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 04, 2018

OTP 2018 June 4: How Dr. Alan Nathan Became Baseball Fans’ Favorite Physicist

Nathan said he expected to simply read the book and share on what he learned, and that would be that. But thanks to a local reporter who heard his initial talk and interviewed him about it for the Sunday paper, Nathan is still sharing what he’s learning almost two decades later. Not long after that initial talk, Nathan had a sabbatical from the University of Illinois, so he decided to spend it studying the physics of baseball more closely. He almost immediately found a fascinating rabbit hole of study that helped change a long-held perception in baseball.

“Grip on the bat, while the ball and bat are in contact with each other, plays no role whatsoever in the collision itself. And that pretty much goes against what you might call conventional wisdom,” Nathan said.

“Not scientific wisdom, but baseball wisdom,” he adds, elaborating that at the moment when the ball strikes the bat, the hitter’s grip doesn’t matter at all. In fact, he could even let go of the bat altogether—at that point of contact—and it would not change how the ball was hit.

 

But what does this have to do with politics?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(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 04, 2018 at 07:48 AM | 1535 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, physics, politics, witch-hunt, wizards

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 3 of 16 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. Howie Menckel Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5686016)
bump
   202. McCoy Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:15 AM (#5686017)
no thanks
   203. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:15 AM (#5686018)
Adam Schiff to Donald Trump, on Twitter:
President Nixon asked the Department of Justice if he could pardon himself. They said no, as no one may be the judge in their own case. He resigned three days later.

In case you want to follow the Nixon model, that would be Thursday.
   204. Shredder Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:44 AM (#5686021)
I'm more of a where the 605 meets the 405 guy.
Right by the 22! I used to take the 10 to the 605 to the 405 to the 22 to play street hockey in Garbage Grove. Ah, the good old days. Though to get to the Big A, we'd cut over the 60 to the 57.
   205. OCF Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:49 AM (#5686022)
You're thinking of the 22 as a freeway. The highway number (22) also continues to the west into Long Beach as 7th Street, which leads by the front of the university before intersecting PCH just beyond the VA hospital.
   206. greenback slays lewks Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:50 AM (#5686023)
Seriously, this Manafort thing is crazy. He tried to witness tamper using electronic devices that sync to a remote cloud? While out on bail? With the whole FBI gunning for his ass?

What a moron. This really is stupid Watergate.

Trump has noticeably distanced himself from Manafort, presumably because he's been informed (maybe by Nunes) about this kind of stuff coming down the pike.

Schiff's line was cute, but I still think the best way for the D's to play this is to portray Trump as a gullible dupe of Manafort, Putin, and the rest. Trump has in many of his pronouncements confirmed this (e.g. blaming the FBI for not vetting his campaign manager for him), which in a more neutral context is not a good look. And if you ever get enough votes in the House and Senate to impeach and remove, then you start doing your Captain Renault impression.
   207. OCF Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:56 AM (#5686026)
I used to take the 10 to the 605 to the 405 to the 22 to play street hockey in Garbage Grove. Ah, the good old days. Though to get to the Big A, we'd cut over the 60 to the 57.

You'll notice in that the total lack of linguistic distinction between federal interstate highway numbers (105, 110, 405, 605) and state highway numbers (22, 57, 60, 55, 91). I could have sworn that 710 was a state highway number, but the map I just looked at used the interstate symbol - but whichever it is makes no difference to those who drive on it or how they say it.
   208. perros Posted: June 05, 2018 at 01:02 AM (#5686028)
Seriously, this Manafort thing is crazy. He tried to witness tamper using electronic devices that sync to a remote cloud? While out on bail? With the whole FBI gunning for his ass?

What a moron. This really is stupid watergate.

He should have set up his own private server.
   209. Shredder Posted: June 05, 2018 at 01:20 AM (#5686031)
You'll notice in that the total lack of linguistic distinction between federal interstate highway numbers (105, 110, 405, 605) and state highway numbers (22, 57, 60, 55, 91). I could have sworn that 710 was a state highway number, but the map I just looked at used the interstate symbol - but whichever it is makes no difference to those who drive on it or how they say it.
Well, for long stretches of each of the state highways they're virtually indistinguishable from the interstates and auxiliary interstates. The main interstates are two digits, north/south being odd numbered (5, 15, 25, etc), and east west being even (10, 40, 70, etc.). The 60 from the 710 to the 215 doesn't feel any different than just about an stretch of the 10, for example.
   210. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 05, 2018 at 02:01 AM (#5686034)
If Election Night 2016 seems a while back to you, just imagine how long ago it is for some other people:
On election night 2016, shortly after Donald Trump's team realized he would win the presidency, Michael Cohen, at the Hilton Hotel on Manhattan's 6th Avenue with his daughter and friends, told a group of people about his own dreams for the future — to be mayor of New York.

"This is the beginning of a dynasty," Cohen told the group, according to a source who heard him.

Surprised by the remark, one of the people asked Trump's longtime personal attorney that if by "dynasty" he meant Ivanka or Don Junior was going to get the political bug next. Cohen replied: "I've already got the bug."

Cohen then added: "Nobody's going to be able to fuck with us. I think I'm going to run for mayor."

Later that night, around 3:30 a.m., the Trump team was leaving its victory party at the same hotel, where escalators took the crowd from the party down to the lobby. A member of Trump's entourage saw Cohen near the bottom of the escalator and yelled out: "Cohen for mayor!" Cohen appeared to have no idea who said it, but looked over his shoulder and pumped his fist in the air.

...Cohen has since had his office raided by federal agents, as he's being investigated by the Southern District of New York on the referral of Robert Mueller. Former allies in Trumpworld have told me they're avoiding Cohen because they assume his every move and phone call are being recorded.

...I asked Cohen today about his mayoral plans. He told me: "Despite many friends suggesting that I run for mayor... I obviously chose not to. Additionally, I believe that Mayor de Blasio is doing a fine job for our city."

Coattails dynasty data: In a squeaker, Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton in New York City by a 60% margin. But Cohen might have had a shot at getting elected Mayor of Staten Island, except there's no such thing. There were also several promising Trump strongholds upstate, with the catch that many voters would need to personally pat the head of anyone named Cohen, to check for horns.
   211. perros Posted: June 05, 2018 at 06:58 AM (#5686038)
Who had more to drink election night: Cohen or Clinton?
   212. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:03 AM (#5686039)
Schiff's line was cute, but I still think the best way for the D's to play this is to portray Trump as a gullible dupe of Manafort, Putin, and the rest. Trump has in many of his pronouncements confirmed this (e.g. blaming the FBI for not vetting his campaign manager for him), which in a more neutral context is not a good look. And if you ever get enough votes in the House and Senate to impeach and remove, then you start doing your Captain Renault impression.


Whats more predictable than a Republican president trying to deflect from their bumbling malfeasence by claiming to be a naive dupe? Reagan and Dubya were pikers when it comes to playing clueless compared to Trump.

