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

Wednesday, September 05, 2018

OTP 2018 September 4: Candidate for governor pitches politics at Jacksonville baseball game

The Democratic candidate for governor spent his Labor Day in Jacksonville and attended a Jumbo Shrimp game at the baseball grounds.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum called for his Republican opponent, Ron DeSantis, to have a more civil campaign, but New4Jax political analyst Rick Mullaney doesn’t think the political attacks will slow down.

 

(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: September 05, 2018 at 08:26 AM | 1496 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 4 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 01:52 AM (#5739523)
and flop
   302. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:19 AM (#5739527)
You get there fast and then you take it slow.

Look at the Little Lord go-o-o
With Trump Fellatio
   303. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:21 AM (#5739528)
I'm not seeing the big deal about the op-ed. (...)Folks are just completely ridiculous, in their views about every new item in a news cycle. This is a complete snore


Hey, it’s that carefully-cultivated facade of nihilistic ennui I mentioned in our recent discussion over your claim that global warming was a hoax! That really is your fallback for the uncomfortable aspects of reality isn’t it Little Lord? I guess it beats heroin.
   304. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:22 AM (#5739529)
allowing partisans to remove a president

You're a lawyer who does thinking real good?


Him think so good he look to Dilbert for point to talk.
   305. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:34 AM (#5739531)
Working for the occupying authority while telling yourself that your presence does more good than harm because you curb its worst excesses is not resistance it’s collaboration.

Yeah, I remember everyone walking out of Schlinder's List saying "God, I'm glad that movie exposed what a Nazi #### that guy was".


You just called Trump a Nazi! Oh hippies, have you no shame?
   306. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:44 AM (#5739533)
Vice President Mike Pence – and “the field” – lead offshore bookmaking picks as the White House mole behind the anonymous bombshell New York Times op-ed blasting President Trump.

Pence was listed at 2-to-3 odds on the site MyBookie as the fifth column official who claims to be working behind the scenes to stop some of Trump’s policies that they find wrongheaded.

The biggest favorite, at 1-3 odds, is “the field,” someone not listed among the 18 administration officials listed by the Costa Rica-based operation.

The other 17 named potential moles, listed by MyBookie, are: Education Secretary Betsy Devos (2-to-1), Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (4-to-1), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (4-to-1), chief of staff John F. Kelly (4-to-1), Defense Secretary Jim Mattis (5-to-1), Attorney General Jeff Sessions (5-to-1), Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke (6-to-1), Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue (6-to-1), Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (7-to-1) Labor Secretary Alex Acosta (7-to-1), HHS Secretary Alex Azar (8-to-1), HUD Secretary Ben Carson (8-to-1), VA Secretary Robert Wilkie (8-to-1), Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen (10-to-1), Ivanka Trump (12-to-1) and Jared Kushner (12-to-1)."


No action for Mike Huckaboob’s big-boned daughter with the strabismus? Didn’t she just have a row with Fat Donnie over lowering the White House flag for John McCain?
   307. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:56 AM (#5739534)

McGahn is a reasonable guess, as are Nikki Haley and Mnuchin. Recently departed SAO's are probably even more likely. I don't think it's Mattis or Kelly, though. Disloyalty, no matter how patriotic & appropriate, just isn't in a Marine's DNA. Especially not a career Marine with a star.
It can't be someone "recently departed" because the description is in the present tense and then their job wouldn't be in jeopardy. I agree that it could be someone like Haley, but she isn't important enough for this. She's U.N. Ambassador; that's just too peripheral a position to fit the story. I think it has to be someone closer to the oval office on a day-to-day basis. Someone like Mnuchin would work.

Is this going to be like Deep Throat, with the Times refusing to reveal it until he's dead?
   308. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:58 AM (#5739535)

A military commander would not nuke Canada just because Trump ordered him to.
Why not? I've had it with those perfidious Canucks.
   309. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:02 AM (#5739536)
The only things noteworthy about the opinions expressed by the senior official here are (1) that they're published, and (2) the senior official disagrees with more of the agenda than the typical senior official would. No senior official agrees 100% with any president, including the senior officials who worked for Obama. We wouldn't WANT complete agreement. That's for a James Bond villain, not a president. If you as a senior official disagree with the president, you voice your disagreement and go along until such point as you cannot in good conscience go along, and then you work to achieve a different result or you resign. In this case the senior official says he does agree with much of the agenda and wants the administration to succeed; clearly he disagrees with more of the agenda than the typical senior administration official would. But, so what? There's always going to be a line.
No, Ray. The Op/Ed doesn't say that the senior official "disagrees with" Trump. That would indeed be a snore. The Op/Ed says that the senior official thinks Trump is incompetent, and that much of the time the senior official (and many others) works to thwart Trump.
   310. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:09 AM (#5739537)

Describes pretty much every CEO at a major corporation. The people under them always think they're some combination of stupid or ill-informed, make bad decisions, need to have things hidden from them.
No, Ray. It describes the CEO at the Trump Organization.
   311. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:17 AM (#5739538)
Frum fundamentally misunderstands the 25th Amendment. While there's an argument that it applies to mental incapacity, that doesn't cover "morally and intellectually unfit."
It certainly does. It says "unable to discharge the powers and duties." If one is intellectually unfit, one is unable to discharge the duties.

It also would set a horrible precedent, allowing partisans to remove a president for, well, pretty much any reason. "Morally and intellectually unfit" goes a long way.
No, Ray. It requires the majority of the cabinet to find such disability. That's not "partisans"; that's people handpicked by the president. It then requires Congressional action, and while members of Congress are certainly partisan, it requires 2/3rds of them, which would require bipartisan agreement.
   312. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:18 AM (#5739539)
Ray, #222:
Fox News: ’Cosby Show' actor Geoffrey Owens spotted bagging groceries at NJ Trader Joe's
Mark Harris: Aside from the obvious right-on-the-surface ugliness of this, note the hypocrisy: Fox News, which purports to represent the concerns of ordinary working "real Americans," can't hide its revulsion when it spots one. What this is really about is reinforcing Fox News's target viewership in a belief they cling to for dear life, one that starts with, "See? Even when you give them every opportunity, they still end up..." It is that bone-deep and that vicious.

Ummmm... Elvin was bizarre-doxxed by pretty much every major media outlet. It wasn't exclusive to FOX News.

So you think what Fox News did was an example of pack journalism? Dummmmb…

Forget the lurching disconnect between Fox News' phony economic populism and the subject of the article. Just Google how many major media outlets initially covered Owens' job circumstances as a news item, the way Fox News did. And then, compare that total to how many major media outlets were reacting to Fox News' coverage of Owens' job circumstances. Either by covering the gratuitous garbage dog whistle Fox piece itself, or the subsequent public response to Owens' distress.

I'll start you off. The major media outlets that pretended Owens' Trader Joe's job was a story of interest:
1. The Daily Mail
2. Fox News
3.

