Lindsey Graham, on "Face the Nation" yesterday, said something that really resonated with me.
The American people spoke. They rejected my analysis, and he is now my president.... The bottom line: he is president of the United States.
Why don't more people feel like that?
IN THE COMMENTS: Kevin answers my question:
Because Republican. The Democrats would be doing this to any R president, no matter what their policies, no matter what they did with Twitter, no matter what. They have done it to every R president since Eisenhower. It just becomes more shrill and desperate with each round. The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left, and cut out anything else as unacceptable to even think, much less speak of out loud. And it's working pretty well.
Posts
185 comments:
Lindsey Graham also wants to open an investigation in the the FBI's Dossier. Yes.
Lindsey is not insane. I really think there is a sanity issue.
This is beyond the Kubler-Ross thing
This is a mass hysteria like the Day care hysteria or the tulip mania.
I don't know. Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President." That's not how this process works. Each of us may not have voted for the person who ultimately is elected President, but he or she is our President. We're not on different teams. At least, we're not supposed to be.
People with TDS reject facts, reason, results and logic.
Graham is a practical lawyer. And politician. That’s why he said that.
Althouse asks
The American people spoke. They rejected my analysis, and he is now my president.... The bottom line: he is president of the United States.
Why don't more people feel like that?
Because Democrats don't believe in democracy. It's the same reason why they claim to believe in a "Living Constitution" (where 5 Left-voting Justices get to rewrite the Constitution, and overturn laws, to force the Democrats policy choices on voters who rejected them). It's why we got same sex marriage via a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, not votes in Legislatures.
It's why we're heading for a big dust up: because the Left's definition of "legitimacy" is "the Left wins". And we on the Right aren't willing to take that any more.
Not to brag or anything, but the only candidate for president I ever voted for that actually won was Ronald Reagan, and yet I've said and done pretty much what Graham says here after every other election. It's the only sensible thing to do because it acknowledges reality, and keeps me from traveling down a negative rat hole. With the exceptions of Carter, Bush I, and Obama, it's worked out pretty well.
-sw
"Why don't more people feel like that?"
2 words: Mark. Felt.
Because fealty is unbecoming and unpatriotic and he is a pretty disgusting man with few redeeming qualities and a neediness that is probably not good for the country.
Because Republican. The Democrats would be doing this to any R president, no matter what their policies, no matter what they did with Twitter, no matter what. They have done it to every R president since Eisenhower. It just becomes more shrill and desperate with each round. The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left, and cut out anything else as unacceptable to even think, much less speak of out loud. And it's working pretty well.
Bottom line. While a shit sandwich is indeed a sandwich, it should surprise no one that some will never agree to shrug and try to figure out how to get their mouths and heads around one.
A good man (or woman) will admit to making a mistake. Libs never do that.
Why?
Because "the left doesn't accept the legitimacy of any part of government that it doesn't control."
This might be Fen's Second Law, though I actually can't remember who it was that first said it.
The reason they treat EVERY GOP president like this is because they have no small-r republican sentiments. They do not see Americans as a self-ruling people, they see Americans as people who are ruled by them.
Althouse asks: "Why don't more people feel like that?"
Because to garner attention, you must be cutting edge. You must be more outrageous than the last speaker. Certainly true for entertainers. Nearly all "news" these days, print as well as television, is entertainment. Much of the "teaching" in universities is about attracting warm bodies and filling seats - entertainment.
Meade: I'm not a morning person, so my brain is not yet fully in year. Can you explain your reference to Mark Felt? I don't see the relevance hear... I start down some kind of strange rabbit hole about Watergate having permanently corrupted everyone's outlook. And then things start to get really fuzzy.
More explicitly: they may or not feel like that. It is their job to act like that. Probably, eventually, all or most do come to believe what the need to stay employed obliges them to say.
Because there is a fundamental split in interests.
What benefits one tribe destroys the other, and there is no way to compromise. Its a zero-sum game in other words, the logic of which is simple and absolute.
As Althouse puts it, this is insect politics.
Of course, being human, people dress it all up with rationalizations and emotions and ceremonies, various sorts of tribal dances and singalongs.
They do it because there isn't an unbiased media to hold them accountable and so far it's worked but I think they really messed up by lying so loudly about the working class not getting a tax cut. I don't think working class people will disbelieve their own lying eyes.
I disagree with my fellow right wingers on people like Graham, McConnellm and Paul Ryan. These men are politicians to the bone, an ugly trait in one light, yes, but also what they were hired as. They know compromise. They understand adjusting as political winds change. While purists reject this as double-tongued-ness, I see it as what they should do so long as they don’t cave on their base principles.
Graham hasn’t caved. I disagree with his war-mongering tendencies, but he believes in force and lawyers has. What he has said here which resonates with Ann, resonates with me as well. Trump need the Lindsay Grahams. Washington can only stand so many outsiders.
Graham and his ilk are poor judges of character and a dismal judge of the voters they purport to serve. Graham and other status quo members of the right invest more time eating Senate bean soup than they spend voting for the values they supported to get elected. God money is on Graham worried about having to answer to Steve Bannon and conservative core values. He is a political animal more at home in the swamp than at a potluck hosted by "deplorables."
"Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
You must move in different circle than I do. I was unhappy with Obama but, especially at first, thought this might be good for race relations. First black president, etc.
There was a lot of grumbling at his high handed rule and the way he evaded Congress to use his "pen and phone" but I just can't recall a lot of "Not my president."
Maybe you are thinking of Bush, who got similar treatment from the left. Remember the Iraq mother who camped out at his ranch ?
Mark Felt was the last FBI honcho who ran a coup d'etat. His was more successful than this one looks to be.
I wonder what would Lindsey would have to say to harm his inevitable reelection?
Xenophobic? Fearful of strangers, foreigners, really? Perhaps wary of collateral damage from social justice adventures, immigration reform, and the progress of anti-nativism.
Diversitist? Racist, sexist, colored judgment?
Politically congruent ("=") or selectively exclusive? Projection.
Arm Kiev, huh?
So, that's why the terrorists in Libya and Syria were classified as "freedom fighters", while in Ukraine they are classified as rebels. The collusion with Kiev to influence the election was not limited to Obama/Clinton/DNC/press, which is why other Republican candidates were rejected with their leftist-kind.
Mexico, of course, will be the logical progression.
Sanctimonious hypocrite, bigot, with liberal abandon. I wonder if Lindsey attends the Pro-Choice Church in public or private.
I find it amazing that NR is also starting to turn. And after the Iran protests, even Bill Kristol drew a line in the sand between him and the Ben Rhodes crew. He hasn't criticized Trump at all on this. I wonder if the tide is turning?
I don't know. Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
No, the D's said Bush was not their president, we said Obama was not a very American for a president, maybe historically inapt in that regard. Therese's a yuuuuge difference, if you care to actually think it through. I understand leftists have trouble with subtlety, but give it a lick.
Here's where the economics of Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi take you.
The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left, and cut out anything else as unacceptable to even think, much less speak of out loud. And it's working pretty well.
The flip side of that ideological bracketing attempt is summed up in the quip attributed to Zell Miller: The Democrats' big tent is shrinking to the size of a dunce cap.
Trump's brashness was the crowbar needed to pry open the gate and free people from that ideological corral being built for them by the Deep State and the self-appointed Thought Masters.
Question is will there be a new generation of less confrontational center-right leaders there to walk them to freedom or back to the corral?
"What benefits one tribe destroys the other, and there is no way to compromise."
I disagree a bit with this.
It reminds me of the libertarian principle which says, "We want power so we can leave you alone!"
We have two (at least) parties in this country.
One is a government party, which includes both Republicans and Democrats.
The other is a sort of "Outsider Party" which just wants to be left alone.
We know there must be rules and laws and government has things only it can do, like the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover dam.
I still have my toll road device in my car for when I go to California. Still, I like interstate highways and am willing to chip in with gas taxes to pay for them.
Maybe I'm a Whig who has not given up on internal improvements and not much else.
I believe in catastrophic health insurance which would be cheap. I can remember when that was the rule.