“I was duped,” they shrug, and we’re told to move on.
   213. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:22 AM (#5686041)
Now perros is playing "Juanabout". Sad.
   214. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:25 AM (#5686042)
Manafort is likely going to jail, soon. Clinton? Not at all, ever. Only devoted watchers of OAN and Newsmax think Clinton is going to prison.
   215. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:30 AM (#5686043)
CNN's Berman piled on to the "they're lying" when they say they made a mistake about the Don Jr letter by saying that Trump and Hope Hicks both knew that Giuliani and Sarah Sanders were both repeatedly saying that the letter wasn't dictated by Trump, and neither of them said a word to correct them. Now to say "it was a mistake" is another obvious lie. They lie about everything.
   216. Ishmael Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:44 AM (#5686046)
It's an interesting premise that vaguely reminds me of a principle in textual editing: lectio difficilior. The idea is, if you have two manuscripts of a classical text, and one has a weird word and the other a common, expected word, you assume that the author actually wrote the more difficult, weirder word. The idea is that the scribe copying one of the ms. was smart and literate, and mentally corrected the weird word to a common linguistic pattern à la the squares or the Fibonacci sequence in math.

Speaking of textual criticism, I recently read an interesting article recently about the Harrowing of Hell doctrine. Christianity gets the idea of Jesus’ descent into Hell from some suggestive New Testment verses and statements from the Early Church Fathers, but it’s most explicit in the apocryphal Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus:

And the Lord stretched forth his hand and made the sign of the cross over Adam and over all his saints, and he took the right hand of Adam and went up out of hell, and all the saints followed him. Then did holy David cry aloud and say: Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand hath wrought salvation for him and his holy arm. The Lord hath made known his saving health, before the face of all nations hath he revealed his righteousness. And the whole multitude of the saints answered, saying: Such honour have all his saints. Amen, Alleluia.
[Etc.]

Anyway, these later treatments take most of their inspiration from a single passage in 1 Peter:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
1 Peter 3:18-20 (NRSV)

The traditional understanding of this passage has been that it describes Jesus, after his death, descending “in the spirit” to the “spirits in prison” (assumed to mean in Hell/Hades), presumably referring to the Biblical Patriarchs etc. then cooling their heels in Hades.

That makes some sense, and it’s now a familiar element of the tradition, so it doesn’t necessarily strike us as strange.

However, Edgar J Goodspeed (and I think others before him) suggested that the verse in question is a mistranslation stemming from a scribal error. The idea being that the copyist should have written ENOKAIENOXTOISEN or ENOXTOISEN, but instead either omitted or substituted the ENOX and wrote ENOKAITOISEN. Remember that there were no spaces between words in these manuscripts, so it would be an understandable error to make.

The upshot is that what we now read as “in which also,” should have read “Enoch.” So Goodspeed’s translation reads:

For Christ himself died once for all, for sin, an upright man for unrighteous men, to bring us to God, and was physically put to death, but he was made alive in the Spirit. In it Enoch went and preached even to those spirits that were in prison, who had once been disobedient, when in Noah’s time God in his patience waited for the ark to be made ready, in which a few people, eight in all, were brought safely through the water.
1 Peter 3:18-20 (Goodspeed)

Contextually, this makes new sense of what follows. The reference to Enoch visiting the spirits in prison who were disobedient in Noah’s time is simply a summary of the events of 1 Enoch, a non-canonical Jewish work that we now know influenced Jude and the Petrine Epistles. The spirits in prison in this reading are the Enochian “Watchers”, the fallen angels imprisoned in the time of Noah, whose sexual relations with human women led to the Flood. It’s not a complete non-sequitur either. Enoch was a Messiah figure, a righteous Son of Man chosen to sit in judgement, who some believed had existed before Creation and had been later enthroned in heaven. And it sort of completes the parallelism in the rest of the passage. Christ and Enoch are both righteous men. The fallen angels and the unrighteous are both undeserving. Noah and his family and today's suffering believer are both brought to safety through the water (flood/baptism).

It’s a really interesting idea, but of course we can’t know for sure what the original text read.

Anyway, I can’t help but see the parallels between the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell and Donald Trump’s use of the pardon power. I can only hope textual criticism of the constitution yields a similar amount of esoterica.
   217. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5686047)
They lie about everything.

And the more they lie, the more their base worships them, and the more their base-fearing party gathers around the wagons in defense of the indefensible.

I've almost finished reading Dan Carter's The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics, and the further I get into the book, the clearer it becomes that the entire Trump phenomenon is little more than a modern resurrection of what we went through with George Wallace: The stoking of white racial resentments; the demagoguery; the personality cult; the complete disregard for facts; the demonization of The Other; the manipulation of the media; and so on. If you look at the demographic breakdown of Wallace's and Trump's supporters, the comparison becomes even more obvious.** Wallace may have begun as a regional phenomenon, just as Trump was the prototypical arrogant New Yorker, but once Wallace decided to go national with his campaign, the only things that stopped him were an Arthur Bremer bullet and the co-opting of the Law & Order issue by Richard Nixon. If someone wanted to write a truly scary alternative history, it might begin with having Arthur Bremer's gun misfire.

** At least in the South, they came from all levels of white society. Those White Citizens Councils weren't made up of rednecks.
   218. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:50 AM (#5686049)
Cohen then added: "Nobody's going to be able to #### with us. I think I'm going to run for mayor."
This hardly would have been trendsetting. We already have a Trump-Cohen type running the city.
   219. Lassus Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:56 AM (#5686050)
So adorable.
   220. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:56 AM (#5686051)
The stoking of white racial resentments; the demagoguery; the personality cult; the complete disregard for facts; the demonization of The Other; the manipulation of the media; and so on.
Substitute racial guilt over resentment and it kinda sounds like 2007-08.

Anyway, it's so, so cute how, even after Obama, with few substantive qualifications and even fewer legislative accomplishments, coasted to victory twice, all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism.
   221. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 05, 2018 at 07:57 AM (#5686052)
Catching up late on these two polling bulletins:
Yankee Clapper, previous thread:
At Real Clear Politics, the Democrats advantage in the Generic Congressional Ballot continues its downward trend, and is now at 3.2%. The Dems had lead by 13% at the start of the year, and as much as 9% in March.

The big 0.3% downward shift was the result of Democrats falling by 0.8%, while the Republicans also fell by 0.5%. Momentum!


Yankee Clapper, May 21, 2018:
In case anyone missed it, the GOP now leads the Reuters Generic Congressional Ballot Poll, 38.1% - 36.7%, a 1.4% margin.. The Dems had been ahead all year, with an 11% lead as recently as April.

Our diligent updater took his eye off this specific poll, and never followed up on it. And thus we missed the immediately subsequent news that, after having led the Reuters survey by a whopping 5.1% on May 19th, the GOP shockingly trailed the Democrats by 5.3% on May 28th— a disastrous 10.4% collapse in barely a week's time!

Anyone who spends so much time gazing back at the Dems’ previous, ironclad 13% peak margin has to agree that this pinpoint precision measurement of horrendous Republican cratering is also valid and significant.

   222. Lassus Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:01 AM (#5686053)
all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism.

You clearly forgot stupidity and submission.
   223. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:03 AM (#5686054)
We were talking about conservative comedy in last week's OTP. Let's catch up on the latest gems from the acknowledged master of the form, Dennis Miller.
Can't decide whether to watch a rerun of the famous "Who Shot JR?" episode of "Dallas" tonight on TVLand or the "Why Didn't JR Shoot?" second game of the NBA Finals. Hmm? #NBAFinals

Wow! Lotta moving parts here! ABC has just hired Joy Reid to replace Roseanne on the "Roseanne" show!

