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, June 25, 2018

OTP 2018 June 25: Charles Krauthammer’s Love Of Baseball Leaves A Lasting Legacy

In recent days, many of Charles’ admirers had honored his formidable body of work and conservative convictions. I’m here to pay respects to his love of baseball, which made him and the world a happier place.

“If you believe, as do I, that God created baseball as a relief from politics, I herewith offer, as a public service, a column about [Bryce] Harper & friends,” he wrote in an exquisite column for The Washington Post in 2016.

 

(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: June 25, 2018 at 11:43 AM | 2113 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 20 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 > 
   1901. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5706048)
Increasing economic inequality is a good thing.


You occassionally make sense when you aren't quoting dogeared copies of Ayn Rand.
   1902. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5706050)

Yes, Hitler's Holocaust and "domestic violence."

What's the difference?


There's a credible argument that the gang violence in Central America is actually our fault.
   1903. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5706051)
Zonk, #1889:
Without re-opening the nut of Trump's mental faculties, I'm just saying that repeating the same tired nonsense in front of adoring cultists is something even someone in the slow slide can do.

Morty C, #1893:
Apparently, he knows his audience, and knows to work being just clever enough for all its worth. Not that he's capable of doing anything else. But, his shtick, like that of many comics, has found its niche audience.


Patton Oswalt:
@axios
Trump suggests he would like to test Elizabeth Warren for Native American heritage, "but we have to do it gently because we're in the MeToo generation."
Just so we’re clear: Our President, tonight, attempted a sort-of rape joke that was also a kind-of racist joke that then ended up not even being a joke. To a crowd that laughed and cheered. #MAGA
   1904. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5706054)
Clapper, #1891:
The Fix column at the Washington Post has updated its ranking of the Top 15 Potential Democratic Presidential Candidates. The Top 5: Sanders, Warren, Harris, Biden & Booker, with the only change since the last quarter flip-flopping Harris & Biden at 3 &4. A bit harsh downgrading poor Joe Biden when he leads in the polls, including this one, which also features a fairly strong showing by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Still not much love anywhere for John Delaney or Michael Avenatti.


Focusing on a worthless, unilluminating "ranking" that has barely twitched since the last eleventeen times its value was shot down? Hmmm. That makes me want to do some checking... Yep. Just as I suspected.

And how about... yeah, this one also explains the pivot.

And please don't tell me there isn't even any solace to be found in... oh, dear.
   1905. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5706055)
There's a credible argument that the gang violence in Central America is actually our fault.

See links at #1836.
   1906. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5706056)
MAGA


Make A$$holes Great Again
   1907. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:58 PM (#5706059)
RINO Rick:

Scott Pruitt Wasn’t Corrupt Enough for Trumpistan

Pruitt is a man, like so many of Trump’s claque of low-rent hoodlums, bus-station conmen, edge-case dead-enders, and caged-immigrant child porn aficionados, utterly unsuited to a role of public trust and responsibility.

...

Pruitt didn’t get fired because he was an utterly corrupt grifter. Pruitt got fired because he was clumsy enough to give away the game and embarrass a different utterly corrupt grifter. To the detriment of the country, Pruitt is just one of Trump’s many minions who model their low behavior, raving contempt for the law, and disregard for even the sparest ethical standards and shamelessly follow the lead of the Grifter in Chief.
   1908. Shredder Posted: July 06, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5706117)
Trump suggests he would like to test Elizabeth Warren for Native American heritage, "but we have to do it gently because we're in the MeToo generation."
Guy that won't let anyone see his tax returns wants to make other people take DNA tests.
   1909. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5706128)
Guy that won't let anyone see his tax returns wants to make other people take DNA tests.


Trump is first and foremost the worlds biggest hypocrite. He cries about a lack of civility towards his staff while he himself is the most uncivil person to ever hold high political office. He tars real, actual news stories as fake news, while trafficking in real actual fake news on a daily basis. Economic news that under Obama is fake and misleading and false, magically becomes gospel the moment he takes office . And on and on.
   1910. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5706136)
Trump is first and foremost the worlds biggest hypocrite. He cries about a lack of civility towards his staff while he himself is the most uncivil person to ever hold high political office. He tars real, actual news stories as fake news, while trafficking in real actual fake news on a daily basis. Economic news that under Obama is fake and misleading and false, magically becomes gospel the moment he takes office . And on and on.


Trump's approach is like the old defensive back coaching theory that "they can't call holding on every play". It applies to his lies, his scandals and his policies and his entire regime.
   1911. Traderdave Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5706144)
Too many people weren't paying attention to Obama's wars and bank bailouts


I can't wait to hear how Obama started the Iraq & Afghan wars and directed Hank Paulson, his Treasury Sec, to execute bank bailouts.

It's a slow day at work and I'm all ears. Tell me all about it.
   1912. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5706145)
Who said it: The President of the United States or your friend in the backseat of the car after a night of drinking?

I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical – the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.
   1913. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5706169)
Are you forking kidding me?

Will the government reunite kids with parents who have already been deported?

In their latest court filing, the government asked the court for clarity about whether officials actually have to do this, noting that the judge's ruling did not specify whether deported parents should be included. If that is required, the filing said, officials would need more time "given the complexities involved in locating individuals who have been removed, determining whether they wish to be reunified with their child, and facilitating such a reunification outside of the United States."
   1914. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5706179)
A tweet thread from an NPR reporter also saying there’s not really much to that story about the immigrant people being discharged from the military. Rather, it appears to be part of the current genre of Find-or-sensationalize-something-bad-that-predates-Trump-and-blame-him.
   1915. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5706218)
1912

No organ.


Maybe this is his proof vis-à-vis Stormy Daniels. Or maybe he just can't find it anymore under all that.
   1916. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5706225)
Who said it: The President of the United States or your friend in the backseat of the car after a night of drinking?


My drunk friends are generally more coherent than that.
   1917. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:58 PM (#5706237)
A tweet thread from an NPR reporter also saying there’s not really much to that story about the immigrant people being discharged from the military. Rather, it appears to be part of the current genre of Find-or-sensationalize-something-bad-that-predates-Trump-and-blame-him.

I know with the likes of Juannity and The Yankee Clapper polluting these pages, honest posting seems like a value from an era that is gone and never coming back, but ya boy, the original MS-13 Enthusiast, after sharing a link to the original alarmist story, updated his best friends with excerpts from a similar tweet thread throwing some cold water on the shock (see 1878).
   1918. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 06, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5706238)
The President of the United States or your friend in the backseat of the car after a night of drinking?

It is an incoherent Stephen Dedalus.
   1919. Sit down, Sleepy has lots of stats Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5706259)
And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right?
Trying to visualize this and failing, squeemishly. But this picture does a pretty good job.
   1920. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5706263)
Shredder, #1908:
Trump suggests he would like to test Elizabeth Warren for Native American heritage, "but we have to do it gently because we're in the MeToo generation."

Guy that won't let anyone see his tax returns wants to make other people take DNA tests.


No one can see Donald Trump's tax returns because he won't let them? House Financial Committee Chairperson-in-waiting Maxine Waters will soon change that. If only she can overcome her mid-60s I.Q. to scrawl an X on the subpoena. All she needs is a little incentive.