And then, an incomplete list of the major media outlets that covered the Geoffrey Owens Trader Joe’s story as a negative response to Fox News’ garbage dog whistle story, and/or who covered the aftermath of Fox News' garbage dog whistle story:
CNN
ABC
CBS
NBC
CNBC
BBC
Washington Post
New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
NY Daily News
NY Post
Boston Globe
Seattle Times
Denver Post
Palm Beach Times
Tampa Bay Times
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Houston Chronicle
LA Times
USA Today
Newsday
The New Yorker
Vanity Fair
The Federalist
Daily Kos
Breitbart
Crooks and Liars
Time Magazine
Newsweek
People Magazine
Us Magazine
"Good Morning America"
"The Today Show"
Vox
Huffington Post
Vulture
Radat Online
The Blaze
CNBC
The Wrap
Yahoo
Entertainment Weekly
Business Insider
Facebook
NJ.com
Deadline Hollywood
The Daily Show
Essence
AOL
Variety
The Atlantic
Hot Air
Uproxx
The AV Club
...and Fox News

TMZ didn't publish an initial story about Owens the lowly grocery bagger, but they did do a story about Owens having been hurt by Fox News’ mockery. In other words, Fox News had lower ethical journalistic standards than TMZ.


Ray, cont.:
And the doxxing was odd. As if working at Trader Joe's is supposed to be an embarrassment or something. (But working as a porn star is totally not, when it's Rudy Giuliani's ox being gored.)

This is whataboutism if whataboutism suffered a brain aneurysm.
   313. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:22 AM (#5739540)
Jolly Old Andy, #242:
Funniest thing about Trump's rant in reaction to the anonymous op-ed: In the middle of his rant, he said his "poll numbers are through the roof"

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire.
   314. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:37 AM (#5739541)
Porn stars and lawyers are about the same level of intrinsic value. Being good at sex is probably a more inherently worthwhile skill than being good at paperwork. I guess the proficiency at lying might bring the lawyers back to even.

Ways lawyers and Porn Stars are the same:

1) They both help scumbags get off
2) They both brag about ####### people
3) They both take hush money from Fat Donnie
4) They both use Latin terms to describe their activities
5) Neither of them have ever been in my kitchen
   315. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 05:48 AM (#5739542)
@realDonaldTrump
1m1 minute ago
More
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!


Or else what, Fatass?
   316. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 06:05 AM (#5739543)
NY Daily News:
Virginia man convicted of slugging white supremacist who organized deadly Charlottesville rally fined $1

A Virginia man who prosecutors say was seen on video slugging white supremacist Jason Kessler one day after last year's deadly rally in Charlottesville was slapped with a $1 fine on Tuesday.

Jeffrey Winder was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery for a second time during an appeal trial and faced up to 12 months in jail and $2,500 in fines.

However, a jury in Charlottesville decided the $1 fine and no jail time was enough, according to the Daily Progress newspaper.

Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally, was trying to hold a press conference in front of Charlottesville City Hall when he was attacked on Aug. 13, 2017. He was forced to flee.

.......“I was attacked in front of the whole world, and then people made fun of me for it,” Kessler said in court, according to the Daily Progress.

Yes, that's exactly right.
(Click "View.")
   317. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 07:27 AM (#5739545)

"It's okay to assault people if you don't like their opinions."
   318. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:01 AM (#5739547)
Been pondering the NYT piece overnight. Yeah, it's fun to hear people saying how incompetent Trump is, and to guess who's responsible for the piece. But I think overall publishing it is a very bad thing. It doesn't tell us things about Trump that we don't already know. What it does tell us is that unelected people are thwarting the will of elected officeholders. It's facile to defend that by saying, "Yes, but Trump." If it can happen to him, it can happen to someone who you like more. If the guy had come forward with something specific and illegal that he had thwarted, that would be one thing. But just to say, "When the president has what I think are bad ideas, my friends and I do what we want instead" is damaging. (If it turned out that members of the Obama administration were heroically trying to save us from socialism by refusing to implement Obamacare, I doubt people here would be cheering, no matter how justified they were.) It validates Trump's arguments about the swamp and the deep state, both for Trump himself and his supporters. It likely makes Trump more paranoid and even less likely to listen to more sober advisors of his. And more likely to fire Mueller. (There was an attempted coup against Erdogan a few years ago. Did it result in Erdogan saying, "Hmm, if people feel that strongly I should change my ways?" Of course not; no coup attempt in history has ever had that effect. It resulted in Erdogan saying, "I'm going to double down on what I've been doing. I've got to clean house, get rid of all my enemies from society and strengthen my control over the government.")

It doesn’t even help Trump's rivals or opponents, because all it does is diffuse responsibility for what the administration has been doing. "Don't vote for Trump because he has awful ideas" can be rebutted by, "Yes, but the adults in the administration will protect us from him, so it's okay to vote for him."

And, really, the only thing we learn from the op/ed is that some guy is congratulating himself, perhaps so that after he leaves the WH he can reveal himself as the author and say, "See, you shouldn't criticize me for working for this loser. I was really working for the good of the country the whole time."
   319. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:03 AM (#5739548)
Re: #317--

Not okay to do so, just delightful.(***)

(***but only if they're the Nazi who organized a white power rally that caused three (unfortunately non-Nazi) fatalities, and especially if they're a Nazi who himself punched someone in the face while arguing about a petition, filed a false claim about the victim having punched him in the face, boasted to reporters "Man to man, yell in a man's face and expect to get punched in the face," and then mewled like a bitch and exposed his tough guy movement in Charlottesville after he was sucker-punched in the face. It's a highly specific exception to legal and moral principle.)
   320. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:09 AM (#5739550)
Describes pretty much every CEO at a major corporation.


Add "how the C-suites actually work" to the list of things Ray has no clue about.
   321. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:12 AM (#5739551)


As for the speculation aspect:

1) The Times says that it granted anonymity because of the risk to the guy's job. But Pence is the one person in the executive branch that Trump can't fire.

2) "Senior administration official" is a broad descriptor that can apply to (from what I've been reading) between 600 - 1,000 people. But while the person need not be someone the public knows, it must be someone that everyone in Washington knows. If it's an assistant to the assistant deputy undersecretary to the associate secretary, then it wouldn't be newsworthy to the Times.

3) The piece uses the phrase " ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people." "Free minds and free markets" is the slogan of the libertarian Reason magazine. Could be just a coincidence -- or could reflect the reading habits of the ghostwriter rather than author -- but could be a tell.
   322. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:12 AM (#5739552)
What it does tell us is that unelected people are thwarting the will of elected officeholders. It's facile to defend that by saying, "Yes, but Trump."


I agree with this, but it happens with every President (just usually not with his staff). The government is large and the bureaucracy has their own fiefdoms that they protect. The President is only as strong as his staff and his ability to drive his agenda.

It also shows another weakness of the President that he can't remember his own agenda. He really doesn't have any principles that he believes in.
   323. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:16 AM (#5739554)
"It's okay to assault people if you don't like their opinions."