Wow! Mueller is now looking into Trump’s Whitewater ties.

Mueller just announced that if Pompeo comes back from NoKo with these three hostages he's going to subpoena them.

You could hold the Paris/Dakar Rally in the space between Pelosi's ears.
And my favorite:
Progressives are shooting themselves in the foot more frequently than a centipede who quite frankly is "getting no relief whatsoever" from a topical application of a generic anti-fungal toenail cream.

   224. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:08 AM (#5686055)
Anyway, it's so, so cute how, even after Obama, with few substantive qualifications and even fewer legislative accomplishments, coasted to victory twice, all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism.


The more you compare Obama to Trump the more I like it. Please continue equating them as I think both represent their political party admirably. I am proud that Obama won as a Democrat and I think he acquitted himself well. In 2, 6, and 10 years from now I hope millions of voters will likewise compare Obama to Trump when deciding which party to vote for, which candidates to support.
   225. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:15 AM (#5686057)
   226. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:18 AM (#5686058)
The more you compare Obama to Trump the more I like it. Please continue equating them as I think both represent their political party admirably. I am proud that Obama won as a Democrat and I think he acquitted himself well. In 2, 6, and 10 years from now I hope millions of voters will likewise compare Obama to Trump when deciding which party to vote for, which candidates to support.
Worth repeating:
Apparently Obama had read a column—I have an idea of which one—about the role of identity in shaping peoples' lives and political choices. "Maybe we pushed too far," he mused. "Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe." No question his fellow passengers that day reassured him that no, no, he did everything he could to bend the arc of history a little more toward justice. It's not your fault, Mr. President. You didn't push too far. All you did was troll Donald Trump into running for president in the first place, stand by while Ferguson and Baltimore rioted and burned, give Iran billions in exchange for empty promises, allow Russia to establish a beachhead in the Middle East for the first time in half a century, browbeat Israel at every opportunity, ram through Obamacare after Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, preside over the mass migration of children across the southern border in 2014, expand the DACA amnesty despite saying 22 times you lacked authority to do so, use the permanent structure of government to devastate the Appalachian economy, convince half of America that liberals were ready to take their guns (this wasn't hard to do), have your Education Department issue orders that led to the campus-assault craze and the deterioration of classroom discipline and that, months before a presidential election, mandated trans-bathrooms in schools, have your Justice Department preside over a sloppy (I'm being charitable) investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server that included, at one point, your attorney general secretly meeting with the husband of the subject of the investigation on an airport tarmac, muscle out Joe Biden, who might have won, from the race, and hand the party back to the less-likable half of America's most polarizing and corrupt political couple. Not to mention the eight years of lecturing. Oh, the lecturing.

One of the refrains of the Obama presidency was that, yes, America may have let Obama down in the past, and America may let him down still, but America remains worthwhile, so long as it maintains the capacity to become more like Obama. "Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early," he says in the book. What was he early for? "Fundamentally transforming America"? "The moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow"? For the death of the olds who stood in his way?

Imagine carrying the burden of Barack Obama, of being too enlightened, sophisticated, mature for his time. In his conceit that historical progress is assured and irreversible, and that challenges to such progress are reducible to irrational prejudice, Obama is a paradigmatic liberal. Yet America's frequent elections, tendency to rotate offices, decentralization of power, avenues for the expression of popular discontent, and multiple veto points continually frustrated his desires. By the end of his second term, he was expending a great deal of energy working around the constitutional structure established in 1789 and amended 27 times since.
Oh yeah, the key to future electoral success is to find less charismatic Obama wannabes pushing these delusions.
   227. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:22 AM (#5686059)

"Bottom line: Holder said Trump issuing pardons "will not ultimately thwart the Mueller investigation." That’s because "if Bob Mueller, for instance wants to take a pardoned person, put that person before a grand jury, that person no longer has the ability to say, 'I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right'" and "that person then becomes a perfect witness for the special counsel.""
I already pointed out the other day that this is wrong. The person still has the ability to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. First, for the pardon to be effective against federal crimes, it would have to be a blanket pardon; Trump would have to have said (of, e.g., Manafort), "I hereby pardon Paul Manafort of all federal crimes he may have committed." If he pardons Manafort only for the crimes for which Manafort has been charged, then Manafort could still assert the Fifth to protect himself from prosecution for any other federal crimes. Second, even if Trump did issue such a blanket pardon, it would be effective only against federal crimes, not state ones. So Manafort could still assert the fifth to protect himself from prosecution in state court.


(Note that Mueller can, of course, force any person to testify by arranging for immunity relating to that testimony.)
   228. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:23 AM (#5686060)
Worth repeating:

You repeated the worst paragraph from the article! That's the one that reads like an opening Hannity monologue. A sort of mad-libs of anti-Obama rhetoric.

You actually believe this stuff! I mean, I could understand if you were just doing constant spin to get more conservative legislation and judicial appointments or to keep the libs in check or whatever. I get that. But how can you believe this nonsense?
   229. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:23 AM (#5686061)

Regarding pardoning, I was under the impression that a person can't be pardoned until after they have been convicted. Is that not the case? I know about Ford/Nixon, but that seemed to be a just "let's move on" kind of thing and it was never challenged. I don't know if that set a precedent, or if there were other "pardoned for anything he might have done" cases before that.
I don't think it's particularly controversial that a pardon does not need to await a conviction. (It's obviously a controversial act, but not because of the legal interpretation of the act.)
   230. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:29 AM (#5686063)
You actually believe this stuff! I mean, I could understand if you were just doing constant spin to get more conservative legislation and judicial appointments or to keep the libs in check or whatever. I get that. But how can you believe this nonsense?
Your substance-free, blanket dismissal of Continetti's points -- OMG, he's repeating what pretty much all conservatives have said about Obama! -- only illustrates why Trump will likely win re-election.
   231. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:40 AM (#5686066)
Your substance-free, blanket dismissal of Continetti's points -- OMG, he's repeating what pretty much all conservatives have said about Obama! -- only illustrates why Trump will likely win re-election.

Yes, yes, I've heard this before. If I don't renounce Obama and support Trump, then Trump will win again. What kind of logic is this? Obama is the cause of the 'campus assault craze'? The permanent structure of government devastated Appalachia... and this happened since 2009? You need 'substance' to rebuke a statements like these?

Listen, if you want to vote for conservatives and want to keep liberals out of power, I can totally respect that, but this Hannity-level rhetoric is loony tunes.
   232. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5686067)
Anyway, it's so, so cute how, even after Obama, with few substantive qualifications and even fewer legislative accomplishments, coasted to victory twice, all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism.


Could also have something to do with your prior hero's stupid (costly, bloody, unnecessary) war coupled with an economic collapse. That tends to move people to the opposite party, too.

One of the best parts of Jason newly pledged allegiance is that he can't talk about Iraq anymore.
   233. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5686068)
Oh yeah, the key to future electoral success is to find less charismatic Obama wannabes pushing these delusions.


