March 17, 2017

Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?

That's what Instapundit implies, linking to a Washington Free Beacon piece about a glamorous party for the new Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross.

But it seems to me that to cry hypocrisy is to act like the people who are persisting-resisting Trump after the election, who go heavily into not-my-President politics. I think serious fighting should occur at the decision point — an election, a confirmation process — but then, when a person reaches the position of power, through the constitutional process, we should give them the respect and dignity of the office. They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities. Then, watch what they do, pressure them, try persuade them to do what you think is best, and criticize them and protest if and when you see them going wrong.

In the confirmation process, a Senator is using evidence from the past to predict how well the nominee will perform. Manchin — according to the Free Beacon — was looking at "Ross's career as a billionaire investor—which earned him the nickname 'King of Bankruptcy'—and his involvement in the West Virginia mining industry." Now that Ross is the Commerce Secretary, Manchin can quite properly look toward the future, hope for the best from Ross, and maintain his own influence. I don't think this is hypocritical. The confirmation decision was a guess about what Ross would do if he attained power. The party attendance was about acknowledging the reality of Ross's position and treating him with the respect he deserves for winning confirmation.

In my career as a law professor, I saw many times when a job candidate had opponents who argued against an appointment, even with great intensity. But after the vote, if that person joined us as a colleague, he or she would be welcomed and not snubbed by anybody. I cannot imagine thinking of opponents of an appointment as hypocrites for being friendly and supportive to a new colleague! In fact, I would be critical if they treated the new person with anything less than full acceptance. Their old predictions that this person will perform badly should be put aside as we support him or her and hope the work will be good. If the work isn't good, criticize that.

And that's also how I feel about President Trump.

157 comments:

Rob said...

Party given by Kay Graham's daughter Lally Weymouth. Graham died in 2001.

sinz52 said...

That's how things used to be in Washington DC before today's hyper-partisanship.

In debates in Congress, the Dems would give the GOP hell, and the GOP would give the Dems hell.

But after hours, both Dems and Repubs would be invited to the same elegant cocktail parties and formal dances hosted by the usual famous Washington hostesses. There, they would put politics aside (to some extent) and enjoy themselves together.

That's less true today, because today's Left and Right hate each other, not just sharply disagree with each other.

sunsong said...

Hello??? Trump's work is NOT good! His proposals are NOT good! That has always been obvious.
What you are saying seems to be: give Trump a free reign to destroy this country. That's ridiculous!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Professor, I agree that is certainly how things should work, but we seem to have reached a point where such civil discourse is no longer possible, instead we seem to be not far from this:

http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-most-infamous-floor-brawl-in-the-history-of-the-U-S--House-of-Representatives/

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And since Trump is so obviously HITLER! then anything is justified to stop him. ANYTHING!

And the troglodyte haterz who support him too.

Ann Althouse said...

"Party given by Kay Graham's daughter Lally Weymouth. Graham died in 2001."

Oops.

I corrected the post to take out Graham's name.

rhhardin said...

Things are not decided by votes unless democrats win the vote.

Obstruction at every turn is the rule otherwise.

Why sedition charges aren't brought has been a mystery since they started doing this.

Quayle said...

How do you feel about lawless, remotely-democratically, statutorily appointed district judge dictators?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@sunsong

Instead of unsupported generalities, why don't you pick one policy proposal that Trump is trying to enact, and state why you disagree with it? And yelling racist is not actually an argument.

I will then argue for it (even if I personally disagree with it, which is a possibility.)

Ann Althouse said...

"Hello??? Trump's work is NOT good! His proposals are NOT good! That has always been obvious. What you are saying seems to be: give Trump a free reign to destroy this country. That's ridiculous!"

1. Hello??? The expression is "free rein."

2. You're "correcting" something that isn't even there. I've made no assertion that Trump's work is good. So hello again.

3. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm writing this post carefully (despite typos now corrected). You should take care to understand the points I am making and not just hear your own anxieties and react as if I've said the thing that scaring you. If you're going to use hysterical emotion instead of observation and reason, you're part of the problem.

Quayle said...

(A sentence only someon who speaks Korean, or a software developer, could appreciate.)

Unknown said...

I agree, Ann, and would add that Manchin has been imo one of the most reasonable senators on the Hill since the election. And it seems he's been keeping the citizens of his state a priority over party.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"1. Hello??? The expression is "free rein.""

I'd say there's a 37% chance this was intentional. As a way of pointing to the recent tutorial-post.

I think more folks should include on purpose errors.

David said...

Althouse, you are from the Old Times, when taste and discretion were a virtue.

Crazy Jane said...

It was almost funny a few weeks back when politicians were swearing blood oaths that they had NEVER EVER met with the Russian ambassador and then were outed when old newspaper file pictures resurfaced.

Why has talking with someone whose views you do not share become kryptonite all of a sudden?

Talking only with your allies may preserve your ideological purity, but it also narrows your viewpoint and limits your effectiveness.

sojerofgod said...

Sunsong is just a looser.

I thought everyone knew that.

traditionalguy said...

The reign of Trump this way cometh. Run and hide. It is all revealed in Obama's illegal wiretaps. Trump is an American first type President , and the Global Governance types can either beat him or get them a new delusion.

sojerofgod said...

David:

I am from the old times, where spelling and a knowledge of vocabulary were valued.
Ever since the rise of blogging on the Interwebs I have noticed how many people don't have any understanding of homonyms, much less how to freaking spell LOSER!

antiphone said...

This is the new normal. A pivot here and a pivot there, Obama bugged my underwear. Promenade!

Fernandinande said...

sunsong said...
Hello???


Hi!

Trump's work is NOT good!

Yes! Sauron got the contract to build Trump's concentration camps, and he uses orc labor despite the fact that they're not "persons" under the 14th amendment. Sad!

AprilApple said...

Sungsong would prefer fetus labor. not alive! sad!

sunsong said...

They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities.

That is a serious misunderstanding of trust - which is an emotion. It is NEVER wise to trust someone who has shown themselves not to be trustworthy. And lying is not trustworthy.

I would suggest that not caring about the direction Trump is taking - the extreme policies he is proposing, the impact that he is having here and world-wide, the fear he is causing is a much more serious problem than anything I am doing. How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant? or a Muslim? or someone without healthcare?

sojerofgod said...

Hymn to Nyms.
consider the gentle homonym:
It is meet and right so to do.
Not meat you eat mind you,
but neither meet where you greet as well.
antonyms can be either good or bad,
this or that,
a dog or a cat.
but not an ant.
andronyms and gynonyms consider genders flower.
but in the end they have no power.
since I just made them up.

Fernandinande said...

The free rain in Speign falls meinly on the pleign.

AprilApple said...

I hate you daddy! pay for all my stuff! I demand free everything! think! You're a nazi!

Fernandinande said...

sunsong said...
It is NEVER wise to trust someone who has shown themselves not to be trustworthy. And lying is not trustworthy.


Your solution is more and bigger government because politicians are so honest.

How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant?

They're not "undocumented". That's a lie. You're a liar and therefore you are untrustworthy.

or a Muslim?

Those superstitious creeps who say I should be killed? Fuck them. Seriously.

or someone without healthcare?

There's another lie. Everyone can get healthcare because healthcare is NOT insurance.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant?

I wouldn't like it at all, but feelings is the name of a song, not a policy argument.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song+feelings&qpvt=song+feelings&view=detail&mid=302BCEA78B5FAF4129FC302BCEA78B5FAF4129FC&FORM=VRDGAR

I love the interwebs.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"or someone without healthcare"

In the past Althouse said that she'd consider committing fraud by marrying someone if that person had a terrible illness but no insurance. Then the ill person could mooch off her WI gov health care plan.

This was before Meade, not that Meade was the implementation of this scheme. He's fit.

sojerofgod said...

Trust is an emotion?
I'll tell that to my banker when I go in and ask to borrow a million dollars. He trusts me pretty well sooo... no problem right?

Mr. Song, (and I may be trusted enough to call you that I would hope.)
All your arguments are based on appeals to emotion, not any fact I can discern in particular.

First of all I constantly hear about how Mr. Trump is this huge liar. Please tell me what exactly he has lied about? And please, stick to something that is real and not just hyperbole or broad statements. Or do we have to revisit that whole oceans will begin to heal thing from the Obama presidency?

Next, or part B if you prefer, this whole fear thing. Illegal aliens in our country had enough courage to brave crossing Mexico, the border, evil smugglers and gangsters to sneak in to this country. Now I am supposed to envision them quaking in their shoes over Trump? Change to Muslims, same question? I know people without health insurance no one goes without health CARE in this country who can make it to an emergency room. that is a fact. period.
So pull up your big panties and act like an adult. blubbering is unbecoming of anybody.