Why do you hate the justice system, David? Did he not get a trial by his peers?
   324. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:17 AM (#5739556)
I may be the only person here with this opinion, but what I think we're seeing now is the gradual lancing of a a boil, and not an imminent Constitutional crisis.

But given congressional realities and the proven spinelessness of every congressional Republican, the first serious attack on that boil can't take place for two months. And for the time being it's probably good to have a few relatively sane people in place to prevent Trump from launching a war.


I don't see this at all. The bigger crisis here is that the GOP is easily the more powerful political party, and it's power comes from catering to angry white baby boomers. What was LBJ's (apparently fake) line about the Civil Rights Act dooming the D's in the south? That's the same thing R's are facing if they attempt to undermine Trump openly, and they know it. And unlike the CRA, the current Respectable R's are not even sure that openly challenging Trump will accomplish anything, because there are plenty of clowns like Steve Bannon and Roy Moore willing (and likely able) to take their places.


Come back to this on November 7th and see what you think has changed. Powerful political parties don't necessarily stay powerful forever. Trump still has immense power to do harm, but with the exception of the Supreme Court, most of that harm will be reversible.

As for the likes of Bannon and Moore, without Trump in the White House they're nothing. The hates and fears of the worst 30% to 35% of the electorate can't control the government forever.

   325. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:17 AM (#5739557)
KAMALA HARRIS: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

BRETT KAVANAUGH: [long pause, swallow] Uh. I'm happy to... uh, answer a more specific question--

HARRIS: Male versus female.

KAVANAUGH: There are, um. Medical procedures? I'm.

HARRIS: That the government, that the government has the power to make a decision about a man's body?

KAVANAUGH: No. I thought you were asking about medical procedures that are unique to men.

HARRIS: No, I can, I'll, I'll, I'll repeat the question. Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

KAVANAUGH: I’m not a--, I’m not awa--, thinking of any right now, Senator.
   326. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:22 AM (#5739559)
Expect 10 o 12 more changes are GOP President Trump continues his mental and emotional deterioration on the world stage ... In quick reversal, Trump threatens shutdown over border wall

Trump reiterated that threat on Wednesday. Responding to a reporter’s question about a possible shutdown, he said: “If it happens, it happens. If it’s about border security, I’m willing to do anything. We have to protect our borders.”

His stance contradicts an interview he gave to the Daily Caller on Tuesday, when he said: “I don’t like the idea of shutdowns.”


Everyone who voted for him and who continue to support him must wake up each morning full of pride of a job well done.
   327. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:23 AM (#5739560)

KAMALA HARRIS: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
Apparently Kamala Harris isn't woke enough to realize that men can get pregnant too, according to today's leftist orthodoxy.

But of course the question is retarded, as there are zillions of laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. In fact, pretty much every law ever passed gives the government power to make decisions over people's (including men's) bodies.
   328. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:25 AM (#5739561)
His stance contradicts an interview he gave to the Daily Caller on Tuesday, when he said: “I don’t like the idea of shutdowns.”


He's been mentally incompetent since prior to the election. It's one of a thousand vectors by which he is unfit. (Remember when Ray's spin job of the day was to tell people that it was "unhinged" to suggest that a "master persuader" like Trump was mentally unsound? Man. Good times, Ray. Good times.)
   329. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:26 AM (#5739562)
David mentioned Obama and socialism up thread ... One of Obamacare’s big experiments to lower costs is working surprisingly well

A few years ago, under the authority of the Affordable Care Act, the federal government started an experiment: It would pay hospitals a single amount for surgeries to replace joints like knees and hips instead of paying them for each individual service. The hope was that hospitals could lower costs while maintaining or even improving the quality of care.


Did it work? Well not all legislation works (obviously), but when you get a bunch of serious adults together and try to craft legislation to solve actual problems, well sometimes it works out. And it always works better than what we are seeing from GOP President Trump and his Legion of Criminals, Nazis, and Idiots every day, so there is that.
   330. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:26 AM (#5739563)
But of course the question is retarded, as there are zillions of laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. In fact, pretty much every law ever passed gives the government power to make decisions over people's (including men's) bodies.


And each of them applies equally to female bodies, you simpering moron. Harris' point is obvious, but you are on the "men should be allowed to legislate a woman's uterus for her, because babies and YHWH" train, so you're going to stick with mewling idiocy on this point I'm sure.
   331. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:28 AM (#5739564)
Apparently Kamala Harris isn't woke enough to realize that men can get pregnant too, according to today's leftist orthodoxy.


I see David has been sniffing glue again.

But of course the question is retarded, as there are zillions of laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. In fact, pretty much every law ever passed gives the government power to make decisions over people's (including men's) bodies.


Yet he fumbled the question horribly. And still you seem to think that screwing the pooch on an answer to an easy question is somehow an indictment pointed at the person asking the question. That seems .... wrong.
   332. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:29 AM (#5739565)
I think what David's trying to say is that since Brett Kavanaugh couldn't come up with even one example of those zillions of laws, he's retardeder than retarded and unfit for the Court.
   333. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:30 AM (#5739566)
Been pondering the NYT piece overnight. Yeah, it's fun to hear people saying how incompetent Trump is, and to guess who's responsible for the piece. But I think overall publishing it is a very bad thing. It doesn't tell us things about Trump that we don't already know. What it does tell us is that unelected people are thwarting the will of elected officeholders. It's facile to defend that by saying, "Yes, but Trump." If it can happen to him, it can happen to someone who you like more.

I think I'll take my chances on the likelihood of a normal president ever being subjected to what Trump's being subjected to now, according to the author of that op-ed piece. Normal presidents don't expose themselves to extraordinary countermeasures like internal "resistance". When key members of a normal administration are faced with a crisis of conscience over a policy, they've either resigned or stayed around and saved their disagreements for their memoirs. There's been nothing like this before, and unless the country goes completely mad a second time and elects someone else like Trump, it's not going to happen again.
   334. Nasty Nate Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:31 AM (#5739567)
What it does tell us is that unelected people are thwarting the will of elected officeholders. It's facile to defend that by saying, "Yes, but Trump." If it can happen to him, it can happen to someone who you like more
Why hasn't it happened to someone I like more?

And if it has happened, was it terrible? was it good? Or does the privacy of past occurrences make the key difference?
   335. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:32 AM (#5739568)
It's not a law; it's the constitution. As a normative matter, of course I think that a self-pardon should be a nullity. As a structural matter, it doesn't make sense for the president to have the power to self-pardon. But what the historical record says -- if anything -- is something I'm not an expert on.


I doubt the constitution specifically addresses a president self pardoning, because the idea of giving someone such broad powers wasn't even considered, because it's so ridiculous on its face.

There is no historical record of self-pardoning, so go easy on yourself.
   336. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:35 AM (#5739569)

Harris' point is obvious
Of course it's obvious. Doesn't make it less retarded. Only women -- regardless of what transgender fanatics think -- can get pregnant, so laws about pregnancy directly affect only women's bodies. But that is a consequence of biology, not of discrimination. If legislatures are allowed to make decisions over people's bodies, then it would be bizarre for pregnancy to be an exception based solely on the fact that only women can get pregnant.