Like I said, please keep equating Trump and Obama. Trump is the leader and representative icon of the GOP and Obama is the same for the Democrats. I am very comfortable with living with that comparison and think Obama was a very good President and is also a fine human being and I am proud he represented my country for eight years.

If you think that comparing your leader Trump to Obama benefits you, well it sounds like we both think we come out better after it, so wonderful. I like situations where both sides end up happy. It is one of the (many) things that differentiate how I view the world from how Trump does, I think the best deals are those where both sides think they are better off.
   234. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5686070)

I don't either, which shows the lengths people were willing to go to to argue that Hillary would have been able to pardon herself.
I didn't realize that a single guy at a pretty terrible website¹ is "people."



¹ This is the site that Jason has posted from that I've bashed before as incompetent analysis.
   235. Greg Pope Posted: June 05, 2018 at 08:55 AM (#5686072)
Thanks for the answers regarding the pardon. I don't know where I saw that pardons could only come after convictions.
   236. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:04 AM (#5686074)
Thanks for the answers regarding the pardon. I don't know where I saw that pardons could only come after convictions.

Wikipedia references an interview that Bob Woodward had with Gerald Ford where Ford states that he "privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carried an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carried a confession of guilt" (quote by me -- quoting wikipedia not the original Woodward)

Ford pardoned Nixon before any trials. Nixon wasn't convicted before he accepted the pardon.
   237. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:10 AM (#5686077)
I've almost finished reading Dan Carter's The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics, and the further I get into the book, the clearer it becomes that the entire Trump phenomenon is little more than a modern resurrection of what we went through with George Wallace: The stoking of white racial resentments; the demagoguery; the personality cult; the complete disregard for facts; the demonization of The Other; the manipulation of the media; and so on. If you look at the demographic breakdown of Wallace's and Trump's supporters, the comparison becomes even more obvious.** Wallace may have begun as a regional phenomenon, just as Trump was the prototypical arrogant New Yorker, but once Wallace decided to go national with his campaign, the only things that stopped him were an Arthur Bremer bullet and the co-opting of the Law & Order issue by Richard Nixon. If someone wanted to write a truly scary alternative history, it might begin with having Arthur Bremer's gun misfire.

** At least in the South, they came from all levels of white society. Those White Citizens Councils weren't made up of rednecks.


Substitute racial guilt over resentment and it kinda sounds like 2007-08.

Anyway, it's so, so cute how, even after Obama, with few substantive qualifications and even fewer legislative accomplishments, coasted to victory twice, all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism.


Maybe if you spent a bit more time learning history and a bit less time regurgitating National Review and Daily Caller talking points, you might add something more to these discussions than a parrot programmed by Sarah Sanders. But then that Wallace-Trump comparison might just be hitting too close to your comfort zone for you to be able to address it honestly.
   238. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:13 AM (#5686078)
If someone wanted to write a truly scary alternative history, it might begin with having Arthur Bremer's gun misfire

I dunno. If nominated, Wallace wouldn't have had any more success in '72 against Nixon than McGovern did. He was just as fringy, if from the other fringe, and would have lost just as many centrist votes to Nixon.

But alternative histories can have a longer scope, I reckon, so I suppose this one sees Wallace regrouping for another try in 1976 …
   239. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5686081)

Schiff's line was cute, but I still think the best way for the D's to play this is to portray Trump as a gullible dupe of Manafort, Putin, and the rest.
I assume this would be an attempt to bait Trump into angrily declaring that he's nobody's dupe and that he personally made the decision to collude? (i.e., an application of Lisa's strategy to catch Sideshow Bob in rigging the election? (With the difference being that Sideshow Bob really was a mastermind?))
   240. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5686082)
Anyway, it's so, so cute how, even after Obama, with few substantive qualifications and even fewer legislative accomplishments, coasted to victory twice, all some folks have in their quiver to explain Trump's rise and win is hate, mostly centered around white racism

Obama was a pretty standard Democratic nominee in a lot of respects. He was young and relatively inexperienced, but that's the Democratic playbook; they tend not to win with the "My Turn" senior figures. Obama cultivated a very strong base in his home state and got well-connected outside it. See Clinton, Carter, JFK.

History is just not going to support some sort of "white guilt" theory of Obama's rise to power. Geraldine Ferraro tried it out, but it didn't stick. Obama was a new face, he gave good speeches, he had a terrific campaign organization. He was slightly, but measurably, to the left of Clinton, who was a tired retread even in '08. And yes, Obama mobilized the heck out of black voters. That's American politics, you work from a base of support. I hear there are at least 13 million black people by now in the US :)

And I don't remember Obama kicking off his campaign by saying something like "White people are not our friend. They are bringing meth. They are bringing racism. And some, I assume, are good people." You have to really do a lot of projecting and vigorous spinning to equate Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric to "Vote for me, guilty Whitey."
   241. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:42 AM (#5686085)
Exhibit #8,000 of what Trump has done to the GOP:

Sen. Ted Cruz is dumbstruck by the mysterious, unfamiliar enigma that is the pardon power.
This is just Stupid Twitter. Cruz was not dumbstruck about anything in that quote. And the possible self-pardon power is mysterious and unfamiliar. Cruz was not asked about the pardon power in the abstract. He was asked about Trump pardoning himself. Cruz said he hadn't studied it. That he dropped in a footnote in a law review article saying that the pardon power is not effective against future crimes is utterly irrelevant to anything, as that's not what he was asked.

A more precise answer by Cruz would have been that there's nothing to study. This is not a situation where there's a right answer; there is no answer. If Trump purports to pardon himself, a court might be forced to decide whether the pardon is effective -- but said court (and presumably ultimately SCOTUS) would be making a decision of first impression, not applying any historical knowledge or legal precedent. (There's about 10% of a quasi-precedent in one U.S. territory in the 19th century which was never even tested.) You can cobble together statements like "No man can be a judge in his own case" from various historical figures, but that still just leads to a court making a policy decision. I think the better policy is certainly that self-pardons are forbidden, but the opposing position is merely a worse policy; it isn't objectively wrong.
   242. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5686088)
Schiff's line was cute, but I still think the best way for the D's to play this is to portray Trump as a gullible dupe of Manafort, Putin, and the rest.


I assume this would be an attempt to bait Trump into angrily declaring that he's nobody's dupe and that he personally made the decision to collude? (i.e., an application of Lisa's strategy to catch Sideshow Bob in rigging the election? (With the difference being that Sideshow Bob really was a mastermind?))


I still think the Democrats best hope is campaign on policies which are part of the Democratic identity - good wages, health care, the environment and so on. Be solid democrats (honed to fit the specific election) and let the PAC money attack Trump as unqualified (he is) and his administration full of corruption (it is), both of which betrayed their promises to the voters who elected them (yup, feel free to use Trump's own words), especially in how they favor the rich over hard working voters (they do, like a lot).