For some reason, current Financial chair Jeb Hensarling never got around to it. Some say Hensarling is quitting Congress in the normal fashion because his chairmanship is up. That will make it all the sadder that he never chose to flex his full subpoenaing power before time ran out.
   1921. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5706264)
Sleepy,#1919:
Donald Trump: "And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right?"

Trying to visualize this and failing, squeamishly. But this picture does a pretty good job.


The physiognomy in question is closer to this.
   1922. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5706266)

See links at #1836.

I was thinking more about the War on Drugs, which is a more direct cause of the gang violence in Central America. (To be clear, I'm not defending the other stuff in your links, either.)
   1923. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5706276)
And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right?

Trying to visualize this and failing, squeemishly. But this picture does a pretty good job.


Here ya go.
   1924. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5706280)
Mar-a-Lago files request to hire 61 foreign temporary workers

The Florida resort requested 61 H-2B visas, which are visas for temporary non-agricultural workers. In order to obtain H-2Bs, employers must prove that there are not enough US workers who are "able, willing, qualified, and available" to do the temporary work. 40 of the visas were for servers, while 21 were for cooks.

The President has said before in a 2015 interview with MSNBC that "getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible."


I wonder why?

The latest request sets the wages at $12.68 per hour for the servers and $13.31 for the cooks.


Never mind.
   1925. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5706287)
I wish I could import workers at those rates. FML, I wouldn't even have to show up to the office I'd just hire two of them to cover the entire day and go lay somewhere on a beach.
   1926. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5706293)
Here you go Perros. Try and watch this and tell me the rhetoric coming from Trump hasn't made things worse for minorities.

The racists in this country are lapping it up and vomiting all over innocent people.
   1927. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5706294)
No one can see Donald Trump's tax returns because he won't let them? House Financial Committee Chairperson-in-waiting Maxine Waters will soon change that.

The House Committee with jurisdiction over taxes is Ways & Means, which Maxine Waters is NOT on. She is the Ranking Minority Member of the Financial Services Committee, which covers banking issues. But why would you think that any Committee Chair can peek at individual tax returns? Especially of her political opponents? Because she's curious? Or you are? Good luck with that.
   1928. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5706297)
I can't wait to hear how Obama started the Iraq & Afghan wars and directed Hank Paulson, his Treasury Sec, to execute bank bailouts.

It's a slow day at work and I'm all ears. Tell me all about it.


134 wars or none?

$700 Billion or $12.8 Trillion?

What's happening in these interrelated realms of war and finance is invisible -- intentionally hidden -- from the public... hell, even Congress itself, besides a select few committee members. Related to my post above on CIA, the classified records of what Gina Haspel did in Thailand, including destruction of the torture tapes, was not open for public discussion, but in a file reportedly available for Senators to see.

Ranking Democrat Mark Warner (one of the wealthiest members of Congress) has a staffer further restrict evidence that could have been used to deny Haspel the nomination.

Significantly, Warner did not back the call to release a classified report that Justice Department prosecutor John Durham completed on the destruction of the torture tapes in 2011. While Durham found there was not enough evidence to press charges against Haspel and her boss, Jose Rodriguez, public reports on his inquiry suggest that Haspel and Rodriguez short-circuited a review process that would not have approved the destruction. In fact, Haspel’s claims (in both the hearing and her follow-up answers) that torture did not appear on those tapes suggest that perhaps someone at the black site she ran had made the tapes unreadable in 2002. Even while Warner criticized Haspel’s own double standard on what can and cannot be kept secret, he engaged in the same kind of selective secrecy.

What’s worse, Warner reportedly undercut an effort to counteract Haspel’s lack of transparency. When Democratic committee staffers created a classified document providing details of Haspel’s record to be made available to the entire Senate ― the kind of transparency permitted before past votes involving classified information ― a senior aide to Warner moved to further restrict access to the document.


I honestly don't want to spend one more post rehashing Obama's sins of commission and ommission, just pointing to a long and deep history leading to the disaster that is Trump, and to suggest merely attacking Trump instead of a corrupt political process that created conditions favorable to his rise assures far worse to come.
   1929. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5706307)
Perros, please. None of that led to Trump. Trump tapped into poor white people's racism to get their vote. They were driven crazy by 8 years of Obama, and to them, Hillary represented 4 more years of that. The alleged "Never Trumpers" got on board because they were much more "Never Hillary" than "Never Trump".
   1930. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5706325)
No Obama, no Hillary, no problem?
   1931. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5706329)
Perros, please. None of that led to Trump. Trump tapped into poor white people's racism to get their vote. They were driven crazy by 8 years of Obama, and to them, Hillary represented 4 more years of that. The alleged "Never Trumpers" got on board because they were much more "Never Hillary" than "Never Trump".


Yup.
   1932. Zonk Will Not Get Over It Abusing Its Office Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:22 PM (#5706337)
But why would you think that any Committee Chair can peek at individual tax returns? Especially of her political opponents? Because she's curious? Or you are? Good luck with that.


Clapper is right.

First, you have to tweet a "hear by" demand, then you can investigate whatever political opponent you want for whatever reason.

   1933. strong silence Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:58 PM (#5706349)
Jess
Thanks for your opinion on Gladwell and his CIA podcast.

It seems like we could do away with the CIA and not experience a material loss of security or access to oil. What is the alternative proposed?
Amend and strengthen oversight or do way with it entirely?

   1934. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:12 PM (#5706352)
Perros, please. None of that led to Trump. Trump tapped into poor white people's racism to get their vote. They were driven crazy by 8 years of Obama, and to them, Hillary represented 4 more years of that. The alleged "Never Trumpers" got on board because they were much more "Never Hillary" than "Never Trump".

Yup.


I agree that the NeverTrumpers were obvious frauds.

That said, the above theory doesn't wash. One would have thought the white racism would have swelled up in 2008 or 2012 to defeat Obama, rather than waiting until 2016 when a minority candidate was not nominated by either major party and after which the Republicans again lost the popular vote.
   1935. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:22 PM (#5706355)
But why would you think that any Committee Chair can peek at individual tax returns? Especially of her political opponents? Because she's curious? Or you are? Good luck with that.


One of the silver linings of the 2016 election was that hopefully no candidate will ever be successfully browbeaten by the bullies to release his or her tax returns, ever again.

It was high time for this ridiculous practice, cheered on only by people holding pitch forks, to have been dispensed with. Only people who would never vote for Candidate X in a billion years try to coerce Candidate X to release his or her tax returns. And nobody who supports Candidate Y and is demanding Candidate X's taxes gives a flying feck about Candidate Y's taxes. This is simply a club used by petty and intellectually dishonest individuals to beat the candidate they don't like over the head with, and hopefully we've seen the last candidate who will be compliant with this nonsense.
   1936. tshipman Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5706356)
That said, the above theory doesn't wash. One would have thought the white racism would have swelled up in 2008 or 2012 to defeat Obama, rather than waiting until 2016 when a minority candidate was not nominated by either major party and after which the Republicans again lost the popular vote.