And of course you'll keep lying about who supports abortion laws.
   337. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:36 AM (#5739570)
I can't imagine why Democrats plan to run against the Republican culture of corruption and outright criminality ... Judge Orders Candidate Off Ballot In Virginia

A Richmond Circuit Court judge ruled that independent Shaun Brown should be removed from Virginia’s 2nd congressional district ballot, finding “out and out fraud” in the effort to gather her signatures, the Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

Washington Post: “Many of those signatures were gathered by staffers working for the incumbent Republican, Scott Taylor, who is seeking a second term. Five current or former staffers for the congressman declined to answer questions in court, pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. A separate criminal probe into the matter is ongoing and a state police investigator attended the civil hearing.”
   338. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:38 AM (#5739571)

Yet he fumbled the question horribly. And still you seem to think that screwing the pooch on an answer to an easy question is somehow an indictment pointed at the person asking the question. That seems .... wrong.
The problem is, Kavanaugh isn't allowed to respond the only correct way: "The question is retarded and the person asking it is retarded, and it has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm here, so why don't you just STFU and let someone who isn't a moron ask me something intelligent and relevant to this hearing?" (Or, better yet, "You already announced you weren't going to support me long before this, so obviously you don't care what my answers are, so stop wasting my time.")
   339. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:40 AM (#5739572)
And of course you'll keep lying about who supports abortion laws.


Silly boy, both sides favor abortion laws. One side favors laws keeping it safe, legal, and rare and the other side favors making them illegal.
   340. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5739573)
What it does tell us is that unelected people are thwarting the will of elected officeholders. It's facile to defend that by saying, "Yes, but Trump." If it can happen to him, it can happen to someone who you like more

It seems like it happened to Nixon too, at the end of Watergate. Staffers told the military to ignore Nixon's orders if they were not confirmed. They were afraid he might do something crazy.
   341. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5739574)
The problem is, Kavanaugh isn't allowed to respond the only correct way:


He could easily stand up, announce he is removing himself from consideration, and introduce Merrick Garland to the room.
   342. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:42 AM (#5739575)
Silly boy, both sides favor abortion laws. One side favors laws keeping it safe, legal, and rare and the other side favors making them illegal.


No silly. No silly. YOU'RE the silly.
   343. Greg K Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5739576)
I think I'll take my chances on the likelihood of a normal president ever being subjected to what Trump's being subjected to now, according to the author of that op-ed piece. Normal presidents don't expose themselves to extraordinary countermeasures like internal "resistance". When key members of a normal administration are faced with a crisis of conscience over a policy, they've either resigned or stayed around and saved their disagreements for their memoirs. There's been nothing like this before, and unless the country goes completely mad a second time and elects someone else like Trump, it's not going to happen again.

I would guess you're probably right and the US isn't on the verge of a coup. But it's a troubling sign when presumably un-elected administration officials publicly paint themselves as saving democracy by undermining the president. One can hope that this is just a cover your ass tactic to salvage a political career once this is all over. But I think there's a real danger of A] unnder-estimating how fragile democracy can be, even in the US, and B] treating Trump as a one-off.

I mean, I think Trump is a one-off in the sense that he's unlike any previous president, and it's possible he'll be unlike any future president. But the polarization and gridlock of the political system that has given him his opportunity is nothing new. Over the past 20 years or so the US system seems to paralyzed. If the public is ok with administration officials stepping in and undermining the elected president once, whose to say it doesn't become fair game in the future, just like all the other tactics that were unthinkable a generation ago.
   344. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5739577)
The problem is, Kavanaugh isn't allowed to respond the only correct way


Yeah, that is totally it. He never could have responded "Many laws effect men's bodies" and then given examples. But nice try with the whole "There is only one possible way to answer and he couldn't, because mean old Democrats" or whatever it is you are peddling.

Seriously you claimed it was a easy question and the easy answer is basically all laws effect human bodies. It is on him that he didn't answer the easy question with the obvious answer.
   345. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5739579)
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids men as well as women to have full abortion rights under bridges."
   346. Greg K Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:47 AM (#5739580)
Why hasn't it happened to someone I like more?

And if it has happened, was it terrible? was it good? Or does the privacy of past occurrences make the key difference?

I think the privacy of the past is a key difference.

For me, the significance isn't so much that it is happening. But that those who are doing it have made it public, and are painting it as a heroic defence of democracy.

I'm sure it's happened in the past. Which is not great, but perhaps an ugly truth about politics. But a public campaign to legitimize undermining the elected head of state - that has the potential to be dangerous.
   347. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:47 AM (#5739581)
I would guess you're probably right and the US isn't on the verge of a coup.


In what way would the nation be worse off after a coup? Would the military suddenly have unrestrained, unchecked power to wage war whenever and wherever it liked or something?
   348. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:50 AM (#5739582)
Over the past 20 years or so the US system seems to paralyzed.


Because there have been no major laws enacted in the last 20 years? No executive actions? No foreign affairs, wars launched, foreign agreements signed, trade agreements negotiated?

I am willing to agree that there has been a partisan sorting across the nation regarding the two major political parties, and that this sorting has had consequences in governance, but it is not like the US has been utterly unable to do anything for the last 20 years

If you step back and look at the net governmental actions of the past 20 years and compare it to other 20 year periods it is possible there has been a lower "net amount" of activity, but the US system was specifically designed to act that way. It may have been a poor design or one that has outlived its usefulness, but it is largely functioning as designed.
   349. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:51 AM (#5739583)
I am willing to agree that there has been a partisan sorting across the nation regarding the two major political parties


To be fair, this will make the decimations easier to schedule.
   350. Greg K Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:52 AM (#5739584)
In what way would the nation be worse off after a coup? Would the military suddenly have unrestrained, unchecked power to wage war whenever and wherever it liked or something?

You never know, sometimes coups work!

They also quite often spin out of control.

The US has had a decent run of peaceful, constitutional transition of power from one administration to the next. Sometimes circumstances warrant breaking with a tradition like that, but you'd be venturing into unknown territory.
   351. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 06, 2018 at 08:53 AM (#5739585)
You never know, sometimes coups work!

They also quite often spin out of control.


If half the electorate are so gobsmackingly stupid as to vote for Donald Trump, the chance of coups-gone-wild is not the worst possible outcome.
   352. Greg K Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:01 AM (#5739587)
Because there have been no major laws enacted in the last 20 years? No executive actions? No foreign affairs, wars launched, foreign agreements signed, trade agreements negotiated?

I don't think the issue is nothing is happening (so maybe "paralyzed" isn't the right word). But how things get done seems to be changing. Immigration seems like the most obvious. No legislation for a generation, but something had to be done, so you lean on executive orders. That just causes the other side to dig in their heels and complain about the growing power of the presidency and become more obstructionist.

I think what's grown over the past generation has been an expansion of what is considered politically legitimate. Norms are being dismantled because the other guy did it first (or the other guy would do it if he had the chance).