I even remember how organized medicine became rent seekers. I was there for some of it.
My argument with Big L Libertarians is that a welfare state cannot exist with open borders.
"Because "the left doesn't accept the legitimacy of any part of government that it doesn't control."
True, and not just of GOP presidents. It is why, after over 25 years, many on the Left still refuse to accept that Clarence Thomas is a legitimate Supreme Court Justice. It is why Walker's election in Wisconsin was challenged.
If a Republican or conservative wins an election or is appointed to office, it is a crime against what leftists consider the normal and natural order of the universe. They want to run everything and everyones' lives all the time.
I agree with Kevin. As for the Dims, there's never "peace in our time". They love ratcheting up the volume and coarse language without discussing substance.
I was just thinking this morning of the camera shots of the faces in the Javits Center on election night. All of those faces. Sad faces. Such despair..Spielbergesque
I well remember books that made Reagan look like a dumb-ass and a clown. I even vaguely recall that Eisenhower was criticized and parodied for his golf and Mamie for her bridge games. Nixon was seemingly hated by everyone so it's a miracle he ever got elected. But in fairness, Truman was apparently dismissed by the establishment for his humble origins and LBJ for his vulgarity. Kennedy had the press in his pocket and, like Obama, enjoyed the adulation of the media, which obviously affected public perception.
All Democrats today resemble the fringe right who believed Obama was born in Kenya.
I have a friend who believed this. I told him that I had a different theory -- Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu in 1962 -- but that the Black guy living in the White House was actually his cousin, who was born in Kenya, and that the mothers had swapped them as infants.
Kirk Parker said...
"Meade: I'm not a morning person, so my brain is not yet fully in year. Can you explain your reference to Mark Felt?"
Consummate swamp creature illegally leaks information from inside FBI to WaPo to bring down legally elected (in a landslide) president — the beginning of a general belief (mostly by Dems) that any election with unfavorable results is never really final.
The Democratic Party has become as much a religious institution as it is a political one.
"They love ratcheting up the volume and coarse language without discussing substance."
They don't really have substance on their side.
Look at what the resident leftists post here,.
They say Trump is the demagogue but he talks about policies. They talk about emotion and hate.
I think it amusing that their obsession with sexual harassment ended up hitting the left.
"All Democrats today resemble the fringe right who believed Obama was born in Kenya. "
Some of this came from his own opaque history.
He had no accomplishments. I looked up his history in 2008 before the election.
It’s a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what’s interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.
None of his "accomplishments" were his. Where were his school records ? Who was pushing him ?
If his history had been more open, the Kenya thing would never have gotten any traction. And remember, it began with the Hillary campaign.
"I think it amusing that their obsession with sexual harassment ended up hitting the left."
Because the leftists have a projection problem.
But in fairness, Truman was apparently dismissed by the establishment for his humble origins and LBJ for his vulgarity. Kennedy had the press in his pocket and, like Obama, enjoyed the adulation of the media, which obviously affected public perception.
1/2/18, 10:02 AM
I remember Mr. Peanut was hailed as a symbol of the "New South." The South was briefly chic - hence the popularity of CW, CB radio, and the now un-PC "Dukes of Hazzard." The same thing happened to a lesser extent when Clinton was elected - I recall barbeque joints springing up in DC.
I can't stand insane hawk Linsey Graham, and Trump is the most loathsome thing that God has invented since Nixon, and the Plagues. So, I shake my fist at God a lot these days to "straighten up and fly right." So which is it Mockturtle: God's will or Free will. I never agreed much with George Will either. Will Robinson on the other hand, I trusted and believed. President Nat King Cole was "Unforgettable."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g8S5pprk4I
"who believed Obama was born in Kenya. "
Is that really the point? Obama was raised in Hawaii by anti-Americans and he had little understanding of our culture while growing up and he is obviously anti-American himself.
"So, I shake my fist at God a lot these days to "straighten up and fly right."
I'm sure the Good Lord will take orders from you.
When I wrote: "Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, 'He's not my President.'" I did not mean to imply that Republicans were equally as likely as Democrats to voice this sentiment. I simply stated that I had heard it from "too many" on both sides.
Most believers pray to God for help and guidance.
Trumpit gives God His marching orders and expects God to obey.
It only works because the news audience is mostly women, who are into womanish narrative entertainment.
Even the trolls are aimed at women, not at the nominal person replied to.
It's a 19th amendment problem.
Blogger n.n said...
Arm Kiev, huh?
So, that's why the terrorists in Libya and Syria were classified as "freedom fighters", while in Ukraine they are classified as rebels. The collusion with Kiev to influence the election was not limited to Obama/Clinton/DNC/press, which is why other Republican candidates were rejected with their leftist-kind.
Mexico, of course, will be the logical progression.
Sanctimonious hypocrite, bigot, with liberal abandon. I wonder if Lindsey attends the Pro-Choice Church in public or private.
1/2/18, 9:47 AM
n.n. - With due respect to the Russian propaganda machine of which I occasionally suspect you of being a part, the Western Press pussyfooted around on Ukraine in 2014. When Russian spetsnats arrived at Lugansk airport, they were termed "gunmen". As if they spontaneously appeared from the citizens of Lugansk. Any modestly informed observer could see they were Russian spetnats. Do you honestly think the United States fomented the Maidan Revolution? I don't. Nor do I believe that the eastern region would have broken away with Putin's direct military intervention. Mind you, I am not on one side or the other, many Ukrainian families are split among themselves.
Well, the rhetoric on Trump became extreme before the election even occurred, and it is terribly hard to walk back opposition when you've been running in circles screaming about box cars and Hitler for several months.
And now the Dems claim the tax bill is going to kill us en masse. Thus, one would think, making certain extremist environmentalists happy.
Once you start playing the rhetoric game instead of the policy game, it is not easy to come back to the rational center and pick up the policy game again.
There is an excellent article out there by Jackson Lears (which had to be published in the UK) about how the misguided rhetoric has hurt the machinery of the Democratic party:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4001&utm_content=usca_nonsubs
It's well worth a read. He starts out talking about the Russian collusion myth, and later takes a hard look at the position of the leadership:
"The most immediate consequence is that, by finding foreign demons who can be blamed for Trump’s ascendancy, the Democratic leadership have shifted the blame for their defeat away from their own policies without questioning any of their core assumptions."
The good prof is quite left, and it is very interesting to me to see the situation contemplated from that viewpoint.
their obsession with sexual harassment ended up hitting the left
Only those who were privately deemed nonviable, unworthy, inconvenient, or otherwise unprofitable. Still, the bargain was made. Look forward to them being recycled and birthed somewhere else.
Trump, like Bush in his first term, suffers from not having won the popular vote. Perhaps more importantly, because he never has an ounce of grace for his political opponents, and he has consistently denied the legitimacy of Democrats (the Obama birth certificate, the threat that he wouldn't accept he results of the election, and denial of having lost the popular vote), he has nobody to blame but himself for his opponents' refusal to accept his legitimacy.
Sean Hannity: Obama's "Not My President"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/12/sean_hannity_obamas_not_my_president.html
"Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
Obama began office with 69% approval ratings. When it came to working with Republicans, Obama was rather blunt early on in his time in office: "I won." As Obama made it very clear he wasn't going to work with Republicans, there should be no surprise at what happened.
Obama was very partisan. DC Media Loves Obama’s Violent Rhetoric, Freaks Over Trump’s ‘Punch’ Wish
Keep in mind that this is the exact same made that ensured President Obama paid no political price after his team accused Mitt Romney of murder in 2012; the exact same media that looked the other way when Obama said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” and “argue with neighbors, get in their face“; the exact same media that downplayed the beating Kenneth Gladney just hours after a top Obama official called on supporters to “Hit back twice as hard.”
Dubya was, by comparison to Obama, very soft-spoken. What did Dubya say in reply to "George McBushHitler"? Pretty much nothing.
Exiled observes: Most believers pray to God for help and guidance.
Trumpit gives God His marching orders and expects God to obey.
