https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Small town evangelicals talk about why they support Trump

He offers them power against the scary cultural tide

Fascinating, disappointing, interesting, and concerning article, talking with people in Sioux Center, Iowa, where Donald Trump gave his famous “Fifth Avenue” shooting comment during his 2016 campaign, but where he also promised his evangelical Christian audience that, under his presidency, “Christianity will have power.

“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said.

Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.”

If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger.

“Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

What struck me in reading this was the irony that a religion whose founder was killed by those in power, and who taught the virtue demonstrated and grace given when refusal to compromise principle for power leads to persecution, has so many followers who just want to be the ones “in charge.” To have Caesar promise them power in exchange for their support at the ballots.

Not necessarily malicious power (though clearly there are some), but just comfortable power. Their scripture in all public places. The assumption that they are “normal”. Laws that adhere to their religious code. And those who aren’t of their belief, left on the margins, at best.

And if their perceived rights conflict with those of others? Women who want equal treatment, or those of other races, or sexual orientation or gender expression or religious faith? Well, the advantage of firmly believing God is on your side is that you don’t worry about others who don’t believe as you do. You can argue that you need the power to have the nation do what you want, but frame it as making sure someone isn’t oppressing you.

Explained Jason Mulder, who runs a small design company in Sioux Center: “I feel like on the coasts, in some of the cities and stuff, they look down on us in rural America. You know, we are a bunch of hicks, and don’t know anything. They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives.”

One has to consider some are projecting concerns that they will find themselves being treated as poorly on the margins as Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, etc.

The irony is that the nation’s history shows that when Christianity “has power,” it turns on itself as much as on those outside. Along racial lines. Wealth lines. Most importantly doctrinal lines. Catholic vs Protestant. Evangelicals of different flavors. James Madison grew up seeing Baptists tarred and feathered, which led to his pressing for protections against the church being entangled with the state.

When Christians “have power,” it’s not all Christians, ever.

“Obama wanted to take my assault rifle, he wanted to take out all the high-capacity magazines,” Mr. Schouten said. “It just —”

“— felt like your freedoms kept getting taken from you,” said Heather’s husband, Paul, finishing the sentence for him.

Is Christianity “under siege”? Well, it’s losing numbers. And it’s losing (to coin a phrase) the “special rights” of being the assumed norm, of having the presumed power when push comes to shove, of having its values be the values everyone has to adhere to (in theory).

And, weird thing, as that norm has faded, some people in some groups who have been pushed around by Christians following what they think is Christian doctrine, when they get a chance, they speak out. They verbally attack Christianity. Sometimes they push back, too.

She worried that the school might be forced to let in students who were not Christian, or hire teachers who were gay.

“Silly things. Just let the boys go in the boys’ bathroom and the girls go in the girls’,” he said. “It’s just something you’d think is never going to happen, and nowadays it could. And it probably will.”

“Just hope nobody turns it upside down,” he said.

“But we feel like we are in a little area where we are protected yet,” she said. “We are afraid of losing that, I guess.”

And it all feels so much like a zero-sum game. That the only way for someone to get freedoms, liberty, rights, is to take them from someone who already has them. The idea of rights being a universal pool to which only some people have been invited, and that those people were now insisting on their fair share … doesn’t matter to them, maybe because they don’t know or acknowledge some of the groups insisting on their freedom, liberty, rights.

The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her. She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.

“I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all,” she said. “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

But if Christianity is diminishing in the US, it’s not because of those attacks. It’s not because of Hollywood, or liberals, or Satan whispering in the wings. It’s ultimately because Christians, in all their different flavors, are not being persuasive that theirs is the better way, the right way. That the salvation they trust is coming, and the peace and joy they claim to feel in their lives, and the righteousness of their cause, is worth it as a belief system and lifestyle.

Taking a shortcut by having power in secular terms doesn’t seem to fit into any of the New Testament teachings I can find. And the more they grasp at that, the more they drive people away,

They want America to be a Christian nation for their children. “We started out as a Christian nation,” she said.

“You can’t make people do these things,” he said. “But you can try to protect what you’ve got, you might say.”

One might think, if this were simply a matter of faith, the folk talked with here would be focused on their beliefs and their relationship with God. They would bear the insults and slights as signs that they’re doing something right. (They might also consider any justice of the accusations against them, but one step at a time).

Instead, what we hear about is all about Us and Them, and fear, and discomfort, and change, and Donald being the guy who will Restore Our Power, take away the insecurity, the questioning, the (gasp) marginalization, the laws and culture that say they’re “wrong” or “silly” or “hurtful.” He’ll keep them safe, their religious schools pure, their bathrooms binary, their neighborhoods white … just like they’ve always been.

“Trump’s an outsider, like the rest of us,” he said. “We might not respect Trump, but we still love the guy for who he is.”

“Is he a man of integrity? Absolutely not,” he went on. “Does he stand up for some of our moral Christian values? Yes.”

The guys agreed. “I’m not going to say he’s a Christian, but he just doesn’t attack us,” his friend Jason Mulder said.

It’s a transactional scam on Donald’s part — he’s no more pro-Christian than my cat is — but they don’t see it, or they don’t care. They’re terrified, they feel that power, power from the modern Caesar, is the only cultural salvation for them in the short run, and they don’t care what it is costing them in the long run.

I, the Jury

Mitch McConnell, the jury foreman in the impeachment trial is admitting that he’s collaborating with defense counsel.

Sure, everyone sort of expected that the GOP Senate would never actually convict Trump in an impeachment trial, and that Mitch McConnell, as Republican Majority Leader in that chamber of congress would make certain it never happened.

On the other hand, it’s kind of shocking that he’d actually, publicly confess / brag that he’s in the bag for Trump.

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this … in total coordination with the White House Counsel’s office and the people who represent the President ….

Can I just note how … profoundly wrong this is?

