Thursday, June 13, 2019

Two Sides

Recently in the news, a fairly unsurprising type of story. Some women had to sue in order to get their rape kits processed. Instead of pursuing the cases, police and judges had been saying things like, "You shouldn't have been out alone at night."

I know, I know, but I want to think about it for a minute. The country right now is in a state of deep division, and it is because some people think like this, and some people think you should blame the rapist and not the victim.

These are two very different ways of thinking, two assumptions about why we are here and how we should handle ourselves as citizens and as human beings.

First is the belief that bad people are an inevitable reality of the world, and it is commonsense to avoid being hurt by them. For instance, if women stayed indoors and dressed modestly and avoided alcohol and went out in groups there would be fewer opportunities to rape them, and they would be safer. If gay people stay closeted it is less likely that rednecks will harass them. Also black people, if they stayed "in their place," stayed on their side of town and worked in their kind of jobs, police wouldn't shoot them so much and white people wouldn't keep dangling nooses near them. If Mexicans just stayed in Mexico, you get what I'm saying. There is danger, and the solution is to avoid it by staying where you belong and doing what you should do.

To many, it is simply realistic to assume that there are bad people who will do bad things, and the rational approach is to take care not to provoke them. Some of those bad people are very powerful and, again, the smart thing is to be careful not to upset them. To people who think this way, that's just reality, and it's crazy not to accept it.

The other view is that bad behaviors should be eliminated or reduced, and bad people should be responsible for what they do. Say a gay person or a black person, a Hmong or a Sikh or a Jew, ventures into a hostile suburb and gets beaten up. From this second point of view you would blame the racists or homophobes who committed the violence, and take steps to stop them from behaving in this way. If this sort of thing is a common problem you could address it as a social issue and try to change it through norms or even laws. The idea would be that people should be able to walk around in public and do what they need to do without being harassed or discriminated against. From this point of view it seems that the problem is intolerance, and society's goal is to reduce activities based on intolerance that affect the recipient (aka victim) of such behaviors.

Two different points of view, and we all see it both ways, depending on context and our own motives. Life is frightening and we should be careful, life is good but it could be better.

44 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

:)

June 13, 2019 5:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Fox News Analyst Andrew Napolitano: The President Is Prepared To Commit A Felony To Get Reelected

June 13, 2019 9:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

What Andrew should have said is "Trummp is prepared to commit MORE felonies to get reelected.

Let's not forget that Trump's fixer Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance felony that Trump directed him to commit. Trump would have been charged with this crime and several others if he wasn't president.

June 13, 2019 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Yes Collusion! said...

Trump said in an interview he would accept dirt on his political opponents from foreign powers.

He added he might not tell the FBI.

June 14, 2019 7:32 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"He added he might not tell the FBI."

I beg to differ. He said he would NOT call the FBI - "You don't call the FBI.". He was very clear that he would never call the FBI for anything.

June 14, 2019 7:41 AM  
Anonymous “I would not have thought that I needed to say this.” said...

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a statement Thursday making clear that candidates for public office may not receive help from a foreign government, in what appeared to be a warning to President Trump, who said he would consider taking information about an opponent from another country.

Tweeting her statement, Weintraub wrote, “I would not have thought that I needed to say this.”

The head of the agency responsible for campaign finance laws clarified that any campaign that accepts help from a foreign government “risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.”

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office,” Weintraub wrote. “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept.”

Weintraub put out the statement 24 hours after Trump told ABC News on Wednesday night that he would not necessarily report to law enforcement if a foreign national offered him political information.

June 14, 2019 7:54 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

President Trump: Okay, let’s put yourself in a position: you’re a congressman, somebody comes up and says, “Hey I have information on your opponent.” Do you call the FBI?

Stephanopoulos: If it’s coming from Russia you do.

President Trump: You don’t-- I’ll tell you what. I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. I don’t--you don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do—

Stephanopoulos: Al Gore got a stolen briefing book. He called the FBI.