Kevin said...

I love when Ann writes a sensible, utterly non-partisan post which causes people's heads to explode.

sunsong said...


The US has made a formal apology to Britain after the White House accused GCHQ of helping Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump in the White House.

Sean Spicer, Mr Trump's press secretary, repeated a claim on Thursday evening – initially made by an analyst on Fox News - that GCHQ was used by Mr Obama to spy on Trump Tower in the lead-up to last November's election.

The comments prompted a furious response from GCHQ, which in a break from normal practice issued a public statement: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."



US make formal apology to Britain

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

sunsong,

I wouldn't like to be "the children" of anyone, as that would mean breaking up my soul into two or more pieces.

To your specifics: Trump hasn't proposed deporting "Dreamers," though he does support deporting undocumented felons, even if they have citizen children. For some reason this is presented as though it means separating the family. Of course not. The US citizen child can always go with her parent(s). But that's treated as a fate worse than death.

A Muslim already in the US is safe, though some few radical mosques might not be.

There are more people "without healthcare" in the US than ever before, thanks to the high-premium, high-deductible plans of the PPACA. You can be paying $10K-plus into a plan yearly, and never get a dime's worth of benefit out of it. To be fair, that's also true of of traditional insurance (i.e., what we used to just call "insurance"), but there it was only the deductibles that were high; the premiums were very low, and the idea was that you'd only use it in the event of some major health disaster. Now the idea is that you should use it all the time for certain entirely foreseeable events that are pre-paid, even if you will never need them (pediatric dental care, birth control, tubal ligations, physicals, narcotics rehab), and for everything else you have to pony up the deductible.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@sunsong

That isn't actually a policy proposal. Trump is a big poopy head is not an argument, no matter what MSNBC and CNN tell you.

Also, just because an intelligence service claims it didn't do something, doesn't mean it didn't.

Static Ping said...

I agree with Ann on this. "In good conscience" tends to indicate a "I do not think you are right for this job" opinion or at least "I am voting against you for political reasons, not personal reasons, and you are going to get confirmed anyway so it doesn't matter" rather than "You are Hitler and I look forward to the day when I kill you." It's not out of place to vote against someone and then wish they prove you wrong.

sojerofgod said...

Oh, was this the big example of "Lying?" The Trump administration echoed a news report that British intelligence services deny?
Do you really think the Brits would admit to it even if it were true?
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Perhaps I should narrow the focus:

What has Mr. Trump said (with the hyperbolic/broad caveats previously mentioned)
that is just a barefaced lie?

Inquiring minds and all that...

Original Mike said...

"That is a serious misunderstanding of trust - which is an emotion. "It is NEVER wise to trust someone who has shown themselves not to be trustworthy. And lying is not trustworthy."

Personally, I only extend my trust to people who have earned it. It is most definitely not an emotion.

Did you vote for Hillary, sunsong?

Brian Balster said...

"is NOT good! "
Hello! The proper expression is: ungood.
Since you've emphasised it: plus ungood.
Maybe even double plus ungood.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

sunsong said...

How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant?

Tough question. On the one hand, I wouldn't want my parent deported. On the other hand, I think it would be pretty cool to be multiple people.

sunsong said...

”…President Trump’s maiden address to Congress was notable because it was filled with numerous inaccuracies. In fact, many of the president’s false claims are old favorites that he trots out on a regular, almost daily basis. Here’s a roundup of 13 of the more notable claims, in the order in which the president made them.

“ “We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.”

“Trump did sign an order that he said would result in a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for foreign governments. But his five-year ban on lobbying is less than advertised. Trump originally promised to extend the ban to congressional officials, but he did not. Moreover, the five-year ban applies only to lobbying one’s former agency — not becoming a lobbyist. Trump actually weakened some of the language from similar bans under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and reduced the level of transparency.

“ “We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross — and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.”

“The data are mixed on the amount of drugs coming through the borders. The amount of marijuana seized at the border continues to decline — probably a reflection of drug use in the United States, as more states legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. In fiscal 2016, 1.3 million pounds of marijuana were seized, down from 1.5 million the year before, and lower than the peak of nearly 4 million pounds in 2009, according to Customs and Border Protection data. The amount of cocaine seized at the borders overall in fiscal 2016 (5,473 pounds) was roughly half the amount seized the previous year (11,220 pounds)…”



Washington post


fact checking Trump address - politifact


more fact checking

Chuck said...

Great post, Althouse!

There are some weird politics in West Virginia. They had a Rockefeller as one of their U.S. Senators, and a former Exalted Cyclops of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan as another.

Joe Manchin's daughter is an interesting case. She is grown, a pharma executive, the CEO of Mylan, the maker of the epi-pen which was the subject of so much confused and ideological press coverage when Mylan jacked up prices. Heather Manchin Bresch is the beneficiary of Mylan's second-highest executive compensation among all big pharma corporations.

Holman Jenkins deconstructed the whole thing (an indictment of our insurance system more than any personal indictment) here (sadly, a WSJ subscription item):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dear-epipen-customers-1472247399

AprilApple said...

Oh boy! facts from democrat hack media! The same media who pimped and covered for a known criminal - Hillary, and gave cover for 8 years to Obama's numerous lies. for the common good.

antiphone said...

Here at the residence we enjoy the one that goes "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. We are the sultans of swing koo, koo, ka choo Mrs Robinson". I'm having commemorative plates with Bob's picture on them. He's a class act and a national treasure which means I actually own him. Am I right?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

sunsong quoted...

“ “We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross — and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.”

“The data are mixed on the amount of drugs coming through the borders. The amount of marijuana seized at the border continues to decline — probably a reflection of drug use in the United States, as more states legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. In fiscal 2016, 1.3 million pounds of marijuana were seized, down from 1.5 million the year before, and lower than the peak of nearly 4 million pounds in 2009, according to Customs and Border Protection data. The amount of cocaine seized at the borders overall in fiscal 2016 (5,473 pounds) was roughly half the amount seized the previous year (11,220 pounds)…”


The amount of drugs seized at the border is, by definition, not part of the amount pouring into the country.

Bob Boyd said...

"Trust is an emotion"

Trust is a decision.
That decision can be based on emotion or it can be based on available facts, reason and experience.
Support or opposition for political candidates and policies works the same way.

Fernandinande said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
The amount of drugs seized at the border is, by definition, not part of the amount pouring into the country.


Good point, sorta, but how does one know what gets past?

Marijuana is down because it's recently legal in a lot of places here - less reason to smuggle.

And 'twas dishonest of the liar sunsong to mention it only: Meth Seizures at U.S.-Mexico Border Set New Records

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It is NEVER wise to trust someone who has shown themselves not to be trustworthy. And lying is not trustworthy.

Obama and the Clintons could not be reached for comment.

Jupiter said...

sunsong said...

"I would suggest that not caring about the direction Trump is taking - the extreme policies he is proposing, the impact that he is having here and world-wide, the fear he is causing is a much more serious problem than anything I am doing. How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant? or a Muslim? or someone without healthcare?"

sunsong, This is the fundamental problem with your thinking in a nutshell. It is not my responsibility to support only those policies that are problematic for no one. It is not my responsibility to consider anyone's interests but my own. I choose to consider the welfare of my family. I choose to consider the welfare of my fellow Americans, though not if it conflicts with that of my family. This latter decision is in large part enlightened self-interest; my emotional attachment to my family is strong, that to fellow Americans less so. But I realize that I and my family are better off when the interests of my fellow Americans are met. But "Muslims"? Fuck a bunch of Muslims! Why should I give shit zero for "Muslims"? Do you think they give shit zero for me? They are voluntary adherents of an ethical system that says it is their right to kill me and enslave my family. And your big concern is that some other bunch of Muslims will kill or enslave them before they can get around to it. Fuck a bunch of You! How did You become the arbiter of whom I should be concerned about, anyway?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So who knew, marijuana is the only illegal drug! I would have thought there were some others. I seem to remember something called Meth. And Heroin.

Guess I was mistaken.

Fernandinande said...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/19/more-meth-heroin-smuggled-at-us-mexico-border-because-laxer-marijuana-laws-feds.html

"According to Customs and Border Protection, meth seizures are up 300 percent at California ports of entry since 2008. Across the entire southwest border heroin seizures have increased more than 200 percent in the past 5 years."

sojerofgod said...