The US Constitution — you know, the thing Mitch (and other federal officials) swore an oath to uphold and defend — the Constitution dictates that the Senate serves as the place for an impeachment trial. The House indicts (with articles of impeachment), and the Senate acts as jurors (with the Chief Justice of the United States serving as judge).

Mitch McConnell, effectively the jury foreman, just proclaimed he’s coordinating with the defense counsel.

And if that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution isn’t enough, there’s an additional oath Mitch will be taking, along with every other Senator.

I solemnly swear … that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.

I don’t see how he can possibly do that, if he’s already confessing his coordination with Donald Trump’s counsel.

McConnell’s statements are emblematic of the ultimate corruption of the Republican party, whose sole purpose has become, it seems, to protect and defend the presidency of Donald Trump, regardless of what he says or does.

Given that, it’s unlikely that the impeachment trial will result in a conviction, not because there is  (or isn’t) sufficient evidence to convict, but because the GOP majority (as led by Mitch McConnell) simply are disinterested in “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

Indeed, there are loud rumors that Mitch will simply push through a vote to acquit, without any witnesses being heard (this after the GOP spend the last month or two complaining about not being able to call witnesses, even as the White House forbade any of its people to respond to subpoenas to act as witnesses).

Through such tactics, they can ensure that Donald Trump won’t be convicted under the articles of impeachment. But history — assuming it is written by Americans — not be kind to their dereliction of duty, and their being forsworn of their oaths.

 

 

 

Case NOT closed

Mueller’s verbal summary of his own report demonstrates the need for more investigation, if not impeachment.

Robert Mueller, in the process of announcing his retirement from the Department of Justice today, also gave a brief summary of what his team’s report said:

  1. Russia interfered with our elections.
  2. The investigation did not identify active collaboration between Trump’s campaign and Russian efforts at interference.
  3. Though that might be in part because of attempts to obstruct the investigation.
  4. The President did a bunch of obstructive things but, because of DoJ rules, Mueller could not actually file any charges.[1]
  5. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

Which has magically transformed into the President, and his collaborators in the Senate GOP Majority, into “Innocent! Exonerated! No collaboration! No obstruction! CASE CLOSED!”

No, literally. That was the phrase that both the President tweeted …

… and his inexplicable Newest Closest Bestest Senator Friend, Lindsey Graham declared

Today’s statement by Mr. Mueller reinforces the findings of his report. And as for me, the case is over. Mr. Mueller has decided to move on and let the report speak for itself. Congress should follow his lead.

Graham’s statement makes little sense. Mueller’s report — and his statements about it — make it clear that Congress should do anything else but move on. If the Justice Department is prevented by internal regulation from indicting the President, it is clear from Mueller’s words in both media that he is passing on to Congress to determine if their Article II, Section 4 powers need to come into play.

Of course, it’s also worth noting that Trump’s message has, at least in this instance, changed a little bit. He used to be all “NO OBSTRUCTION! NO COLLUSION!” in his cloudcuckoo-land summary of the Mueller Report. Now he’s sounding like a cheap lawyer. “Insufficient evidence!” “Therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent!”

Of course, Trump’s avid watching of Perry Mason should have told him that’s all factors in an actual trial. It doesn’t really apply to an investigation, especially one where the person in question cannot be actually tried (according to those DoJ rules).

Still, the tweet is oddly defensive. It doesn’t assert complete exoneration, just … “Well, they couldn’t make a strong enough case.”

Sounds like a challenge.

Graham, wanting to hustle on but at least acknowledge he read and wants to address part of the Mueller Report, added:

It is now time to move on and to work together in a bipartisan fashion to harden our election infrastructure against future attempts by Russia and other bad actors.

Which would be a fine sentiment … if his Senate GOP colleagues weren’t standing in the way of that, too. Well, one of them, at least, but he’s the only one who really counts.

The reason, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Wednesday, is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has decided not to bring any election security bills to the floor for a vote. Blunt’s remark occurred during a hearing of the Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight of election administration. When Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Blunt, the chairman, whether he was planning mark-ups of any of the several election security bills pending before the committee, Blunt responded that it would be fruitless to advance legislation that McConnell would not allow to come up for a vote.

“I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we marked them up,” Blunt said. After prodding from Durbin, Blunt explained, “I think the majority leader just is of the view that this debate reaches no conclusion.”

Well, if Mitch says there’s no value in Congressional action on election security … I guess … we can all sleep well? One assumes Mitch is following through on Donald’s cue: the President really dislikes discussion of Russian interference in the election (it’s the one part of the report he never discusses, let alone creatively reinterprets), probably because he feels it makes his Biggest Victory Ever seem somewhat sketchy.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that, even if the Mueller Report didn’t find any active collaboration / conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian interference, it did note that the campaign and the President welcomed and took advantage of that interference — and Trump’s mantra since it was first discussed — has been denial about it. It didn’t happen. If it happened, it might not have been the Russians. Maybe the Chinese. Maybe some fat guy in a basement. But not the Russians. Vladimir told me. Yeah, the intelligence guys say otherwise, but what do they know? 

As a result of Trump’s vociferous denials that interference occurred, or, if it did, that it came from Russia, next year’s elections remain vulnerable to interference. That represents, at the very least, a serious lapse in duty — and, to the extent that one can presume Russia’s interference will again be in favor of Trump, it represents yet another case of Trump welcoming, if not actively conspiring, with foreign interests.

So, then, what to do?

There’s a growing belief amongst the Democrats that the magnitude of the charges against Trump — in the remit of Mueller’s investigation, in his less covert activities, and in other areas hinted at but not investigated by Mueller (such as Trump’s financial shenanigans) warrant, if not current articles of impeachment, then impeachment-directed investigation. Indeed, given the argument by Trump’s personal attorneys that various straightforward and legal inquiries and subpoenas from various House oversight committees have been met with challenges as to whether they are based on legitimate legislative purposes or simply rank “Presidential Harassment!” (as the snowflake president occasionally tweets).