President Trump: Well, that’s different. A stolen briefing book. This isn’t-- this is somebody who said, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-oval-office-interview-president-donald-trump/story?id=63688943

June 14, 2019 8:35 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Looks like I scared away Wyatt/Regina/northdallasthirty/Tony Perkins/the Russians for good with my debating based on honesty and fairness.

Hee Hee Hee!

June 14, 2019 1:03 PM  
Anonymous I don't know about bone spurs but Rump sure is a bonehead said...

After letting outrage bubble for a couple of days, President Trump went into his safe cocoon on Fox News to try to tamp down on the blowback to his remarks that he would listen to oppo research from foreign governments, which wouldn’t be interference but would only be “information.”

Yet his walk-back was so incoherent and lacking in self-awareness as to be laughable, if it were not all so terribly frightful. Despite the fact that Russians repeatedly offered his campaign “dirt” on Hillary Clinton (and that Trump defended his son’s meeting in Trump Tower under the impression that he would be receiving such dirt), the president insisted, “I don’t think anybody would present me with anything because they know how much I love the country.”

Please. He loves America so much that he’d lie about doing a real estate deal during the campaign. He loves it so much that he encouraged Russia to release Clinton emails and proclaimed his love for the Russian cutout WikiLeaks. He loves it so much that he wouldn’t dissolve his businesses or stop take foreign monies. He loves it so much that he never expressed outrage that former members of his campaign committed felonies.

Trump continued in his mangled syntax: “Nobody’s gonna present me with anything bad, and No. 2, if I was — and of course, you have to look at it, because if you don’t look at it, you won’t know it’s bad, but, of course, you give it to the FBI or report it to attorney general or somebody like that.” He added: "But of course you do that — you couldn’t have that happen with our country, and everybody understands that and I thought it was made clear.” No, it wasn’t “made clear.”

Trump must have realized or someone close to him must have finally convinced him that his stated intention to break the law and renunciation of his oath to defend the Constitution would be a problem. He therefore spewed gobbledygook in an effort to wipe away the memory of his appalling comments.

Let’s keep in mind a few things. First, legions of Trump loyalists were willing to defend his original statements, statements so awful that even Trump now has walked them back. These hapless lackeys reveal daily how little moral or intellectual integrity they possess.

Second, you can see why Trump would never testify under oath to Robert S. Mueller III. Trump doesn’t know what is incriminating and what is not, who lies to cover up his own egregious remarks and who, in any case, is practically indecipherable.

Finally, despite daily evidence of his abject unfitness, no elected Republican — save perhaps Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — would dream of denying him the nomination for another four years of his constitutional rampage. As is often the case, Trump’s defenders wind up getting their legs cut out from under them when Trump finally does an about-face. They, like Trump, are without shame. The only way to protect our democracy (not to mention our collective sanity) is to vote them all out.

June 14, 2019 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Joan Walsh said...

The just-announced departure of White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders means very little. It’s not like she’s conducting the daily briefing; she stopped doing that more than three months ago. Reporters say the briefing room, which once bustled with jousting journalists and administration figures every single day, is now dusty and forlorn—a metaphor for the state of truth and justice under the Donald Trump administration.

Sanders lied so routinely it’s tough to make a list of her greatest hits. One big one came out in Robert Mueller’s report, when she told reporters she’d heard from “countless” FBI agents who were happy that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. That was pretty clearly untrue; Comey was popular with FBI staff. Then she lied about her lie, telling Mueller it was a “slip of the tongue,” even though she was reading from a prepared text.

As recently as Monday, Sanders did not deny reports that Trump told his aides to lie about recent state polling showing him trailing Joe Biden in a 2020 matchup—maybe that was progress, that she didn’t lie—but she essentially defended Trump even if he did so. “Look, I think the polling got it completely wrong in 2016, I don’t think it’s right now,” she told CNN.

Of course, sometimes she got caught lying because Trump hung her out to dry. She tried to stick with the cover story around Comey’s firing—that it had to do with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s finding fault with his handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. But hours later Trump told Lester Holt, “I was gonna fire him regardless of the recommendation,” and linked it to the Russia investigation.

Veteran ABC newsman Sam Donaldson called Sanders the most mendacious of all the press secretaries he’s seen going back to the John F. Kennedy administration. “She deserves a lifetime achievement Oscar for lying,” he said.