Two points in response to this:

1. Obama also benefited from the black vote. So part of what happened in 2016 is that black folks didn't turn out for Hillary.
2. Racism has to be activated. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney is not a racist. Compare "self-deportation" to "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it." One is more effective as an immigration policy, one is more effective as an electoral pledge. McCain and Romney didn't activate the racists, motivate them to go out and vote. Trump did.
   1937. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:25 PM (#5706357)
McCain and Romney didn't activate the racists, motivate them to go out and vote. Trump did.


You're telling me this ad was a dog whistle? Come on.
   1938. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:27 PM (#5706358)
Yep, it was definitely bullying* and not legitimate concern about a notorious conman’s finances.


*lmao bullying. classic alpha whining.
   1939. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5706361)
Yep, it was definitely bullying* and not legitimate concern about a notorious conman’s finances.


It was not. It never is.

All this is is a vehicle for people who would never vote for Candidate X to try to find a further weapon to beat Candidate X over the head with, using spin and distortion and fake news. (Much as we see in the RussiaGate investigation wherein innocuous facts are presented as Part Of The Conspiracy To Conspire With Russia To Win The Election. As we saw in Benghazi when standard run of the mill decisions based on allocation of resources etc were dishonestly spun as Hillary being Responsible For Four Dead Americans.) It's not an intellectually honest fact finding or presentation mission as part of an honest effort to evaluate a candidate. As evidenced by the fact that nobody screams bloody murder if the candidate they support has delayed releasing his or her tax returns.
   1940. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:55 PM (#5706365)
That said, the above theory doesn't wash. One would have thought the white racism would have swelled up in 2008 or 2012 to defeat Obama, rather than waiting until 2016 when a minority candidate was not nominated by either major party and after which the Republicans again lost the popular vote.

Two points in response to this:

1. Obama also benefited from the black vote. So part of what happened in 2016 is that black folks didn't turn out for Hillary.


And that cuts against the argument that it was white racism that swelled up; instead, turnout by African Americans simply receded.

2. Racism has to be activated.


I'm 100% certain that a black candidate on the ticket for one of the two major parties would do it, if racism has any effect at all.
   1941. tshipman Posted: July 06, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5706368)
I'm 100% certain that a black candidate on the ticket for one of the two major parties would do it, if racism has any effect at all.


Oh, well Ray is certain. Case closed, tell the political scientists to stop bothering.
   1942. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5706375)
Well, glad to hear you're NOT certain about your argument.

Not that I blame you; the argument that racism is not "activated" by a black candidate on the ballot is beyond frivolous. It cuts against everything that's been argued for eons.
   1943. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 08:20 PM (#5706379)
It seems like we could do away with the CIA and not experience a material loss of security or access to oil. What is the alternative proposed?
Amend and strengthen oversight or do way with it entirely?

I would have to know what the IC knows to come up with a workable alternative. The bigger picture is this incredibly complex and interconnected technological milieu beyond the oversight of any controlling authority. And there's something to be said for the professionalization of intelligence gathering at a remove from a country's leadership.

What would have happened had the US not taken up the mantle of superpower post WWII? Allen Dulles was handed way too much power and leeway, without question. Are our democratic ideals for real or merely for show?

Maybe the most frightening thing is how secrecy disguises gross incompetence and ineptitude.
   1944. strong silence Posted: July 06, 2018 at 09:42 PM (#5706401)
I've read The Devils Chessboard. I'm quite certain that there are individuals to this day who do engage in activities abroad without knowledge by anyone other than them.

Let's say that the IC knew of a group planning to cut the US off from oil. What then would be the your recommendation with respect to the CIA?
   1945. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 06, 2018 at 09:56 PM (#5706407)
Let's say that the IC knew of a group planning to cut the US off from oil. What then would be the your recommendation with respect to the CIA?


The US now imports more oil from Canada than the entirety of OPEC. Thanks to "tight oil" (fracking) the US now provides about 75% of its own oil needs. And thanks to Chindia the US now is no longer the major importer or "1st choice" buyer for much of the world's oil.

Just wanted to clear up a common myth. Trump talking about "OPEC lowering oil prices" is hot air. OPEC doesn't sell enough oil to the US to GAF about the US Market and just like when Obama was president the POTUS has little if anything to do with the price of gas at the pump.
   1946. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 10:31 PM (#5706421)
One of the silver linings of the 2016 election was that hopefully no candidate will ever be successfully browbeaten by the bullies to release his or her tax returns, ever again.

It was high time for this ridiculous practice, cheered on only by people holding pitch forks, to have been dispensed with. Only people who would never vote for Candidate X in a billion years try to coerce Candidate X to release his or her tax returns. And nobody who supports Candidate Y and is demanding Candidate X's taxes gives a flying feck about Candidate Y's taxes. This is simply a club used by petty and intellectually dishonest individuals to beat the candidate they don't like over the head with, and hopefully we've seen the last candidate who will be compliant with this nonsense.
The number of ways this argument is wrong is too many to count. (Well, too many for Trump to count, anyway.) It's both factually and morally wrong, like all of your pathetic defenses of your hero Trump. As a factual matter, it's just wrong; pre-Trump candidates did not realize their tax returns because they were "browbeaten" into it, but because it was a norm. Transparency in people who were running for president was understood to be a positive thing. Everyone did it as a matter of course without being "coerced" into it. As a moral matter, the argument "It's good for a candidate to conceal the truth because people who dislike the candidate are interested in it" is (and I'm going to use a technical philosophical term here) retarded.

In fact, nobody before Trump was "beat over the head" with his or her tax returns. I'm sure Trump would've been, and that's literally the only reason you take this position.
   1947. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 06, 2018 at 10:36 PM (#5706424)
Whites voted for Romney over Obama by 20%

Whites voted for Trump over Clinton by 20%

The only difference was that Trump's appeals were explicitly racial, while Romney was typecast as the rich man's candidate. And for every Obama voter who voted for Trump there was a Romney voter who voted for Clinton.
   1948. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 10:37 PM (#5706426)

2. Racism has to be activated. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney is not a racist. Compare "self-deportation" to "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it." One is more effective as an immigration policy, one is more effective as an electoral pledge. McCain and Romney didn't activate the racists, motivate them to go out and vote. Trump did.
This argument is disingenuous. You make this claim now, but it's not what you and yours were saying in 2008 or 2012. (Or 2004, or 2000, or 1996, or 1992, or 1988, or 1984, or 1980...) You guys were screaming then that they were racists or were using racism and were claiming that "self-deportation" was an expressly racist dog-whistle.¹



¹Yes, I know that "expressly" and "dog whistle" are an oxymoron, but that would hardly be the only "dog whistle" argument that doesn't make sense.
   1949. tshipman Posted: July 06, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5706430)
This argument is disingenuous. You make this claim now, but it's not what you and yours were saying in 2008 or 2012. (Or 2004, or 2000, or 1996, or 1992, or 1988, or 1984, or 1980...) You guys were screaming then that they were racists or were using racism and were claiming that "self-deportation" was an expressly racist dog-whistle.¹


1. I don't recall anyone giving McCain grief about racism. In fact, his town hall where he told some random crazy that Obama was born in the US got pretty widespread praise.
2. "Self-deportation" was a racist dog whistle. That's the genius of Trump. He realized dog whistles are way less effective than just yelling racist #### at the top of your lungs.
   1950. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 06, 2018 at 11:11 PM (#5706447)
1. I don't recall anyone giving McCain grief about racism. In fact, his town hall where he told some random crazy that Obama was born in the US got pretty widespread praise.