As Job asserted: Though he slay me, yet will I trust in Him
Oso Negro:
There was a violent coup in Kiev that progressed Eastward. What followed was a civil war with parties to the governments that preceded and followed on each side, along with progressive collateral damage. The situation is more like the French Revolution than the American civil war. What was our motive for sponsoring that conflict?
And I sadly disagree with you Mike.
These are things where live-and-let-live is not possible.
Consider something thats not even a political issue, that of the ideologies being pushed in public education.
The biggest thing there is the nature of political-cultural identity. The cultural hegemony requires that all "minorities" see themselves as victims, and the "majority" as their natural, perpetual, inevitable enemies.
I can go on volumes about this, but it is one of those cases where there is no way to live-and-let-live and survive.
DKWalser said...
I don't know. Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
I remember many left wingers claiming the right said this of Obama (and that it proved their racism). I don't remember anyone on the right actually saying it.
Perhaps Senator Graham hasn't heard that Donald Trump gets two scoops of ice cream while everyone else gets one.
The cultural hegemony requires that all "minorities" see themselves as victims
A class struggle, which Democrat-appointed "minority" leaders welcome as a means to their progress a la feudalism. A class struggle that is nurtured and progressed in order to subvert and divide America into manageable pieces. Diversity, including racism and feminism (i.e. male-female conflict), is not the beginning or end of this process, but a means to and end (defeat or suppress competing interests).
I don't know. Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
I agree this was said of Bush (both of them) and Reagan.
But not Obama. The Right doesn't do the whole "he's not my president" thing.
he is a pretty disgusting man with few redeeming qualities and a neediness that is probably not good for the country.
Clinton has been gone for decades.
Can you explain your reference to Mark Felt?
Felt was a Leftwing member of the deep state who used his position in the government and his friends in the media to hamstring and destroy a Rightwing president he disagreed with.
Sound familiar?
And remember, it [Obama born in Kenya] began with the Hillary campaign.
The mainstream left for political leverage. An appeal to diversitists.
To be fair, Clinton was denied the Democratic nomination, much the same way that Sanders would be years later. Still, there wasn't the violence directed to conservatives and libertarians, or at Trump's inauguration, in order to intimidate and influence the vote.
Graham: "The American people spoke. They rejected my analysis, and he is now my president.... The bottom line: he is president of the United States."
Althouse: "Why don't more people feel like that?"
You'd have to ask that directly to our leftwing friends. You did see the opposition to Gov Walker, though, right? It didn't seem like his opponents (leftists) ever wanted to stop fighting him, suing him, protesting him, recalling him, etc, etc.
I don’t “get” one scoop of ice cream. I can have as many scoops as I want.
Sean Hannity: Obama's "Not My President"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/12/sean_hannity_obamas_not_my_president.html
Nice try. He's not even a Republican! Always claims to be a "registered Conservative" in NYC. Now try and find us a "prominent Republican" like the analogy should be.
That's why I despise Graham. Anyone who doesn't support open borders and helping his Rich Donors make more $$$ with cheap immigrant labor is a "Xenophobe" or a "racist".
And anyone who doesn't want to invade the world and get involved in bad trade deals is a "Isolationist"
He never made any persuasive arguments for his beliefs, he just attacks people who disagree and calls them names. And like McCain he NEVER shuts the fuck up and he's always on TV - despite getting .0001% of the vote in 2016.
Of course, he's "Supporting" Trump, because to be too OPENLY hostile would be political suicide. After all, he still pretends to be some sort of conservative.
Fealty?
I am a citizen, not a subject.
DKWalser said...
I don't know. Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, "He's not my President."
I didn't reach this sentiment until Obama was caught sending the federal bureaucracy and specifically the IRS after his political opponents.
When I wrote: "Too many said of Obama, and of Bush before him, 'He's not my President.'" I did not mean to imply that Republicans were equally as likely as Democrats to voice this sentiment. I simply stated that I had heard it from "too many" on both sides.
Maybe your experience is an outlier, because I never heard any Republican say that. Not one. It seems to be almost uniquely a leftist formulation where they deny reality to gain some modicum of comfort. As I said, I heard plenty of talk about what a crappy president and lousy American Obama was, but nobody I ever listened to denied the reality of him being president.
"Democratic institutional norms are worth defending, which is why we called out the Obama IRS for bias against the tea party. We’ll do the same if Mr. Trump exceeds his constitutional power. But the lesson of the past year is that progressives should have more faith in the American system—whether they’re in power or not. Losing an election isn’t the same as losing a democracy."
Op-ed todays WSJ
The liberals always had a problem with LBJ because he was "vulgar" and came from Texas. That he replaced St. Jack was even worse. However, it wasn't until the Establishment turned against the Vietnam War that he truly become hated.
They didn't like Carter either, hence Ted "the Swimmer"Kennedy's run in 1980.
Reagan was subject to the most foul abuse throughout his Presidency.
The difference is the Republicans in the Senate & Congress supported in him. You had a few 'Moderates' who didn't. And you had Bob Dole making "funny" sarcastic remarks (which endeared him to the DC press corps) - but for the most part the Republicans in DC kept their mouths shut & supported the POTUS agenda.
" Why don't more people feel like this " has an easy answer. They frankly don't give a damn about having a traditional American President. They are fully committed to the New World Order that has a surrendered North American Viceroy acting our President's ceremonial role at surrender ceremonies. In other words, " Follow the money stupid, meaning follow the world money flows measured in the Trillions"
Michael K said 1/2/18, 9:41 AM...
"...but I just can't recall a lot of "Not my president."
eh... Perhaps you should widen your circle. 'Not my president' was a very popular phrase early on among Tea Party-type conservatives before the Obama IRS shut them down. I heard a talk radio program use a sound-bite of some Washington bureaucrat (I think it was Mitch McConnell) bleat "...this man is not my president" nearly every weekday of Obama's entire 8 years in office.
Well I often agree with Senator Graham. This is another one of those times. I all along agreed with Graham's derision of Trump. Still do. But I also agree with him now. Lots of Althousians wont believe me on that, which is their problem and not mine.
What I find funny and revealing is how this viewpoint is apparently so unhear-of within Meadehouse. What Graham was talking about is everyday standard fare for me.
One side-note about all of this is that Senator Graham needs to be careful about seeming too conciliatory to the Bannon Wing of Trumpism. Because Bannon's Alabama speeches are still ringing in my ears; and how Bannonites declared "war" on Lindsay Graham and his Republican Conference in the Senate. I'll be a lot happier with Trump if and when he helps to cut Bannon off at the knees.
The xenophobic label is exploited by special and peculiar interests that want Americans to overlook immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), labor arbitrage, civil rights suppression, foreign adventurism (e.g. social justice adventures), foreign-native collusion, and to compensate for Planned Parenthood that denies civil and human rights to "our Posterity" including the religious doctrines of selective/recycled-child that engender progressive dysfunction and corruption.
Right, tradguy. Nationalism vs. globalism. Nationalism does not suggest isolationism but a focus on keeping our nation strong, militarily and economically. History has shown that a strong America benefits the whole world.
Interesting observation I had. We went out with two other couples last week. One of the spouses is a political junkie like me and yet ww didn't talk politics the entire night. It was wonderful. We have some lefty friends and we cannot escape political talk with them. I dislike it intensely.
lawyerdad said...
Trump, like Bush in his first term, suffers from not having won the popular vote. Perhaps more importantly, because he never has an ounce of grace for his political opponents, and he has consistently denied the legitimacy of Democrats (the Obama birth certificate, the threat that he wouldn't accept he results of the election, and denial of having lost the popular vote), he has nobody to blame but himself for his opponents' refusal to accept his legitimacy."
lets see, Trump didn't commit thousands of felony counts while serving as an officer of the United States. And it may have escaped your attention that Trump actually won the majority vote in every state he won which is why he is president and not the grifter, criminal and traitor. Now any party that can run a grifter, criminal and traitor as their presidential nominee has no legitimacy. So tell us why you can't accept the results of an election where the grifter, criminal and traitor wasn't elected.
Immigration reform including refugee crises (from elective wars/adventures) and mass exodus from second and third-world nations.