Let the Mueller investigation churn on. Let Trump's xenophobia and such rouse the voters, but you don't need to spend too much reminding them of it, it is plenty out there. Mid term elections are usually about the President and their administration, so you don't have to work to make it that, it already is that, so now present the voters with a different option, a counterbalance to Trump and his merry band.
   243. -- Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5686089)
so I suppose this one sees Wallace regrouping for another try in 1976 …


Wallace did run in 1976.
   244. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:53 AM (#5686091)
Obama was a pretty standard Democratic nominee in a lot of respects. He was young and relatively inexperienced, but that's the Democratic playbook; they tend not to win with the "My Turn" senior figures. Obama cultivated a very strong base in his home state and got well-connected outside it. See Clinton, Carter, JFK.
Yeah, no. Unless you bizarrely have nothing but disdain for those who have served as the chief executive of his state, of course.

Examples going back to 1976:

Kerry? Not inexperienced.
Gore? Not inexperienced.
Clinton? Not inexperienced.
Dukakis? Not inexperienced.
Mondale? Not inexperienced.
Carter? Not inexperienced.
   245. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5686093)
So let's talk about some great again foreign policy.

Trump's phone call with Macron described as 'terrible'

A call about trade and migration between US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron soured last week after Macron candidly criticized Trump's policies, two sources familiar with the call told CNN.

"Just bad. It was terrible," one source told CNN. "Macron thought he would be able to speak his mind, based on the relationship. But Trump can't handle being criticized like that."


Trump held a similar call with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday. It's not her style to be combative, but one source said May was expected to be direct in her criticisms and that Trump could expect a tough conversation.

According to a Downing Street spokesperson, the two discussed the Trump administration's tariffs on American allies, including Mexico, Canada, and the European Union, as well as other matters.

"The Prime Minister raised the US decision to apply tariffs to EU steel and aluminum imports, which she said was unjustified and deeply disappointing," the statement said. "The Prime Minister said the US, UK and EU are close national security allies and we recognise the importance of the values of open and fair trade across the world. The Prime Minister also underlined the need to safeguard jobs that would potentially be affected by the decision."


NAFTA Talks Break Down After Pence Ultimatum

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “said months of intense negotiations between his country, the United States and Mexico imploded Tuesday when Vice President Pence demanded that any deal expire automatically in five years,” the Washington Post reports.


But hey at least we will get a summit between North Korea and President Dumpster Fire, where nothing positive will be accomplished (well except I will get a commemorative coin).

   246. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:00 AM (#5686096)
I don't know if Pence would pardon him. It really depends on how much Pence is entangled in the mess as well. I seriously doubt Pence is going to be the good commander and take a bullet for the disgraced leader. I'm guessing in whatever time Pence has left in office he is going to what to accomplish things and try to get things done for his base. Pardoning Trump doesn't really achieve that.


Depends on what Jesus tells him in one of their daily convos. Which we're assured are perfectly normal, not indicative of mental disorder, nope, no way, nosirree.
   247. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5686097)
Yeah, no. Unless you bizarrely have nothing but disdain for those who have served as the chief executive of his state, of course.


Yes we know, Obama's pre-presidential experience doesn't count with you, for reasons, but mysteriously Jimmy Carter's does (but only now I am sure, I can't picture you talking up Carter's experience in relation to anything but Obama or maybe Clinton).

Seriously dude, do you even read what you write?
   248. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:05 AM (#5686099)
Yes we know, Obama's pre-presidential experience doesn't count with you, for reasons, but mysteriously Jimmy Carter's does (but only now I am sure, I can't picture you talking up Carter's experience in relation to anything but Obama or maybe Clinton).
As I said, Jimmy Carter had zero DC experience but had been the chief executive of his state. A Naval Academy graduate, he put in some eight years in the Navy and four years in the state legislature, among other accomplishments.

Sorry, but even a lily-white cul-de-sac-er like yourself can't say with a straight face that community organizing, a record of nothing in the state legislature, and two inconsequential years in the Senate before disappearing altogether to run for POTUS equals that.
   249. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5686100)
those who have served as the chief executive of his state

The majesty that is the realm of Arkansas is great preparation for leading the free world, I agree :)
   250. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5686101)
Yes we know, Obama's pre-presidential experience doesn't count with you, for reasons, but mysteriously Jimmy Carter's does (but only now I am sure, I can't picture you talking up Carter's experience in relation to anything but Obama or maybe Clinton).

Seriously dude, do you even read what you write?

I particularly like the part where in response to a claim about who Dems win with, he listed 6 names, 4 of which lost, and one of the others went 1 for 2. (assuming he is talking about Bill and not HRC, whom he really should have also named...)
   251. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5686102)
History is just not going to support some sort of "white guilt" theory of Obama's rise to power. Geraldine Ferraro tried it out, but it didn't stick. Obama was a new face, he gave good speeches, he had a terrific campaign organization. He was slightly, but measurably, to the left of Clinton, who was a tired retread even in '08. And yes, Obama mobilized the heck out of black voters. That's American politics, you work from a base of support. I hear there are at least 13 million black people by now in the US :)

And I don't remember Obama kicking off his campaign by saying something like "White people are not our friend. They are bringing meth. They are bringing racism. And some, I assume, are good people." You have to really do a lot of projecting and vigorous spinning to equate Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric to "Vote for me, guilty Whitey."


You might add that when he began his campaign, his greatest support was among activist whites, primarily due to his opposition to the Iraq war. Prior to his Iowa win, polls indicated that the majority of blacks supported Clinton.
   252. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5686104)
I particularly like the part where in response to a claim about who Dems win with, he listed 6 names, 4 of which lost,
That wasn't the issue.
(assuming he is talking about Bill and not HRC, whom he really should have also named...)
Well, I assumed everyone remembered who the candidate was. :) And yes, she was experienced.

So the point is that Obama was indeed a departure from the norm.
   253. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5686105)
Come to think of it, JE's "white guilt" theory does explain why there's such a huge percentage of black governors, CEOs, university presidents, major-league-baseball managers, etc. Not to mention the swollen ranks of black Presidential candidates coasting to victory in the primaries, most years.
   254. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5686106)
Prior to his Iowa win, polls indicated that the majority of blacks supported Clinton.
Don't forget that pretty much the entire CBC, save the ones from Illinois, backed Hillary. The whole next in line thing, not to mention her husband's reputation, had much to do with that.

And so what? Trump did a helluva lot better with blacks than Romney. Is such a fact all that consequential when considering whether Trump isn't racist or Romney was?
   255. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5686108)
Come to think of it, JE's "white guilt" theory does explain why there's such a huge percentage of black governors, CEOs, university presidents, major-league-baseball managers, etc. Not to mention the swollen ranks of black Presidential candidates coasting to victory in the primaries, most years.
Shrug. Maybe you've elected to forget the commentary during and after the election.
   256. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5686110)
Sorry, but even a lily-white cul-de-sac-er like yourself can't say with a straight face that community organizing, a record of nothing in the state legislature, and two inconsequential years in the Senate before disappearing altogether to run for POTUS equals that.


<yawn>

You are trying to change what BDC wrote in an obvious and dumb way. Again, do you read what you write?

BDC was talking about who the Democrats normally nominate. You may not realize this, but rather few of those candidates ran against each other. If you want to seriously and honestly talk about who Democrats nominate (and then win with) you have to talk about ...

Jimmy Carter versus the other politicians he was running against. Carter was considered one of the fresh faces and relatively inexperienced. And he won.