Gee that's kinda odd... I clicked on your links, Mr. Song, but the WaPo goes to a page not found error. The Polifact goes to a page not found.
The only one that works goes to the home page of mic.com -which is a site devoted to the "resistance" to DJT.

Most of what you quoted falls into the broad/hyperbole category. I was hoping for something more concrete, you know, like "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" or, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"
On that second one I know for a fact that I sure as hell didn't, so that was a LIE.

Roll a D20 and see what you come up with.

traditionalguy said...

The tolerance for others was an American tradition that saw value in any group that worked hard, kept the laws, and aided in defense from the many Empires wanting to enslave or kill us to take the land, be they Indian savages or British savages, or French savages or Spanish savages. And we won, as Andy Jackson, James Polk and now Trump like to do.

The new intolerance comes directly out of the muzzle of a guns and the blades of Beheading swords brought in with the Muslim Death Cult invasion aided and abetted by Obama's treachery and the propaganda storm by CNN et al..

Chuck said...

sojerofgod said...
...
...
What has Mr. Trump said (with the hyperbolic/broad caveats previously mentioned)
that is just a barefaced lie?


"I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media's trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they're not happy about it for whatever reason."

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

"122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!"

"You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden..."

"We got that price down by over $1 billion, and I probably haven’t spoken, to be honest with you, for more than an hour on the project."


That's off the top of my head, just from front-page news of the last few weeks. Trump's whopper-level lies occur at a rate of one or two per week, right?

Bruce Hayden said...

I am not quite sure what is going on, or maybe how. Sen Manchin is vulnerable electorally because he is a Dem representing a fairly Ted Trump state up for reelection, I believe, in 2018. So, you would normally expect a lot of voting with Republicans. But, Dem Senate leaders seem to always have their Senators by the balls (or, I guess, pussy). They seem to be able to squeeze, and get the votes they want, even if it means committing political suicide for those Senators, as it did in enacting Obamacare. No Sen McCains on that side of the isle, nor a half dozen others. When you hear about herding cats, that seems to only apply on the Rep side of the isle, with those on the Dem side being almost in lockstep. Dem Senators seemed to be much more independent in the past, even under the legendary LBJ. Be interesting to see if it was former boxer Dingy Harry Reid who finally beat them into shape. They have something similar going on in the House.

It could be partially committee assignments. Maybe some promises of campaign money. Maybe a promise to have them primaried if they try to thwart the will of the Dem leadership in the Senate. Not sure what is being used, but it is effective. The problem is that 8 Trump state Senate Dems are up for reelection in 2018, and they need to start making nice with Trump and the Republicans (and maybe an explanation of what Manchin is doing here - voting as he must, but trying to repair things as he can). There are going to continue to be high profile votes, and these vulnerable Dem Senators need not to come to too much of Trump's attention. It will be quite interesting to see how they vote on the Gorsuch nomination. Strategically, I think that Schumer should let them vote for cloture, at least, and maybe even the nomination, because he Gorsuch will be confirmed, esp with the HI judge and the 9th Cir decisions yesterday. The only real question is whether the Reps have to go nuclear, or the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees retained for another day. My guess is that the Reps get cloture, so don't go nuclear, and then most of the vulnerable Dems vote against him. Maybe the next test will be the Trump budget. I don't think that Schumer is going to let them stray on that one - too many NPR listening liberals in blue states to allow the sorts of cuts proposed to survive. These eight Trump state Dem Senators should be scared of Trump bringing AF1 to rallies against them in a year and a half. None of them can crank the crowds like Trump can. I know I would drive a couple hours, as many of those in town would, to see Trump live, but maybe might cross the street to see Sen Tester speak, in MT. No doubt WV, and those other Trump states are similar.

Best thing that Manchin could do for himself politicakky is to switch parties. Ditto for some of the others (not Tester - too much the DC slime bag). I remember when one of our CO Senators (who had real Indian credentials, as contrasted with Fauxhauntis Warren) switched under Reagan. Sen Campbell always seemed moderately happy afterwards, as a liberal Rep, instead of as a conservative Dem. In any case, Manchin is the Dem I think most susceptible to this, over the next year. We shall see.

Jupiter said...

And by the way, sunsong. Jesus Christ had an answer to my question. His ethical system says that I have responsibilities to every human alive, even those who might be determined to kill me and enslave my family. I am not an adherent of his system, it's a bit too strong for my taste. And God knows you and your Progressive friends insist that his system is benighted, backwards, reprehensible and wrong. But if you want to import some Christians, I am open to that possibility. In my experience, they make excellent Americans.

Jupiter said...

Chuck said...

"You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden..."

Nothing happening in Germany. Right, Cuck? Nobody gettin' raped in Sweden. Nossir! Just Mmmm-mmmm good Islam, with that old time sharia! There's something so charming in the flickering light of burning automobiles.

sunsong said...

corrected WP link

corrected politifact link

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@sunsong

How do you think the parents of kids who die from drug overdoses feel? Or blue collar types who can't get jobs to support their family because the jobs they used to have all went overseas or they are being priced out of the labor market? How do you think their kids feel when they can't get into college and their job prospects are mostly working for a pittance in a nursing home? How do you think they feel when the people who are supposed to be looking out for their interests don't, instead they enable the forces that are destroying them and their way of life and then turn around and tell them they are immoral monsters for wanting to look after them and theirs first and others second.

AprilApple said...

Islam, the "religion" of beheading, lighting people on fire in cages, and forcing women to cover themselves head to toe in hot black fabric, is the one regions self-loathing enough to be officially sanctioned by the democrat party. Democrats heart theocracy.

here it comes....

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Advocate for Leftist Judge Feelz-rulings Chuck: "Great post, Althouse!......."

Shorter Chuck: I have nothing of value to contribute so here's some background info on a few names that anyone can get by googling!

Bruce Hayden said...

Noted some anomalies in my previous post. Mostly a result of Apple's infamous spell check. But I note that I twice used "isle" instead of "aisle". I was envisioning some sort of island or peninsula in the middle of the Senate as I retread what I posted. And, I assume that everyone realized that I meant "Red" state when I said "Ted" state. Sorry.

sunsong said...

Ron Winkleheimer

I feel bad for them. And I would encourage them to support Bernie Sanders...

All the money's going to the top 1% and they don't care about the little people they are greedy bastards and want even more...

Fernandinande said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sojerofgod said...


HA HA!
Now we got something to sink teeth into!
I am going to comment on each of these in turn.

"I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media's trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they're not happy about it for whatever reason." I might give you some points on this one. It was self-promoting hyperbole to me, but still, not accurate. Does this rate anything like lying to me about my health insurance? No.

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
Honestly I do not believe the news reports that say, OO we have no evidence of this... when talking about the fucking INTELLEGENCE agencies. They lie for a living. To us as much as the enemy. Quele surprise.

"122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!"
Not going to take the time to look that one up, but you know as well as I that a LOT of them did return to the battlefield. So if it was 121 instead of 122 you can jump up and down and scream "Trump Lied" -And I will be sure you get a cookie after recess 'cuz that's kid stuff.

"You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden..."
Comment was based on a news report. Don't you believe what's in the news? Gee I thought they were all paragons of virtue.
"We got that price down by over $1 billion, and I probably haven’t spoken, to be honest with you, for more than an hour on the project."
Can I get some context here? I don't recognize the quote. Probably hyperbole anyway.

Still looking for the smoking gun. Roll again.

Fernandinande said...

sojerofgod said...
the WaPo goes to a page not found error. The Polifact goes to a page not found.
The only one that works goes to the home page of mic.com -which is a site devoted to the "resistance" to DJT.


None of them worked for me:
https://www.washingtonpo...;utm_term=.fa6a6a212d8c/
http://www.politifact.co...rumps-address-congress/
https://mic.com/articles...oint-address#.qkzSWhmaQ

I'm guessing that sunsong was on a roll, parroting the standard lies about documents, smuggling and medical care, that she got over-enthusiastic and lied about the links too.

Chuck said...

Jupiter said...
Chuck said...
"You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden..."
Nothing happening in Germany. Right, Cuck? Nobody gettin' raped in Sweden. Nossir! Just Mmmm-mmmm good Islam, with that old time sharia! There's something so charming in the flickering light of burning automobiles.


No, what I was referring to was the fact that Trump clearly implied that there had been a terror incident the night before, in Sweden. An implication, that left the Swedish government, the Swedish news media, and the Swedish people in a state of bemused incredulity. Because nothing had happened.

And what obviously occurred, was that Donald Trump's fevered and impassioned television-watching led him (from a segment on FNC's Tucker Carlson show) to think that something happened in Sweden overnight. When in fact any careful viewer would have understood that it didn't. Leaving even Tucker Carlson bemused and befuddled.