Nationalism vs. globalism
Nationalism recognizes that governance is ideally and practically colocated with the communities it serves. Even if there was a global government, there would still be local (e.g. geographical) administrations. Also, it reflects the well-conceived concept of individual (e.g. state) laboratories, because humans are not God or even mortal gods.
>>The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left, and cut out anything else as unacceptable to even think, much less speak of out loud. And it's working pretty well.
Exactly. What is often given the gentle name of "PC" is in fact just old fashioned censorship, of a very brutal sort.
In short, it is a list of words you are not allowed to use, opinions you are not allowed to express, thoughts you are not allowed to think, and, most of all, ideas you are not allowed to consider.
It is the exact opposite of freedom. I used to think it was just lefties being foolish, but now it's clear they have shifted the culture away from "It's a free country" to "You can't say that!"
Immigration reform including refugee crises (from elective wars/adventures) and mass exodus from second and third-world nations... labor arbitrage and, of course, gerrymandered districts funded by [taxpayer] redistributive changes schemes.
You can see why he only earned 1% of the vote, after his endorsement of the stab spring, which gave a whole new life for al quedas and Islamic state, which led to Benghazi among other consequences which was due to the rise of bel hadj, the emir of tripoli who likely ordered the hit on ambassador Stevens, he definitely did do so to general younis the rebel leader backed by the UK and France.
The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left
The goal is to create and force a frame of reference (e.g. labels, semantics, practices, organization, emotions) that will be exploited to corral and suppress competing interests, conscientious dissenters, and other voices.
@ n.n. - I do not see that the United States has any particular interest in one side or the other in Ukraine. Of course the breakaway republics would like our recognition, but I don't see that happening soon. What I do see is that part of the establishment in both the US and Russia accrues benefits by demonizing the other side. Political expediency for both.
Orwell is more relevant than ever.
I agree with Rick. In fact, I will go farther. I can recall Republicans expressing concern over crazy people scaling the fence around the White House and get pretty close to getting inside, and liberal pundits were expressing perplexity that we cared, given our distaste for Obama. Well I regarded Obama as the most despicable individual to occupy the presidency since Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection on the slogan “He kept us out of war” while secretly planning to involve the US in WWI, but assassinating an American president is not to be encouraged.
Michael K. at 10:09
The Obama birth certificate issue was exploited by the democrats and the MSM in order to create a divisive issue and enable them to call people who wanted to see the certificate racist.
On 8 May 2008, the Washington Post ran the following story, McCain's Birth abroad Stirs Legal Controversy, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html. Shortly after the story ran rumors that Obama might have been born overseas or might have applied to Harvard as a foreign exchange student began to appear on right wing websites.
The MSM dropped the McCain story within a couple of days because people were asking the same about Barack Obama and it was a problem as the Obama campaign refused to release any information regarding his past that wasn't included in his book, "Dreams of My Father". The MSM accommodated Obama by saying they were unable to research any of his past information because all of it had been sealed.
As we all know, the constitution requires president to be a natural born citizens, and despite the best efforts of the MSM this question continued to persist both prior to and after the election for Barack Obama. President Obama could have easily put questions regarding his birth to rest by simply releasing his birth certificate. Instead he refused to release the document, therefore, creating greater attention to the issue than was necessary. Instead of easily and simply putting the issue to bed he and the MSM preferred to call anyone who question his birth a racist.
It took four years and Donald Trump to force him to release the document when it became clear that it might cause him problems in the 2012 election.
This issue arose because of the MSM's questioning of John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone. It could have been resolved easily prior to the 2008 election and any time afterward. It is my belief that the Democrats and the MSM refused to answer a simple question that, oh by the way is a constitutional requirement of being president, because they instead could feign indignity and call the people who had a legitimate question racists. Why strive for unity when you can instead smear anyone who does not blindly follow you diktats?
And the Honorable Mr. Graham needs to calibrate his judgment. I don’t see any race-baiting on Trump’s part. He doesn’t appear to be a particularly religious man, and his willingness to address violent religious bigotry on the part of far too many Muslims against Americans is a breath of fresh air (to be explicit about this, Lindsey Graham has the religious bigotry issue precisely backwards). And, finally, there is a difference between policies that support America and Americans, and xenophobia.
The goal is to make the bounds of polite policy discussion between center left and far left, and cut out anything else as unacceptable to even think, much less speak of out loud. And it's working pretty well.
Agreed except for the last sentence. I don't think it's working well with the voters. Trump is starting to solidify his support. The test will be the midterm elections. If the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress, that will be a strong rejection of this strategy. Of course a lot can happen between now and November, but so far things are not going the Democrats' way. They are increasingly looking like spoiled children, sore losers, and with no particular message other than "Trump is Hitler!"
the question with Obama was in effect - if he gained college admission as an international student - was he giving up his US citizenship. Hillary must have had some inside scoop, but as is her nature she also wanted deniability etc. hence her confused and vague allegations.
an important reason to seal his records.
@ Unclebiffy - it went beyond that - they put out a document that was clearly NOT the original birth certificate. Of course it fueled speculation.
What I find funny and revealing is how this viewpoint is apparently so unhear-of within Meadehouse. What Graham was talking about is everyday standard fare for me.
Really? Graham says several nice things about Trump.
In support of the idea that perhaps you were misunderstood, I once asked you to say one nice thing about him. One.
There were crickets.
In the spirit of your statement above, perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to tell us now. Please lay out all the good stuff, without reservation, that you see in this president.
Not the "I like Gorsuch, but give no credit to Trump for picking him" kind of remark you usually make.
The issue with the "not my president" line of thinking, is it allows you to dehumanize the person. You think of them as the "other" and not someone worthy of respect or consideration.
No matter the issues I had with Clinton or Obama, I never let myself go there.
That was for me, because once you start dehumanizing people, you become less human yourself.
Oso Negro, I don't know if the document that was release was legitimate or not. And this is the crux of the problem. As the Trump collusion investigation has made painfully obvious, I can no longer trust either our fourth estate or my government to act in the best interest of US citizens. Instead, I have the gnawing fear, that major institutions in this country, both inside and outside of government, act solely to promote their partisan interests.
This just in: Democrats are really, really opposed to Republicans. Tomorrow’s scoop: Water is wet.
Love the Kevin (the commenter) tag!
Particularly when used to roll up all the commenting Kevins into one gigantic ball of Kevin-ness!
At least we're generally in agreement at this time, unlike Chuck/chuck.
If a xenophobic bigot is making good policy decisions, maybe the xenophobia and bigotry wasn't actually in that person in the first place?
(I mean, I think the President's a crass boor, but I agree with Graham - his actual policy results, the things other than Shooting Off His Mouth, have been pretty good.)
Oso comments: @ n.n. - I do not see that the United States has any particular interest in one side or the other in Ukraine. Of course the breakaway republics would like our recognition, but I don't see that happening soon. What I do see is that part of the establishment in both the US and Russia accrues benefits by demonizing the other side. Political expediency for both.
What about the Budapest Memorandum?
Our resident LLR seems undaunted by the constant barrage of abuse by mean commenters. He's like a Timex watch: Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
Blogger Kevin said...
What I find funny and revealing is how this viewpoint is apparently so unhear-of within Meadehouse. What Graham was talking about is everyday standard fare for me.
Really? Graham says several nice things about Trump.
In support of the idea that perhaps you were misunderstood, I once asked you to say one nice thing about him. One.
There were crickets.
In the spirit of your statement above, perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to tell us now. Please lay out all the good stuff, without reservation, that you see in this president.
Not the "I like Gorsuch, but give no credit to Trump for picking him" kind of remark you usually make.
He's not Hillary. That's a good thing. Makes me satisfied with my 2016 Straight-Republican-ticket vote. Is that "nice" enough?
I was going to write, "He's not a Democrat;" but since I don't really know what Trump is or was, that seems too categorical as a statement from me. I am indeed very satisfied and contented that he is not Hillary.
And while I imagine that I could think of something nicer to say about Trump if I took the time, I believe that even after I came up with something, I'd regard it as wasted time. I'll let Senator Graham do it for me.