No doubt Sanders will be missed by the president because of her loyalty, but he has other staffers ready for their lying closeup. On Thursday, Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley tried to deny that Trump told George Stephanopoulos that he would welcome opposition research from a foreign country, even though video of the brazen and possibly treasonous claim was running every 20 minutes on cable news all day long. “He was very clear,” Gidley told Fox’s Shep Smith, the best journalist at the network. “If he got information and it was nefarious or ill-gotten in any way and it was wrongdoing he would absolutely take it to the FBI.”

“The president responded the FBI Director is wrong,” Smith countered. Smith was right; Gidley was lying. Maybe he was auditioning for Sanders’s role.

Also Thursday came the news that the US Office of Special Counsel said Kellyanne Conway should be removed from her White House role for multiple Hatch Act violations, essentially conducting partisan politics on government time. The head of the office, a Trump appointee, also was disturbed that Conway routinely publicly disparaged the investigation. “If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work,” she told reporters. “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.” Of course, the White House is rejecting the counsel’s conclusion.

This is an administration of brazen liars, and they won’t get any less brazen or mendacious with Sanders’s departure. She’s told friends she’s interested in becoming governor of Arkansas, as her father did. That’s bad news for the people of Arkansas—they deserve a governor who’s good at honesty—but at least her toxicity will be confined to one state.

June 14, 2019 4:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Mediaite reports: President Donald Trump took time to praise Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for blocking a Democratic bill that would have mandated reporting foreign election interference. Blackburn blocked Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-VA) attempt to pass a bill requiring campaigns to report any offers of foreign assistance to the FBI.

If Trump completes his dictatorial powergrab Mitch McConnell will have been the man who could have stopped it but chose to abet Trump in killing American Democracy instead.

June 14, 2019 7:13 PM  
Anonymous "Merrick Garland" sounds like a stage name for a drag queen said...

The media’s tunnel vision and failure to pursue the natural line of questioning about foreign influence in the 2016 campaign are surreal. Think for a moment if Hillary Clinton had to answer truthfully about her activities. If she were honest, she would have to answer something like, “Why, yes, my campaign would, through the general counsel’s law firm, employ a foreign national to contact sources in the Russian government and try to develop opposition research to use against my opponent, and then take it to the FBI and the media in order to disrupt my opponent’s campaign.” Is there something about this I am missing?

Doesn’t the pearl-clutching over Trump saying that he might listen to whatever another government wants to share with him mean that those same pearl-clutchers should also be taking what Clinton’s campaign actually did very seriously? And yet, they are not. Instead, the Democrats and their allies in the media are savagely attacking Attorney General William Barr because he has rightly pledged to get to the bottom of how opposition research obtained and produced by foreigners for the sole purpose of disrupting one of the two viable presidential campaigns made its way into our system.

This is not just a case of two competing parties swapping blows. Nor is it just a case of “you investigate me, I’ll investigate you.” We need to know what happened within the Democratic campaign when it came to using foreign resources to concoct a story that then was used to trigger the power of government institutions for the purpose of damaging their political opponent. It is not enough just to conclude that Trump’s campaign did not collude with a foreign power. Just because Clinton did not win in 2016 does not mean we should not know the extent of what was done by her campaign and whether individuals in the Obama administration may have tried to help impact the election.

It is easy to complain of Russiagate fatigue; after all, we have been watching this saga unfold for nearly three years. But it is important to remember that the rest of the world has been watching, too – and not just Russia, but China and Iran and others. If our strategic adversaries see America open the Pandora’s box of a question like this and then never fully answer it, our weaknesses will be exposed, and they will be exploited again, and again. Learning the truth is not just a partisan excursion. The events of the last several months of the 2016 campaign still impact our politics today. The best chance there is of discouraging future actors from engaging in similar activity will be a thorough, transparent investigation and accounting of any wrongs that were committed and whatever harm was actually done.

And then, to lock her up. Just like you would anyone else.

June 15, 2019 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Ruth Bader is getting testy about being a loser said...