Thanks, Jupiter, for a chance to clear this up and to show in even greater detail what a bizarre, twisted, loose cannon of a tv-watcher President Donald Trump is.


Original Mike said...

"And, I assume that everyone realized that I meant "Red" state when I said "Ted" state."

LOL. I couldn't figure out who "Ted Trump" was.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I feel bad for them. And I would encourage them to support Bernie Sanders...

Who was robbed of the nomination because the Democrat party is corrupt. And who was winning the nomination while advocating many of the same policies that Trump did, such as enforcing the immigration laws. To be fair, so did Cesar Chavez, that freaking fascist racist.

alan markus said...

OMG - we have a President that lies. We are so doomed.

#1 For Sunsong

#2 For Sunsong

#3 For Sunsong

#4 For Sunsong

sojerofgod said...

Oh and I almost forgot, Trump misspelled "Tap" in his wiretapping post!
Impeach the bastard!

signed, The Grammar Nazi.

Sebastian said...

Agree that Manchin is not hypocritical, strictly speaking. But it is not his cozying up that is phony here, but his initial opposition.

alan markus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
alan markus said...

If you like Presidential lies, this one will make your panties go moist, Sunsong

Todd said...

sunsong said...
Hello??? Trump's work is NOT good! His proposals are NOT good! That has always been obvious.
What you are saying seems to be: give Trump a free reign to destroy this country. That's ridiculous!

3/17/17, 8:17 AM


I guess that really depends on one's perspective. I believe that there is more of a factual, historical record to demonstrate that Obama's work was NOT good and his proposals were NOT good and that efforts to reverse those would be hard-pressed to be worst. As expressed by the recent stock market and economic outlook, Trump's actions are the opposite of "not good".

Known Unknown said...

Much ado about nothing.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I remember back when James Carville and Mary Matlin got married. Apparently everyone was supposed to be OK with that because it was just politics that were put aside at night.

I was never on board with that.

James Carville viciously slandered and attempted to destroy women who had been sexually assaulted by his boss. Never could understand why any woman would marry him.

But even more importantly, it may have been "just politics" to them and the crowd they ran with, but to the people who they were supposed to represent, it isn't a game. The decisions that are made in DC have life altering consequences to those of us in "fly over" country.

Francisco D said...

Senator Manchin calculated his reasons to vote against Wilbur Ross. It is his decision to make and he will bear the consequences. That's politics.

To shun or resist someone you voted against strikes me as childish. Manchin is showing more class and emotional stability than his Democrat colleagues in Congress.

Jupiter said...

Chuck said...

"Thanks, Jupiter, for a chance to clear this up and to show in even greater detail what a bizarre, twisted, loose cannon of a tv-watcher President Donald Trump is."

No prob, happy to be of service. Except, you originally offered that quote as evidence that Trump was a liar, not a tv-watcher. I guess you watch a little tv yourself.

sojerofgod said...

Known Unknown said...
Much ado about nothing.

Yeah, but it's also fun!

I have grown tired of all the "Trump lies" memes I see on boards lately. I am by temperament more of a lurker... but I have asked this question multiple times and usually the lib type commenters won't engage.
So fire away! I have about 10 more minutes of goofing off before I have to get back to work.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Trump's work is NOT good! His proposals are NOT good! That has always been obvious.

It is not obvious to me and apparently a rather large number of US citizens. Would you care to explain the reasoning that caused you to decide that Trump's proposals are "NOT good."

Perhaps if you did so I might change my opinion.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So anyway, I was still fairly young back when the marriage happened, and pretty naive too. But my take away was that neither of them really believed in the ideology they professed. It was all just an exciting, extremely lucrative game.

And the logical conclusion that follows from that is that they are going to look after their own interests first and everyone else is a rube. And rubes exist to be fleeced.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yeah, I don't think it's hypocritical and I agree with the proper dynamic as you explicated it, Professor, but all the same it is a bit funny--in the sense of socially awkward--to attend a celebration that's essentially praising someone overcoming your efforts to thwart them. If the effort was in good faith and carried out honorably (without personal attacks, etc) then I agree we should see the person going to the party, even given any awkwardness, as socially gracious and honorable. If the effort was mean-spirited/included personal attacks, etc, it's a bit trickier.

Anyway I think you're correct here, Professor, and your viewpoint is a good one. People should be able to be opponents and not enemies. I will point out that the Left is hell-bent on politicizing everything and through things like no-platforming, shunning, etc, tries to make sure we treat anyone who disagrees as a pariah; calls of "how can you appear w/person X, they don't fully support agenda Y" are pretty much standard now. That's a bad, harmful POV, though, and I agree that we shouldn't buy into it.

roesch/voltaire said...

I agree acceptance and only criticize when the works does not meet standards or expectations of the department or the US-- thus the objections to taking the wheels off Meals on Wheels, or cutting funding for medical research, or appointing foreign agents to cabinet positions and on it goes. And when the Trumps come up for tenure review in 2018, well we shall see how our acceptance works out.

Big Mike said...

As I used to say before the election, we love Trump for the enemies he has made.* I think sunsong is a case in point.
________________

* Campaign slogan first used by supporters of Grover Cleveland in 1884. Considering that Cleveland's opponent was the most corrupt politician to run for the Presidency until Hillary Clinton last year, it resonates today.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron Winkleheimer said...

I agree that we shouldn't buy into it.

The problem is that the left will not reciprocate. If its to be war, then its war.

The old rules no longer apply.

Chuck said...

@ sojerofgod ...

Now that I understand that you are from the "alternative facts" TrumpLand, I understand what I am up against. And that communicating with you may be hopeless. But here goes anyway; for my benefit and not so much yours.

I already dealt with the "Last night in Sweden" debacle. Which is actually a traceable lie.

In the "biggest electoral win since Reagan," do you not recall that an ABC News reporter looked up those details on his phone as Trump spoke, and then called him on it in that very same press conference? Trump was wrong. Left to say only, "Well it was a very significant win, do you agree?" I would agree that Trump's win was "significant" insofar as we have never before elected such an unqualified, dubious, unstable nutjob. The margin of victory for Trump was very narrow, by historical standards.

I don't expect you to believe anything about what the media say about Trump's completely unsupported claims of "wire-tapping." I'd ask you what the evidence is to support the claim, but I'm just not interested in what you think. It's a bad, fucking joke.

On the Gitmo detainees who returned to terrorism, Poliitifact (not my favorite reference, but this one was useful) broke it down: There were not "122" detainees released during Obama's terms who returned to a "battlefield." There were 8.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-blames-barack-obama-former-gu/

The $1 billion price-reduction claim also requires a bit of analysis, all of which makes Trump look like bloviating braggart without support for his claims. So here is some of that analysis:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiveamerican/2017/02/lie-day-trump-claims-save-billions-air-force/

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, the problem for me is that saying it's okay for Manchin to come to a party for Ross is that it smacks of the "civility bullshit" crap we've endured. It's one thing to say that we can be opponents but not necessarily enemies (hat tip to Hoodlum for the formulation), when from the other side one cannot oppose without being treated as a pariah.

What I'm saying is that there's a level at which you're right, but a level at which you are sadly out of date. it would be nice to return to those times, but Democrats first, please, real people are tired of playing Charlie Brown to their Lucy.

sojerofgod said...

who was it that ran against Grover Cleveland?
I bet most people couldn't name more that 3 or 4 candidates for President who lost.
My immediate rememberances are
Wendle Wilkie, mostly because of the newspaper headline
Al Gore, because of the hanging chads
Samuel Tilden, because the election went to the house and was bargained away for the end of Reconstruction.
Anyone else?

One of the comforts of age is the realization that Hillary Clinton will be lost to history, like all the other failures.

Chuck said...

Jupiter;

Yeah, I meant to say that Trump was lying when he mentioned "last night in Sweden... Sweden!" That is exactly what I intended. Nothing happened in Sweden the night before Trump said that.

And best of all, the incident gave us a clear insight into what makes Trump tick. A weird, low-attention-span guy, using Twitter to spread his own twisted misconceptions about what he is consuming on popular media.

Weird (or sick) guy.

Big Mike said...

James Blaine, "the Continental Liar from the State of Maine"

Todd said...

sunsong said...
They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities.

That is a serious misunderstanding of trust - which is an emotion. It is NEVER wise to trust someone who has shown themselves not to be trustworthy. And lying is not trustworthy.