And while I imagine that I could think of something nicer to say about Trump if I took the time, I believe that even after I came up with something, I'd regard it as wasted time. I'll let Senator Graham do it for me.
So you're really not like Senator Graham at all, it's not revealing how this viewpoint is so unheard of within Meadehouse, and what Graham is talking about isn't really everyday standard fare for you.
I seriously don't understand why you feel the responses you get on this blog misrepresent your positions.
"The left doesn't accept the legitimacy of any part of government that it doesn't control."
Well stated. The Democratic Party started as "Anti-Federalists," or anti-Constitution, which they felt would restrain them from doing whatever they felt like doing at the moment - especially with regard to slavery.
He wasn't Hillary before the election.
He isn't Hillary says she's terrible, not that he is good.
Graham's statement went far beyond "he's not Hillary", which is why it rated a blog entry at Meadehouse.
Because Republican. The Democrats would be doing this to any R president, no matter what their policies, no matter what they did with Twitter, no matter what.
Just look what they did to Romney and he was basically from presidential central casting. And a moderate to boot, no?
especially with regard to slavery
The Republican Party was created to oppose Democrats progressing slavery, and other unconstitutional acts.
Blogger Kevin said...
The issue with the "not my president" line of thinking, is it allows you to dehumanize the person. You think of them as the "other" and not someone worthy of respect or consideration.
No matter the issues I had with Clinton or Obama, I never let myself go there.
That was for me, because once you start dehumanizing people, you become less human yourself.
Kevin, I accept this from you. I take you at your word. No argument from me.
But then, what of Birtherism? And the nasty, fabricated brand of Birtherism that was the specialty of Donald Trump? Trump was going on national tv, claiming that he had dispatched investigators to Hawaii, and they were discovering amazing things.
And all along it was garbage. "Othering" the sitting President of the United States for his own fun and profit. (And certainly for no good civil/policy reason.)
Chuck.
Birtherism was started by the Clintos.
We are in the middle of a Reagan third term.
Its hardly surprising that LLR Chuck and his leftist operational allies are in a panic.
Ukraine is a mess. The color revolution may have had some Soro's backing. And the Obama administration appears to have said some nice words, but I don't think much support beyond that.
Russia created anti Ukraine (pro Russia) rebels, took the Crimea Peninsula, and tried to take more of the Ukraine to make a land bridge with Russians not in official uniforms.
The US promised to back Ukraine if they gave up their nukes in the Budapest Memorandum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum
Only good thing, surprising, is the attack by Russian has made the Ukraine united and military effective (huge corruption issues had made their military a joke), and into a stalemate / meat grinder for Russia. Nobody expected that.
And now Trump is sending anti tank missiles to the Ukraine. So much for the line, Trump is a Russian puppet. I hope Trump can help negotiate a peace deal that is fair to the Ukraine, and stops the war with Russian.
Russia has a history of creating cold civil wars in former USSR republics. With break away republics protected by Russian peace keeps. Georgia and Moldavia are two that come to mind. It gives an incentive for former USSR republics to tow the Moscow party line...
" We have some lefty friends and we cannot escape political talk with them. I dislike it intensely."
1/2/18, 11:18 AM
Religious fanatics cannot stop talking about religion.
When people said things like "Obama is not my president", it was racist.
Rusty said...
Chuck.
Birtherism was started by the Clintons.
-------------------------------------
And Trump ended it.
Religious fanatics cannot stop talking about religion.
Yeah, there are few people who refrain from conflating logical domains. Let alone raising issues of religion/morality (i.e. behavioral protocols).
America sponsored the anti-Ukrainian rebels (fascists, neo-Nazis, and other leftists) that staged a violent coup in Kiev. Today, the Crimea is a refuge for Ukrainian, Jewish, Russian, gypsy, etc. survivors of the coup.
Ever since the opposition to ISIS forces in Syria armed with weapons procured from Libya after the coup that progressed with the assassination of Gaddafi and American citizens, there has been an effort to reset the cold war and, it seems, start a hot war with Eastern Europe. Well, it started with Serbian partition under the Clinton administration, and progressed with immigration reform (e.g. trail of tears) forced by social justice adventures from Africa to the Middle East to Europe under the Obama administration. Democrats historically like war. Republicans seem to have overlapping and convergent interests.
Here is Trump; in one of the most laughable and despicable bits of Birtherism, ever:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Blckpwk1voQ
What a nasty, lying, sociopath. The entire sentient world was laughing at Trump by that time. And if they weren't, they should have been laughing after Trump never produced a single thing of note from his Hawaii investigators.
"And Trump ended it." What a ridiculous comment. Trump backed down when it was way, way beyond clear that he was full of shit and his handlers viewed any continuation as an unworthy distraction.
Among intelligent and non-ridiculous commenters, we might have a semi- interesting, nuanced conversation about Sid Blumenthal, Mark Penn, and certain Illinois Democrats trafficking in Obama rumors.
But I am not sure any of you are up that task.
Hey Chuckles, Obama refused for four years to produce his birth certificate and then suddenly, just prior to the 2012 election, he did so. What was the impetus that forced him to do something that he obviously didn't want to do?
Trump put an end to birtherism by forcing the President into releasing what he had not previously released. It took Trump to put an end to it.
Christ what I would not give to play poker with Chuck.
I can't believe that I am engaging in this.
What were the amazing things that the Trump investigators found in Hawaii?
And are we all clear now, now that Trump admits it -- Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Right?
What was the point of contesting that mindlessly obvious fact?
What was the point of contesting that mindlessly obvious fact?
Entertainment value, putting down the MSM, putting down Obama.
The typical swamp posture on the issue no longer worked.
People are making fun of it.
Blogger Michael said...
Trump put an end to birtherism by forcing the President into releasing what he had not previously released. It took Trump to put an end to it.
That is such a crock of shit.
Trump didn't end his own Birtherism when any particular document was released.
Trump ended his Birtherism when it became clear that it was going to be too toxic for his campaign in 2016. In Obama's final year in office.
That Obama isn't American had a deeper meaning as well.
This takes advantage of its symbol to say that.
Make America great again.
Put an American back in the Presidency.
No one ever claimed his mother was not an American citizen. He was born in and from her.
And even if his mother were a foreigner, he became an American citizen the moment he was born in Hawaii per the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trump at some point will say we the people will be making America great again. Trump is just knocking down roadblocks.
The slogan was never Trump will make America great again. A simple imperative. (You) make America great again.
wwww said...
"I can't believe that I am engaging in this."
yeah, I agree with Chuck. Why argue about birtherism? It was silly at the time and it's beyond silly now. "
Perhaps you and Chuck can let us know when Obama dropped his dual citizenships.
Chuck must be the last guy I know who is still interested in talking about Obama's birthplace.
So..the American people rejected his "analysis".
Given the positives LG lists now, about that "analysis"...
Chuck said... I all along agreed with Graham's derision of Trump. Still do. But I also agree with him now. Lots of Althousians wont believe me on that, which is their problem and not mine.
What I find funny and revealing is how this viewpoint is apparently so unhear-of within Meadehouse. What Graham was talking about is everyday standard fare for me.
--
Not really. You may dislike the lack of negatives posted within "Meadehouse", but puhleeze don't pretend your comments on Trump have been as balanced as you suggest.
Perhaps you should widen your circle. 'Not my president' was a very popular phrase early on among Tea Party-type
Since I was involved in Tea Party rallies from the beginning, perhaps you can help me out here.
How about links to any stories, aside from the leftist fever swamps like Daily Kos, that confirm your story ?
I just don't remember that, especially in the tone we have seen the past year,
Meade if you read all of my foregoing comments on this page, you'd have seen why I brought it up in a direct response to Kevin. I'd have been very happy if only Kevin had replied.
I always have a hard time understanding how something as plainly ridiculous as Birtherism survives any argument.
That some of the Alrhouse commenters seem to feel like Trump had a meritorious case to make on the subject, is a black eye for the blog.
All lifelong Republicans proudly defend Obama's past and deflect from Hillary's birtherism.
Kevin's answer is wrong as a matter of history, and Althouse is showing massive historical amnesia or ignorance in endorsing his comment.