"Recently in the news, a fairly unsurprising type of story"

unsurprising to TTF morons, that is

"Some women had to sue in order to get their rape kits processed. Instead of pursuing the cases, police and judges had been saying things like, "You shouldn't have been out alone at night.""

where did this happen?

"I know, I know, but I want to think about it for a minute. The country right now is in a state of deep division, and it is because some people think like this, and some people think you should blame the rapist and not the victim."

actually, there are so few people who think that rape shouldn't be prosecuted just because a woman was stupid enough to not take sensible precautions, that they could fit in a phone booth and still leave room for Superman to change and help fight crime the old-fashioned way: x-ray vision

"The country right now is in a state of deep division and it is because some people think like this"

no, it isn't

it's in deep division because Democrats are mad they lost an election and will do or say anything to overturn that election

"These are two very different ways of thinking, two assumptions about why we are here and how we should handle ourselves as citizens and as human beings."

there's a third way of thinking and it's a view most people hold: you should take sensible precautions against attacks by evil people and still prosecute them when they commit a crime

wonder why TTF doesn't think like that..

"For instance, if women stayed indoors and dressed modestly and avoided alcohol and went out in groups there would be fewer opportunities to rape them, and they would be safer. If gay people stay closeted it is less likely that rednecks will harass them. Also black people, if they stayed "in their place," stayed on their side of town and worked in their kind of jobs, police wouldn't shoot them so much and white people wouldn't keep dangling nooses near them. If Mexicans just stayed in Mexico, you get what I'm saying."

I see what you mean. so, if people didn't run campaigns against liberal progressive Democrats, those Democrats wouldn't have to lie about them

it's an idea as old as Marx himself

"Say a gay person or a black person,"

this is a tiresome ploy by lunatic fringe gay advocates but it's worth debunking

it is defamation to equate minority racial identity with perversion

being black is a physical characteristic

engaging in homosexual behavior is a choice, just like any other behavior

June 15, 2019 6:46 AM  
Anonymous I'm wearing a sweater in June said...

If President Trump is victorious again in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, his path will likely go through abortion and climate change, two issues on which the Democrats are most inflamed, confident in their righteousness and willing to embrace radical policies that appeal to their own voters much more than anyone else.

Joe Biden, the relative moderate, has released a climate plan clearly derived from the “Green New Deal.”

Climate is a watchword among the Democratic presidential candidates — and an enormous downside risk. Once everyone on your own side agrees about an issue, and once you are convinced that you are addressing a planet-threatening crisis that will become irreversible in about a decade’s time, prudence and incrementalism begin to look dispensable.

There’s no doubt that climate is a top-tier issue for Democrats. In a CNN poll, 96% of Democrats say it’s very important that candidates support “taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change.”

It’s also true that the public is adopting climate orthodoxy. According to a survey by climate change programs at Yale and George Mason, 70% believe that climate change is happening, and 57% believe that humans are causing it.

It’s easy to over-interpret these numbers, though. While a big majority of Democrats see climate change as a problem, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found only 15% of Republicans and — more important — 47% of independents do.

Of course, saying climate change is a problem doesn’t cost anyone anything. An AP/University of Chicago poll asked people how much they were willing to pay to fight climate change, and 57% said $1 a month, or not even the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

June 15, 2019 9:48 AM  
Anonymous I'm wearing a sweater in June said...


The political experience of other advanced democracies is a flashing red light. In Australia last month, the opposition lost what was supposed to be “the climate change” election, against all expectations. Polling showed that about 60% of Australians called climate change “a serious and pressing problem” and thought the government should address it “even if this involves significant costs.”

It turned out that it was one thing to tell that to pollsters and another to vote to make it happen. The opposition promised a 45% reduction in carbon emissions with no serious pain, while the conservative governing coalition focused on the cost — and won.

In France, gas hikes as part of a government plan to reduce carbon emissions by 75% sparked the yellow-vest movement in car-dependent suburbs and towns and had to be ignominiously reversed.

The politics of climate change are bound to remain problematic. The voters most opposed to the costs of climate action tend to be the kind of “deplorables” most easily dismissed by center-left parties at their own peril: voters in rural Queensland in Australia, economically distressed residents of unfashionable areas of France, working-class voters in the American Rust Belt.