Mondale? Well he lost his election and was an experienced guy, so that doesn't fit in with your theory all that well.

Dukakis? Again hardly a beacon for how Democrats win. He was roughly as experienced as Biden (for example), and in that election Hart was probably the true fresh face and might have won, but for obvious reasons.

Clinton? Neither the most nor least experienced. He is probably the best example you might have, but he did run a bit of the outsider campaign and didn't play up his establishment cred that much.

Gore? Yeah, you may not realize this but he lost. Sure he should have won, but as it turns out he didn't. And there wasn't really an inexperienced fresh face in the primary (no the long time Senator doesn't count)

Kerry? He also lost. So cool story bro.

Obama? Despite being a Senator he was clearly the most credible fresh face in the crowd, and he also won.

Of course none of them, not a single one, comes anywhere close to as inexperienced in Government as your leader Trump. Which is why your weird diatribe about experience is and how "crippled" Obama was is especially funny.
   257. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5686111)
It has been my experience that most people on a state or local board are giant jerkasses.

Probably, but how often do you have a SCOTUS case in which the meat of the decision is pointing out you specifically are a jerkass?

Like we all knew the Ryan Howard signing sucked, but imagine being Amaro and the court ruling 7-2, that you're a ####### awful GM? You can't outdo SCOTUS pwns except by constitutional amendment.
   258. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5686112)
No. Trolls and propagandists don’t “read what they write.” That’s not what his words are meant to do.
   259. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5686115)
If someone wanted to write a truly scary alternative history, it might begin with having Arthur Bremer's gun misfire

I dunno. If nominated, Wallace wouldn't have had any more success in '72 against Nixon than McGovern did. He was just as fringy, if from the other fringe, and would have lost just as many centrist votes to Nixon.

But alternative histories can have a longer scope, I reckon, so I suppose this one sees Wallace regrouping for another try in 1976 …


In 1972, Wallace** would've split the Democrats even more than they already were, even if he had no chance of getting the nomination. In the aftermath of the Bremer assassination attempt, it's easy to forget that Wallace won the Democratic primaries in Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland and Michigan,*** and got 20% or more in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon and New Mexico. If you combine all the primaries, he received just 2% fewer popular votes than George McGovern.

And while it's impossible to know how Watergate would've affected the details of the political dynamics if Wallace hadn't been crippled, there's no question that a young and healthy Wallace certainly would've had both the will and the ability to keep poisoning the political atmosphere of the country long past 1972.

And you have to be completely ignorant of history not to see the many parallels in Trump and Trumpism today. There are obviously differences---their respective backgrounds being the most notable one---but the visceral electoral appeal of Wallace and Trump had/have far more similarities than differences. Read the descriptions of some of those Wallace rallies in places like Milwaukee or Pittsburgh, and you'll think you were at one of Trump's campaign rallies of 2016 or today.

** Meaning a Wallace who hadn't been crippled and forced to withdraw from the race.

*** And the Maryland and Michigan primaries, where Wallace got 39% and 51% of the votes (let those numbers sink in for a minute), came the day after Bremer's attempted assassination.
   260. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5686116)
which shows the lengths people were some quack on the internet was willing to go to to argue that Hillary would have been able to pardon herself.
Fixing that for the record, before it morphs into "all the lefties here were pushing for HRC pardons". Clinton pardoning herself is just as dumb as Trump pardoning himself; no one here suggested it, no one here thinks it would have happened or been a good idea.

Ray coolly outlines the legal wherefores and whatnots of Trump's case for and against, but everyone here is well aware of how quickly and completely Ray would have lost his mind had a hypothetical President HRC actually tried to pardon herself, or (imagine the horror!) if Obama had pardoned her.
   261. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5686119)
Examples going back to 1976:

Kerry? Not inexperienced.
Gore? Not inexperienced.
Clinton? Not inexperienced.
Dukakis? Not inexperienced.
Mondale? Not inexperienced.
Carter? Not inexperienced.


Lost.
Lost.
Won.
Lost.
Lost.
Won.

A good example of what being "not inexperienced" earns you in terms of presidential elections.
   262. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5686121)
You assume much, my friend. A POTUS pardoning himself would be unprecedented; it's very silly of you to assume there would be no consequences.
If I am interpreting this correctly, you're saying that a Trump self-pardon would be met with sufficient political resistance from the GOP that an impeachment would actually be tenable. Based on the GOP response cowering to Trump thus far, I fear you might be the one doing the assuming, but I guess it's possible. I mean, I would *hope* so.

If I squint I can take your initial comment in this light, but I have to say it wasn't entirely obvious. Thanks for the clarification. :)

   263. perros Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5686131)
Obama won because of his whiteness, a cypher upon which he could be anything white America wanted him to be, including President.


   264. Traderdave Posted: June 05, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5686132)
I mean, I would *hope* so.


Before Trump I would have called that automatic, but not any more. The Republican party is so debased and debauched that they'd let almost anything pass. Video of Trump taking a suitcase full of rubles from Putin might be enough. Maybe. Short of that, they'd never stand up to him.
   265. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5686143)
So the State Media Outlet did this this morning:
Philadelphia Eagles tight end Zach Ertz and defensive lineman Chris Long both criticized Fox News on Tuesday for showing footage of Eagles players praying before games during a segment about protests during the national anthem.

...

"Imagine wanting to please the boss so very badly that you run stills of guys knelt down PRAYING during pregame," Long wrote. "Not one Eagles player knelt for the anthem this yr. Keep carrying his water to sow division while misrepresenting Christian men. Aren't many of your viewers.. nevermind.
   266. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5686145)
So the State Media Outlet did this this morning:

I didn't expect them to be worse than when Ailes was alive. They don't just do news with a conservative POV anymore.
   267. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5686147)
Wait, FOX showed guys kneeling in prayer with the implication that they were kneeling during the anthem? (I may be misreading the story, though that's the way Long's reaction makes most sense.)
   268. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5686148)
@jonahnro:
The attempt to make the Eagles event cancellation about the national anthem is just a complete act of deceitful propaganda and conservatives should have zero to do with it. If that was the issue, why schedule the event in the first place? Also: None of them kneeled. Shameful.

   269. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5686151)
Wait, FOX showed guys kneeling in prayer with the implication that they were kneeling during the anthem? (I may be misreading the story, though that's the way Long's reaction makes most sense.)

Yes. And their current home page is showing two black players with fists raised in the air.
   270. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:23 AM (#5686155)
LOL, President Alpha has even lost Short Stuff on this issue. Maybe we'll get to see a 'he shouldnta done that' from the True Republicans here.
   271. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5686159)
You are trying to change what BDC wrote in an obvious and dumb way. Again, do you read what you write?
He isn't changing what BDC wrote at all. BDC wrote that the Democrats tend to choose young and inexperienced nominees. So Jason cited the actual list of nominees to rebut that, contending that most Democratic nominees are in fact experienced.

BDC was talking about who the Democrats normally nominate. You may not realize this, but rather few of those candidates ran against each other.
So ####### what? What does that have to do with the topic? The people that they didn't nominate weren't the issue; the people that they did nominate were. I have no idea why you're talking about who won or lost the general election, when Jason's sole point was who the Democrats nominate.
   272. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5686161)
Wait, FOX showed guys kneeling in prayer with the implication that they were kneeling during the anthem? (I may be misreading the story, though that's the way Long's reaction makes most sense.)