The biggest mark against McCain was his choice of a wacko bird as his running mate. I don't remember anyone calling him a racist, especially given his longstanding support for bipartisan immigration reform.

2. "Self-deportation" was a racist dog whistle. That's the genius of Trump. He realized dog whistles are way less effective than just yelling racist #### at the top of your lungs.

"Self-deportation" was Romney's way of appeasing the Tea Party anti-immigration** hardliners, who mau-maued nearly every Republican "moderate" into submission on the immigration issue. Romney wasn't a racist as much as he was gutless, much like today's phony "#NeverTrumps" who don't like his tweets, but who support and enable 90% to 99% of his policies and appointments.

** Who say that they're only against illegal immigration, but when you support Trump's call for drastically reducing legal immigration, those protestations ring pretty hollow.
   1951. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 06, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5706465)
Trump's call for drastically reducing legal immigration,


Unless they are willing to work at his Palm Beach resort for poverty wages.
   1952. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 11:48 PM (#5706467)
The number of ways this argument is wrong is too many to count. (Well, too many for Trump to count, anyway.) It's both factually and morally wrong, like all of your pathetic defenses of your hero Trump. As a factual matter, it's just wrong; pre-Trump candidates did not realize their tax returns because they were "browbeaten" into it, but because it was a norm.


It was a norm because otherwise they'd have been browbeaten into it. We know this is true, because in the instances in which a candidate was late releasing his tax returns -- IIRC Romney was guilty of missing this fake deadline -- there was a fever pitch until the tax returns were released.

Transparency in people who were running for president was understood to be a positive thing.


Nice bumper sticker, but in reality to anyone over the age of 12 the notion that politicians are "transparent" is a laugh.

Everyone did it as a matter of course without being "coerced" into it. As a moral matter, the argument "It's good for a candidate to conceal the truth because people who dislike the candidate are interested in it" is (and I'm going to use a technical philosophical term here) retarded.


We know it's simply a pretext, because we know that there was nobody who was calling for Trump's tax returns to be released who was ever going to vote for him.
   1953. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 11:51 PM (#5706468)
The biggest mark against McCain was his choice of a wacko bird as his running mate. I don't remember anyone calling him a racist,


His preferred policies were deemed racist, therefore he was.

This isn't hard, for anyone who is interested in a serious discussion -- in other words, anyone who is not feigning amnesia.

Both McCain and Romney were smeared as racists by this math.
   1954. greenback slays lewks Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:00 AM (#5706470)
Nice bumper sticker, but in reality to anyone over the age of 12 the notion that politicians are "transparent" is a laugh.

So you completely give up, and whine when other people actually have the energy to push for transparency?

That's pathetic.
   1955. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:14 AM (#5706477)
The concept at play is the disingenuous of the people demanding the information.
   1956. Srul Itza Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:31 AM (#5706480)
The alleged "Never Trumpers" got on board because they were much more "Never Hillary" than "Never Trump".


while they agreed with all of the things he was saying, they were just brought up in a system where you were not supposed to say them out loud.

Now, they know better, since Trumpism has legitimized being open about racism and white supremacy.
   1957. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:58 AM (#5706483)
The concept at play is the disingenuous of the people demanding the information.
The word "disingenuous" does not mean what you think it means, and it is mindboggling that you think triumphantly saying, "The candidate's opponents really want this information to be disclosed so that they can see if there is something negative in there about the candidate" is actually a brilliant insight. I mean, yes, duh, of course a candidate's opponents really want the information to be disclosed so that they can see if there is something negative in there about the candidate. This is so trivial that it's like you have rushed into the room screaming "Eureka! I've got it! Water is wet!" What's inexplicable is why you think this is a winning point.
   1958. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:59 AM (#5706484)
It was a norm because otherwise they'd have been browbeaten into it. We know this is true, because in the instances in which a candidate was late releasing his tax returns -- IIRC Romney was guilty of missing this fake deadline -- there was a fever pitch until the tax returns were released.
Yeah, that happened precisely in exactly the way that it didn't.

Nice bumper sticker, but in reality to anyone over the age of 12 the notion that politicians are "transparent" is a laugh.
No, actually, they are. They all release their returns. Your argument isn't really tautological so much as it's nonsensical.

We know it's simply a pretext, because we know that there was nobody who was calling for Trump's tax returns to be released who was ever going to vote for him.
Uh, you realize that one can't show that non-deplorable people are insincere by showing that Trump supporters are, right? (I have no idea what your argument means, though. Pretext for what? Nobody was calling for Trump's tax returns to be released; they were calling for all candidate's returns to be released. It's just that Trump was the only one who tried to hide this information.)
   1959. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:16 AM (#5706488)
1. I don't recall anyone giving McCain grief about racism.
Are you trying to make Ray look sincere here?

John Lewis, invoking George Wallace, says McCain and Palin 'playing with fire':
Civil rights icon and Georgia congressman John Lewis is accusing John McCain and Sarah Palin of stoking hate, likening the atmosphere at Republican campaign events to those featuring George Wallace, the segregationist former governor of Alabama and presidential candidate. McCain's campaign has responded with a statement in the candidate's name, urging Barack Obama to repudiate Lewis's comments.

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement issued today for Politico's Arena forum. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."
Palling around with racists:
When the McCain campaign questions Obama's background, they're asking their supporters if a black man should be president
McCain accused of racism for 'that one' comment:
WASHINGTON - It was a moment that stood out in a presidential debate void of many pithy sound bites: "That one," Republican John McCain said contemptuously of Barack Obama, pointing in the general direction of his Democratic rival while discussing energy policies.

Those two small words didn't just leave many pundits cringing, but more significantly, they caused some in the African-American community to accuse McCain of racism in his dismissive treatment of the man aiming to be the first black president in U.S. history.

"It speaks to the fundamental belief of racism: despite all evidence to the contrary, you are inherently beneath me simply by virtue of the melanin content of your skin," Ciji McBride, a 33-year-old sales professional in Los Angeles, said Wednesday.
Keeping Track:
What’s more, as everyone will acknowledge after the campaign, the McCain campaign is now pushing the caricature of Obama as a uppity young black man whose presumptuousness is displayed not only in taking on airs above his station but also in a taste for young white women
Jesus Christ, just google McCain 2008 racist and you'll get hundreds of thousands of relevant hits. I just picked a few quickly off the top. Every Republican ever has been, and will be, accused of racism.
   1960. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 07:05 AM (#5706500)
1. I don't recall anyone giving McCain grief about racism. In fact, his town hall where he told some random crazy that Obama was born in the US got pretty widespread praise.


Yeah, but that praise was wrongheaded, IMO. Instead of saying "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, he's a good Christian man", the non-racist response would have been "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, but so what if he were?". It's a huge difference. It's pretty blatant in its racism.