The real felt urgency of climate change won’t anytime soon match the rhetoric of the advocates. There’s currently an effort to make every US drought or flood, tornado or hurricane, a symptom of an alleged climate emergency. This approach may pay some dividends, but it hardly reflects a careful accounting of the data.

According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, the Palmer Drought Severity Index doesn’t show a trend since 1895, and the pattern of US flooding over the past century doesn’t track with global warming; there has been no trend in US tornados since 1945, and little trend in tropical storms and hurricanes since the early 1970s.

Bearing real costs for the sake of the climate will always be a sucker’s game for any one country so long as there isn’t a global regime mandating emission reductions (and, thankfully, there isn’t anything remotely like the political will for such a regime). It was supposed to be a disaster when Trump pulled out of the Paris accords, but G-20 countries haven’t been on pace to meet their goals regardless.

Finally, whatever the costs, no one is going to feel any climate benefits anytime soon; even the radical Green New Deal wouldn’t make much difference. All this should counsel caution rather than apocalyptic rhetoric and policies, although Trump has every reason to hope it doesn’t.

June 15, 2019 9:48 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the Reds!! said...

To What extent does the two-year political investigation into Donald Trump and his top aides and family members, based on suspicions of treacherous “collusion” with the Russian government, represent a kind of McCarthyism? Most people involved in that investigation no doubt would be aghast at the question. After all, they might say, they were only trying to save the country from an obviously bad man who had both motive and opportunity to scheme with the Russians for his own nefarious purposes. Even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller made clear that his two-year investigation could find no evidence of collusion to justify any legal action, many on the anti-Trump Left continued to insist that it had happened and they would continue the assault.

But Mueller’s finding of no collusion does raise questions about the propriety of an inquiry based on suspicions and fragments of evidence that never added up to any serious proof of such cravenness. That was a frequent complaint about McCarthyism back in the days of its greatest menacing influence. And, just as Senator Joseph McCarthy sought to leverage his allegations of communist collusion into partisan political advantage, so too did Trump’s accusers seek to bring down a president and curtail his range of executive action.

TO EXPLORE the issue further, it’s helpful to explore what is meant by McCarthyism. Webster’s defines it as “the use of indiscriminate, often unfounded, accusations, sensationalism, inquisitorial investigative methods, etc., ostensibly in suppression of communism.”

The motive of suppressing communism no longer applies, of course, as the primary sources of anticommunist anxiety in McCarthy’s day—the expansionist Soviet empire and its Chinese counterpart—no longer exist. But today’s obsession with Russia as a threat, although it represents hardly a fragment of the old postwar capacity for menace, could be considered a stand-in for the anti-Soviet obsession of old.

What about “indiscriminate, often unfounded, accusations”? The Russia collusion episode certainly qualifies on that count. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee (now chairman), said he had “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy”—and, he added, this was “more than circumstantial evidence.” Given Mueller’s ultimate conclusion on the same question, with all of the investigative resources at his command, one has to wonder what evidence Schiff was talking about. Meanwhile, another California Democrat, Eric Swalwell, accused Trump of being an “agent” of Russia. He added, by way of elaboration, “he certainly acts on Russia’s behalf.”

These accusations also comport with Webster’s definitional element of “sensationalism.” But it’s even more sensational and damaging when coming from former top-level intelligence officials, such as James Clapper and John Brennan. Brennan said that “Watergate pales really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now.” He described Trump’s claim of no collusion as “hogwash,” which was a roundabout accusation of treason. He dispensed with the circumlocution when he called Trump’s performance in Helsinki, Finland, following a summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin, “nothing short of treasonous.”

Clapper, meanwhile, invoked the constitutional definition of treason when he said Trump was “essentially aiding and abetting the Russians” though he later said he used the term “only in a...colloquial sense,” whatever that means. Asked if Trump was a Russian asset, as former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe had suggested was possible, Clapper said, “I completely agree with the way Andy characterized it.” He added a “caveat” that it could have been “witting or unwitting.”

