is at a fairly high standard at the moment, it's gone through periods of civil war, widespread insurrection, widespread domestic terrorism, and so on.
   499. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 07:20 PM (#5708803)
Poor Dershy...

His Martha's Vineyard social calendar has become so sparse that he's now forced to walk a lonely trek of forever searching out greenrooms with better deli plates.

   500. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: July 11, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5708806)
Obama Tops Public’s List of Best President in Their Lifetime, Followed by Clinton, Reagan

Strictly by '1st choice' rankings -- it's really not even close.
Page 5 of 11 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  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
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(524 - 10:31pm, Nov 20)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2671 - 10:23pm, Nov 20)
Last: PJ Martinez

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(11 - 10:22pm, Nov 20)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(21 - 9:48pm, Nov 20)
Last: ajnrules

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2018 Discussion
(9 - 9:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: Master of the Horse

NewsblogDeadline to set 40-man rosters tonight (11-20)
(3 - 8:54pm, Nov 20)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogThe View is Always Better When You're the Lead Dog
(8 - 8:23pm, Nov 20)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(94 - 8:07pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(39 - 8:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(22 - 7:29pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(8 - 7:17pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(63 - 6:54pm, Nov 20)
Last: SoSH U at work

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(196 - 6:44pm, Nov 20)
Last: bachslunch

NewsblogOpening Day possible for Pedroia, who doesn't need offseason surgery
(3 - 6:13pm, Nov 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2018
(11 - 5:56pm, Nov 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

Page rendered in 0.7986 seconds
46 querie(s) executed