Investigation as part of an impeachment inquiry is constitutionally protected behavior for Congress, backed by substantial case law (and the GOP’s own behavior toward far less grotesque behavior by Bill Clinton).

Against that growing tide for impeachment or impeachment-directed investigation are two arguments.

The first is that the GOP in the Senate — holding the majority in a chamber that would need to vote 2/3 in favor of conviction in an impeachment trial — has gone on record that it will simply quash any such quixotic effort by the House.

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of,” he added.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell’s leadership team, said “nothing” would come of impeachment articles passed by the House.

Second, there are concerns that moving for impeachment against Trump will rile up the GOP base, come across as a purely political attack that will rally support for Trump and the GOP, and win him re-election in 2020 … especially if the Senate “acquits” him.

I don’t buy either of those arguments.

  • While arguably impeachment proceedings will further enliven Trump’s true fans, they might have a similar effect upon those who oppose him, especially if impeachment-related hearings drag out further Trump crimes.
  • Lack of action — letting Trump get away with it, especially out of fear, is bound to dampen enthusiasm on the Democratic side, and make the whole thing seem more political. It also gives him the argument of, “Well, if I did something wrong, why didn’t they do anything about it?>
  • While there are arguments that it will help the GOP, there are counter-arguments that it will help the Democrats. So … since it comes down to conclusions drawn by the same folk who declared that Trump could never win in 2016 … maybe dropping all the meta-pragmatic analysis is a better approach.
  • In which case, what is the right thing to do? When faced with crimes against the nation, corruption and complicity in attempts to subvert our democracy … then at a minimum, investigating to establish further evidence is a moral (and pragmatic) imperative.
  • And if it rises to the (subjective standard) of “high crimes and misdemeanors” … then act on it, and shame the devil.
  • And if the Senate GOP majority ignores compelling evidence — indeed, fails to even consider such evidence in their haste to quash any embarrassment to Their Man in the White house … then fine. Don’t let those poor citizens dictate the course of action. The voters will judge, or history will. (Might I recommend JFK’s (ghost written) Profiles in Courage as useful reading material in this context?)
  • Just as with Mueller, faced with (among other parts of his remit) dealing with potential crimes by a man he believed he could not indict, found value in identifying the crimes involved, so, too, the House should consider the value of identifying and revealing the crimes they believe are there, whether to educate the voters of November 2020, or for posterity.

Do you want to know more?

——

[1] Ironically, those same rules theoretically should have kept Attorney General Barr from weighing in on the issue. Go figure.

My 2020 Pick

We never elect the ideal. I am very clear what my level of compromise is.

My feelings vary on the different Dem nominees. None is perfect; some far less. But Every. Single. One. would be a vast improvement over the shitshow of Trump and his administration. Thrash out the differences in primaries, but don’t forget that ultimate comparison. #Election2020 https://t.co/0aXyZ8xUM9

There are folk running for the Democratic nomination who I like more than others. There are some who I think are too much part of a bygone era, and others whose temperaments I don’t trust, and others whose records have problems, and others who I don’t know are as proven as I would like them to be.

Even the least desirable of them, to my mind, would be a quantum leap over Donald J. Trump and his politics of ego, divisiveness, and destruction.

The next several months are the opportunity to have the debate about who is the best candidate, the one to lead the nation into the 2020s. But whoever gets the nomination, regardless of their (presently identifiable) flaws, will have my full support. Donald Trump is an existential threat to America, if not the planet. To my readers who are not Trump supporters, remember that. We can’t afford third party protest votes and “Meh, politicians” attitudes. That was demonstrated in 2016, and is part of the reason we are in the horrifying situation we are in today.

(Was Hillary my favoritest, most perfect person in the world to be President? Nope. I didn’t like her attitude about a number of things, I didn’t like how it was presumed she would be the candidate, and I have no doubt that with a GOP Senate and House it would have been another four years of destructive gridlock. But would she have been vastly better, feet of clay and all, than who we ended up with? Without question.)

Yes, I know it sounds just like the propagandists want it to sound, but, ultimately, no matter how enthusiastic I am (or aren’t), my 2020 choice is Anyone But Trump. I mean, yeah, it is barely conceivable that some further candidate might run for the Democratic nomination and get it who is actually worse (God save us all), but I can’t think of who it would be, and of the current Cast of Dozens vying for the role, I’ll be more than happy to campaign, donate, and vote for them against the incumbent.

The Enduring Fantasy of Trump’s Bestest Ever Beautiful GOP Health Care Plan

Trump keeps magically saying he can give everyone better, cheaper, more-inclusive insurance. But he never shares the details.

Donald Trump and the GOP held a majority in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of his presidency.

Despite the fact that Donald campaigned in 2016 on replacing the ACA with something more inclusive — “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” — and despite the fact, just before his inauguration, he pinky-swore that he had a detailed Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA that was just about ready to be printed, voted on, and passed, once he was in office …

President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.

[…] Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details — “lower numbers, much lower deductibles” — he said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said.

[…] As he has developed a replacement package, Trump said he has paid attention to critics who say that repealing Obamacare would put coverage at risk for more than 20 million Americans covered under the law’s insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

… he then just turned to Congress and basically punted it over to them. Because he had no actual plan. 

“Trust me.”

The GOP-controlled Congress tried. They spent all of 2017 crafting and recrafting and negotiating within their caucus to get some sort of “repeal and replace” passed. The closest they got was the AHCA, which kicked a bunch of people off of insurance and didn’t cover pre-existing conditions, and which ended up being defeated in a last-second vote by Sen. John McCain in July. Subsequent efforts to just “repeal” and “repeal but delay repeal for two years” also failed.

(Ironically, just as the ACA almost foundered on the gap between folk on the far left of the Dems who wanted a much more sweeping health insurance reform, and the Blue Dog Dems who wanted something much more conservative, the GOP’s efforts were stymied. on conservative Senators and House members who wanted flat-out repeal, and more moderate GOP congressfolk who insisted on a much softer landing.)