I would suggest that not caring about the direction Trump is taking - the extreme policies he is proposing, the impact that he is having here and world-wide, the fear he is causing is a much more serious problem than anything I am doing. How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant? or a Muslim? or someone without healthcare?

3/17/17, 8:50 AM


Let us see...

The world is in fear due to Trump, really? Putin shaking in his boots? Castro on the fainting couch? Trust is an emotion to be ignored but fear is to be embraced?

How would you like to be the children of an undocumented immigrant? Hey mommy, why did you bring me to a country that was not ours and live in the shadows for all this time instead of follow the law of the country you chose to invade?

or a Muslim? Why would a Muslim in India have any reason to fear Trump?

or someone without healthcare? Why is it Trump's fault that someone did not get healthcare? Why didn't they get some of that great Obamacare? Some say it is the bee's knees!

You should pay less attention to your emotions and more to facts and logic. You will live longer...

rehajm said...

James Carville viciously slandered and attempted to destroy women who had been sexually assaulted by his boss. Never could understand why any woman would marry him.

I always suspected they viewed their role the same way lawyers representing the guilty viewed theirs.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I like the duality of Trump--it reminds me of the duality of George W Bush. A longtime Republican like Chuck surely knows what I'm talking about.

On the one hand GWBush was the stupidest man to ever be President--he was sub-simian in intelligence and it was fun to call him a chimp. On the other hand, though, W was diabolically clever, darkly conspiring with evil forces to subvert smart institutions and fool the Lefty Einsteins at every turn--he masterminded all sorts of nefarious doings that the smart people who knew better were unable to stop. See? He was simultaneously an idiot and an evil genius.

I guess we're in for that again with Trump, huh? He's at once a low-info TV-addicted bozo and a clever, scheming mastermind at the middle of international conspiracies and global cabals (of eeeeeevil!). He's working with the Ruskies but he's so good no one can prove it...but he's so dumb he can't spell no gud nohow.

With Bush the Left decided to clear up the paradox by asserting that the smart (bad) stuff was handled by Cheney & Co., so that W was just a puppet. I haven't really seen that angle on Trump yet (other than people asserting that Vlad the Put. is really in charge--even as the Trump admin. does stuff Vlad doesn't like much)...but it's early.

Gahrie said...

Anyone else?

Andrew Jackson in 1824....Nixon in 1960......

Gahrie said...

It is really quite amazing how much time our resident lifelong Republican spends defending Democrats and attacking Republicans.....although if he really is part of the GOP Establishment, that's really nothing new.....

Jack Wayne said...

Althouse, the hypocrisy is doing Kabuki theatre for the rubes back home, showing how you're sticking up for them over coal. Even though it is your Party that has deliberately harmed the coal industry in WV. Then, go to the party knowing it won't get heavily reported and make nice with a man you publicly denigrated. Manchin is scum.

sojerofgod said...

Man, you do seem angry.
ok, one more try. I do not get my "facts" from "alternative facts TrumpLand"
Your not really addressing the Sweden thing (Do you really think I am going to search...where? for some previous post?) So lets just skip that.
I DID say you got points on the election totals thing. Sorry you don't accept them.
Whether it was a large victory or narrow (306 EV is not THAT narrow) I must reply that it only takes ONE to win.
Wiretapping. So much of the news coverage has been a weaseley game of semantics, such as saying no one physically hooked up a mic to a physical wire in the telephone room of Trump Tower. Please. I think that we will never know the truth. All the IC people will always deny it. Any reasonable person would understand this as well as why they will. I don't have a big problem with that because I don't want to have my legs blown off by a pressure cooker at the next Christmas parade. don't like it, but then nobody asked me.
Asking me to provide "proof" is like asking me to show you proof of the existence of God -almost.
Gitmo- Like I said, I'm not looking that up. I made my point and you got all stampy-foot. Also, you violated the rule about hyperbole (repeatedly) but lets move on...

You sent me to an article headlined "Lie of the Day?" on a blog? Ok so I followed the link to the Bloomberg article that is was based on. They are probably a bit more accurate saying that it is too early to say how much the savings are for sure, but admit that Trump told them to cut costs on the build-out.
I am beginning to wonder if you know what a "Lie" really is.


Wilbur said...

That was Dewey, not Wilkie.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, eight years of Barack Obama taught me to ignore what a politician says and to watch what that politician does. I don't much care that Trump was two nights premature in talking about Sweden. Now ho be a moby someplace else; you annoy real Republicans.

sojerofgod said...

One more thing:

Chuck, Sunsong, and I am sure others keep missing the point:
All these "lies" that DJT is supposed to have said all seem to be the stuff of stump speeches, or confusion by Trump about things seen on the News. Honestly I wish he would get his info from more reliable sources. That he is not makes me think that the IC and holdover staff are trying to stonewall him and prevent him from having the information he needs to make good decisions. On this I hope I am wrong.
It is also obvious that the issues with Federal judges blocking the EOs on immigrant vetting is an impeachment trap. Stupid people are playing with fire here, and I don't think they really realize how close to some true stupidity we are at the moment.
My prediction: If the trap is sprung, and impeachment actually begins, whether now or after 2018 and the R's lose the house, you will see what happens when the Middle class riots. It won't be gentle, like these fringe blac bloc types.

sojerofgod said...

Dang it!

Wilbur said...
That was Dewey, not Wilkie.

You got me there! I LIED! LIED! I tell you.

Actually when I was typing it I was remembering the Bugs bunny cartoon, the one with the Gremlin yelling in Bug's ear, "WELL IT AIN'T WENDLE WILKIE!!!"

FullMoon said...

All of the BS coming from Trumps mouth pales in comparison to damage done by Sunsongs hero.

Obama encouraging riots by figuratively adopting Trayvon Martin, accusing cops of malfeasance in the professor situation,etc. has brought this country to where it is now. Even now, Mikey Brown is still a victim in SS mind

Obama is responsible for Dallas cops being murdered, for San Bernadino, for Florida nightclub massacre..

Prove otherwise.

SS is in a position of defending her initial position of hatred, which makes her uncomfortable because it conflicts with the self image of being a reasonable, kind, and loving person. Tough spot to be in.

Chuck said...

sojerofgod said...
Man, you do seem angry.
ok, one more try. I do not get my "facts" from "alternative facts TrumpLand"
Your not really addressing the Sweden thing (Do you really think I am going to search...where? for some previous post?) So lets just skip that.


I don't expect you to do much "searching." I posted directly above, in this thread, on what a foolish, idiotic comment it was for Trump to have talked about "last night in Sweden." At 10:00 am blog-time.

I DID say you got points on the election totals thing. Sorry you don't accept them.
Whether it was a large victory or narrow (306 EV is not THAT narrow) I must reply that it only takes ONE to win.

Right; it only takes 270 electoral votes to win. Trump won. He could have left it at that, but we know that Trump's twisted personality won't rest with that. He's had to claim, falsely, a number of times how big his electoral victory was in historical terms (along with how big his inaugural crowds were). And the press conference debacle was another one, caught on live television in real time, in front of the world. I think Trump is so used to sitting around a dinner table or in a club with unquestioning sycophants, and with so little political experience, that he is not used to people questioning his every word and looking for misstatements. He better change in a hurry.

Wiretapping. So much of the news coverage has been a weaseley game of semantics, such as saying no one physically hooked up a mic to a physical wire in the telephone room of Trump Tower. Please. I think that we will never know the truth. All the IC people will always deny it. Any reasonable person would understand this as well as why they will. I don't have a big problem with that because I don't want to have my legs blown off by a pressure cooker at the next Christmas parade. don't like it, but then nobody asked me.
Asking me to provide "proof" is like asking me to show you proof of the existence of God -almost.

Nobody would have had any interest in this until Trump brought it up. And brought it up in the most actively defamatory way imaginable. Personalizing a claim of "wire-tapping" as to Obama. And personalizing it further, saying that Obama must be a "bad (or sick) guy." And now I say to you and everyone -- again -- that Trump should prove that claim, supply hard evidence of it, or retract it.

Gitmo- Like I said, I'm not looking that up. I made my point and you got all stampy-foot. Also, you violated the rule about hyperbole (repeatedly) but lets move on...

Don't look it up. Don't look anything up. See if I care. I think I've made my points, and backed them up.

You sent me to an article headlined "Lie of the Day?" on a blog? Ok so I followed the link to the Bloomberg article that is was based on. They are probably a bit more accurate saying that it is too early to say how much the savings are for sure, but admit that Trump told them to cut costs on the build-out.
I am beginning to wonder if you know what a "Lie" really is.