June 15, 2019 10:00 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the Reds!! said...

Here we get to a fundamental element of McCarthyism, which can be illustrated by an exploration of the real McCarthy and his followers back in the early 1950s. These days we often see, in Hollywood movies and intellectual history, a view of the Wisconsin senator as coming out of the blue, roiling a serene nation with utterly false and brutal accusations of communist activity when there was no such threat at all.

Not so. A couple weeks before McCarthy’s first anticommunism rant, Alger Hiss, accused of passing secret U.S. documents to a Soviet spy when he was a high-level government official, was convicted of perjury. It was a signal victory for the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the communist-hunting panel of Congress, and a great embarrassment for members of the country’s Northeastern elite who had testified on behalf of Hiss’ integrity and patriotism. Two weeks later, the government reported that Klaus Fuchs, a British physicist who had worked at the Los Alamos atomic-weapons facility during the war, had been arrested as a Soviet spy. This was powerful stuff when most Americans believed, correctly, that the U.S. nuclear monopoly had been the margin of security in saving Western Europe from being overrun by the Soviets.

IN OTHER words, McCarthyism is about how people behave even when there is reason for concern or even alarm, as there was in McCarthy’s day. If there was reason to be concerned about Trump’s possible relationship with the Kremlin, that doesn’t excuse abuses of political discourse any more than Hiss and Fuchs served as excuses for McCarthy’s.

June 15, 2019 10:01 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the Reds!! said...

Further, in McCarthy’s day, the matter was complicated by the fact that the West’s greatest postwar threat, Bolshevik Russia, had been the West’s great ally during World War II. It was natural that there would be many Soviet sympathizers during that period of close collaboration between America and the Soviet Union. Afterward, of course, everything changed, and many of these sympathizers were caught in the crosswinds. The lingering question was whether some of these people still harbored sympathies toward the Soviets to an extent that constituted a danger to the republic.

No doubt some did, but it was important to draw a distinction between those who had engaged in innocent folly and those who still represented security and loyalty risks. Here we get to Clapper’s “witting or unwitting” caveat regarding Trump.

Clapper, it seems, was seeking to expand the definition of official wrongdoing to ensnare Trump even without any evidence of corrupt intent—in other words, unwitting wrongdoing, like, say, suggesting that it would be good if America and Russia could have cordial relations. We know, based on Clapper’s public pronouncements, what he thinks of that idea. He abhors it because he considers Russia to be a clear and present threat to America. Trump, by contrast, thinks whatever threat Russia poses could possibly be mitigated through efforts to assuage tensions between the two countries.

Here we have a difference of outlook on a fundamental foreign policy issue. But Clapper’s construction of unwitting treachery allows him to leverage that difference of outlook into a brutal allegation of treason even absent any proof of intent. The outlook in itself constitutes prima facie evidence of nefarious behavior—or, as Swalwell and others put it, acting on Russia’s behalf.

June 15, 2019 10:07 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the Reds!! said...

HERE WE come to an essential element of McCarthyism, illustrated crisply by one of the first great political conflicts unleashed by the Wisconsin senator and his followers. It concerned the so-called China hands who influenced State Department thinking about Chinese Communism during World War II. The China hands derided the Middle Kingdom’s Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek as a hapless and corrupt figure stuck in China’s unsavory past. They glorified Mao Zedong’s communist cadres as disciplined and unsullied “agrarian reformers” who could lead China into the future.

With the advent of the Cold War, however, and with China falling to Mao’s Communist Party in 1949 and aligning itself with Moscow, a rancorous debate ignited over who had allegedly “lost” China.

One of the first to weigh in was the columnist Joseph Alsop, who produced a widely read three-part series on the subject for the Saturday Evening Post, one of the country’s most influential magazines of the day. Alsop had spent most of the war years in China, working for General Claire Chennault, and he had played a major role in the bureaucratic drama centered on U.S. policy toward China amidst war, intrigue, inscrutable motives, mendacity and civic hatreds. He knew what he was talking about, and he faulted the China hands for supreme wrongheadedness. As he summed up his thesis:

Throughout the fateful years in China, the American representatives there actively favored the Chinese communists. They also contributed to the weakness, both political and military, of the Nationalist Government. And in the end, they came close to offering China up to the communists, like a trussed bird on a platter, over four years before the eventual communist triumph.