The GOP basically gave up in Election Year 2018, but still lost control of the House in that fall’s election, largely over their shenanigans against the ACA, which people suddenly realized they actually kind of liked (or liked more than the status quo ante).

Which brings us to now, when the Trump Administration is seeking to get the ACA defeated in court, while promising that it has (or will have Real Soon Now) the Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA. It says that, not because it has such a plan (it still doesn’t), but because it expects the GOP in the Senate to write such a plan — something even Mitch McConnell isn’t willing to do.

So instead, Donald has declared he never really wanted it written and voted on before the 2020 election anyway, and will instead actively campaign on how Beautiful and Great his Brand New Plan will be after the election when he inexplicably expects to have control back of the House for the GOP, and so will be able to have something written for him that will be Truly Awesome.

I imagine one can judge the veracity of the full set of tweets by that final line there.

The problem is, no matter how many think tanks and Senators and policy wonks and zany off-hand comments by the President one throws into the picture, what Donald wants, framed in a way that’s acceptable to his own party, is simply impossible.  Mathematically impossible.

Here’s the problem: Insurance companies are completely correct in saying that people with pre-existing conditions tend to need to spend more on medical care, and therefore are more costly to insure.

There’s no getting around that. You can argue over what constitutes a pre-existing condition (unless you’re an insurance company customer before the ACA, because it was then whatever insurance companies wanted to say it was, from having been pregnant to having diabetes to having once smoked to living in the wrong neighborhood to having had acne to having anything that might possibly every remotely be arguably related to something that you now wanted coverage for), but the bottom line is, literally, the bottom line.

If you are going to actually fully cover people regardless of their pre-existing conditions, you have to spend money. Much more money than if you do what insurance companies always want to do (cover only healthy people who won’t ask for the money back that they spent on premiums). Which means either taking that money from the taxpayers (like in a Medicare-for-All scenario), or maximize the risk pool with even fully healthy people so that everyone is mandated to buy insurance and spends marginally more than they would if they were only covering just themselves (if they were lucky enough to not have any “pre-existing conditions”) (which is the approach the ACA took, based on Romneycare, based on what the Heritage Foundation recommended before the Right decided that Obama had stolen the idea and therefore it was the Worst Idea Ever).

The alternative to spending money is to pretend that you are protecting pre-existing conditions. For example, you can require insurance companies to cover everyone, but allow them to charge more for some people — i.e., a person can theoretically get insurance despite their pre-existing conditions, it’s just prohibitively expensive to actually get. Or you can create a special “high risk pool” taxpayer-supported insurance program, and then scrimp on the money you put into it, or distribute it as block grants to the states regardless of inflationary costs or how actual medical care demand is balanced. Those kind of solutions let you claim with a semi-straight face you are protecting people, while in reality throwing them to the dogs.

Of course, you could just go ahead and overtly throw them to the dogs. Some conservative GOP folk think that’s fine — if you can’t pay more, you can go pound sand, I got mine, screw you.

But Trump claims that sort of Randian attitude is unthinkable. But he thinks he will be able to get away with not having to explain the magical details of how he’ll do all these wonderful thing. Like the real estate developer he is, he’ll run on “principles.” just as he tweeted above: Lower costs! Lower Deductibles! Much Better! Everyone covered! We love pre-existing conditions! Puppies and Unicorns for all! We double-dog promise that’s what you’ll get — trust us!

Given the gaps, the people kicked off coverage, the hits to folk who have pre-existing conditions that were coded into the few actual GOP plans proposed over the past couple of years, it’s hard to believe that’s a message that’s going to go over well.

Do you want to know more?

On the the end of the Mueller Investigation

It’s not the end.

Frankly, it’s difficult to say anything definitive yet about Mueller’s investigation and report, beyond it being over, given that the only summary we have received is a quick “Nothing to see here, move along” from an Attorney General who was not only appointed by the central figure of the Special Counsel’s investigation, but who applied for the job with an essay about why the investigation was illegitimate.

In short, taking at face value Barr’s word as to what the report actually says — treating his quick turn-around summary as all that needs be said, and his decision that there’s not enough there to prosecute for obstruction of justice is — would be foolish.

Bottom line, the report needs to be made public, as much and as quickly as possible.

It’s possible that the entire report can’t be made public, of course. That’s because there’s a raft of ongoing parallel investigations, on the federal and state level, that the report might touch on. That’s the essential second part of this equation: Mueller’s investigation was critically important, but it was not the be-all, end-all review of the activities of the President, his family business/governing partners, and his coterie of deplorables. There may very well be nothing there, but the overall outcome of the Mueller investigation — prior to the report — suggests otherwise:

Along with a team of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, the former FBI director has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. The charges range from interfering with the 2016 election and hacking emails to lying to investigators and tampering with witnesses.

All that’s is not for nothing, and indicative that there remains ample ground for further investigation and indictment.

Granted, even if every line of pursuit were exhausted and every investigator personally satisfied that there’s nothing more there, I have no doubt that we’d have people still clamoring for more — just as I have no doubt that, in the face of a smoking gun on the steps of the White House, we’d have people still screeching that there was “No collusion!” That is, sadly, the political situation we live in, an era of hyper-partisanship coupled with a president whose never-ending outrageous behavior makes it difficult sometimes to definitively see where actions have gone from highly sketchy to illegal.

Nevertheless, there’s not just smoke but fire that’s been uncovered, and those who claim the president has been completely exonerated at this point are — perhaps knowingly — being disingenuous, let alone those now gloatingly asserting that the whole affair was a hoax and plot. Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated, even if — and that’s a big if — AG Barr’s handwaving is an accurate interpretation of the Mueller report.

And yet another Democratic candidate heard from

Hopefully a crowded field won’t divide the effort to defeat Trump in 2020

After teasing about it for some weeks, Beto O’Rourke has joined the herd of Democratic candidates for President in 2020. Remarkably enough, there may still yet be some undeclared candidates (looking at you, Joe Biden).