1. Obama also benefited from the black vote. So part of what happened in 2016 is that black folks didn't turn out for Hillary.


True, but lots of people didn't turn out for Hillary, besides black folks. Why, I'm not completely sure. Combinations of misogyny, poor campaign strategies, maybe? Whatever. It's history. We move forward.

And BTW, if Warren is the nominee (doubtful), and Trump follows through with the DNA test gag, the perfect response would be, "I'll take a DNA test if and when you release your tax returns." And I think he knows that, and that it would be a kill shot. In fact, she should say that at some point as the election nears, whether she's the nominee or not (if Trump is still in office by then).
   1961. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 07:20 AM (#5706501)
Before the election, I dismissed Trump's chances, saying that there was a mountain of dirt on him.

Turns out that it's likely to be true, so true that it's taking Mueller a long time to investigate and document everything that will be reported whenever he's finished. I expect that the report will be crushing to Trump.
   1962. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 07, 2018 at 08:01 AM (#5706506)
Jesus Christ, just google McCain 2008 racist and you'll get hundreds of thousands of relevant hits. I just picked a few quickly off the top.

You did, and when I went to one of the links (TPM's Keeping Track), you'll see that those accusations against McCain's campaign weren't exactly groundless. To be honest, I'd forgotten about many of those comments of his and the ads he ran.

Every Republican ever has been, and will be, accused of racism.

I'm not sure whether "every" Republican has been accused of racism, but when they nominate a candidate who voted against the Civil Rights bill, a candidate with a (There's No Such Thing as a) Southern Strategy, a candidate who goes on about welfare queens, a candidate who talks about "self-deportation", and then Donald Trump himself, when congressional campaign after congressional campaign is preaching the gospel of white racial resentment, and when many of its state legislatures enact voting restrictions that are openly aimed at reducing the minority vote, it's not all that hard to figure out how many people might be inferring that this is a party that doesn't exactly have their best interests at heart.

It's not that any of these presidential candidates are personally racist, it's that they know that without the vote of racists they wouldn't have a prayer of being elected. As Barry Goldwater once famously said, they know you have to "go hunting where the ducks are."
   1963. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 11:48 AM (#5706555)
McCain and Romney didn't activate the racists, motivate them to go out and vote. Trump did.


Right -- the racists weren't motivated to vote by the presence of a black candidate on the presidential ballot and then were motivated when there wasn't a black candidate on the presidential ballot.

Uh-huh. Great theory you got there.

EDIT: Coke of choice to RDP.
   1964. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5706565)
Clapper, #1927:
No one can see Donald Trump's tax returns because he won't let them? House Financial Committee Chairperson-in-waiting Maxine Waters will soon change that.

The House Committee with jurisdiction over taxes is Ways & Means, which Maxine Waters is NOT on. She is the Ranking Minority Member of the Financial Services Committee, which covers banking issues. But why would you think that any Committee Chair can peek at individual tax returns? Especially of her political opponents? Because she's curious? Or you are? Good luck with that.


It's interesting that Yankee Clapper so enjoys goading liberals about their suffering unintended consequences when it comes to judicial nomination gamesmanship and filibuster removal. Yet he's already forgotten that his Republicans pushed through committee changes just three and a half years ago, over Democratic objections. Those committee changes will be in place this coming January.

It was 2015 when the Republicans expanded their committee chairs' unilateral subpoena powers after making midterm gains. It's worked delightfully for them since then. But should Maxine Waters advance into the 2019 House majority, she in turn would be under zero obligation to get consent from, nor even consult with her committee's Republicans before issuing subpoenas.

Back in those days, minority Democrats denounced the changes to… what’s the phrase?… longstanding House tradition. They called it a "power grab" and "the Issa model." But next year, Dems may be in a position to feel, and act, quite differently. And Republicans may feel some regret about the "aggressive oversight" tools they themselves touted and instituted.

At the time, a minority committee member protested, “It flies in the face of the practice and good faith that we, in the minority have extended to the Chairman and the majority of this Committee in the prior session of Congress... There is ample reason to worry about excesses and overreach in this process... I honestly do not see why there is the need to enlist in the Republican majority’s plan to expand subpoena power – just because we can.” Care to take a guess which low-IQ Congresswoman said that?
   1965. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5706566)
As for why I would think a committee chair could peek at individual tax returns, including those of her political opponents, we’ll let Snopes elaborate:
As chair, Waters would be permitted to issue a subpoena on any matter relevant to the committee.
The question of Waters’ subpoenaing President Trump’s “bank records” partly depends on how those records are defined. Regardless of definition, the committee has the general power to subpoena a private business’s records (such as those of the Trump organization or the Trump campaign), financial institutions (such as Deutsche Bank, which holds a great deal of Donald Trump’s debt) and individuals. In addition, the committee may subpoena the IRS for anyone’s tax records, and the IRS is obligated (under 26 CFR 301.7216-2) to produce them.

With respect to the committee’s requesting files from a sitting President, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon that “the President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations.” Executive privilege would certainly not apply to records antedating Trump’s time in office if a prosecution warranted the collection of those records, but it could conceivably be asserted for some records originating during his term of office.

Based on past efforts, it seems that a Democrat-led committee would focus on compelling Deutsche Bank to turn over their records on President Trump. On 23 May 2017, Waters and four other committee members wrote to Deutsche Bank requesting that information, but Deutsche Bank responded a few weeks later that they could not comply with the order because of U.S. privacy laws.

A Waters-chaired committee (the most likely outcome if House control shifts parties) would have the power to subpoena those bank records, and if the past acts of the committee’s members serve as a reliable guide, Waters would likely use her power for that purpose.


So, "Good luck with that"? Other than the midterm result, Maxine Waters won't need luck. The GOP will have handed her everything she needs.

It’s doubtful that any court would uphold a claim by Donald Trump of executive privilege on tax data predating Trump’s presidency, merely because Yankee Clapper might wish it. Ask Paula Jones how that one goes.

Now, the House Ways and Means Committee chairperson also has the same unfettered subpoena powers in addition to the head of the Financial Services Committee. (As do some Senate and Joint Committees. But they figure to be more inert on the Trump subpoena front. We can only foresee that the GOP is going to waste the best Senate map they’ll ever have, not outright lose it.)

Besides, any scenario in which Maxine Waters has free reign in Subpoenatown presupposes that another Democrat will also be running Ways and Means, fully unencumbered by Republican concerns.

But maybe Ways and Means' prospective chair, Massachusetts Congressman Richard Neal, will magically transform into a Trump-protecting Democrat. Good luck with that.

Of course, a Republican has been able to secretly subpoena Trump's tax records at will for a year now: Robert Mueller.
   1966. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5706579)
Yeah, but that praise was wrongheaded, IMO. Instead of saying "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, he's a good Christian man", the non-racist response would have been "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, but so what if he were?". It's a huge difference. It's pretty blatant in its racism.
Setting aside that the thing in quotes isn't an actual quote, I rest my case. You people think that rainclouds are blatant racism because they start with the letter "R."
   1967. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5706580)

I'm not sure whether "every" Republican has been accused of racism, but when they nominate a candidate who voted against the Civil Rights bill,
Setting aside that Goldwater wasn't a racist, it was 54 years ago, Andy. Most Americans alive today weren't even born when this happened. You've got to get over your childhood fascinations.
   1968. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5706586)
I'm not sure whether "every" Republican has been accused of racism, but when they nominate a candidate who voted against the Civil Rights bill,

Setting aside that Goldwater wasn't a racist, it was 54 years ago, Andy. Most Americans alive today weren't even born when this happened. You've got to get over your childhood fascinations.