I think that a lie is a deliberate untruth or misstatement of fact, or an untrue statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. And more than anyone I can think of in public life, Trump does it the most.

You want me to admit that something about the Air Force budget story might allow Trump to be credible. I won't do that. I picked a statement that Trump made, that is literally untrue. Donald Trump did not get a billion-dollar contract concession from a short meeting. The United States Air Force doesn't know what Trump was talking about. That's it. That is as far as it goes. A misstatement (one that clearly was intended by Trump to make himself look good) that is either deliberately or recklessly untrue.

Big Mike said...

@Chuckie, go look at what I posted at 10:56. There's a good boy.

Unknown said...

"I would be critical if they treated the new person with anything less than full acceptance. Their old predictions that this person will perform badly should be put aside as we support him or her and hope the work will be good. If the work isn't good, criticize that."

Your point might ring true in Trump's case if indeed he has shown himself to be a successful President thus far, instead all we see is one failure, lie and scandal after another. His "work" has been an abysmal failure. Why should anyone support this?

Chuck said...

sojerofgod said...
One more thing:

Chuck, Sunsong, and I am sure others keep missing the point:
All these "lies" that DJT is supposed to have said all seem to be the stuff of stump speeches, or confusion by Trump about things seen on the News. Honestly I wish he would get his info from more reliable sources. That he is not makes me think that the IC and holdover staff are trying to stonewall him and prevent him from having the information he needs to make good decisions. On this I hope I am wrong.
It is also obvious that the issues with Federal judges blocking the EOs on immigrant vetting is an impeachment trap. Stupid people are playing with fire here, and I don't think they really realize how close to some true stupidity we are at the moment.
My prediction: If the trap is sprung, and impeachment actually begins, whether now or after 2018 and the R's lose the house, you will see what happens when the Middle class riots. It won't be gentle, like these fringe blac bloc types.

I might like to think that there is any "impeachment trap" for Trump, but I really don't think so. There is a Republican House and Senate. I understand that there is a massive undercurrent of loathing and distrust of Trump in the Republican Party, felt by me in particular; but there would need to be a sea-change in the party -- and not some procedural "trap" -- before there would be an impeachment of Trump.

And please; don't blame the intelligence services of the United States of America, for Trump's own mis-hearing, or mis-remembering, or getting plainly fake news from his chosen sources of info.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Jupiter;

Yeah, I meant to say that Trump was lying when he mentioned "last night in Sweden... Sweden!" That is exactly what I intended. Nothing happened in Sweden the night before Trump said that.

And best of all, the incident gave us a clear insight into what makes Trump tick. A weird, low-attention-span guy, using Twitter to spread his own twisted misconceptions about what he is consuming on popular media.


But you still agree that the people he has appointed/nominated are good choices, right? Isn't that the important thing, get competent people on the job, so Trump can get out of the way and spend his time attending rallys, watching TV and playing golf

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
@Chuck, eight years of Barack Obama taught me to ignore what a politician says and to watch what that politician does. I don't much care that Trump was two nights premature in talking about Sweden. Now ho be a moby someplace else; you annoy real Republicans.

You are going to continue to take Trump "seriously and not literally."

I am going to continue to take Trump "literally and not seriously."

Neither thing will matter, when Trump and a Republican congress need to enact legislation, pass a budget or raise a debt ceiling.

Reality has a fact-based bias.

sojerofgod said...

unknown said;
"...all we see is one failure, lie and scandal after another."
This is because that's all you are meant to see. All you are going to see. After the way the news media behaved during the election, practically deifying Clinton and painting Trump with horns, how can you blindly accept what they say now? As to Trump's "work" The man has been in office less than 8 weeks! Shit most people don't get out of orientation in less that 12! but oh, no! total failure!

LOL I have had fun this morning baiting you guys, Unk, Chuck and Sunsong. But now I really must be going. The horseshit won't spread itself on the pansies, as I am sure you well know...

Unknown said...

Hypocrisy is not believing what you preach. Senator Manchin attending a party for a Trump appointee doesn't involve any compromise on his beliefs or actions. One might even call it an act of tolerance.

Unknown said...

"This is because that's all you are meant to see. All you are going to see. After the way the news media behaved during the election, practically deifying Clinton and painting Trump with horns, how can you blindly accept what they say now? As to Trump's "work" The man has been in office less than 8 weeks! Shit most people don't get out of orientation in less that 12! but oh, no! total failure!

LOL I have had fun this morning baiting you guys, Unk, Chuck and Sunsong. But now I really must be going. The horseshit won't spread itself on the pansies, as I am sure you well know..."

Don't give yourself too much credit. I don't see anyone giving your comments any credence. Also you are another one of the Trump fools waiting for Trump to pivot and miraculously become presidential. Don't hold your breath, LOL.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
...
...
But you still agree that the people he has appointed/nominated are good choices, right? Isn't that the important thing, get competent people on the job, so Trump can get out of the way and spend his time attending rallys, watching TV and playing golf

A fair point. And a good question. Of course, I mostly agree. I do not understand some of Trump's choices for senior/cabinet positions. Bannon; Rick Perry; Ben Carson; Mike Flynn; but those question marks are among what you rightly observe were some cabinet picks (and Judge Gorsuch) whom I have adored.

And wasn't it one of the favorite lines of critics of Bush43 and Obama? That we should encourage them to play much more golf; the country would be better off, if they did less and golfed more?

It really isn't enough, of course. If Trump wants a healthcare bill, he can't outsource it wholly to congress. Obama never did that. He rolled up his sleeves; he got his hands dirty. "Dirty" might mean different things to different people and I get that, willingly. But whether you have been a fan or an opponent of Obamacare, the fact is that Trump has to decide, and lead, on the issue. I question whether Trump has the energy, the intellectual capacity, the sustained interest, to do it.

sunsong said...

One more comment.
My opinion is that we need more emotion, not less. We need to feel - to cry, to laugh, to love, to hate, to be happy and sad and angry and confused and wondrous - the whole range of emotion. We desperately, definitely need to feel more and deal appropriately with emotion.

Logic and reason are spiffy. So many of us humans are in love with the straight line - with linear thinking and that is fine. But as Einstein said:

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Unknown said...

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Oh Trumpists have plenty of imagination, that might be the problem. They imagine Trump to be something they would like him to be while at the same time closing their eyes to the fraud and failure his truly is. That takes a special imaginary powers.

Gahrie said...

My opinion is that we need more emotion, not less.

You must be a woman. Like most of your opinions, this is completely wrong.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Imagination and emotion are not the same thing.

Chuck said...

sunsong said...
One more comment.
My opinion is that we need more emotion, not less.


"Emotion" is undoubtedly what won Trump the Republican nomination, and probably the election.

Emotional people who thought Trump could restore coal jobs; build a border wall and get Mexico to pay for it; repeal Obamacare, and replace it with something that was better and cheaper all at once; declare a tax that would reopen U.S manufacturing plants; order the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States; and balance the budget without ever reforming Medicare and Social Security.

Pure emotionalism.



Unknown said...

"Imagination and emotion are not the same thing."

She didn't say it was.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Oh Trumpists have plenty of imagination, that might be the problem. They imagine Trump to be something they would like him to be while at the same time closing their eyes to the fraud and failure his truly is. That takes a special imaginary powers.


Stocks up.
Illegal border crossings down
Jobs up
Where is the failure? His EO blocked by lib judges? Average low info independent voter is more likely to be on Trumps side

FullMoon said...


Blogger Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
...
...It really isn't enough, of course. If Trump wants a healthcare bill, he can't outsource it wholly to congress. Obama never did that. He rolled up his sleeves; he got his hands dirty. "


Good one Chuck ! Obama gave up on passing healthcare. Pelosi and Reid did not. You know that. As for Obama contributing anything to it,not bloody likely.

Unknown said...

I recall blogposts in which Althouse extolled the virtues of emotionalism.

I agree that Resisters are rightfully emotional about what Trump is doing to this country. This emotion drives the resistance as well as the rationality of pushing back against the destruction of the country. If you fools want to burn it all down, we won't let you.

Static Ping said...

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

"Everywhere else" includes some very horrible things. Do keep that in mind.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAORE said...

" If Trump wants a healthcare bill, he can't outsource it wholly to congress. Obama never did that. He rolled up his sleeves; he got his hands dirty."

We have a very different recollection.

In healthcare, as with most issues in his time in office President Obama gave vague statements and let Congress (and then the bureaucracy) fill in the framework.

Unknown said...

You have got to be kidding, LOL!

"Where is the failure? His EO blocked by lib judges?"