There are lots of examples since Eisenhower of Democrats working with Republican administrations to achieve substantive goals.
Civil Rights Bill of 1957
Response to Sputnik and space program
Clean Air and Clean Water and Endangered Species under Nixon
Tax Reform under both Reagan and Bush
Patriot Act and other responses to 9/11, including, lamentably, the invasion of Iraq
That's 1 minute of thinking to come up with those examples. Undoubtedly there are many more.
The Dems are opposing Trump fundamentally because they disagree with his domestic policies and because the Republicans have rejected offers to cooperate on multiple occasions, including the 18 Senators who offered to cooperate on taxes, the offer to cooperate on infrastructure, the offer to cooperate on DACA, the bipartisan proposals to fix Obama care etc.
Then you add in that Trump continues to spout racist, misogynist tripe, continues regularly to say things that are demonstrably untrue about his past abuse of women ("I never met these women"), continues to deny Russian involvement in the election, continues to refuse to disclose his taxes (and appears to have lied about the effect of legislation on his taxes), engages in other conflict of interest behavior, etc. and why should his opponents treat him with the respect that is granted to presidents of both parties who have managed to avoid similar behavior?
Finally, if you focus just on the foreign policy issues that Graham identifies, is it even true that the Democratic leadership has opposed Trump's approach?
Birtherism was started by you, Chuck. On this thread it was you. And what's with the gratuitous profanity? That's not like you, is it?
"Meade if you read all of my foregoing comments on this page, you'd have seen why I brought it up in a direct response to Kevin. I'd have been very happy if only Kevin had replied."
Kevin made me do it, Mommy!
he has nobody to blame but himself for his opponents' refusal to accept his legitimacy.
I disagree,. Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote. You don't like Trump and are seeking reasons for your emotional reaction.
Trump did not say he would not accept the election result. Hillary said anyone who would not accept it was a terrible person.
Of course, that was when she was sure she would win,
The Dems are opposing Trump fundamentally because they disagree with his domestic policies and because the Republicans have rejected offers to cooperate on multiple occasions,
Is that you, Inga ?
The Democrats have gone crazy with a hysteria that resembles the day care hysteria of the 80s.
They will pay a price, I believe, for this in the election next fall. They are telling people that the tax cut won't affect them. What happens when people figure it out ? These are pretty extreme positions.
"Perhaps you and Chuck can let us know when Obama dropped his dual citizenships."
Being eligible for dual ctizenship doesn't mean that you have dual citizenship. It also does not mean you cannot be a natural-born citizen.
To be an actual duel citizen, you have to make a claim on a state. You have to apply for a passport, or be, in some official way, recognized by the state.
So, let's say an American child is born on foreign land to an American mother who has been a long-time resident of the United States. The mother goes to the local consulate and applies for a passport for the child and a social security number. The consulate looks at her documentation, and if in order, recognizes the child as an American at birth. As a natural-born American citizen, the child is entitled to a US passport.
Now, let's say that child resides for a couple of years overseas. If the parents, or the child, make no claim on the country of resident, that child is not recognized as a citizen.
To give another example: Let's say a French couple is working for Facebook in California. They have two children in California -- Sophie and Marie. They go to the French consulate and apply for French passports. Then, they decide, hey! Housing is way too expensive in California. Let's go home. They get a job with Ubisoft back in France, and off they go.
Ok, so far both Sophie and Marie are not recognized as US citizens.
Now, let's say when Marie is 18 she wants to live in California because she wants to take up surfing. She applies for a US passport and lives in California for a couple of years. Then she figures out she can't make a living teaching surfing, California is too expensive, and so she goes back to France.
Marie has to pay US taxes for the rest of her life, because she is recognized as a US citizen. Her sister, Sophie, does not have to pay US taxes, because she has made no claim on the state.
Marie is a dual citizen. Sophie is not.
Now, neither of them are born of American mothers. But both were born on US territory. You can be an American-born citizen through either route. In both cases, you need to make a claim on the state to recognize that citizenship. You need to apply for a social security number or a passport, or vote, or pay taxes, or in some way make that citizenship claim.
An American child can live as a resident in a foreign land and not be recognized as a citizen of that nation.
he has nobody to blame but himself for his opponents' refusal to accept his legitimacy.
So does this mean Hillary becomes president?
I see what you did there Meade. Nice work.
Meade did you bother to read what I wrote -- and what I was responding to -- at 1:00 pm?
Blogger Kevin himself features in Althouse's main post. He commented with something that I found sensible (and I said so) but at the same time utterly inconsistent with a rather significant chapter in the public life of Donald Trump. That is Birtherism. A poignant and ugly little example of exactly what Kevin was condemning in his comment. In a post carrying the Althouse tag, "President Trump."
President Donald "Birther" Trump.
Natural born, "our Posterity", are [unPlanned] sons and daughters of "the People". "The People" are a man and a woman of American citizenship. Female humans do not reproduce without either a male partner or male surrogate (e.g. "sperm donator"), and male humans do not reproduce without either a female partner or female surrogate (e.g. "rent-a-womb").
How odd that a LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN would be so obsessively, angry about questioning whether Obama was born in the USA.
Obama could've nipped the whole thing in the bud by producing his birth certificate.
But the whole issue was insignificant. Like whether McCain was REALLY qualified to be POTUS.
wwww asserts: yeah, I agree with Chuck
You realize what this does to your credibility?
Obama could've nipped the whole thing in the bud by producing his birth certificate.
He produced a "certificate of live birth", of "yearbook" quality. So, we know that someone certified he was born alive. That's something. Still, only his mother was an American citizen ("the People"). So, Obama does not qualify as "our Posterity", but with consent is a naturalized citizen under the constitution. Then again, under a progressively liberal (i.e. divergent or twilight fringe) interpretation of the constitution, anything and everything is possible, selectively.
I fully expect more of a full court press from our "accidental leftist" Chuck as the twin prongs of the dems/left/MSM/LLR "insurance policy" (paid claims of sexual harassment and fake dem/LLR claims of Russian collusion) continue to melt before our eyes.
To his credit, Graham has clearly become fully alert to and aware of what obama and his team of lefty/LLR hacks have been up to with the FISA court and I would suspect that as time rolls forward he will become even more aggressive in going after the dems on this.
At which point our very own LLR will have to start putting double and triple duty deflecting for his dem allies.
That should be fun to watch!
" I all along agreed with Graham's derision of Trump. Still do. But I also agree with him now. "
That is a great example of inability to say anything directly positive about Trump.
Let Graham do it, then agree with Graham.
Blogger Kevin himself features in Althouse's main post. He commented with something that I found sensible (and I said so) but at the same time utterly inconsistent with a rather significant chapter in the public life of Donald Trump.
Those are two different Kevins. I was not featured in the post, but I did respond about Trump.
I'd have been very happy if only Kevin had replied.
Sometimes this Kevin is afk. But here is how I feel about birtherism:
Obama's mother was an American citizen, so as far as I know, that makes him an American citizen. I know the whole idea of whether being born out of the country makes you NOT an American citizen has been thrown around. Like when John McCain ran and the Dems wanted to say he was ineligible because even though he was born to two American parents, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
I find that one particularly ridiculous, BTW. And claims were made against Ted Cruz, who was born to American parents but in Canada.
So on one hand, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Had Obama been born in Kenya, I would have liked to watch these same people explain how it was different this time - as they undoubtedly would have twisted themselves into pretzels doing.
And I know the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in, but I assume they would agree that anyone born to American parents is a natural, not naturalized, citizen. But hey, the SC does screwy things from time to time.
I didn't think Obama was unqualified to be President on grounds of his birth. But then I didn't understand why he hid his birth certificate when it could have been so easily produced. That alone was just strange, particularly since it went to whether he was qualified to be president.
Putting all that together, it seemed that perhaps there could have been something strange in Obama's records, which might open the slightest possibility that a court might rule him ineligible. And as he was already the president, would throw the country into a turmoil, not to mention it would have occurred to the first black president.
So that's how I took the whole thing. Basically nothing, but maybe something technical which he'd rather not risk having to explain or face litigation over. It could have even been something tangental to the whole thing, like his religion was stated as Muslim as requested by his father or something.