I guess I'd say that previous avenues for political action as closing down, and so new ones are opening up. No political system is a perfect machine (to use Bill James' analogy) that self-corrects. I feel like shut down threats and a giant unresolved issue like immigration goes part of the way in explaining how you get Trump. If the system's not spitting out results that a critical mass of the population is satisfied with, who knows where the next answer comes from.
   353. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5739590)
Been pondering the NYT piece overnight. Yeah, it's fun to hear people saying how incompetent Trump is, and to guess who's responsible for the piece. But I think overall publishing it is a very bad thing.

I agree with most of the rest of your conclusions following thism but no. It is a bad thing that those things are happening. If they are however, it is not a bad thing to publish that they are.

The fact that these things are happening, does however emphasise the degree to which the Republican party has sold its soul to Trump. How they will cowardly and pathetically put their own power, or their tax cuts, or in Juannity's case his precious embassy ahead of the good of the nation and national security. They are willing to humor, endure, and even support a morally bankrupt, borderline insane, idiotic pscyhopath in charge of the nation, and do whatever it takes to keep him there. It is just further proof that the Republican party needs to be burned to the ground, with everyone of those clowns left to burn inside it.
   354. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5739594)
Seriously you claimed it was a easy question and the easy answer is basically all laws effect human bodies. It is on him that he didn't answer the easy question with the obvious answer.
But that’s not what she meant, so it wouldn’t have actually resolved anything.
   355. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5739595)
(Remember when Ray's spin job of the day was to tell people that it was "unhinged" to suggest that a "master persuader" like Trump was mentally unsound? Man. Good times, Ray. Good times.)

Wait—you guys seriously had a Dilbert Blog truther here? And I missed it?!?!? Dammit, they’re like my second favorite category of Trumpists (after the Q-anons, of course.)
   356. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:21 AM (#5739596)
I agree with this, but it happens with every President (just usually not with his staff). The government is large and the bureaucracy has their own fiefdoms that they protect. The President is only as strong as his staff and his ability to drive his agenda.
What the op/ed was describing was not ordinary bureaucratic infighting with different offices trying to protect their turf from each other, which sometimes unintentionally results in the president’s agenda being sidetracked. That’s inherent in bureaucracy and thus can’t be avoided except by libertarians. What the op/ed described was a bureaucratic conspiracy, with different offices working together to deliberately thwart the president.
   357. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:26 AM (#5739597)
One side favors laws keeping it safe, legal, and rare
Still stuck in the 1990s, I see. That was the old (neo)liberal Clinton position. The new one is that this formulation, by arguing that abortions should be rare, contributes to the stigmatization of abortion. Abortion is nothing to be ashamed of; it’s empowering to women and should be celebrated. Also, taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
   358. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5739599)
That’s inherent in bureaucracy and thus can’t be avoided except by libertarians.

Translation: We must destroy the village, to save the village!
   359. Mike A Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5739601)
Speaking of Dilbert, Scott Adams's comments after the election:

"Clinton’s team of cognitive scientists and professional persuaders did a terrific job of framing Trump as scary. The illusion will wear off – albeit slowly – as you observe Trump going about the job of President and taking it seriously. You can expect him to adjust his tone and language going forward. You can expect foreign leaders to say they can work with him. You can expect him to focus on unifying an exhausted and nervous country. And you can expect him to succeed in doing so. (He’s persuasive.) Watch as Trump turns to healing. You’re going to be surprised how well he does it."


It's kinda amazing how every single sentence of this has been dead wrong.
   360. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5739602)
357- you’re gonna be so embarrassed when you learn who the Democratic presidential candidate was in 2016.
   361. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5739604)

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith in President Trump.” Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!
5:58 AM - Sep 6, 2018
   362. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5739608)
infighting with different offices trying to protect their turf from each other... That’s inherent in bureaucracy and thus can’t be avoided except by libertarians.


Never having a hope of being elected to an important office is certainly one way to avoid Washington bureaucracy.
   363. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5739609)
But that’s not what she meant, so it wouldn’t have actually resolved anything.


Hmmmm. What an interesting point. Maybe the question (and answer) were not so simple and easy as I had been led to believe.

Still stuck in the 1990s, I see. That was the old (neo)liberal Clinton position. The new one is that this formulation, by arguing that abortions should be rare, contributes to the stigmatization of abortion. Abortion is nothing to be ashamed of; it’s empowering to women and should be celebrated. Also, taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.


You would do better not to try to describe leftist positions to those on the left, you are usually wrong.

The ideal outcome (not the word outcome) is to make sure abortion is safe, legal, and rare. It should be safe, obviously, and legal, so what you seem to have misunderstood is the rare part of the formulation.

First of all we are not talking about access. It should definitely be accessible (that speaks to your "taxpayers should be forced to pay for it" - at gunpoint, naturally - formulation). However, it is better for it to be rare. It is a result of unintended and unwanted pregnancy (the vast majority of the time, there are edge cases, of course). Sometimes it happens through not fault of anyone - my mom got pregnant after having her tubes tied for example. All forms of birth control - save abstinence, which is terrible and unfun - have a failure rate even when used correctly.

However, you mention stigmatizing and shame. Of course abortion is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be stigmatized. I know some people might want to pretend that laws lead culture, so in their view passing a law to make abortion safe, legal and rare might lead to stigmatization, but here in reality it obviously does not.

I hope you realize that, that abortion is stigmatized not by laws passed by the left and not by Supreme Court decisions, but rather by those who seek to stigmatize it for a variety of reasons, mostly moral or religious.
   364. BDC Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5739612)
this formulation, by arguing that abortions should be rare, contributes to the stigmatization of abortion


I always thought "rare" in the Clinton formulation meant that contraception should be so freely available – and such a positive value, so openly and positively discussed – that the number of abortions would go way down. That sense of "rare" is even more empowering to women.
   365. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5739613)
I think I'll take my chances on the likelihood of a normal president ever being subjected to what Trump's being subjected to now, according to the author of that op-ed piece. Normal presidents don't expose themselves to extraordinary countermeasures like internal "resistance". When key members of a normal administration are faced with a crisis of conscience over a policy, they've either resigned or stayed around and saved their disagreements for their memoirs. There's been nothing like this before, and unless the country goes completely mad a second time and elects someone else like Trump, it's not going to happen again.
That you have no principles or understanding is overdetermined, Andy. I was talking to people who don't treat every single situation as ad hoc.
   366. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5739614)
I think I'll take my chances on the likelihood of a normal president ever being subjected to what Trump's being subjected to now, according to the author of that op-ed piece. Normal presidents don't expose themselves to extraordinary countermeasures like internal "resistance". When key members of a normal administration are faced with a crisis of conscience over a policy, they've either resigned or stayed around and saved their disagreements for their memoirs. There's been nothing like this before, and unless the country goes completely mad a second time and elects someone else like Trump, it's not going to happen again.

I would guess you're probably right and the US isn't on the verge of a coup. But it's a troubling sign when presumably un-elected administration officials publicly paint themselves as saving democracy by undermining the president. One can hope that this is just a cover your ass tactic to salvage a political career once this is all over.


