July 19, 2018

Trumpity Drumpfity arranged an overture
For a Fall mid-term visit, perhaps to ensure
One more foot on the wah-wah election pedal
Since Puddin's genre is really heavy meddle.

The Centuries of Trumpadamus, Vol. VI

(07-19-2018 06:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I see roughly three different, overlapping strains at work:

1. Moralistic pacifism: for most of the past century, committed pacifists have been mostly in the Democratic Party. For the first half of that period, they were an exceedingly small fringe (Quakers and the occasional Jeannette Rankin) but their numbers flared (like the hems of bell-bottoms) with the flower children and McGovernites of the 1960s/70s. The newer types were not so much morally rooted as reflexively opposed to all things military. In 1993 the Clintons (themselves warmed-over flower children) brought a few such types into the White House; you may recall reports of Clinton staffers being "upset" that there were military aides in the White House -- in uniforms, no less! One can respect the moral austerity ("plainness", if you will) of Quaker pacifism, but the flower-child version of it is pie-eyed dopiness (or perhaps dope-eyed piousness).

2. Nationalist isolationism: a strain rooted not in morality but in venal selfishness. In the 1900s and 1910s, the William Jennings Bryan-style Democrats blended this strain with #1. From about 1920 to about 1950, it was a core tenet of the Republican Party, much to our nation's disservice and the world's regret. The two parties seemed to reverse roles in the 1970s, so that by 1992 the Democratic Party was unabashedly running on a platform of "It's the economy, stupid" and mocking George Bush for "wasting" time on international relations. The best thing about this particular strain is that, because it is based on selfishness more than anything it else, the party temporarily embracing it can be quick to discard it when (as inevitably happens) events prove it to be folly.

3. Communist sympathism: This mental failing has been exclusively the province of the left, and therefore of the Democratic Party, and is the hardest to understand. It is not rooted in morality, for what morality would exalt tyranny and murder? It is not rooted in selfishness, for what self-interest would exalt the enemies of our own civilization? As the graves of hundreds of millions bear witness, it can arise only from willing, intentional, inhuman blindness. The century-long refusal of Western leftists to recognize communism as murder, and their readiness instead to make factless excuses for it and to enamor themselves of Communist "heroes", is one of the most bizarre and inexcusable themes of modern political history.

Summary:
- Pacifism: mostly Democratic, but not always important
- Isolationism: alternatively embraced and discarded by Republicans and Democrats
- Communist sympathism: exclusively Democratic, and the most consistent and wrongest strain of all

RE: #1. I remember a future President who said that he "loathed' the military.

Re: #3. I remember an Obama field office with a poster of Che in it.

(07-19-2018 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  RE: #1. I remember a future President who said that he "loathed' the military.

Re: #3. I remember an Obama field office with a poster of Che in it.

And yet they insist that it's only others who are deplorables.



And then they wonder why they are so disdained.

Well, here's another reason.

The right wing protesters did not show up, so the left wingers gathered to counterprotest went ahead and vandalized a car and burned a flag.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

"Some demonstrators chanted, “Black power,” while other held signs that read, “Resist!”

At some point during the protest, a vehicle with an American flag on the back approached and was stopped by the crowd.

Some protesters opened the car doors while others grabbed the flag as the vehicle drove off.

The flag was then stepped on and set ablaze as someone stoked the flames. A few people cheered and someone yelled, "This is not the American flag, this is their flag"

(07-19-2018 10:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  RE: #1. I remember a future President who said that he "loathed' the military.

Re: #3. I remember an Obama field office with a poster of Che in it.

And yet they insist that it's only others who are deplorables.



And then they wonder why they are so disdained.

Full disclosure: for each of the incidents you mentioned, the details are (as always) slightly less stark than the sound-bite version.

- Bill Clinton didn't exactly say "I loathe the military"; he said "I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story [about himself, naturally] will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military...". Given the construction of the letter as well as the writer's own immense ego, it seems ludicrous to contend that Clinton did NOT consider himself one of those "many fine people" who do the loathing; conversely, given his lifelong M.O., the obviously careful formulation looks like a classic early case of him stating his opinion while giving himself cover to wiggle way from it later if it became convenient to do so (or, as he said in the same letter, "to maintain my political viability within the system").