I've never said that Goldwater was a racist,** but he was a lot more honest in admitting that he was targeting Dixiecrat voters than you are about admitting that that's what Republicans were doing.

And while most Americans weren't alive in 1964, we all know one prominent Republican who was: Donald Trump, who's taken presidential racism to a level not seen since the days of Woodrow Wilson----and that's saying a lot.

And while you also seem to be in permanent denial about the link between Trump and the party he controls with an iron fist, Donald Trump is viewed more favorably by his own party's rank and file during his term in office than any Republican president since Ronald Reagan. For his hardcore supporters, his manic xenophobia is a feature, not a bug.

** What part of the rest of my comment that you conveniently forgot to copy did you even bother to read? Perhaps it was this part:
It's not that any of these presidential candidates are personally racist, it's that they know that without the vote of racists they wouldn't have a prayer of being elected. As Barry Goldwater once famously said, they know you have to "go hunting where the ducks are."

   1969. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5706588)
Yeah, but that praise was wrongheaded, IMO. Instead of saying "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, he's a good Christian man", the non-racist response would have been "no Ma'am, he's not a Muslim, but so what if he were?". It's a huge difference. It's pretty blatant in its racism.

Setting aside that the thing in quotes isn't an actual quote, I rest my case. You people think that rainclouds are blatant racism because they start with the letter "R."


And FTR, I also never accused McCain of any subliminal racism for that defense of Obama. It's obvious that he was trying to defend Obama by using language that might appeal to the woman he was responding to. That's a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric, and at the time I praised him for his response.

You're a libertarian. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Just because Ron Paul has a history of racism, that doesn't mean that "you people" are all racists. And just because some liberals accused McCain of being a racist, it doesn't mean that "we people" mostly did.
   1970. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5706589)
It was not. It never is.


My bad. Ray is never going to come to any sort of senses. He's all in on the idiot bus. Put him in line for the bullet wall.
   1971. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5706594)
And while most Americans weren't alive in 1964, we all know one prominent Republican who was: Donald Trump, who's taken presidential racism to a level not seen since the days of Woodrow Wilson----and that's saying a lot.
I note how you fail to mention left-wing hero FDR's actual internment of almost a hundred thousand American citizens solely on the basis of race.



And while you also seem to be in permanent denial about the link between Trump and the party he controls with an iron fist, Donald Trump is viewed more favorably by his own party's rank and file during his term in office than any Republican president since Ronald Reagan.
As always, you misunderstand and misuse statistics. You can't look at numerators without denominators. Trump is popular with the GOP because his critics are abandoning the party.


It's not that any of these presidential candidates are personally racist,
Then why did you bring it up, since the topic of discussion here is personal accusations of racism against them?
   1972. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5706596)
Anyone who thinks Trump's election hasn't empowered a gleeful racist backlash has the eyeball skills of Oedipus. Repeating the quote by former Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Max Boot (who just quit the GOP this morning), "'Should I stay or should I go now?' [is the question] that confronts any Republican with a glimmer of conscience. You used to belong to a conservative party with a white-nationalist fringe. Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe." But some, I assume, are good people.

There must be a few R-for-rainclouds floating over Boot's house.
   1973. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:52 PM (#5706605)
No one can see Donald Trump's tax returns because he won't let them? House Financial Committee Chairperson-in-waiting Maxine Waters will soon change that.

The House Committee with jurisdiction over taxes is Ways & Means, which Maxine Waters is NOT on. She is the Ranking Minority Member of the Financial Services Committee, which covers banking issues. But why would you think that any Committee Chair can peek at individual tax returns? Especially of her political opponents? Because she's curious? Or you are? Good luck with that.

It was 2015 when the Republicans expanded their committee chairs' unilateral subpoena powers after making midterm gains. It's worked delightfully for them since then. But should Maxine Waters advance into the 2019 House majority, she in turn would be under zero obligation to get consent from, nor even consult with her committee's Republicans before issuing subpoenas.

Maxine Waters won't be issuing any subpoenas unless the Democrats take the House (and decide another 80-year old Committee Chair is the face of the future), but they wouldn't be self-enforcing. Why would you think a Court would uphold a subpoena for individual tax returns from a non-tax Committee? A non-jurisdictional subpoena seeking highly-protected confidential information on one's political opponent? You might not like what a Court might do to the "Maxine wants it" rationale for such a flimsy request.
   1974. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 07, 2018 at 02:11 PM (#5706614)
As for why I would think a committee chair could peek at individual tax returns, including those of her political opponents, we’ll let Snopes elaborate . . .

#1965 is a mess. The Snopes article discusses bank records, which would be within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, and then assumes without discussion that individual tax returns, which aren't within the Committee's jurisdiction, would be treated the same. Doubtful. The cite to U.S. v. Nixon, also misses the point - a House Committee Chair doesn't have the same claim for info on her political opponents as an ongoing criminal investigation. The Mueller investigation actually mitigates against allowing a Congressional fishing expedition here. And contrary to yet another mistaken assertion by Gonfalon, this wouldn't be a case about "executive privilege".
   1975. DavidFoss Posted: July 07, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5706622)

Maxine Waters won't be issuing any subpoenas unless the Democrats take the House (and decide another 80-year old Committee Chair is the face of the future), but they wouldn't be self-enforcing. Why would you think a Court would uphold a subpoena for individual tax returns from a non-tax Committee? A non-jurisdictional subpoena seeking highly-protected confidential information on one's political opponent? You might not like what a Court might do to the "Maxine wants it" rationale for such a flimsy request.


Clapper is suddenly interesting in committee chairs acting reasonable once the possible scenario of a Democratic majority is considered.

A lot of reasonable Democrats would simply be happy that Republicans wouldn't hold the chair positions anymore.
   1976. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5706639)
There must be a few R-for-rainclouds floating over Boot's house.


Yeah, there are.

"White nationalist" is one of those feelgood, faddish phrases that, upon any serious examination, is found to be utterly devoid of meaning. (*) Indeed, every illegal immigrant could be expelled from the country by magic tomorrow and the country wouldn't be remotely "white."

(*) As is the term "racism" in its current form, which is why no usual suspect will even bother trying to come up with anything resembling a falsifiable definition.
   1977. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5706646)
Shorter Clapper, #1973:
Nuh-
Shorter Clapper, #1974:
UH!
   1978. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5706654)
Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe." But some, I assume, are good people.