It’s noteworthy, though, that Alsop took pains to maintain a certain fair-mindedness on the issue. These China hands, he wrote, may have been “injudicious,” but their advocacy was at least “logical, defensible and not indicative of disloyalty” . But ultimately, wrote Alsop, these men undermined the Nationalist regime so thoroughly that any kind of workable, noncommunist government became impossible.

It was a devastating series that, however, avoided any hint of nefarious intent on the part of the men whose actions he disparaged and whose influence he lamented. Thus did he avoid what soon would be dubbed McCarthyism.

Just days after Alsop’s third installment appeared, McCarthy stepped into the breach with his now-famous inflammatory speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, in which he decried the existence of 205 or 57 communists (his precise stated number was later disputed) in the State Department. That unleashed the McCarthy era, characterized by, first, a frenzy to root out communists from government (and later from other walks of life); and, second, by a progressive erosion in the standards of proof that previously had been viewed as necessary for the kinds of allegations that McCarthy tossed around so promiscuously.

June 15, 2019 10:11 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the Reds!! said...


That erosion in standards of proof lay at the heart of McCarthyism. When an ex-communist-turned-red-hunter named Louis Budenz testified before the McCarthyite McCarran subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and identified China hand John Carter Vincent as a onetime member of the Communist Party, Alsop perked up. Budenz had testified earlier without issuing such an accusation against Vincent. More significantly, Alsop had been involved when Vincent, traveling through China with Vice President Henry Wallace during World War II, had helped Wallace draft a memo to Franklin Roosevelt recommending the dismissal of America’s top military man in China, Joseph Stilwell.

Stilwell hated Chiang Kai-shek and couldn’t get along with him at all. In his naivete, he considered Mao’s communists just the ticket for China’s stability and modernity, and he worked to undermine Chiang at every turn while bolstering Mao for the internal struggle sure to emerge between the two men at war’s end. Thus Stilwell, though not a communist, was serving the Communist cause. And Vincent, now in McCarthy’s crosshairs, had worked to get Stilwell fired, hardly the actions of a Communist Party member.

Alsop asked to testify before the McCarran subcommittee on the matter and got Wallace to do the same. This was a dangerous endeavor for both men, given that the committee surely would seek to ensnare them in perjury traps. It was particularly dangerous for Wallace, a muddle-headed liberal who harbored sympathetic views toward the Soviet Union. But they got through their testimony and managed to nullify the Budenz accusation.

In the end, that gave Vincent merely a temporary reprieve from the pressures of McCarthyism, and he was forced out of the State Department two years later. With impressive agility, Budenz and others altered their story: the real point, they now said, wasn’t whether the communists liked Stilwell but rather their position on his removal. The Kremlin had had advance notice of his likely recall, the new story went, and hence official instructions to party sympathizers were to acquiesce in that policy.

WAS VINCENT a communist? The question was never answered definitively, in part because of the difficulty in proving a negative. But the key matter was standards of proof. The erosion in that hallmark of evenhanded justice was what allowed McCarthy to spread his havoc over the next four years.

And standards of proof certainly went out the window in the Trump collusion frenzy. Not only the government figures noted above but many journalists and commentators, cable news talking heads, editors and writers for major publications, Democratic members of Congress: all assumed the worst and spread the nasty word with abandon, absent any serious proof. After Mueller dispelled the notion of Trump collusion, John Brennan stepped up and acknowledged that he had been operating perhaps on the basis of “bad information.” He added: “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.” But he certainly hadn’t refrained from his accusatory zeal pending that outcome, which translates into a view that Trump was guilty at the bar of public discourse until proven otherwise. And even after the Mueller report many other anti-Trump figures eschewed the Brennan approach and took the Budenz route, merely altering the story to keep the accusation stream flowing. It’s a case of plus ca change if there ever was one

June 15, 2019 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Democrats are sick bloodthirsty racists said...

In the past 60 years, blacks have given 90% of their vote to Democrats.