I'm sure that's part of the author's motivation, but I'm not sure why the author's motivation really matters. Let's not miss the forest for a tree.

But I think there's a real danger of A] unnder-estimating how fragile democracy can be, even in the US, and B] treating Trump as a one-off.

Personally I feel a lot better about our democracy than I did on Inauguration Day. The protests and the surge in voter interest represent a societal antibody to the poison that the right wing has been spreading for decades, and is now in the White House in full view for everyone to see. Trump still represents a frightening number of people, but I think in two months we're going to see just how outnumbered those "deplorables" are.

I mean, I think Trump is a one-off in the sense that he's unlike any previous president, and it's possible he'll be unlike any future president. But the polarization and gridlock of the political system that has given him his opportunity is nothing new. Over the past 20 years or so the US system seems to paralyzed. If the public is ok with administration officials stepping in and undermining the elected president once, whose to say it doesn't become fair game in the future, just like all the other tactics that were unthinkable a generation ago.

Without wanting to sound condescending, I trust the instincts and the determination of the rising demographic groups** more than I fear the instincts and power of those who still cling to the past. I don't believe in cliches like "historical inevitability", or a left wing version of "tomorrow belongs to [the young***]", but I do believe that Trumpism is heading for a crash and burn, with or without Trump still being able to cling to his job.

** And I also don't lie in dread of the ability of the Democrats to incorporate the Ocasio-Cortezes and the Pressleys into the big tent. I'll let Clapper worry about that.

*** No 74 year old is going to put the original word in there. (smile)
   367. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5739618)
What the op/ed was describing was not ordinary bureaucratic infighting with different offices trying to protect their turf from each other, which sometimes unintentionally results in the president’s agenda being sidetracked. That’s inherent in bureaucracy and thus can’t be avoided except by libertarians. What the op/ed described was a bureaucratic conspiracy, with different offices working together to deliberately thwart the president.


But we don't know the specifics... And we'd need to before I would agree.

The Woodward book posits that Trump wanted to assassinate Assad- and was stymied. Doing so obviously would have been illegal under US and international law.

OTOH - was it, say, (another) stupid tariff he wanted to hand down? Well, then it gets murkier... I mean - ordinarily, I'd say that a President has the right to make bad decisions, but this is Trump. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he'd want to impose a tariff - and state so - just because he thought some foreign leader gave him a dirty look AND it would help one of his stupid golf clubs (whatever). So, sure - hiding a tariff-based EO without it being clear crime likely requires some very unusual and unheard of circumstances... but it's Trump - he specializes in the unusual and unheard of.

IOW - sure... you might well be right. But - without knowing the specifics, we cannot know for sure.

This is Trump. Nothing is really outside the realm of possibility. He alone opens up a whole universe of "Yeah, it was technically wrong - but practically necessary".

It's not moot court. There are situations where I think it passes muster perfectly well.

That said - as per last night, no... I am not buying into the 'heroic' nature of this ASAO... I agree that what this ASAO should have done is go public, with the "many" others, en masse, in unison, and demand to congress that they be invited to testify.... closed door, if necessary, if some of the thwarting was of a national secrets nature.
   368. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5739619)
I think I'll take my chances on the likelihood of a normal president ever being subjected to what Trump's being subjected to now, according to the author of that op-ed piece. Normal presidents don't expose themselves to extraordinary countermeasures like internal "resistance". When key members of a normal administration are faced with a crisis of conscience over a policy, they've either resigned or stayed around and saved their disagreements for their memoirs. There's been nothing like this before, and unless the country goes completely mad a second time and elects someone else like Trump, it's not going to happen again.

That you have no principles or understanding is overdetermined, Andy. I was talking to people who don't treat every single situation as ad hoc.


As always, you cling to your slippery slope without feeling compelled to provide a single plausible repeat scenario of what we're now witnessing. But give yourself a lifetime and maybe you'll be able to think of one.
   369. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:04 AM (#5739622)
Pence and Pompeo have just denied being the authors of the op-ed. I tend to believe them, mainly because I believe they're both Trumpkins to the core.
   370. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5739625)
BTW -

One thing that I find very telling is that I've seen very little outrage over the specific thwarting from the Aboministration and its lackeys.

I put on my hazmat suit to venture onto cable news last night - one of the yakkers had Guiliani on and I also caught a smattering of some of the other yokels - and almost without exception - the outrage was over stupid stuff.

Rudy couldn't stop whining about the Woodward passage where Trump supposedly called him a baby after he was the only one who would go public in Trump defense after the ##### grabbing tape. I mean - who cares? Beyond that - he couldn't seem to decide if the NYT had made up the op-ed wholecloth or not.

Trump's reaction was all FAKE NEWS and GUTLESS and I'M GREAT.... Ditto girl spicey...

IOW - nobody - save one Trumpkin (the fat one who doesn't look like he's got a black hole in the middle of his face that the rest of it is collapsing onto... Captuo?) even mentioned or alluded to the "bureaucratic coup".

Maybe they're too embarrassed to press the issue, IDK....

Nobody would ever confuse me with a Trumpkin - but if the aboministration WERE to make this case, I might well give them the same as I said in 367.... Maybe you're right - let's see the specifics.
   371. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5739629)
Clapper's suddenly "new" favorite Senator --

“You know, I don’t know how to talk about it, yet. I mean honestly, I’m still processing it,” Sasse said. “It’s just so similar to what so many of us hear from senior people around the White House, you know, three times a week. So it’s really troubling, and yet in a way, not surprising.

He added that there are many good people serving the President and the country, but also critiqued the piece’s author.

“I don’t understand the morality of why anyone would write the piece, because it seems pretty obvious to me that what it’s going to do is foster more paranoia,” he told Hewitt. “I think that the ultimate decision to publish feels self-serving, and so for the sake of public trust, I think if somebody wants to talk about the 25th Amendment, they ought to do it in public.”
   372. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5739630)
185

I agree that he will genuinely be gobsmacked if he doesn't serve until beyond 2025 - he actually believes he's all that.


FIFY

Remember, half of the deplorables said they would be in favor of suspending the 2020 elections.



   373. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5739632)
Coats adds his name to the "I didn't write it" train...

I'm not entirely certain the author would cop to writing it if asked anyway, but I'm increasingly sure it's McGahn.

MV noted that this seems unlikely because the WH Counsel wouldn't normally be working that closely on policy with the administration... BUT - this is the Trump administration. If he's demanding lots of illegal actions, he's going to be more involved.

Sucks that none of the betting sites I've seen have him explicitly listed, so it would be a dumb "field" bet... but if he makes it onto the board, I'm going to lay some scratch.
   374. Morty Causa Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5739634)
Not that long ago there was a thing called the military draft. It affected only males. I was deathly afraid for some length of time I would have to go to Viet Nam. My female contemporaries didn't have that worry.
   375. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5739636)
Man. Booker and Harris are doing some hardcore auditions for the 2020 nomination, huh?
   376. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:30 AM (#5739637)
So I have been considering the anonymous editorial and the issues it raises. I am going to try to put aside partisanship and the specifics of Trump for a post and talk about the generalities. (Yes, yes, fortune cookie, blah blah blah - for once try to reason from principles to specifics, it will be good for you).