Yes. And their current home page is showing two black players with fists raised in the air.
How many votes did Trump win Pennsylvania by? Be interesting to cross-reference with pissed-off Eagles supporters. I get the impression that "letting go of a perceived slight" is not a hallmark of that fanbase...
   273. Traderdave Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5686177)
How many votes did Trump win Pennsylvania by? Be interesting to cross-reference with pissed-off Eagles supporters. I get the impression that "letting go of a perceived slight" is not a hallmark of that fanbase...


Won't matter an iota. Trump supporters are congenitally stupid. They worship their god no matter how much he spits in their face or fails them policy-wise. They just want their dumbass racist POTUS no matter what. His Evangelicals support the least Christian president ever, his farmers who depend on exports support the dumbass trade warrior, et al He's got his 40% down and they aren't going anywhere.
   274. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5686178)
Wait, FOX showed guys kneeling in prayer with the implication that they were kneeling during the anthem? (I may be misreading the story, though that's the way Long's reaction makes most sense.)


Yeah it was all over the Twitter wing of the Dittosphere this morning, with many loud guffaws for the libtards who foolishly believed that these obviously uppity Negroes were patriotic.
   275. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5686182)
Kerry? Not inexperienced.
Gore? Not inexperienced.
Clinton? Not inexperienced.
Dukakis? Not inexperienced.
Mondale? Not inexperienced.
Carter? Not inexperienced.


Lost.
Lost.
Won.
Lost.
Lost.
Won.


Communist who hates America
Communist who hates America
Communist who hates America
Communist who hates America
Communist who hates America
   276. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5686184)

A brief summary of views, with some links, on the self-pardon issue.
   277. EddieA Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5686187)
Richard Epstein on the Masterpiece Case

I always wonder what good the expansion of public accommodations anti-discrimination law from restaurants, hotels, parks, utilities, medical services, and common carriers to every type of business could possibly accomplish.
   278. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5686190)

I always wonder what good the expansion of public accommodations anti-discrimination law from restaurants, hotels, parks, utilities, medical services, and common carriers to every type of business could possibly accomplish.
The original theory was, to speak loosely, about being able to participate in the economy. If you can't eat or sleep or travel, you are severely hindered in your life. But it came to be about something different, about "dignity." Obviously (1) the services of a cake bakery are not essential to anyone, and (2) there are billions of such bakers in the U.S. that would be happy to take your business if one particular one does not. But it hurts your feelings if even one of them is allowed to turn you away, so that has to be banned too.
   279. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5686195)
[Obama] was young and relatively inexperienced, but that's the Democratic playbook;
Which words of BDC here don't you understand, Mouse?

EDIT: And what David said.
   280. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5686196)
So the State Media Outlet did this this morning:
Fox News subsequently apologized for this dreck.
   281. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5686198)
From David's #276, a take that encapsulates my thinking more or less completely (Noah Feldman):
There’s a decent historical argument about [the self-pardon question], but it’s beside the point. The bottom line is that if the president could pardon himself, we would no longer have a republic -- nor a government of laws rather than men. We would be a dictatorship, not a democracy.

The very idea of self-pardon is the kind of silly technicality that non-lawyers think lawyers engage in all the time. I’m not going to offer a full-throated defense of the legal profession, but we’re not really that dumb or bad -- at least not usually.
Feel free to debate the silliness of whether it's "legal". It's anti-American and wrong, period.
   282. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5686200)
The very idea of self-pardon is the kind of silly technicality that non-lawyers think lawyers engage in all the time. I’m not going to offer a full-throated defense of the legal profession, but we’re not really that dumb or bad -- at least not usually.


Well sure because that would detract from more pressing legal pursuits like figuring out how to bill for 36 hours in a day and extorting laypeople with threats of bankruptcy from frivolous lawsuits.
   283. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:26 PM (#5686201)
Oh good grief. Apparently the only rebuttal to my mild claims is to go off onto an excursus in pedantry. I named three Democratic Presidents who were relatively young and inexperienced when nominated, to go alongside Obama as a fourth. That's all.

You can chop and pare and argue about categories all you like, but the fact is that the Democrats, in particular, sometimes opt for a relative newcomer as a nominee, and that nominee sometimes wins the Presidency. You don't have to develop a white-guilt affirmative-action scenario to explain Barack Obama. End of story.
   284. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5686202)
JPod has some thoughts to share with Mouse and others:
a quick thread. 1/ most of the political discussion in America re parties since 2009 has been about the GOP crack-up--populists vs establishment etc. It is, indeed, a fascinating subject and one to which I have devoted enormous attention.
2/ so has everybody else. the Trump v. never-Trump divide and the cowardice of party leaders and the fact that young people hate the GOP brand etc etc. But I've also devoted considerable attention to the subject of the Democratic party's troubles.
...
It's amazing how little attention the Democratic party's crisis (successive loss of House, Senate and presidency and the crushing of state-level legislators and governors) has gotten. and all the more so after Trump's win.
5/ Instead, the focus has been on Trump energizing Democrats, Democrats organizing as never before etc etc. Which smacks of boosterism rather than realism. The fact is the Democratic party and liberal thinkers have spent little time wondering where they failed.
6/ the failure is more than Hillary, since it began under Obama, and after his wildly successful first 16 months. losing 63 House seats, 9 senate seats in 2014, and 1000 lower level legislative seats. The GOP brand may indeed be toxic. but the Democratic Party itself seems toxic.
7/ now here we are. Polls have the generic congressional ballot shrinking. The latest Battleground assessment has the November midterms a toss-up. It does go hand in hand with a modest Trump improvement, but that's not the point.
8/ ordinarily Democrats SHOULD be able to rely on general disaffection with the GOP and its control of the presidency and Congress and the relatively modest 23-seat margin to TAKE FOR GRANTED the fact that they will take over Congress in November.
9/ certainly I have been. But the evidence of the last six weeks suggests that things are not going in the D direction. Without a change in the present dynamic, control of the House will be a jump ball on Election Day. Ds themselves seem to be negating their own natural advantage
10/ Why? Well, because they have addressed literally not one of the ideological-cultural-policy reasons that caused them to decline so precipitously from the triumphs of 2006 and 2008. And judging from the happy talk today about the horrific polls, they won't be doing so.
11/ So. If Rs keep the House in 2018 after all this, the question will be: Will there be 200 articles and 50 books published in the subsequent 6 months explaining it, or will it be even more epistemic closure leading to the reelection of an unpopular president and the continued
12/ legislative domination of the most unpopular party in American history? Will it prove that liberals and Democrats can't bear to face the facts that much of what they say and do is keeping Americans from handing them the authority they were handed in 2008?
13/ The problem is they have no incentive to do so. No media pressure. No donor pressure. No establishment pressure. All the pressure is directing them to lean even more heavily into the kinds of ideas that helped bring about the reversal in their fortunes beginning in 2010.
14/ So, in conclusion, every adjective used to describe the GOP during the Obama years -- crackup, disaster, apocalypse -- may prove to have been the most spectacular form of political projection we've ever seen. END.
   285. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5686203)
So the State Media Outlet did this this morning:

Fox News subsequently apologized for this dreck.