On the one hand, there’s a lot of value in a crowded field like this — it offers up opportunities for new and interesting ideas that might not bubble up when only one or two candidates dominate the field, and it creates enough breadth for people to feel like someone they really like has an opportunity to make a difference. (One of the criticisms of the Dems in 2016 was that Clinton’s nomination was treated by the party powers as a fait accompli, which led to some untoward behavior and people feeling turned off by the process.)

One of the dangers of such a crowded field, though, is that it gives everyone a chance to find that One, True Candidate That They’ve Always Been Looking To Follow … and it’s altogether possible that person won’t get the nomination. Which, then can lead to people being turned off (“How dare ‘they’ not choose X?! Fine, I won’t compromise my pro-X principles by voting for Y! Let it all burn!”).

That wasn’t the only dynamic going on in 2016, but it was certainly one of them.

To which I can only say to my fellow Democrats (et al.), you may very well feel that one candidate or the other has all/most of the right answers to being the leader of this country. You may rightly feel that the candidate who gets the Democratic nomination has some significant flaws — too radical, not radical enough, held some unfortunate ideas a decade ago, still holds some unfortunate ideas, whatever.

You betray your preferred candidate — and your country — far more if you let Donald Trump get re-elected. We don’t get to vote for the individually best candidate; we vote for the candidates that are selected in the nominating process.

The only “message” I am interested in seeing next fall is a sound rejection of Trumpism and the GOP that has capitulated to it. Anything short of that from the Left is self-indulgent twaddle.

So do go ahead and cheer and shout and campaign for your Dem of choice. That’s what this period of time is about. Caucus, vote in the primary, splatter their videos all over your social media.

When the candidate is finally chosen, remember, the choice is no longer between your ideal and the reality, it’s between that reality and another four years of Donald Trump and what he is doing to this nation and the world.

And, honestly, kudos to O’Rourke for illuminating that.

“Any single Democrat running today — and I may not be able to enumerate every single one of them — would be far better than the current occupant of the White House,” O’Rourke, a Texas Democrat, told a packed coffee house here. “So let’s keep this in mind, and we can conduct ourselves in this way every single day for the next 11 months until voting begins here in Iowa.”

“Ultimately, we all have to get on board with the same person, because it is fundamental to our chances of success that we defeat Donald Trump in 2020,” O’Rourke added.

Do you want to know more? Beto O’Rourke announces presidential bid, calls for unity to defeat Trump

Race is our national soft underbelly

And the Russians, who’ve been aiming that direction for decades, finally scored a hit.

The Russians — just like everyone else — didn’t really think that Donald Trump was going to win the election. This is a separate matter from the whole question of collusion. Nobody thought Donald Trump was going to win.

But that wasn’t the goal of the Russians (save, perhaps, for some outside contingency planning). The goal was to divide the nation. And for all the various problems, conflicts, and weaknesses we have, race remains the greatest.

So when you look at the adverts they state-sponsored, race pops up as a motivator more often than any other. Racist, anti-racist, white nationalist, black nationalism, black crimes against police, police crimes against blacks …. The morality of the position made no difference. Just something that turned people against each other, divided the nation, the body politic, anything that promoted hatred, that promoted separation, that made the US weaker.

It didn’t matter who won (though the presumption was that it would be Clinton). All that mattered was that, whoever was in charge, the US would be that much less able to oppose Russia.

Something to think about, next time you run across an advert in social media, especially with racial overtones, about how Those Folk are ruining our nation, and how only if We Folk stick together will We be safe (and all the Others can go hang).

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
— Ben Franklin




More Than Half of Russian Facebook Ads Focused on Race
Race was the Russian operation’s go-to wedge when it tried to divide Americans before and after the 2016 election.

View on Google+

The “Difficult Client” President

Trump is having increasing problems finding attorneys willing to represent him. Apparently he’s become so toxic, and so demonstrably maddening to represent, that the major law firms are declining to take the job because the anticipated net impact on the firm will be negative. Other firms cite conflicts of interest with other cases or individuals under investigation or indictment or being called as witnesses.

Well-known Washington lawyers cited several reasons for declining the President in recent weeks, according to multiple sources familiar with their decisions. Among them, Trump appears to be a difficult client and has rebuked some of his lawyers’ advice. He’s perceived as so politically unpopular he may damage reputations rather than boost them. Lawyers at large firms fear backlash from their corporate clients if they were to represent the President. And many want to steer clear of conflicts of interest that could complicate their other obligations.

Also, apparently, there are only so many crazy “I play a lawyer on TV” legal talking heads on Fox News who can pass background checks.




An unheard-of problem: The President can’t find a lawyer – CNNPolitics
Several top US law firms have left President Donald Trump with few places to turn for legal help in the Russia probe.

View on Google+

T-shirt Topicality

A bit more complicated (and sinister) than this, but neatly summarized. #cambridgeanalytica #Facebook #election2016

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

This isn’t wrong.

View on Google+

Some sort of an echo in here

It’s hysterical reading about Kellyanne Conway’s insistence that nobody in the White House talks about Hillary Clinton at all — when her boss is busy continuing to crank out tweets about Hillary Clinton.

From Conway’s perspective, does that mean that Trump isn’t seen as part of the day-to-day activities in the White House? Or that, well, yeah, the President, sure, but when he’s left the room they roll their eyes and talk about cutting poor grandmothers off of health care and other important stuff? Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking / lying that no, dammit, if we say we don’t have to have conversations with the President about his “Crooked Hillary” obsession all the time, then it will magically come true.

Or maybe it’s as Conway hints — if every time 2016 comes up someone starts talking about Clinton, then maybe people will get tired of talking about the 2016 election and therefore all that inconvenient collusion stuff.