Trump's so called budget- fail

TrumpCare-fail

Muslim Ban-fail

Getting along with foreign leaders- fail

Mexicans will pay for the Wall- fail

Accusation that Obama wiretapped him- fail

Hiring an agent of a foreign government, Flynn as the NSA head- BIg Fail

Just for starters

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
...
...
Good one Chuck ! Obama gave up on passing healthcare. Pelosi and Reid did not. You know that. As for Obama contributing anything to it,not bloody likely.


Completely untrue. It was Obama who personally twisted arms at the end. The "Cornhusker Kickback." The "Louisiana Purchase." The hosing of pro-life Democrats led by Congressman Bart Stupak, and it likely cost him his seat in the House. Obama personally led the extraordinary Health law summit at Blair House. And on and on. Obama personally orchestrated the team of experts to push the law; Dr. Zeke Emanuel; Professor Jonathan Gruber; and others.

Why do you think it is called "Obamacare"?

You are so wrong about that comment.


http://www.redstate.com/diary/roanokeconservative/2010/02/26/the-health-care-summit-paul-ryan-and-the-gop-steal-the-stage-from-obama/

Unknown said...

Here's another fail. Trump pivoting and becoming Presidential. He's an embarrassment to the U.S.

Yet another fail: still Tweeting shit in the wee hours of the morning, getting himself in hot water, then having his underlings try to make a legitimate issue out of his rantings on Twitter, wasting taxpayer money on Congressional investigations proving him to be a pathological liar.

FullMoon said...

Chuck says:
Obama personally orchestrated the team of experts to push the law; Dr. Zeke Emanuel; Professor Jonathan Gruber; and others.


There ya go. O assembled a team of "competent" people and then got out of the way. Just like Trump is doing, although under more difficult circumstances.

So far as the arm twisting, I guess another way of looking at it is bribery. Couldn't "convince" without giving away stuff.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said...

Here's another fail.

Yet another fail: still Tweeting shit in the wee hours of the morning,


Yeah, one of youse guys weakest talking points. Reinforces idea he is workaholic who needs minimal sleep, and will be awake for the 3 a.m. call. And, his tweets generally seem to take about ten minutes or so.

Specifically, how is your life worse under Trump? How is anybodies life worse?

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

"Emotion" is undoubtedly what won Trump the Republican nomination, and probably the election.

You're exactly right....and that emotion was righteous anger......anger at the Democrats, anger at the MSM and anger at the Republican Establishment.

The response from all three has been anger also...anger that the little people refuse to shut up and obey their "betters".

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

"The response..anger that the little people refuse to shut up and obey their "betters."

Exactly what Trumpists are doing to those who oppose Trump.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

"Specifically, how is your life worse under Trump? How is anybodies life worse?"

Ask the frail old folks who still live in their own homes who depend on Meals on Wheels, just for one example.

Ask working moms about after school programs.

Ask about how diseases will be eradicated if Medical Research funding is slashed.

Man, you are a dull knife Full Moon.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Don't give yourself too much credit. I don't see anyone giving your comments any credence"

I give his comments far more than I give yours, Unknown Inga, the resident buffoon.

Although sunsong gives you a run for your money. Challenged to provide more reasoning and less "Trump is soooo icky and scary" sunsong retreats behind media quotes and finally comes up with an Einstein one:

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Hitler imagined a Thousand Year Reich and a world without Jews. Pol Pot imagined a pure agrarian socialist Cambodia. How much did the world profit from their imaginary world?

You sound like an aging hippie who has never once in her life had a thought that couldn't fit on a bumper sticker. "Arms are for hugging" and other such sentimental garbage.

So you romanticize and overvalue your own feelings because you can't construct an argument. When asked to, you retreat and come up with the thoughts of others. "Einstein said it, so it must be right!"

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
"The response..anger that the little people refuse to shut up and obey their "betters."

Exactly what Trumpists are doing to those who oppose Trump."


Riiiggght. Those humble little people like Mark Cuban and Meryl Streep and Michael Moore and Ashley Judd. They're struggling so hard to cover their deductibles under Obamacare and find work in flyover country. Muslim refugees will be moving into their neighbors.

Bob Boyd said...

"But as Einstein said:

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else.""



Einstein didn't say, Logic will get you from A to B. Emotions will get you everywhere else.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"My opinion is that we need more emotion, not less. We need to feel - to cry, to laugh, to love, to hate, to be happy and sad and angry and confused and wondrous - the whole range of emotion."

We also apparently need to break storefront windows when we are angry and put professors in the hospital and shout down speakers and beat up Trump supporters. Hey, let's embrace the "whole range of emotion."

A government worker in La Crosse Wisconsin was just found guilty of scattering nails in the driveways of Trump supporters - nails that that not only wrecked tires, but could have caused injury to people (including the children you claim to care so much about - well, if they're illegals or Muslims anyway.) He was certainly expressing his emotions, wasn't he?

Your vapid paean to the primacy of emotion can be used as a justification of mob rule - and I think you're just fine with that.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said...

"Specifically, how is your life worse under Trump? How is anybodies life worse?"

Ask the frail old folks who still live in their own homes who depend on Meals on Wheels, just for one example.

Ask working moms about after school programs.

Ask about how diseases will be eradicated if Medical Research funding is slashed.

Man, you are a dull knife Full Moon.


Jesus, you are stupid.
I ask for specifics and you still answer with "what might happen".
Ant reason local governments and charities cannot take up the slack? Maybe Oprah take care of elderly in Detroit instead of kids in Africa. Maybe Soros start a meals on wheel program, or after school care. Maybe you and sunsong etc.volunteer to watch kids for single moms.
Maybe put your money where your mouth is and get off your lazy ass and contribute something useful.

Maybe find one or two old ladies to help out . Take out their garbage cans and mow their lawn. Give 'em a ride to the store, or do their shopping for them while you do your own.

Don't know how you sleep at night, knowing there is so much you can personally do for others, but you are too selfish and lazy to do more than talk about it. SAD!

Todd said...

sunsong said... [hush]​[hide comment]
One more comment.
My opinion is that we need more emotion, not less. We need to feel - to cry, to laugh, to love, to hate, to be happy and sad and angry and confused and wondrous - the whole range of emotion. We desperately, definitely need to feel more and deal appropriately with emotion.

Logic and reason are spiffy. So many of us humans are in love with the straight line - with linear thinking and that is fine. But as Einstein said:

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

3/17/17, 11:45 AM


Emotion says "I would feelz better if everyone had free healthcare and a living wage and affordable housing and a sustainable environment and sustainable, renewable energy and open boarders and no crime and no rape and no illiteracy and no one ever was sad."

Logic say a) how you going to pay for that and b) grow up, this is the real world.

The mass graves in Cambodia, North Korea, Russia and elsewhere are full of people that relied not on reality but on feelz.

Feelz don't pay the bills, keep the trains running, or the lights on. Feelz don't stop bad people from taking your stuff. Feelz are fine but feelz won't feed you.

Bob Boyd said...

Before you use your imagination to get somewhere, why not stop and think, is that a place you really want to go?
For example, if the things you are imagining take you to a place of anxiety and anger and hate, do you really want to go there? After all, they are your imaginings (and they are only imaginings), therefore it's your choice.
Why not use your imagination to get somewhere better?
And if you do find yourself wanting to go to a place of anxiety and anger and hate, it might be a good idea to ask yourself why.

Fernandinande said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Hey, let's embrace the "whole range of emotion."


I've found that emotion doesn't work so well in physics, but IS a real boon to diagnosing computer problems: "illegal instruction" really means "undocumented instruction", and I don't feel that poor documentation is a problem.

Fernandinande said...

Bob Boyd said...
"But as Einstein said:
"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else.""
Einstein didn't say, Logic will get you from A to B. Emotions will get you everywhere else.


Einstein also didn't say "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

Sunsong was lying, er, I mean, having some nifty uplifting emotions; it's good enough to feel that Einstein said that.

And besides, Einstein was kind of a dork about economics and politics; one might was well quote politicians about physics...if it feels right to do so.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Fernandinande said...Einstein also didn't say "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will get you everywhere else."

It FEELS like Einstein said it, or would have said it, or should have said it. Since we need more FEELING and less REASON there's no point in making feelings "less than" empiricism. Anyway as the Professor frequently points out you fools who think that you're relying on REASON to come to a conclusion are deluding yourselves--you just need to THINK DEEPLY and agree that EMOTION is a part of your cognition and therefore it's wrong to ever say that less EMOTION leads to better thinking, etc.

Gahrie said...