When is your fat, bald, spray-tanned sissy of a hero going to apologize?
   286. DavidFoss Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5686204)
Fox News subsequently apologized for this dreck.

The fist-pumping players photo is still there, they've just moved it down the page. (The #1 story is now Bill & Monica).
   287. dlf Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5686207)
Thinking about the little snit about 'young and inexperienced' in a different vein ... comparing the candidates:

2016: D younger (but both old farts) & more experienced
2012: D younger, sitting President
2008: D younger & less experienced
2004: D older, less experienced
2000: D younger, more experienced
1996: D younger, sitting president (but R was very experienced)
1992: D younger, less experienced
1988: D younger, less experienced
1984: D younger, less experienced (but very experienced)
1980: D younger, sitting President
1976: D younger & less experienced

Pretty much every time during the period JE listed, the D was younger, often by just a couple of years and, other than renominating a sitting P or VP is the less experienced candidate except for the one everyone has subsequently acknowledged was an atrociously bad candidate.
   288. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5686209)
Tweet of note:
Job openings in the US now exceed the total number of unemployed by 352,000. New JOLTS data out this morning show 6.698 million job openings in April, while the total number of unemployed civilians was 6.346 million.
"Armageddon!"

"Crumbs!"

"This tax bill will be an anchor around the ankles of every Republican."
   289. Lassus Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5686213)
#AlwaysTrump
   290. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5686214)
Richard Epstein on the Masterpiece Case

I always wonder what good the expansion of public accommodations anti-discrimination law from restaurants, hotels, parks, utilities, medical services, and common carriers to every type of business could possibly accomplish.

If only these laws had omitted Jews as a protected class, maybe professor Epstein might have ceased his wondering.
   291. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5686215)
Also from JPod:
Calling a self-pardon a pardon is like calling masturbation copulation.
   292. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5686216)
Fox News subsequently apologized for this dreck.

The fist-pumping players photo is still there, they've just moved it down the page. (The #1 story is now Bill & Monica).
True, Fox has removed the *most* egregious misleading bits from their story. However, the whole thing is still a propaganda piece for Trump. His tweet is prominently featured:
The Philadelphia Eagles Football Team was invited to the White House. Unfortunately, only a small number of players decided to come, and we canceled the event. Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry!
No Eagle ever stayed in the locker room, and one Eagle knelt - once - during a preseason game, and never again (that guy was cut and didn't make the team). Trashing the Eagles on this is appalling, but, sadly, par for the course for both a POTUS that lies and a modern-day Pravda that holsters him. The deplorables won't see or care about the apology Fox buried somewhere, while Trump's lying tweet unapologetically remains.
   293. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5686218)
and a modern-day Pravda that holsters him.
Hmmm, noted Trumpkin Shep Smith works for which cable news network?

I mean, can you name one CNN weekday or weeknight host who's a bona fide conservative, let alone Trump supporter?
   294. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5686222)
@arkansasfred:
The Eagles are really missing out on the opportunity to stand there while the President ##### up their names, barely mentions the Super Bowl, then tells a pointless story about how NFL owners were very unfair to him when he tried to buy the Buffalo Bills.
   295. Stormy JE Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5686224)
Obama took on the Redskins.

Trump is taking on the Eagles.

When Trump's presidency concludes, I'll sell short my Cowboys and Giants stock.
   296. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:58 PM (#5686226)
I mean, can you name one CNN weekday or weeknight host who's a bona fide conservative, let alone Trump supporter?

I don't watch CNN, but at the risk of Whataboutism, can you name one New York Times or Washington Post op-ed writer who's a bona fide Bernie Sanders supporter, or any columnist who's the left wing counterpart of Gary Abernathy or Marc Thiessen?
   297. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5686228)
Richard Epstein on the Masterpiece Case
I always wonder what good the expansion of public accommodations anti-discrimination law from restaurants, hotels, parks, utilities, medical services, and common carriers to every type of business could possibly accomplish.
If only these laws had omitted Jews as a protected class, maybe professor Epstein might have ceased his wondering.
I know that you have your own unique posting style that makes it impossible to tell who said what and when, but most people post clearly. Epstein didn't wonder anything. EddieA did.
   298. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5686230)
I mean, what CNN weekday or weeknight personality is a bona fide conservative, let alone Trump supporter?


See this is one of the problems. Centrists giving equal time to insane people has created this. There should never be a "bonafide conservative" which is basically a dog whistle for "lunatic fringe conservative" calling themselves a newscaster. There will NEVER be a legit socialist in the MSM because the MSM is, get this, a CAPITALIST endeavor. That's why it drives me nuts when people talk about the "liberal MSM". The liberal MSM are all capitalists! How liberal can they be? What people really mean when they say that is that there are sections of the media that fail to give equal time to lunacy on the right. The MSM is brutally bad but not for the reasons "bona fide conservatives" hint at. It's because they don't report the damn news; all they care about is making money like the good capitalists that they are.


edit: I owe Andy a drink..
   299. BDC Posted: June 05, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5686231)
the D was younger, often by just a couple of years and, other than renominating a sitting P or VP is the less experienced candidate

And this is very likely to be the case in 2020. Of course, Clapper is beside himself with visions of the Democrats nominating Sanders, Biden, or Pelosi, but I have to think that those folks are longshots in practical terms. Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker … these people are not infants either, but they're a heck of a lot younger than Trump, and if they put together organizations and mobilize voters, they'll have every chance at the Presidency. Elizabeth Warren would be the "My Turn" candidate at this point, and even she's younger than Trump.
   300. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5686232)

I don't watch CNN, but at the risk of Whataboutism, can you name one New York Times or Washington Post op-ed writer who's a bona fide Bernie Sanders supporter, or any columnist who's the left wing counterpart of Gary Abernathy or Marc Thiessen?
Elizabeth Bruenig?
Page 3 of 16 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  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
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWho needs Justice when you have OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 20, 2018
(13 - 4:00pm, Sep 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogDodgers bash their way to MLB history with record-tying seven 20-homer hitters
(12 - 3:58pm, Sep 20)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1434 - 3:56pm, Sep 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(812 - 3:45pm, Sep 20)
Last: strong silence

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(361 - 3:44pm, Sep 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(431 - 3:36pm, Sep 20)
Last: TFTIO is Lounging from the flat one

NewsblogSnell wins 20th, ties Rays record in 4-0 victory over Texas
(35 - 3:21pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(55 - 3:17pm, Sep 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(75 - 3:09pm, Sep 20)
Last: Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty

Sox Therapy6,036 Days
(15 - 2:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(134 - 1:55pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1947 Discussion
(10 - 1:54pm, Sep 20)
Last: MrC.

NewsblogIs Red Sox' slump temporary, or did they come back to earth?
(6 - 1:25pm, Sep 20)
Last: TomH

NewsblogMinor league baseball players exploring union as they continue to battle low wages
(13 - 11:34am, Sep 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogRed Sox division title banner falls off truck; its return may cost them - The Boston Globe
(31 - 11:12am, Sep 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Page rendered in 0.8051 seconds
46 querie(s) executed