The Internet has linked the "ethno-nationalists" in much of N. Europe (including Russia), the US and elsewhere. It's so bizarre to see people that ID as Republicans cheering Russian belligerence against Muslims and posting stories about the "migrant rapes" in Sweden or Berlin.
   1979. Jay Z Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5706661)
And BTW, if Warren is the nominee (doubtful), and Trump follows through with the DNA test gag, the perfect response would be, "I'll take a DNA test if and when you release your tax returns." And I think he knows that, and that it would be a kill shot. In fact, she should say that at some point as the election nears, whether she's the nominee or not (if Trump is still in office by then).


No such thing as a kill shot for Trump. The debates won't matter. Trump is different. He has said 1,000 already that he could be rejected on, and his base just doesn't care.

This is the political equivalent of WWII and Trump is the Axis. Just defeat him. Through the ballot box or impeachment.
   1980. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5706663)
It's so bizarre to see people that ID as Republicans cheering Russian belligerence against Muslims and posting stories about the "migrant rapes" in Sweden or Berlin.


There's nothing "white nationalist" or "ethno-nationalist" about posting a story about a migrant rape -- no scare quotes necessary -- in Sweden or Berlin. A liberal female German columnist wrote about them in the op-ed section of the NY Times a few weeks ago. Link (*)

The mind boggles at how you could use that descriptor, but then again we can simply recall the first sentence of the second paragraph of 1976.

(*)
The case is just the latest in a string of murders and assaults by asylum seekers against women in Germany. In October 2016, Maria Ladenburger, a 19-year-old university student, was raped and killed by an Afghan asylum seeker. In December 2017, Mia Valentin, a 15-year-old girl, was stabbed to death in a drugstore by her ex-boyfriend, an Afghan migrant.

The cases have added fuel to the far right’s fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric. And it has created a dilemma for Germany’s liberal feminists: How can they fight against violence without supporting anti-immigrant resentments? Or to put it even more bluntly: Is it even possible to defend pluralism and women’s rights at the same time in Germany today?
   1981. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5706667)
McCain and Romney didn't activate the racists, motivate them to go out and vote. Trump did.


Right -- the racists weren't motivated to vote by the presence of a black candidate on the presidential ballot and then were motivated when there wasn't a black candidate on the presidential ballot.

Uh-huh. Great theory you got there.

EDIT: Coke of choice to RDP.


The best that can be said of TShipman is that he's trolling here. And how. But nobody who throws around the word troll like confetti at a pre-10pm Hillary victory party will call him one.

It's left as an exercise to the... reader as to why.
   1982. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5706673)
Nice bumper sticker, but in reality to anyone over the age of 12 the notion that politicians are "transparent" is a laugh.

No, actually, they are. They all release their returns. Your argument isn't really tautological so much as it's nonsensical.


Trump showed his tax returns to the IRS. If you want him to show them to you, I'm afraid you'll have to pass a law that passes constitutional muster. Or use some sort of strong arm tactic that pacifist non-authoritarian Sam would advocate.

There's no more reason to demand "transparency" of this sort than there is to demand that a candidate tell you who he or she has slept with.
   1983. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 07, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5706678)
Trump showed his tax returns to the IRS.

The Obama IRS, which wasn't exactly shy about using the tax laws to harass the administration's political opponents, had Trump's tax returns for 8 years, and came up with nothing. Those assuming there is some smoking gun there are likely to be disappointed.
   1984. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5706685)
And while most Americans weren't alive in 1964, we all know one prominent Republican who was: Donald Trump, who's taken presidential racism to a level not seen since the days of Woodrow Wilson----and that's saying a lot.

I note how you fail to mention left-wing hero FDR's actual internment of almost a hundred thousand American citizens solely on the basis of race.


When I wrote "and that's saying a lot", FDR's internment order was exactly what I was referring to. But when we were in an actual war with Japan and the West Coast was rife with rumors about Japanese fifth columnists, that internment order did little more than reflect an overwhelming national prejudice.

As he did in keeping the military segregated. As he did in not pressing for an anti-lynching bill. And so on. Let's just say that FDR wasn't winning any awards for leadership on racial matters, even though minorities voted for him in overwhelming numbers. Perhaps they understood the context of wartime a bit better than we do today.

By contrast, Trump's fired up his racist rhetoric to justify his racist policies. He's not reflecting anything but the views of his hardcore and racist base. No president since Wilson has so proactively promoted racism, and outside of his ideological counterparts in Europe, the entire world knows it.

And while you also seem to be in permanent denial about the link between Trump and the party he controls with an iron fist, Donald Trump is viewed more favorably by his own party's rank and file during his term in office than any Republican president since Ronald Reagan.

As always, you misunderstand and misuse statistics. You can't look at numerators without denominators. Trump is popular with the GOP because his critics are abandoning the party.


Donald Trump's overall popularity today fluctuates between roughly 40% and 48%, depending on the poll or the week. Among independents his ratings are in the low 30's, and among Democrats his numbers are in single digits.

Just where do you think the overwhelming bulk of that 40% to 48% is coming from?

And aside from Max Boot, George Will, and a few other principled exceptions, which of Trump's Republican critics have abandoned the party? Is there a single prominent elected official among them? How many former "#NeverTrumps" have since abandoned him?**

Don't bother trying to answer the question, because you can't answer it honestly without contradicting what you wrote above. But keep trying to defend the political equivalent of the pickpocket caught in a subway rest room. It's what you do in all of these political discussions that don't directly deal with Trump.

**Hello, JE, you still here?



   1985. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5706686)
Double post
   1986. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5706707)
Let's just say that FDR wasn't winning any awards for leadership on racial matters, even though minorities voted for him in overwhelming numbers. Perhaps they understood the context of wartime a bit better than we do today.

By contrast, Trump's fired up his racist rhetoric to justify his racist policies. He's not reflecting anything but the views of his hardcore and racist base.

Yet, Trump did better among Black & Hispanic voters than Romney. Perhaps they understood the context of politicians constantly claiming racism better than you.
   1987. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5706725)
Let's just say that FDR wasn't winning any awards for leadership on racial matters


Sure, we can say FDR wasn't winning any awards for leadership on racial matters ... and so then let's also say Trump isn't winning any awards for leadership on racial matters.

By contrast, Trump's fired up his racist rhetoric to justify his racist policies.


He hasn't enacted any "racist policies," unlike FDR who -- among other things -- removed thousands of Americans from their homes and put them in camps because of their race.
   1988. Morty Causa Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:52 PM (#5706728)
If one wants to consider the internment of Japanese, Italians, and Germans during WWII the worst thing imaginable, one needs to take a refresher course in not only what the Japanese and Germans did in WWII, but what Stalin and Mao did during the heyday of their purges. It truly boggles the mind. All peoples in conflict do bad things to their perceived enemies, but some do it to such a degree it becomes a difference in kind.

And under any system of democratic government, if it takes the three ruling branches of government to act in concert under the strictest criteria--well, you and yours are as safe as can be. Unless one thinks that there should be no such actions ever under any circumstances. And that may come with its own set of problems.
   1989. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5706730)
If one wants to consider the internment of Japanese, Italians, and Germans during WWII the worst thing imaginable, one needs to take a refresher course in not only what the Japanese and Germans did in WWII, but what Stalin and Mao did during the heyday of their purges. It truly boggles the mind. All peoples in conflict do bad things to their perceived enemies, but some do it to such a degree it becomes a difference in kind.