So many of these theories are impossible for the person to disprove. Trump can't prove he isn't a Russian agent. But Obama could have knocked this one down at any time. Knowing what we now know, it's hard to even fathom why he didn't release his records sooner.
I love how Chuck at first claimed it ridiculous that anyone would believe he and Lindsay Graham had any daylight between them, and then turned the whole thread into a discussion of Trump and birtherism.
It's just baffling how anyone doubts his Lifelong Republican credentials...
I believe that if we ever uncover Barack Hussein Obama's real birth certificate, it will indicate that Stanley Ann Dunham was not, in fact, legally married to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. I mean, the guy was a rotten bastard for eight years, so why not his whole life?
As regards Chuck's credibility, if he wrote that the sky is blue this true lifelong Republican would rush to the window because whatever color the sky is, if Chuck claims it's blue then it must be some other color.
walter said...
" I all along agreed with Graham's derision of Trump. Still do. But I also agree with him now. "
That is a great example of inability to say anything directly positive about Trump.
Let Graham do it, then agree with Graham.
Yes, that is exactly what I did. I let Graham say it, and I agreed with it.
Why go to the trouble to think of something nice of my own about Trump? What's it worth, to me? Why bother? I tend to think that someday, people will regret any nice thoughts that they had about Trump. But no matter; whether I am right or wrong about that, what's in it for me, to try to figure out something nice to say about Trump, upon request by all of you? If somebody wants to pay me $100, I'll write a nice comment about Trump. Okay? that's my price. And it might go up.
Dunno..what's your credibility worth?
But go ahead hide behind some weird political Pasqual wagerism.
Certainly not wiorth subsidizing.
I believe that if we ever uncover Barack Hussein Obama's real birth certificate, it will indicate that Stanley Ann Dunham was not, in fact, legally married to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
You know, I think that might be it. The other possibility is that Frank Marshall Davis was the actual father on the birth certificate,
I don;t really care but the mystery was not conjured out of thin air. Obama created it.
Chuck said...
But no matter; whether I am right or wrong about that, what's in it for me, to try to figure out something nice to say about Trump, upon request by all of you?
If you actually are a conservative/republican it shows that you are operating in good faith. No honest human being pretending to be a conservative/republican could fail to notice and appreciate that Trump has done more for our movement than anyone since Reagan in one year. He is very much on pace to surpass him.
Neither Bush comes remotely close and did more for the globalists than for their voters. Only Newt Gingrich out of Republican leaders since Reagan could make a claim to have even been a positive influence.
But you don't really care about any of that. You are not here in good faith. You are the only person who would bring up Obama's birth certificate here and only to hide from the truth.
Nearly a year after Trump's inauguration, we are STILL WAITING for that "peaceful transition of power" that the U.S. prides itself on. Instead, his opposition has turned this republic into a third-world country.
Like 9/11 Truthers, Obama Birthers invariably let rip their smelly ethnic prejudices once they’ve had a drink or two and a chance to explain their theories.
A better and I think more intriguing conspiracy theory was that Obama's grandparents and mother, and his mothers second husband, were CIA assets - and her job history, with links to typical CIA fronts, lends plausibility. And so also does his grandmothers job.
And their friends and associates.
And Obama's own friends, associates and benefactors - including Saudi Princes Bandar and al-Waleed.
There is a great deal of mystery about Obama.
Wait, I thought Obama’s mother was a confirmed communist.
"Obama's mother was a confirmed communist"
Thats what they WANT you to think. Of course.
It takes the mind off who was actually paying her.
In fact she was hired by an array of institutions well known as CIA fronts and providers of cover identities. The clincher is the Asia Foundation, which was from its beginning a USG/CIA influence operation and a supplier of semi-overt covers for agents.
Why go to the trouble to think of something nice of my own about Trump? What's it worth, to me? Why bother?
Because you either show its within your capacity to do so, or it's not. I used to say nice things about Obama just to prove to myself that my criticism was not blind hatred. It's a necessary exercise for any sane critic.
I tend to think that someday, people will regret any nice thoughts that they had about Trump.
So it's not. I get it. We all get it. You think the guy is so wretched that once we all wake up to his wretchedness you don't want there to be a single good thing you may have said about him on the internet for someone to put in your face.
You may have voted for Trump because you hate Hillary - who knows if that's even true - but the important fact is you root daily for his failure. You root for it and you expect it. And when it happens you'll feel vindicated.
That's fine. That's truthful. It's probably the most truthful thing you've typed on this forum. But honestly, you're just another person watching Movie Two with Inga and Toothless.
I think the biggest problem you have is that unlike all your conservative heroes, you voted for Trump. I think that's the real source of your angst on this forum. That deep down inside you truly regret that decision and wish you'd voted for Hillary so you'd be perfectly free of any responsibility for him.
You wish you'd had the courage of your convictions to vote for Hillary, but had to keep your LLR status intact.
And you hate yourself for doing it.
Again, all; I brought up Trump's mendacious and nasty Birtherism because Kevin weighed in with this comment:
The issue with the "not my president" line of thinking, is it allows you to dehumanize the person. You think of them as the "other" and not someone worthy of respect or consideration.
No matter the issues I had with Clinton or Obama, I never let myself go there.
That was for me, because once you start dehumanizing people, you become less human yourself.
And I agreed with Kevin. And moreover, Trump's Birtherism was precisely what Kevin was complaining about. So that's it. Kevin is right, and if anybody had an ounce of consistency in their thinking, Trump would have been ostracized for his shameless Birther rants and ramblings.
As for whether I am ashamed, or regretful, about having to vote for Trump, I am neither. If I were ashamed, I could have lied here and claimed I didn't vote for Trump at all. I have instead written many times that I voted for Trump and that I don't regret it. He was the least-worst option among two rotten choices.
I like bad-mouthing Trump because it makes me feel better about my vote, for which I am not ashamed and not regretful. My vote was simply distasteful.* I like bad-mouthing Trump because it puts me in good stead with other smart and well-informed people who more or less hate Trump. I like bad-mouthing Trump because I don't ever want to have to defend the indefensible things that Trump does and says. And I don't ever want to have to vote for Trump again. Once was enough.
*I don't like taking out the garbage, or cleaning toilets. But I am not ashamed of the fact that I have taken out the garbage, and that I have cleaned some toilets. I don't "regret" doing those things. They had to be done.
I like bad-mouthing Trump because it makes me feel better about my vote, for which I am not ashamed and not regretful. My vote was simply distasteful.* I like bad-mouthing Trump because it puts me in good stead with other smart and well-informed people who more or less hate Trump.
Oh...virtue signaling......just like a good SJW.
"But then, what of Birtherism?"
As I said, birtherism was started by Chuck. Not by Kevin.
And then, what of your gratuitous profanity? That doesn't seem like you, Chuck. Or is it?
Meade, I don't think I have ever once used gratuitous profanity in my comments on this blog. My profanity has been scrupulously defensive, and targeted at a small number of my most aggressive and offensive antagonists within the Althouse commentariat.
Do you have an example of any "gratuitous" profanity on my part?
And Meade, get this -- I told you once already exactly why I raised the Birther thing. You want me to admit that I "started it"? I admit it, I started it; in a direct and tailored response to whichever Kevin I was addressing it to. And I stated very clearly why I was raising Birtherism. And that nobody can possibly agree with Kevin (as I do) and not recognize that Trump is the grandest of violators of the civility that Kevin was writing about.
I didn't expect, and didn't want, a free-range debate on Birtherism. I didn't expect that any thinking adult (which may or may not include Trump fans) would still be arguing the merits of Birtherism. Perhaps I should have known better, in the darkest Trump fever swamp of the Althouse comments pages.
"Do you have an example of any "gratuitous" profanity on my part?"
"And Trump ended it." What a ridiculous comment. Trump backed down when it was way, way beyond clear that he was full of shit and his handlers viewed any continuation as an unworthy distraction.
Want another example?
"I didn't expect, and didn't want, a free-range debate on Birtherism."