- It looks like the Obama campaign office was a volunteer office, not created or organized by campaign staff, and that the picture was taken shortly after the volunteers had moved into the space, perhaps before any adult in the room had had a chance to weigh in on the decorations. And the Obama campaign did issue a statement somewhat disclaiming the poster. Significantly, the motive and thrust of that statement seemed to be not that Obama disapproved of Communist terrorists, but that he did not want to offend Cuban-American voters. The issued statement ends with this claim, which in hindsight can be seen as a bon mot: "Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." As we saw, the policy he actually put forward had almost nothing to do with freedom for Cubans, and almost everything to do with attempting to create a fawning "legacy" for himself.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArti...RTID=30111

"The campaign volunteer who hung the Che poster is named Maria Isabel (second photo above) and according to the Lone Star Times, she hung similar banners from her balcony at home. Apparently she's no "low-level" volunteer either. She serves as a campaign 'precinct captain" and the co-chair of the Houston Obama Leadership Team"

"Finally, there emerged a formal disavowal, of sorts. "We were disappointed to see this picture," read the terse campaign statement, "because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views." Not a hint that the campaign honchos or candidates themselves found Guevara "offensive."

Water under the bridge now. He got elected, twice, and his actions toward Cuba, Russia, Iran, et al are a part of history.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

I guess how it was paid for will be the point of scrutiny.

Quote: Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed the payments with Mr. Cohen on the tape but said the payment was ultimately never made. He said the recording was less than two minutes and demonstrated that the president had done nothing wrong.

“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, write a check, rather than sending cash, so it could be properly documented.

“In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” Mr. Giuliani said.

From 02/18:

Quote:The White House did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The New Yorker reported that a White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump denies having had an affair with McDougal and called it, “more fake news.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1G02AR

Quote:The New Yorker reported that American Media[National Enquirer] said it did not publish McDougal’s story because it did not find it credible.

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

Yet it is common place and acceptable (if not cool) to have your 'Che' T-shirt among leftists.

That really cannot be said about my 'Adolf Rox' t-shirt. Funny that.

It is common place and acceptable for leftist celebrity paeans to both 'how great it is in Cuba' and 'how great it is in venezuela'.

I utterly never see any single 'rightist' deliver credit to the wonderful concept of 'Adolf's Rail Mass Transit Miracle.' Funny that.

And damn, I utterly forgot which side of the political spectrum adopted usage of the Viet Cong flag during the early 70's -- was that the Young Republicans?

Lad, there is a strong history from the mid 60's to the present of glorifying Communist symbols from elements of the 'mainstream' liberals. There is absolutely no history of anything *but* extremists adopting swastikas and ****.

Your point doesnt bear the weight of any scrutiny.

Edited to add: since you are a person that has a very high opinion of the NY Times, i suggest you read their somewhat lengthy series of essays on the "Red Century". Gives a 'well we know it killed people by the busload, but hey lets just overlook that small issue' feel to Communist and Socialist thought.

One political writer characterizes this set of essays as:

Quote:“Well, we sophisticated people understand it was a mixed bag, so let’s focus on the bright spots.” E.g., Mao’s collectivization liberated women from domestic service and put them to work in factories (that is the millions of women who weren’t killed in the process).

There absolutely has been a very soft spot in the liberal heart for that movement. Far more than the soft spot to the Nazis that is supposedly exhibited by conservatives.

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

I know a lot of rightists. I don't know one who would choose the swastika over the flag.

I know a lot of leftists. A number of then have expressed a preference for the Che' poster over the flag. I don't know if they mean that seriously, or were merely trying to draw a reaction, but they have expressed that opinion.

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

What part of "a lot" says to you "entirety"?

I think you have many more people on your side on the "far reaches" than the right does. In fact, i think the far reaches are not so far on your side. The antifa riots, the growing socialism, the "abolish ICE" movement, and many more far outweigh the few nazis on the right. But you statement tells me the propaganda that we are mostly (1/2?) deplorables which includes the Nazis, that propaganda is entrenching itself in your mind.

The right wing protesters didn't show up. The left wing did, and they took standard left wing actions.

I think we will have far more people at NFL games kneeling/sitting/ignoring for the National anthem and the flag than we will have giving nazi salutes.

(07-20-2018 12:41 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

I guess how it was paid for will be the point of scrutiny.

Quote: Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed the payments with Mr. Cohen on the tape but said the payment was ultimately never made. He said the recording was less than two minutes and demonstrated that the president had done nothing wrong.

“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, write a check, rather than sending cash, so it could be properly documented.

“In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” Mr. Giuliani said.

From 02/18:

Quote:The White House did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The New Yorker reported that a White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump denies having had an affair with McDougal and called it, “more fake news.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1G02AR

Quote:The New Yorker reported that American Media[National Enquirer] said it did not publish McDougal’s story because it did not find it credible.

Some questions:

1. What does this have to do with collusiion with the russians?
2. How does a recording subject to attorney-client privilege get leaked to the press by the upright and unbiased Mueller investigation?
3. Wow. A revelation. I never would have though Trump had cheated on his wife or that any cheater would ever try to cover it up. I though Trump was as pure as Bill Clinton. So how does this change public perception of Trump?
4. Witch hunt is churning up chum for the fishes but, I repeat, what does this have to do with collusion?
5. why are the leftists dancing in glee again? You can take this one, AE.