Except Trump, because it seems he is emotionally incapable of dropping it. From his perspective, is constantly circling back to Clinton just ongoing grudge-mongering and insecurity, feeling that when he’s under attack the only thing he can do is pivot back to his electoral college win over Clinton and try to boost himself up by pulling her down? Or is it a clever and intentionally manipulative appeal to his base, who were convinced to fear and hate Clinton, turning her into the Emmanuel Goldstein focus-of-anger character of Trump’s dystopia? Or is he trying to draw Clinton out into the political arena again, so that he can focus his ire on her as an again-active “opponent.”

I would dearly love to read the history books from a few decades from now that can start delving into the truth of this, outside of the immediate political speculation of today. Assuming anyone is still writing history books a few decades from now.

(As a close aside: congratulations to “Sneaky” Diane Feinstein for joining that select club of people Trump has pathetically made up epithets for.)




‘Nobody here talks about Hillary Clinton,’ Kellyanne Conway says just before Trump tweets, again, about Hillary Clinton – The Washington Post
“We don’t care about her. Nobody here talks about her,” Kellyanne Conway told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Wednesday night.

View on Google+

The Fusion GPS testimony transcript

A fascinating series of 200 tweets by Seth Abramson going through much of the transcript of Glenn Simpson’s questioning by Senate aides in the Judiciary Committee. This transcript was unilaterally released by Sen. Diane Feinstein (I generally have little use for Feinstein, but on occasion she provides some justification for her place in the Senate), after Sen. Chuck Grassley welshed on releasing it.

It essentially establishes the bona fides of Fusion GPS and of Christopher Steele, the former MI-6 Russia expert who compiled it, as well as tying connections to other corroborating sources and what the FBI knew (and when it knew it) — as well as why Grassley and GOP Senators have been trying to keep the testimony transcript from being released.




Seth Abramson on Twitter
“(THREAD) BREAKING: In an extraordinary move, Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) has *unilaterally* released the transcript of Fusion GPS’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What follows is a live-read of the transcript by a former criminal defense attorney. Hope you’ll share.”

View on Google+

Tweetizen Trump – 2018-01-08: “A Very Stable Genius At That!”

Been a long time, Donald, but I’d like to hit some, um, “highlights” from your Twitter stream over the past week. Because some of it was highly entertaining.

I’m going to ignore most (but not all) of the various Iran and Pakistan and North Korea and Palestine tweets, because your throwing gasoline onto campfires in diplomatic matters is pretty well known already. I’ll just pick a few others to look at.

It may seem a foreign concept, Donald, but have you ever heard that old saying about flies, honey, and vinegar? Are you really accusing the Justice Dept. of being some sort of “Deep State” conspirator (apparently so) and then expecting them to do stuff for you?

It kinda sounds that way.

As to the Abadin matter, the reality of what was released doesn’t seem to align with your description, nor with anything to do with “sailors pictures on submarines”.

Yeah, Donald, pretty much everyone had a laugh over this fraudulent erroneous tweet. Commercial jet deaths have been in decline for twenty years. There were no commercial passenger deaths world-wide in 2017, not just in the one country where you have some indirect control, for one thing. And the last US commercial passenger jet death in the US was back in 2009.

And the White House explained what you meant by “very strict”: an announcement that the Air Traffic Control system would be modernized and semi-privatized (no work on which has happened yet), and the various travel bans announced through DHS (which don’t seem at all related to “Zero deaths in 2017”).

So no idea what you’re going on about, Donald.

On the other hand, your FAA head has just left, and you have no replacement nominated. Tell me how that helps your safety record going forward, Donald. [6]

Whining that you’re not being treated fairly is what 9-year-olds do, Donald. I mean, really.

Oh, by the way, Donald, the NYT is still not failing. Just saying.

So what “RESULTS” are you and the GOP showing for DACA, aside from saying, “No deal unless I get my wall“? Nothing much I can see.

Oh, Donald.

First off “We have taken Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table” isn’t negotiation, it’s bullying. I mean, really, Donald.

Also, so what have the Israeli (to whom we contribute BILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year in just military aid) actually done about talking peace?

What are you, Donald, ten years old?

Or just compensating for something else by touting your “bigger & more powerful” “button”?

Yeesh.

 

So Donald “I never quit” Trump is admitting that opposition from states to turn over personally identifiable private information on their voters, sometimes in violation of their own laws, to be dumped into an unsecured database through an insecure process, is enough to make you quit?

Of course. Because it was all just for show, Donald. You just want to be able to continue to claim that you lose the popular vote in 2016 because of “voter fraud.”

Oh, the whole “mostly Democratic States” thing? Really not all that true, Donald.  Nor is your assertion that “many people are voting illegally.” [13]

So let’s try this, Donald. Push for an initiative for a national identification card, with the primary purpose to make sure that everyone can get one, that it won’t be subject to additional fees and weird document needs and limited hours and oh, yeah, we just closed the place that does that in your neighborhood shenanigans that the GOP has pulled on state voter ID.

Do that, and I might be inclined to think you’re actually serious about this, Donald.

Are you still going on about that, Donald?

At any rate, the ideas that (a) the national anthem is played as a tribute to soldiers, or (b) that soldiers consider NFL players taking a knee in protest of police violence against minorities as an insult to them, and that therefore (c) glurgy Facebook memes of a veteran’s widow at a military cemetery is somehow a germane argument is …

… well, it’s another case of not knowing whether you are goofy enough to believe it, Donald, or simply want to stir up your hyper-nationalist base.

That’s accompanied by a (of course) Fox News chart about the Dow Jones Industrial Average breaking 25K.

Actually, a look at the DJIA for the last ten years shows a pretty steady climb from the depths of the Great Recession brought on by the last GOP Administraion. I mean, I know that you prefer to look at the last year alone, rather than the preceding decade (as that means that your Democratic predecessor gets some credit, the horror!), but it’s sort of sloppy statistics to take credit for everything when you’re standing on the record of those who come before.

Really? Because I’m pretty sure I saw it headlined everywhere, Donald.

That’s kind of a misleading statement, Donald.