Really? Because you seemed delighted with all the attention it got you.
Maybe it's time you end your birtherism once and for all, Chuck.
So "[Trump was] full of shit" is "gratuitous profanity"?
I just knew it; I'd be guilty as charged. Next time: "Trump is full of baloney."
But if the subject is ever again Birtherism, I'm thinking that "full of shit" is one of the few phrases that adequately conveys the evil, mendacious, malicious, ludicrous nature of what Trump was doing when he was among the handful of leading Birthers in the world. Complete with his own inimitable and fantastic lie that he had sent his own investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama and that they were finding -- what was Trump's word? "amazing?" -- amazing things.
The "leading" Birther in the world was Obama himself. Followed by Clinton. Now it just you. Leading from behind.
Meade said...
The "leading" Birther in the world was Obama himself. Followed by Clinton. Now it just you. Leading from behind.
You're trolling me, right?
Because if Laurence Meade is going on the record with a claim that "the 'leading' Birther in the world was Barack Obama, followed by Hillary Clinton, that is something I want the wider world to know about.
I already made it clear that if intelligent people wished to engage in an intelligent, nuanced conversation about the political dirty tricks of certain Illinois Democrats, Mark Penn and Sid Blumenthal, I'd be willing to do that with smart and informed persons.
But it was Trump in 2016 (and not until 2016) who stated:
"President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/full-flop-donald-trump-abandons-barack-obama-birth/
Before that, there were these outrages:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html
Including this (which I should have quoted above):
"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics."
Do tell us, Laurence; what did Trump's people in Hawaii find?
Again; this is almost too ridiculous for words. I think you are trolling me. But if you seriously think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were/are the two leading Birthers in the world, I'd like to be clear about that.
Meade said...
Maybe it's time you end your birtherism once and for all, Chuck.
What the heck? Stuff like this makes me think you are purposefully trolling me.
The political controversy over Barack Obama's birthplace was led off by Obama himself. Next came Clinton. Followed by what we have now: a few blog commenters who cynically try to keep it alive. Why?
Meade I never imagined that you were that kind of kook. I am indeed surprised.
Oh, and as to why I want to "keep it alive..."
It's not cynical; I honestly want to keep it alive because I think it is embarrassing to Trump and he doesn't want to keep it alive. Trump doesn't want to answer questions about it, which informs me that many more questions should be asked about it.
Questions of the kind that neither you nor any of the Althouse commentariat answered. Questions such as:
~ Who were Trump's "people" in Hawaii, and will they answer questions about what they found, that Trump says they could not believe?
~ Why did Trump not want to answer questions about the birther matter in 2015?
~ When, after the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate, did Trump finally decide that Obama was born in Hawaii? How did Trump reach that conclusion? Why was it not until 2016 that Trump made the announcement?
~ Would Trump be willing to once again say that Obama was definitely born in the USA? And will anybody answer on the record questions about whether Trump said privately just a couple of months ago, that he would have done better in the 2016 election if he hadn't backed off the birther theory at all?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/11/30/trump-better-in-polls-obama-birtherism-acosta-sot-ebof.cnn
Talk about kooky. You are a bad-faith cynical birther kook trolling this blog. It is time for you to stop.
Meade, your story about Obama being a "birther" boils down to a book-promo pamphlet, for which the author has stated it was a mistake. And which Obama says was a mistake. And it clearly WAS a mistake, apparently, in the re-considered view of Donald Trump, who now agrees that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama never trafficked in that story, and clearly refuted it whenever he was asked about it. That is not being a "birther."
And your reference to Hillary Clinton being a birther relates to a photo of a teenaged Obama wearing North African/Muslim garb; the story being that Clinton '08 campaign operatives circulated it to somehow smear Obama. And several times I have declaimed any defense of nasty tactics by Clinton operatives in that regard.
You don't have a single quote from Obama or from Clinton supporting anything like Birtherism.
I have posted links to video, featuring Donald Trump personally ranting about Obama's birth certificate.
And let's be clear about Birtherism. The online Oxford Living Dictionary describes "birtherism": "The incorrect belief that former US president Barack Obama was born outside the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president under the provisions of the US Constitution.
And here you are, Meade, floating the theory that Barack Obama held or holds "he incorrect belief that [he] was born outside the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president under the provisions of the US Constitution..."? SAY WHAT?
I'm not a birther. I have never, ever believed in the theory that "Barack Obama was born outside the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president under the provisions of the US Constitution." I am ridiculing that theory. It was Donald Trump, among a few other sociopaths, who tried to advance that theory.
Where you got any notion that I was a birther is just weird.
Are you a birther? Do you believe that "former US president Barack Obama was born outside the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president under the provisions of the US Constitution"?
Donald Trump tried to advance that theory -- and it was wrong, and wrong for him to do so -- but now Trump seems to have backed down.
The obvious point is that NO ONE should ever have engaged in birtherism. And while Donald Trump reversed himself on the notion, he did engage in it, quite notoriously. I did not. Obama did not. Hillary Clinton did not. No normal person did. but Trump did.
Here is Nick Gillespie at Reason.com, deconstructing the Obama literary pamphlet:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/18/about-the-book-agency-entry-saying-obama
And as I started to mention above (but flew past) the link you provided purporting to link Hillary Clinton to Birtherism isn't about Obama's birth, at all. It had to do with that photo, only. Was the photo-operation a political smear job by some Clinton-employed nasties? Sure, I suppose. Was it a "birther/birth/birth certificate" issue. No. By its own terms, it was not.
I don't understand why you linked to it at all.
" I honestly want to keep it alive because I think it is embarrassing to Trump and he doesn't want to keep it alive."
Wanting to keep birtherism alive, for any reason, is cynical. It is cynical birtherism.
Stop doing it here, Chuck.
Wanting to keep birtherism alive, for any reason, is cynical. It is cynical birtherism.
Did that apply to Donald Trump in 2011, when he led the nation in promoting birtherism?
In 2012, after the Obama long-form certificate was released?
In 2015, when Trump declined to answer questions about it?
In 2016, when for reasons known only to Trump campaign insiders, Trump decided to state that as a matter of fact Obama was born in Hawaii, but that the public should blame Hillary Clinton (?!) for "starting" it?
Are we all supposed to simply follow the lead of Donald Trump on when to talk about Obama's birth certificate, and when not to? I won't do that.
See, Laurence, I'm not here to help. I'm not here to be part of any community, or to make friends. I'm not a Trump supporter, not part of Team Trump and I am not looking to the Trump Administration to "make America great again."
Trump's been a Truther, a Birther and Vaxxer. It ought to be eternally embarrassing to him. Along with a thousand other things.
If the Althouse blog wants to make a new "instruction," or "suggestion" or commenting rule on Birtherism, I expect that the Mrs. can do that. I'm not seeing it.
Honestly; don't you and the Mrs. circulate among a group of intelligent, educated, informed friends? I can't imagine you looking any of them in the eye and contending as you did here that Barack Obama was the nation's leading "birther" and Hillary Clinton was right behind him. And it isn't a lefty-righty/(D) or (R) issue. I think it's a fanaticism/sensibility issue.
Everything Michael K said at 9:52am
And while Obama was POTUS, it was obvious from the campaign on that a Chicago New Left, Dem Machine hustler was going to be bad for Americans outside the globalist elites. I looked for ways to ameliorate his bad effects and prepare to defeat his anointed successor (and weren't we lucky that he defeated Hilary the first time, because First Woman POTUS followed by First Black POTUS would have been far harder to defeat), but I didn't deny he was POTUS or insist he was nuts.
But the, we didn't have the media on our side to keep us crazy, either.
Wanting to keep birtherism alive, for any reason, is cynical. It is cynical birtherism.
Stop doing it here, Chuck.
1/3/18, 5:19 PM
Chuck said...
Wanting to keep birtherism alive, for any reason, is cynical. It is cynical birtherism.
Did that apply to Donald Trump in 2011, when he led the nation in promoting birtherism?
So Chuck, what are you going to change your handle to, when you are blocked here after defying the legitimate instructions of a blog administrator?
Post a Comment