(07-20-2018 01:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is common place and acceptable (if not cool) to have your 'Che' T-shirt among leftists.

That really cannot be said about my 'Adolf Rox' t-shirt. Funny that.

It is common place and acceptable for leftist celebrity paeans to both 'how great it is in Cuba' and 'how great it is in venezuela'.

I utterly never see any single 'rightist' deliver credit to the wonderful concept of 'Adolf's Rail Mass Transit Miracle.' Funny that.

And damn, I utterly forgot which side of the political spectrum adopted usage of the Viet Cong flag during the early 70's -- was that the Young Republicans?

Lad, there is a strong history from the mid 60's to the present of glorifying Communist symbols from elements of the 'mainstream' liberals. There is absolutely no history of anything *but* extremists adopting swastikas and ****.

Your point doesnt bear the weight of any scrutiny.

Edited to add: since you are a person that has a very high opinion of the NY Times, i suggest you read their somewhat lengthy series of essays on the "Red Century". Gives a 'well we know it killed people by the busload, but hey lets just overlook that small issue' feel to Communist and Socialist thought.

One political writer characterizes this set of essays as:

Quote:“Well, we sophisticated people understand it was a mixed bag, so let’s focus on the bright spots.” E.g., Mao’s collectivization liberated women from domestic service and put them to work in factories (that is the millions of women who weren’t killed in the process).

There absolutely has been a very soft spot in the liberal heart for that movement. Far more than the soft spot to the Nazis that is supposedly exhibited by conservatives.

Your response, and Owl#s made my point perfectly - there are of course a number of people in either party who will gravitate towards extremes and potentially prefer those extremes to our current system. But we should be careful to try and ascribe that feeling to the party, or even "a lot" of the party, because it likely isn't true.

Even having a soft spot does not mean one would prefer to support that item over one's own country.

Maybe I shouldn't have gone so incendiary as I did to make my point. If I had said the Stars and Bars, maybe then I would have made a much better comparison.

Mr. Lad -

The remarks we made about the fringes got me to thinking.

Your leftist fringe is becoming Democrat mainstream. My fringe is still fringe. You very nearly had a Socialist candidate in 2016. Except for some cheating, it could have happened. Now the heroes are Ocasio-cortez, Kamala Harris, Warren. soon it won;t be "Democratic socialists", it will be marxists and anarchists.

There is no doubt the democrats are moving left, and rapidly. You may be in the situation of a lobster being cooked - you blithely don't notice the water changing temperature until it is too late. You're cooked.

I think one of these days, and soon, you will suddenly realize that with no change in you at all, suddenly you have become right of center. You didn't move, the center did.

I don't know what your choice then will be - will you stick with the socialists you have been traveling with, or go to to a more rightish party? I am confidant you will make the "right" decision. Some of your friends here, I fear, are already cooked. I made that move when I was 35.

Flying the mfing Viet Cong flag while burning the US flag speaks volumes as well, Lad.

I *am* sorry that history *consistently* shows your side of the spectrum gravitating, if not explicitly* then implicitly towards Communist and and Socialist spectrum. And many there favoring the flags, symbols, and ideologies of those movements.

Your response (in both segments) is to use that construct to label Conservatives as gravitating towards racists.

And you *wonder* why Trump gains the support he does after that comparison? Good for you, Lad. You prove another point entirely with that back and forth.

(07-20-2018 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Flying the mfing Viet Cong flag while burning the US flag speaks volumes as well, Lad.

I *am* sorry that history *consistently* shows your side of the spectrum gravitating, if not explicitly* then implicitly towards Communist and and Socialist spectrum. And many there favoring the flags, symbols, and ideologies of those movements.

Your response (in both segments) is to use that construct to label Conservatives as gravitating towards racists.

And you *wonder* why Trump gains the support he does after that comparison? Good for you, Lad. You prove another point entirely with that back and forth.

I'm confused, are you saying history hasn't shown that the fringes of the Republican party hasn't gravitated towards racism or neo-nazism? Which party developed the Southern Strategy to try and court fringe voters?

I never said that the far left end of the spectrum hasn't gravitated towards communism - I simply pointed out how unhelpful that comment was because it does not start a constructive conversation. Case and point.

If we want to have an honest conversation about how the far left/right are developing and what they're supporting, then let's do that. But trying to say that "a lot" of leftists would rather support Che than the U.S. is as incendiary (and untrue) as what I said.

(07-20-2018 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Mr. Lad -

The remarks we made about the fringes got me to thinking.

Your leftist fringe is becoming Democrat mainstream. My fringe is still fringe. You very nearly had a Socialist candidate in 2016. Except for some cheating, it could have happened. Now the heroes are Ocasio-cortez, Kamala Harris, Warren. soon it won;t be "Democratic socialists", it will be marxists and anarchists.