We all love it when you come up with names for your ostensible enemies. It’s even funnier (or more pathetic) when you do it to people who you used to call allies and advisors and friends and supporters.

Vindictive, much?

Aside from the unfounded assertion that it was a “fraudulent” comment, vs. an erroneous one (something he clearly stated later in the day in issuing a correction), you’ve not only (once more) gone over his punishment for it, but called for greater punishment.

You are kind of a mean person, you know that, Donald?

So, first off, Donald, if “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” then you scored big time with this triptych of tweets. I mean, amazing, zany stuff.

Not to be contradictory or anything, but just to clarify a few points.

  1. Russian collusion has not been proven a total hoax. I’m not sure where you get that from, Donald, but it’s clearly untrue.
  2. Ronald Reagan was, in fact, suffering from dementia during his time in the White House. It was covered up by White House staff and family at the time, but it was known to be the case and is a matter of record today. So … really, not the best defense.
  3. I don’t know that anyone has ever talked about your having a reputation for mental stability, but you have been known in the past as a very sharp, clever operator (which I guess we can take as a proxy for “smart”). However, as I’m sure you are aware (or once would have been), Donald, being “smart” and “stable” at age 20, or 30, or 40, or 50, or 60, is not at all an indicator of where you are at age 71.
  4. Hillary Clinton did not go down in flames. She garnered more popular votes than you, and your electoral victory was a modest one. That doesn’t mean you aren’t President, but, really, Donald, it’s unbecoming and a bit worrisome that you keep repeating the same (inaccurate) attacks over, and over, and over.
  5. Hyperbole is not your friend, Donald. You are not a sharpie real estate mogul any more. Claiming to be a “genius,” “and a very stable genius at that!” is not only really kind of goofy, but … well, it’s not really the sort of thing that is proven by asserting it, but by others observing it in your actions and words.

Actually, Donald, you’ve decried any criticism — even stuff using live quotes from you — as “fake news” from the first day you announced. This followed a long pattern of threatening to sue media outlets that posted material that you didn’t like.

The real problem, Donald, is that it’s unclear whether this is merely a rhetorical tactic (the quasi-grown-up equivalent of a grade-schooler answering ever accusation or criticism with a loud “Nuh-UH!”), or whether you’ve actually slipped a cog and simply believe that by denying it you can you make it all untrue.

 

I think, perhaps, it’s best to let the public make that judgment by watching the video of the interview (where Tapper basically had to cut off Miller who simply wanted to tout Trump as a triumphant genius without answering any questions) [2]

 

I have to ask our studio audience, is anyone else disturbed by the President of the United States not merely letting truth prevail (as Jefferson put it) when he feels falsely accused, but personally supporting creating a Media Event to mock journalists and news organizations he claims are “corrupt and biased”?

Because I’m disturbed by it.

Harry Truman suggested that those who can’t stand the heat should get out of the kitchen. Perhaps you consider that advice, Donald.

That is to say that people who have the money to invest in the stock market are making (if they cash out before it dips back down again) oodles of money. How much of that money is actually benefiting the folk who aren’t gambling on the market?

And let’s also be real — that creation of “value” is illusory. It’s creation of electronic records of wealth — nothing tangible is actually produced when the market goes up (or is lost when it goes down). And because of the nature of the market, the value only “exists” while a minimum number of people actually try to draw on it. If everyone went and sold off all their stock value increases over the past year, the market itself would crash and “lose” tremendous value.

Also the whole job thing? Kind of weird that you’d take credit there, given that job growth in 2017 was actually lower than job growth in 2016. Obama also managed to take the unemployment rate from 10% in the depths of the Great Recession down to 4.8% when he left office; the current 4.1% is nice, but not that huge of a change — certainly nothing in improvement approaching the continued stock market records.

Welp, that’s about it. Man, these things take a long time to write up, which is why I’ve largely given up doing so regularly, but it’s good to see the zaniness, narcissism, fragile ego, and lies haven’t diminished any since I stopped doing so. Hang in there Donald — I’m sure the rest of 2018 will be a hoot ad a half as well.

View on Google+

Oh, look, Donald Trump is taking yet another election victory lap

I mean, it’s not even the anniversary of the election (which would be goofy enough). It’s just a random reminder that I won, she lost, the voters picked me, they picked me most [1], they spoke loud and clear, they voted for my trademarked motto thing, available on red hats for a very reasonable cost, they picked me, me, me!

It’s just … well, it would be hysterical, if it weren’t so pathetic, if it weren’t the guy who has his finger on the nuclear button, so ALL OF US should listen.

This is all in the context of a series of tweets this afternoon about how incredibly beautiful and great his administration has been, how marvelous his impending tax cut, how glorious his foreign travels, how spiffy his stock market bubble is …

I mean, again, it’s a remarkable display of LOOK AT ME! even from a guy who apparently feels compelled to make sure everyone knows HOW BREATHTAKINGLY GREAT A PRESIDENT HE IS.

Yeesh.

—-

[1] Though it always bears reminding Trump that more of the American People spoke for his opponent than did him. They were just arranged so that he squeaked out an mediocre electoral college victory. That still makes him President of the United States, as he feels the need to constantly remind us.

View on Google+

“But their text messages!”

It’s a sign the Mueller investigation is actually turning up dirt — and threatens to turn in far more — that the White House, the conservative media machine, and now the GOP Congress are doing all they can to discredit Mueller, the investigation, and, now the FBI as a whole.

Yet, as the article notes, the personal text messages being bandied about as proof that the investigation, and the Bureau as a whole, is irrecoverably tainted, are no worse than statements publicly made (or publicly reported) about Trump by his own Secretary of State, and by various GOP congressional figures. The breathless poop-flinging about the matter is not only hypocritical, it honestly doesn’t make any sense. It’s just meant to create an environment for a particular narrative: Trump is innocent because you can’t trust the people who say he’s not.