Democracy, in all its good and bad, places its trust in individuals judgment. It trusts that in aggregate people will make what is in some sense the correct choice. It rejects the notion that there is a divine right endowed into a special person to make decisions, that instead legitimacy rests in the collective will of the voters.

We typically don't swear allegiance to a person in the US. We swear to a nation, flag or even a piece of paper (Constitution), but not typically a person. The general expectation is that our highest loyalty is to the nation as a whole. Even our military, the most rules bound and hierarchical of organizations, is told that they are not to follow illegal orders. Even there their highest loyalty is to the laws of the nation and not to their superior officer.

The expectation is that people in power should exercise their judgment. They should try to understand the situation and not just blindly follow orders from on high. That obviously doesn't mean they get to run amok. Those people are often chosen by the leaders that will give them orders and there are many mechanisms in place to get them to follow orders, to do what they are told.

In some sense it is a bit like Civil Disobedience. The act of disobedience and being willing to suffer the consequences of that disobedience in service to a higher loyalty going against the understanding that breaking the law is bad. There is an inevitable tension there, and how our system explicitly handles that tension is a trust in the individuals judgment - is this action worthwhile and in fact necessary despite the consequences? Only the person in the trenches (so to speak) gets to answer that question.

And no, I am not saying all such acts are justified. We trust in the individuals judgment - largely because there is no other choice and are acknowledging reality - but we also recognize people make mistakes.

So how do we apply this to the specifics of the anonymous editorial? Well I don't think you can outright state they are wrong to do what they wrote about. They certainly could be wrong in their actions (including writing the editorial), but they are not necessarily wrong. There is a place for individuals to go against the President of the US in order to protect the nation.

That sort of action is part of our system of government, and of course so to is the hunt and possible punishment of those doing the actions. Just because you think you are doing something for the benefit of the nation as a whole is not some kind of free get out of jail card. There are consequences.

Publishing the editorial was at least partly self serving - "look at me and this brave and noble thing am doing" - but it also increased the risk of getting caught and being punished for what they have done. I don't have enough information to properly evaluate the editorial writer's actions, all I have is their own self serving account of them, but I don't think the situation is somehow our entire system crumbling down upon us. One of the fail safes of our system is to trust the judgments of the individuals in the trenches.

It is bad that we are in a place where we appear to need to trust their judgment to such a degree. Many of us tried to warn anyone who would listen that GOP President Trump is, was, and always will be unqualified for the office he now holds for a whole host of reasons. But that ship sailed.

Note: Much of this also holds true for non-democracies. No leader can function hen everyone turns against them. Every system requires the implicit consent to legitimize the rule and actions of leaders. Democracy just makes this a bit more explicit than Monarchy and such.
   377. Morty Causa Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5739638)
For decades Social Security paid benefits to widow but not widowers, to mothers but not fathers, to divorce wives but not.... and entitlement to Medicare then was predicated on entitlement to Social Security.
   378. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5739639)
Not that long ago there was a thing called the military draft. It affected only males. I was deathly afraid for some length of time I would have to go to Viet Nam. My female contemporaries didn't have that worry.

It is getting to be a while ago. The last birth year from which a draft was taken was 1952. Those people are now 66 years old. There was a drawing for 1953 births, but no one was taken. Priority numbers were set for people born through 1956 in case the draft was reinstated, but it wasn't.
   379. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:34 AM (#5739640)

That’s inherent in bureaucracy and thus can’t be avoided except by libertarians.

Translation: We must destroy the village, to save the village!
No; your second clause is unnecessary.
   380. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5739641)
224

turn him/her over to government at once!


First beheadings are scheduled for Saturday...
   381. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5739642)
57. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 09:26 AM (#5739597)
One side favors laws keeping it safe, legal, and rare
Still stuck in the 1990s, I see. That was the old (neo)liberal Clinton position. The new one is that this formulation, by arguing that abortions should be rare, contributes to the stigmatization of abortion. Abortion is nothing to be ashamed of; it’s empowering to women and should be celebrated.

Like seriously you ####### troglodyte. The Dem presidential ticket in 2016 was a Clinton and a prolife Catholic.

You ####### idiot. You stupid, lying #########.
   382. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5739644)
It is REALLY hard to keep up. Has this made it over here and I just missed it?

President Trump claims he has '100 pictures' of Robert Mueller 'kissing and hugging' James Comey
   383. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5739645)
I largely agree with 376.

And again - the big problem is that we don't know the specifics.

Indeed, rather than anonymous editorial - it might have been a better idea for this ASAO to leak one of these 'thwarted' things to the NYT with the corresponding narrative.

We need the details to make a judgment.

Was it a bad decision/policy reached through Trump's inherently flawed and unfit decision making "process"? Or - was it an illegal order...

Much as I'll reiterate that I also agree - no hero worship of this ASAO - here's the scary possibility: There is just so much of the latter that no single leaked document and background is going to cover it.
   384. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5739647)
It is REALLY hard to keep up. Has this made it over here and I just missed it?


It's been alluded to - but that's the first link I saw... so I judge that you owe no cokes!
   385. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5739650)
The ideal outcome (not the word outcome) is to make sure abortion is safe, legal, and rare. It should be safe, obviously, and legal, so what you seem to have misunderstood is the rare part of the formulation.
No. What you misunderstand is the current discussion. The current feminist movement objects to the idea that "rare" should be part of the formulation at all because saying that abortion should be rare is inherently stigmatizing. Abortion has no moral valence at all, so there's no reason that it should be rare; women should utilize it whenever they feel like. Laws actually can lead culture, but they're not talking about laws; they're talking about rhetoric.

Heck, just google the phrase "safe legal and rare" and stigmatizing, and the first link is: Hillary Clinton must reject the stigma that abortion should be legal but 'rare'. With apologies to copyright holders, I'm going to reprint a big chunk (but not all) of the editorial:
Agreeing with anti-choice activists on even that single word hurts women and the cause of reproductive rights

I support abortion rights. Being pro-choice means a lot of different things to me – among them, that abortion should be safe, legal, accessible, subsidized and provided with empathy and non-judgement.

You may have noticed a word missing there.

"Safe legal and rare" first became a pro-choice rallying cry during the Clinton administration, and has been invoked by media-makers and politicians like – even President Obama has called the mantra "the right formulation" on abortion. It's a "safe" pro-choice answer: to support abortion, but wish it wasn't necessary.

And it's a framing that Hillary Clinton – perhaps the next president of the United States – supports.

But "safe, legal and rare" is not a framework that supports women's health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.

In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".

"It separates 'good' abortions from 'bad' abortions", she added.

Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."

"We don't say that we want heart bypasses to be rare. We say we want people to be healthy," Herold said.

The "rare" framework adds to the stigmatization around the procedure – and that has further-reaching complications for abortion care than just how women feel about it.