The people FDR put in camps were Americans.(*) Don't be silly on purpose.

(*) Not all, of course -- but a big majority.
   1990. Morty Causa Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5706731)
He hasn't enacted any "racist policies," unlike FDR who -- among other things -- removed thousands of Americans from their homes and put them in camps because of their race.

That is not absolutely against the law. Quit the horse #### pretending that those "racist policies" were the worst thing imaginable. Depending on what all that dicta re Korematsu means in the recent Supreme Court case, we'll have to wait and see if any action along racial (or religious) lines can now ever be taken. The Supreme Court may just have confounded the issue further, rather than helping finding a resouluton.
   1991. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5706733)
That is not absolutely against the law.


Uh, yeah -- it's "against the law" to take Americans from their homes and put them in camps.

And it was self-evidently racist in every last particular.
   1992. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5706735)
No such thing as a kill shot for Trump. The debates won't matter. Trump is different. He has said 1,000 already that he could be rejected on, and his base just doesn't care.


I'm not talking about his base. His base is not enough to win him an election where the other side is energized. He bullied Clinton during the debates, and one of the reasons she lost is because she didn't make him look like the fool that he is. When he said "such a nasty woman", she didn't say anything remotely "nasty" to warrant that comment. He planned on using it, and she didn't give him any real opening to use it, so he shoe-horned it in when she made a comment about Trump not being able to figure out how to get out of an increased SS tax. Trump had already said that using loopholes meant he was "smart", so Clinton's comment wasn't particularly "nasty". She just rolled her eyes and shook her head hen she should have really gotten nasty with that doofus. Then, people may have said, "yeah, she's a fighter, she's tough enough, and #### Trump." But she didn't. She let him stalk her all over the stage without objection. She let him bully her.

For DMN:

"Woman at rally: I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab.

Sen. John McCain: No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about. He's not, thank you."

Same point applies. So what if he were of Arab origin? Arabs can't be decent family men? That's the implication, and that you deny it speaks to your passive racism.
   1993. Morty Causa Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5706737)
The people FDR put in camps were Americans. Don't be silly on purpose.

You're the one speaking along racial terms. And the issue is still the same. Can action ever be taken against a highly protected class under that strictest test devised?
   1994. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5706738)
Yet, Trump did better among Black & Hispanic voters than Romney. Perhaps they understood the context of politicians constantly claiming racism better than you.


Yeah, all 8 and 29 percent of them.
   1995. Morty Causa Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5706740)
Uh, yeah -- it's "against the law" to take Americans from their homes and put them in camps.

You're wrong. You don't seem to understand the constitutional provision and test that comes into play. (Unless it was revoked in that dicta.)
   1996. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5706741)
Same point applies. So what if he were of Arab origin? Arabs can't be decent family men? That's the implication, and that you deny it speaks to your passive racism.


You know, Joe, there comes a point where, in a diverse society with people of a zillion different backgrounds, calling people racists on such laughably flimsy criteria gets to the point wherein it's a marker of poor citizenship.

With diversity comes obligation, and you've unfortunately crossed the line pretty badly here. Your comment is ill-suited for our society.
   1997. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5706744)
I'm 100% certain that a black candidate on the ticket for one of the two major parties would do it, if racism has any effect at all.


I'm 100% certain that Obama would crush Trump if he could run in 2020, because center, center left, and leftist voters far outnumber the racists and the rest of the American right (if any of them can legitimately claim to being not racist). And after these 4 years, they'd come out in droves. You'd have to weigh the votes, not count them. Crushing numbers.
   1998. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5706745)

You know, Joe, there comes a point where, in a diverse society with people of a zillion different backgrounds, calling people racists on such laughably flimsy criteria gets to the point wherein it's a marker of poor citizenship.


Not as poor as supporting Trump.

But, seriously: "He's an Arab" answered by "no he's not, he's a good family man" isn't insulting at the least, and also racist? Wouldn't a more to the point response to "he's an Arab" be "no, he's American, with African heritage"?
   1999. . Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5706747)
I'm 100% certain that Obama would crush Trump if he could run in 2020, because center, center left, and leftist voters far outnumber the racists and the rest of the American right (if any of them can legitimately claim to being not racist). And after these 4 years, they'd come out in droves. You'd have to weigh the votes, not count them. Crushing numbers.


Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton among independent voters in the 2016 presidential election. Forty-six percent to 42.
   2000. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 07, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5706748)
Paul Manafort wants trial moved to Roanoke, says Northern Virginia too liberal

Attorneys for Paul Manafort asked a federal judge to move his fast-approaching criminal bank and tax fraud trial from Alexandria to Roanoke, Va., saying a more Republican-friendly jury would decide his guilt or innocence more fairly.

The president’s former campaign chairman’s prosecution has “become theatre in the continuing controversy” surrounding the president and his election, defense attorneys argue, and as a result, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to divorce the issues in this case from the political views of potential jurors.”

“It is not a stretch to expect that voters who supported Secretary Clinton would be predisposed against Mr. Manafort or that voters who supported President Trump would be less inclined toward the Special Counsel,” attorneys Kevin M. Downing, Thomas E. Zehnle and Jay R. Nanavati wrote in a 10-page motion to change venue.


Mmmm.... good luck, even with Ellis ruling on it.

No chance, even though Ellis apparently "suggested" it himself last week.

But this was interesting:

“The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye writes.


Well, maybe collusion is around the next corner then. The next one. Not this one.
Page 20 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 > 

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
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCC Sabathia has a case for Cooperstown
(22 - 3:36am, Oct 21)
Last: Jaack

NewsblogAstros enter World Series against Nationals as heaviest favorites since 2007
(2 - 2:38am, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogWhy did Jeff Bridich give Nolan Arenado an opt-out clause?:The Athletic (paywall):Groke
(3 - 1:05am, Oct 21)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogChampionship Series OMNICHATTER!
(1140 - 11:39pm, Oct 20)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogEric Cooper, MLB umpire for 21 years, dies at age 52
(4 - 11:30pm, Oct 20)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (pre-season)
(575 - 11:25pm, Oct 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogSavages in the box go bust with slew of strikeouts
(25 - 11:05pm, Oct 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogClinching heroics net Altuve ALCS MVP honors
(16 - 11:02pm, Oct 20)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(192 - 10:55pm, Oct 20)
Last: Sean Forman

NewsblogCapital hill: Astros, Nats put World Series eyes on pitching
(4 - 9:11pm, Oct 20)
Last: puck

NewsblogWaiting game: Nationals get 6 days off before World Series
(14 - 8:47pm, Oct 20)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe hit-by-pitch god
(11 - 8:42pm, Oct 20)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT - 2019 NFL thread
(33 - 8:36pm, Oct 20)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out

NewsblogEx-Red Sox knuckleballer Steven Wright to undergo Tommy John surgery
(4 - 5:24pm, Oct 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Hall of MeritRoy Halladay, Mariano Rivera, and "Cannonball" Dick Redding elected - Hall of Merit Class of 2019
(57 - 4:51pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jaack

Page rendered in 0.8905 seconds
46 querie(s) executed