Anyway as the Professor frequently points out you fools who think that you're relying on REASON to come to a conclusion are deluding yourselves--you just need to THINK DEEPLY and agree that EMOTION is a part of your cognition and therefore it's wrong to ever say that less EMOTION leads to better thinking, etc.

Is this how the Enlightenment comes to an end? With a literal whimper?

Fernandinande said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Anyway as the Professor frequently points out you fools who think that you're relying on REASON to come to a conclusion are deluding yourselves--you just need to THINK DEEPLY and agree that EMOTION is a part of your cognition and therefore it's wrong to ever say that less EMOTION leads to better thinking, etc.


I don't completely disagree with her (I didn't pay much attention to that discussion and am assuming your characterization is ... close enough for blog work) for a few reasons: emotion or feelings often determines what we reason about (e.g. law vs computers), and some questions aren't answerable by logic and reason (e.g. when is it OK to kill somebody?).

And, tho I'm not sure this counts as "emotion", most normal day-to-day actions are based on approximations delivered as feelings, rather than logical or numerical values: hungry enough to get up and get food; tightening a bolt w/o using a torque wrench - until it feels right. (learn by breaking)

Are the reasons we have for writing these posts logical reasons, or emotional reasons?
Wouldn't it make more sense to spend some of this time doing something more constructive, say selling hotdogs on a street corner? They're really good hot dogs - I did chemical and DNA analyses of them.

Bob Boyd said...

But as Einstein said,

"It was just my 'magination, running away with me.'

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't say she's entirely wrong either, Fernandiande. It's just that applying that standard seems to have a way of making arguments that aren't really backed up by anything I'd call good evidence.

Here, I'll explain: the Professor says that we have to take seriously the claims of people who feel like they've been discriminated against, or micro-aggressed against, even when they can't give good empirical evidence that those things happened. The fact that some people FEEL a certain way should move us to action, even if those FEELINGS are themselves unreasonable. I think that's nuts--not that it's crazy to acknowledge the actual feelings of someone else, but to say that those feelings should be given weight even when they're unreasonable/not based on anything real. It's like saying I have to take the concerns of a stranger's imaginary friend seriously, because the stranger really believes in their imaginary friend. I might do that for a very young child...but it's no way to run a school (or a nation).

The other way the Professor's POV causes a problem is when it's used as a substitute for an actual argument. The Professor insists that if we all THOUGHT DEEPLY about it we'd have to agree with her conclusion that anyone who holds libertarian-ish beliefs about certain topics (state's rights/Federalism/smaller goverment, whatever) hold those beliefs in part because of racism. Maybe not acknowledged racism, mind you, but real racism that's buried deep down there somewhere. [That's a paraphrase but go with me.] That strikes me as insulting, unfair, and an illogical way to to argue: there's no refuting it! If I say I've thought pretty deeply and concluded that I'm not racist and it's not racism that motivates my opinion, well, the response is that I just haven't THOUGHT DEEPLY enough. Or that I'm deluding myself, that kind of thing.

We're not Mr. Spocks and even a Cartesian dualist would probably admit that emotion and/or brain "wetware" play a large part in cognition (and, in fact, in sentience itself!). Fine, I grant that, we all agree. My point is that it does not follow from that premise that emotion or feeling, as such, is more important/is the driver/is what's actually behind reasoned arguments and/or opinions.

I think it's stealing a base or two to fall back on "well you only believe that 'cause of your unthinking emotion," and the argument that reason/logic is subservient to or somehow inferior to emotion.

It's not that the idea that emotion plays a role in our thinking is wrong, it's more that I don't agree using that fact as a trump card (in arguments, in evaluating claims/opinions, etc) is valid or fair.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Quoting myself: I think it's stealing a base or two to fall back on "well you only believe that 'cause of your unthinking emotion," and the argument that reason/logic is subservient to or somehow inferior to emotion.

I 100% recognize, of course, that the Scott Adams POV says my position here is wrong. Adams et al. show that we make decisions before we're consciously aware of them, etc, so we must in fact be acting SOLELY on emotion/unreason at all times.

I guess I would answer: fair enough--we can either then entirely drop the pretense of acting rationally/having rational discussions or arguments (since it's all farce) or we can all keep acting/believing as if we're all rational anyway. What we can't do, though, is SOMETIMES argue rationally and then SOMETIMES (by coincidence usually when we're losing an argument) decide that since no one's rational we should win based on our feelings/emotion anyway.

If we're not applying the beliefs consistently then why should anyone agree we actually believe what we say we do?

Anyway it's cheating, and it hurts my feelings when people cheat!

Todd said...

Fernandinande said...

I don't completely disagree with her (I didn't pay much attention to that discussion and am assuming your characterization is ... close enough for blog work) for a few reasons: emotion or feelings often determines what we reason about (e.g. law vs computers), and some questions aren't answerable by logic and reason (e.g. when is it OK to kill somebody?).

3/17/17, 2:17 PM


Well more so that "you would not like the answer" if just logic and reason is used. As an example, "women and children first" is not always the logical answer. Depending on the situation you may "need" some men in the mix in order to ensure the survivability of the selected women and children. It may be logical to allow some women and children to die in order to ensure better odds of the longer term survival of those women and children selected but it doesn't feel right to "think that way".

The questions logic and reason can't answer are either those that we don't yet have enough information to answer like "what does the inside of a blackhole look like" or those that have an emotional basis like "where is God" or "does my husband love me".

Fernandinande said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
I might do that for a very young child...but it's no way to run a school (or a nation).


Yeah, you might let a kid waste all his allowance on lottery tickets and then tell him "I told you so", but that wouldn't be a very good national policy.

that anyone who holds libertarian-ish beliefs about certain topics (state's rights/Federalism/smaller goverment, whatever) hold those beliefs in part because of racism.

That's just goofy.

That strikes me as insulting, unfair, and an illogical way to to argue: there's no refuting it!

Why bother? The biggest racists nowadays are leftists like Obama, with their "disparate impact" and affirmative action. I think that's obvious.

As Derbyshire said:
"The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, and social. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the esteem of our peers. For most people, wanting to know the truth about the world is way, way down the list."

Todd said...
Well more so that "you would not like the answer" if just logic and reason is used.


I was thinking more along the line of "stand your ground" laws, and partial-birth abortion vs infanticide. I think burglars should be shot and killed just for being burglars, but most people don't agree...and I don't understand why. I think the immediate benefit to nearly everyone else outweighs the possibly increased chance of revenge, one of the main reasons for a state monopoly on violence.

Todd said...

Fernandinande said...

I was thinking more along the line of "stand your ground" laws, and partial-birth abortion vs infanticide. I think burglars should be shot and killed just for being burglars, but most people don't agree...and I don't understand why. I think the immediate benefit to nearly everyone else outweighs the possibly increased chance of revenge, one of the main reasons for a state monopoly on violence.

3/17/17, 3:20 PM


Well one could argue logically that each dispatched "criminal" is one less to commit another crime and one less to be a drain on resources while incarcerated.

The other side of that coin is, a minor criminal offense should not be a death sentence and that they may could be rehabilitated and wind up contributing much to society.

In times past being a criminal was either a temporary condition (like the old west whereas when you got out of prison, off you went) or earlier France where once a criminal, always a criminal. We seem to have come full circle with that where a criminal record follows one forever.

I would think that stand your ground is logically supportable and is also favored by most people in jurisdictions where it exists. It is a deterrent to crime and as a citizen, one has a right to their stuff and life and a right to protect both.

The partial-birth abortion and abortion its self is, I grant you, a tougher one. That one clearly gets into the moral realm. Is it a person or a clump of cells? Science says it has (early on) a heart beat, a brain, is capable of reacting to stimuli. Is that enough? The moral dilemma is those that argue a woman has a right to decide what she does with her body even when that decision affects a defenseless innocent that results in the ending of the life of that innocent.

The real moral dilemma is someone that is anti-capital punishment but pro-abortion. Square that circle...

Gahrie said...

It's not that the idea that emotion plays a role in our thinking is wrong,

No one denies that emotion is a part of thinking, and indeed a valid part of thinking. It is the idea that emotion is a part of reason that is ridiculous. Reasoning is the process of suppressing emotion.

When you have convinced yourself that emotion is a valid part of reasoning, and that words have no fixed meaning...well then anything is possible isn't it?

Saint Croix said...

free beer = not a hypocrite

Geneo said...

Ann, About respect and backing people that do the work needed. You are one sharp thinking person. Wish that more of people thought like you.

Geneo said...

Ann, About respect and backing people that do the work needed. You are one sharp thinking person. Wish that more of people thought like you.