FBI Agents Sending Anti-Trump Texts Is Not a Scandal
It’s just another pretext to quash the Mueller probe.

View on Google+

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is an inspiration!

Unfortunately for federal law enforcement, he’s becoming an inspiration for defense attorneys.

Sessions proclaimed before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month that his ever-evolving story on involvement between the Trump campaign and Russia was completely legit. He asserted that he hasn’t been lying, that “my story has never changed,” that he’s “always told the truth” each time he’s been put under oath or or signed sworn affidavits — it’s just that what he’s recalled has changed changed over time, and he can’t be held accountable for faulty memory of stressful times.

That assertion is being put to interesting use.

Federal prosecutors in South Carolina are asking that a police officer convicted of killing an unarmed black man (firing eight rounds into his back) be given an enhanced sentence for “obstruction of justice,” due to a series of excuses and denials and misleading testimony that changed dramatically over time as he was presented with new evidence that contradicted his previous assertions. (Emphasis mine.)

In a federal court filing last week, Slager’s attorneys said the former officer had not, in fact, lied when he gave an ever-shifting account of the shooting during two years of investigations and court proceedings, at times contradicted by cellphone footage of the incident. Rather, they said, his memory had faltered under pressure.

“A Swiss cheese memory is a symptom of stress, not an indicator of lying,” Slager’s attorneys wrote, citing testimony from a medical expert. To further illustrate the point, they quoted at length from Sessions’s testimony.

[…] “Unlike Slager, who had been in what he perceived as a life and death struggle before he made his statements, Sessions had time to prepare for his Congressional testimony, yet still often got it wrong,” they wrote in their filing. […] “Like Sessions, Slager never lied or misled anyone,” the defense attorneys’ filing reads. “Like Sessions, he answered the questions that were asked. When he had his memory refreshed, he added the refreshed recollection to his testimony. When he failed to remember certain items, it can be attributed to the stress or chaos of the event during which the memory should have been formed.”

This puts federal prosecutors in the uncomfortable position of either accepting the excuse during the penalty phase of the trial, or suggesting that their boss’ declarations of utter and complete honesty aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.




Jeff Sessions’s ‘failure to recall’ gives defense lawyers new argument in police shooting case – The Washington Post
“A Swiss cheese memory is a symptom of stress, not an indicator of lying,” Michael Slager’s attorneys wrote.

View on Google+

Is he really this dumb, or does he hope we are?

Did Putin pinky swear, Mr. President? Did he pinky swear?




Trump Says Putin ‘Means It’ About Not Meddling in U.S. Elections
President Trump said, “Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.”

View on Google+

Trump celebrates the 2016 Election (again)

Quoth the President of the United States…

“Congratulations to all of the ‘DEPLORABLES’ and the millions of people who gave us a MASSIVE (304-227) Electoral College landslide victory!”

Rallying his supporters after yesterday’s electoral losses? Trolling his opponents? Or just being the President from the Id? We may never know.




This photo says everything about Trump’s first year as President – CNNPolitics
There are five key things you can learn from the photo Donald Trump tweeted 365 days after his election victory.

View on Google+

A look at the Monday Mueller moves

Amidst the various breathless commentary out there, this article seems the clearest on what actually got announced and what it presently means (certainly more so than random Presidential tweets).

Before we dive any deeper into the Manafort-Gates indictment—charges to which both pled not guilty to Monday—or the Papadopoulos plea and stipulation, let’s pause a moment over these two remarkable claims, one of which still must be considered as allegation and the other of which can now be considered as admitted fact. President Trump, in short, had on his campaign at least one person, and allegedly two people, who actively worked with adversarial foreign governments in a fashion they sought to criminally conceal from investigators. One of them ran the campaign. The other, meanwhile, was interfacing with people he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials” and with a person introduced to him as “a relative of Russian President Vladimir Putin with connections to senior Russian government officials.” All of this while President Trump was assuring the American people that he and his campaign had “nothing to do with Russia.”

And remember — these were the opening moves.




Robert Mueller’s Show of Strength: A Quick and Dirty Analysis
Any hope the White House may have had that the Mueller investigation might be fading away vanished Monday morning. Things are only going to get worse from here.

View on Google+

Trumpists just want government to work for them … against everyone else

The “politics of resentment” are not about small government per se, as the GOP has ostensibly been fighting for. Rather, it’s a tribalistic demand that government work for the people — but not for all of the people.

The core of the ethnonationalist perspective is that a country’s constituent groups and demographics are locked in a zero-sum struggle for resources. Any government intervention that favors one group disfavors the others. Government and other institutions are either with you or against you.

What FOX and talk radio have been teaching the right for decades is that native-born, working- and middle-class whites are locked in a zero-sum struggle with rising Others — minorities, immigrants, gays, coastal elitists, hippie environmentalists, etc. — and that the major institutions of the country have been coopted and are working on behalf of the Others.

[…] From an ethnonationalist perspective, government overreach is when government tells people like me what to do. The proper role of government is to defend my rights and privileges against people like them.

If government is protecting Them, then it must, perforce, be oppressing Us. Some of this comes from the fact that, yes, as institutionalized discrimination against those other groups has been combated, it has meant that the folk who used to assume the lion’s share of the societal pie and representation of what it meant to be “American” are having to share more evenly. But it’s become particularly acute in the face of prolonged economic downturns and stagnation that have nothing to do with any of this, but which provides the very real (if misplaced) feeling of being oppressed and disadvantaged.

Add in fear-mongering and rabble-rousing by conservative media and pundits (e.g., the truly chilling 2009 Limbaugh quote in the story), and you’ve got a sizable fraction of the population suddenly ready to take up torches and pitchforks to overturn societal institutions — but just for their own benefit.

It is, indirectly, the seeming victory of the Ayn Rand philosophy: I’m going to grab mine, you go pound sand.




This one quote shows what angry white guys mean when they talk about government overreach
Don’t want toxic smoke blown in your face? Move to Sweden.

View on Google+