There is no doubt the democrats are moving left, and rapidly. You may be in the situation of a lobster being cooked - you blithely don't notice the water changing temperature until it is too late. You're cooked.

I think one of these days, and soon, you will suddenly realize that with no change in you at all, suddenly you have become right of center. You didn't move, the center did.

I don't know what your choice then will be - will you stick with the socialists you have been traveling with, or go to to a more rightish party? I am confidant you will make the "right" decision. Some of your friends here, I fear, are already cooked. I made that move when I was 35.

Democrats arent *moving* left, they are *returning* to their roots of '67 - '88. Too bad Clinton put the 'Third Way' detour in front of them.

Obama was the seismic lurch *back* to *their* center, now they are unabashedly accelerating that way. I think we are discussing a related topic in the Buckley Room.

But and Lad will get pissed at me for this, those with no political memory prior to 2000 will get pissed at those of us who do that bring up this salient point from history.

(07-20-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Flying the mfing Viet Cong flag while burning the US flag speaks volumes as well, Lad.

I *am* sorry that history *consistently* shows your side of the spectrum gravitating, if not explicitly* then implicitly towards Communist and and Socialist spectrum. And many there favoring the flags, symbols, and ideologies of those movements.

Your response (in both segments) is to use that construct to label Conservatives as gravitating towards racists.

And you *wonder* why Trump gains the support he does after that comparison? Good for you, Lad. You prove another point entirely with that back and forth.

I'm confused, are you saying history hasn't shown that the fringes of the Republican party hasn't gravitated towards racism or neo-nazism? Which party developed the Southern Strategy to try and court fringe voters?

I never said that the far left end of the spectrum hasn't gravitated towards communism - I simply pointed out how unhelpful that comment was because it does not start a constructive conversation. Case and point.

If we want to have an honest conversation about how the far left/right are developing and what they're supporting, then let's do that. But trying to say that "a lot" of leftists would rather support Che than the U.S. is as incendiary (and untrue) as what I said.

I would definitely state that *far more* leftists would support the ideology and iconism if Che etc. than rightists do of the Third Reich or that of supporting the concept of slavery. No fing doubt of that in my mind.

When you narrow it down to supposed 'mainstream' rightists and leftists, that ratio grow a LOT larger as well.

(07-20-2018 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Flying the mfing Viet Cong flag while burning the US flag speaks volumes as well, Lad.

I *am* sorry that history *consistently* shows your side of the spectrum gravitating, if not explicitly* then implicitly towards Communist and and Socialist spectrum. And many there favoring the flags, symbols, and ideologies of those movements.

Your response (in both segments) is to use that construct to label Conservatives as gravitating towards racists.

And you *wonder* why Trump gains the support he does after that comparison? Good for you, Lad. You prove another point entirely with that back and forth.

When I first objected to the "deplorables" speech here, I was asked why I would object if I was, in fact, not a deplorable. They were serious.

(07-20-2018 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Mr. Lad -

The remarks we made about the fringes got me to thinking.

Your leftist fringe is becoming Democrat mainstream. My fringe is still fringe. You very nearly had a Socialist candidate in 2016. Except for some cheating, it could have happened. Now the heroes are Ocasio-cortez, Kamala Harris, Warren. soon it won;t be "Democratic socialists", it will be marxists and anarchists.

There is no doubt the democrats are moving left, and rapidly. You may be in the situation of a lobster being cooked - you blithely don't notice the water changing temperature until it is too late. You're cooked.

I think one of these days, and soon, you will suddenly realize that with no change in you at all, suddenly you have become right of center. You didn't move, the center did.

I don't know what your choice then will be - will you stick with the socialists you have been traveling with, or go to to a more rightish party? I am confidant you will make the "right" decision. Some of your friends here, I fear, are already cooked. I made that move when I was 35.

What you are saying about the left is equally as true about the right.

The right has moved so far right that:

1) a former, center-right health care proposal was labeled as a socialist health care proposal full of death panels
2) abortion rights are being curtailed because of religious purposes, as opposed to supporting a woman's right to privacy and to choose
3) fiscal responsibility has given way to tax cuts without regard for their affect on the national debt
4) immigration reform is no longer about reforming the system and finding a way to realistically cope with an inconvenient reality, but about building a wall (wasting money) and sticking the entire party's head in the sand

And I could keep going on.

Yes, the left is moving left, but the right has already moved very far to the right. The rightest fringe used to the be the Tea Party, but that is not much of a fringe anymore and is very mainstream. The new fringe is now the growing nationalist movement that has hitched itself to Trump because they see a sympathetic ear in him.

So, I ask a similar question, do you realize that your party of choice has already moved very far to the right? Were you the lobster?