Weitz wrote that calling for abortions to be rare has tangible negative consequences for women and women's health because it legitimizes efforts to legally restrict abortion – i.e., make it more "rare". Worse yet, it "negates the mandates for routine training in abortion", since students and teachers wonder why they should get medical training for something that supposedly should be rare.

"We want there to be as many abortions as there needs to be", Herold told me.
   386. Morty Causa Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:52 AM (#5739653)
378

And it could be reinstated only for males. After all, females are excluded even now from combat. A

The law has always treated males and females differently to some extent. Some to the particular benefit of one sex or the other, some to their detriment. Laws favored and favor females in many ways. For instance: criminal law (males are given hardier sentences for the same crime and male prisons are one long process of rape) and family law (especially child support and custody). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
   387. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5739654)
HILLARY. WAS. THE. #######. NOMINEE. YOU. #########.
   388. Howie Menckel Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5739655)

THAT escalated quickly

"WASHINGTON – Sen. Cory Booker challenged his colleagues to try to expel him for breaking rules he opposes Thursday after promising to release an email including comments by Judge Brett Kavanaugh about racial profiling that has been deemed confidential.

"I’m going to release the email about racial profiling," Booker said at the start of the third day of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate."

Questioning Kavanaugh on Wednesday night, Booker quoted from a 2002 document that he said showed Kavanaugh as an aide to President George W. Bush entertaining the use of racial profiling to combat terrorism after 9/11.

Kavanaugh asked to see the email, but Booker said he wanted to focus on Kavanaugh's views about profiling today, not then. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, then objected, saying Booker was citing an email that had been deemed confidential by the committee and it was unfair to question a witness about a document he could not see."
   389. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5739656)
No. What you misunderstand is the current discussion. The current feminist movement

Which David is TOTALLY locked into. I think I caught him at Bluestocking Bookstore last week.
   390. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5739658)
I'm not really sure I'm on the Booker train in general.
   391. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5739660)
No. What you misunderstand is the current discussion.


Nonsense. You have tried to shift the conversation over, to reframe it. But here is where it began -

Silly boy, both sides favor abortion laws. One side favors laws keeping it safe, legal, and rare and the other side favors making them illegal.


We are talking about the laws favored by the two sides, not the rhetoric and spin churned out by various groups within each side.
   392. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5739664)
Without wanting to sound condescending, I trust the instincts and the determination of the rising demographic groups** more than I fear the instincts and power of those who still cling to the past. I don't believe in cliches like "historical inevitability", or a left wing version of "tomorrow belongs to [the young***]", but I do believe that Trumpism is heading for a crash and burn, with or without Trump still being able to cling to his job.
Oh, Andy, don't worry about it. You'll always sound dumb more than condescending.

"Something that I insisted could never happen in the first place... well, it won't happen again. I mean, I have no evidence whatsoever, but I 'feel' it strongly, so that's enough."

Not only is it dumb on its own terms, but the notion that whoever you include in "rising demographic groups" are necessarily more liberal -- in an attitudinal sense, not a political sense -- is misplaced. "Clinging to the past" is not what makes someone illiberal. The French revolutionaries didn't cling to the past; didn't make them liberals. There's nothing about the way these groups act in the U.S. today that's liberal. Do they favor gay marriage and LGBTQIAMNOTASERIOUSPERSON rights? Sure. But supporting groups one approves of isn't what makes one liberal.
   393. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5739666)
I'd love to see what the reaction will be if the op-ed author turns out to be Stephan Miller...
   394. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5739668)

As always, you cling to your slippery slope without feeling compelled to provide a single plausible repeat scenario of what we're now witnessing. But give yourself a lifetime and maybe you'll be able to think of one.
The plausible repeat scenario is "it happens again."
   395. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5739670)
L.A. Times has an editorial calling the anonymous dude a coward. Getting a lot of pushback in general.
   396. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5739673)

I'm not entirely certain the author would cop to writing it if asked anyway, but I'm increasingly sure it's McGahn.
I don't think so. First, it just doesn't sound (to me) like the voice of a lawyer. Second, the author implies that he's not the only one; a number of his peers are acting similarly. But McGahn sits alone; he doesn't really have peers in that sense. Maybe a deputy WH counsel. But not WH counsel.


Incidentally, yet another reason I don't think it's Pence besides the ones I've said throughout this discussion is that I can't see the Times letting him write that anonymously. It's just too newsworthy if the veep himself is saying these things.
   397. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5739674)
I'd love to see what the reaction will be if the op-ed author turns out to be Stephan Miller...


THAT would be an interesting darkhorse pick!

He is a Sessions guy, at least originally, so maybe there's some animosity?... that said, his portfolio seems limited so I'm not sure how much insight he'd have into the "many".
   398. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5739675)
275

It also would set a horrible precedent, allowing partisans to remove a president for, well, pretty much any reason. "Morally and intellectually unfit" goes a long way.


"Partisans?" You keep forgetting, Ray, that these are Republicans, talking about the removal of a Republican President.
   399. PreservedFish Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5739677)
I've been ignoring politics for some months but this op-ed story is just too juicy!
   400. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5739678)
Incidentally, yet another reason I don't think it's Pence besides the ones I've said throughout this discussion is that I can't see the Times letting him write that anonymously. It's just too newsworthy if the veep himself is saying these things.

This is sound reasoning. Conversely, for all the various pushback about the problems the Times has caused by evern publishing this, if it was openly Pence (very very very unlikely), the result would probably be a level of chaos they might not want to own.

I think that the Times also knows they are sitting on the exclusive when they are able to reveal.
Page 4 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

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

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2564 - 2:57pm, Nov 19)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-19-2018
(16 - 2:57pm, Nov 19)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(3 - 2:55pm, Nov 19)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(472 - 2:54pm, Nov 19)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(408 - 2:54pm, Nov 19)
Last: Master of the Horse

NewsblogCubs in need of major overhaul? Don't be silly
(12 - 2:51pm, Nov 19)
Last: Zonk qualifies as an invasive species

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - White Sox voting thread
(6 - 2:49pm, Nov 19)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogHeyman’s Latest: Mets, Machado, Red Sox, Dodgers, Marlins
(4 - 2:47pm, Nov 19)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(27 - 2:28pm, Nov 19)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogBraves' Braxton Davidson hits walk-off home run in AFL championship, appears to break foot on way to plate
(12 - 2:21pm, Nov 19)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(57 - 1:43pm, Nov 19)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogMLB rumors: How Dodgers' Dave Roberts could replace Giants' Bruce Bochy
(11 - 1:30pm, Nov 19)
Last: RoyalFlush

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(916 - 1:21pm, Nov 19)
Last: Zonk qualifies as an invasive species

NewsblogHere's why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper
(66 - 12:09pm, Nov 19)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogReport: Dodgers' Kenley Jansen to Undergo Heart Surgery, Expected to Return for Spring Training
(6 - 11:55am, Nov 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Page rendered in 0.8085 seconds
46 querie(s) executed