Did you know that if that dropped to 80%, the Democrats wouldn't have won an election since then?

So, Donald Trump has done the following:

-supported school choice so that inner city kids won't be stuck in dangerous hellholes called public schools

-supported the elimination of mandatory sentencing laws imposed during the racist Clinton administration

-overseen an economy that has produced the lowest unemployment among minorities EVER

and now this:

Imagine if Donald Trump announced he would change his longtime opposition to public funding of abortion in order to ensure that black, Hispanic, and poor women can kill their babies. Would liberals need even 10 seconds before foaming at the mouth screaming that he’s a racist?

Last week in Atlanta, Joe Biden, Democrat presidential frontrunner for 2020, said: “For many years as a U.S. senator, I have supported the Hyde amendment as many, many others have because there was sufficient monies and circumstances where women were able to exercise that right to abortion, women of color, poor women, women were not able to have access…. But circumstances have changed.”

Thus, said Biden, “I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.”

In response, the crowd of wealthy white liberal women went wild, applauding ecstatically.

It was an incredible moment. A sick moment. Think about what Joe Biden said, to liberals’ roaring approval: He’s reversing his long-held position so “women of color, poor women” can get abortions — that is, have their abortions publicly paid for. He’s changing specifically because of women of color and poor women. He wants them to be able to have their abortions. He wants to make sure money isn’t an issue. He wants no obstacles to them securing their desire to abort their child. This change is prompted wholly on their behalf: “women of color, poor women.” Even long-held religious objections should be no barrier. Your belief in God, and your conviction that God would shudder at you helping to finance others’ abortions, plays second fiddle to the greater goal of these women getting abortions.

June 15, 2019 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Democrats are sick bloodthirsty racists said...

Naturally, liberals will recoil when seeing Biden’s comments framed that way. Biden, after all, is their boy, and Roe v. Wade is their baby. The hallowed “right to choose” is a sacrament in the liberal church. That abortion far and away disproportionately annihilates minority and especially African-Americans is dismissed in light of their ultimate highest good.

Then, there is the awful history of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, her work with the “Negro Project,” her commitment to racial eugenics for what she called “race improvement,” her May 1926 speech to the Silverlake, New Jersey chapter of the KKK, which she openly wrote about in her memoirs. Liberal cult-hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s assessment to the New York Times Magazine: “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Biden’s birth state of Pennsylvania is a state he hopes to take away from Donald Trump. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation are located among African-American populations. Looking strictly at Pennsylvania, the latest statistics show that 43% of abortions were to African-American women and 10% to Hispanic women. More remarkable is the sheer disproportionality: only 11% of Pennsylvania women are black and 7% are Hispanic.

Abortion in Pennsylvania, like everywhere else in America, victimizes minorities by leaps and bounds. The national figures show that abortions by black and Hispanic women outpace white women by 4.5 times. Some civil rights leaders, including Dr. Alveda King, have called this “Black Genocide.”

June 15, 2019 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Democrats are sick bloodthirsty racists said...

Well, America’s minorities should know how much Joe Biden has their back: he wants to make sure they get free abortions. In fact, it’s so important to Biden that he’s willing to suddenly abandoned his three-decade-long support of the Hyde Amendment for this grand objective. And progressives cheer mightily.

Biden, of course, is hardly alone in this among liberals. Quite the contrary, he’s caving on the Hyde Amendment because not doing so is heresy in the liberal church. The Democratic Party once supported the Hyde Amendment, just as it once defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But progressives, you see, have since progressed. They’re now more enlightened. Hyde must be aborted, so Americans can support abortions for poor women, women of color, black women, Hispanic women.

“The problem is, the Hyde Amendment affects poor women, women of color, black women, Hispanic women,” says Patti Solis Doyle, who served as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2008, and who has also worked for Biden.

And whose lives are eliminated in this equation? The answer: Poor babies, babies of color, babies of black women, babies of Hispanic women.

Planned Parenthood, naturally, is thrilled with Joe Biden hopping on the progressive bandwagon. Minority women are its biggest customers.

“Happy to see Joe Biden embrace what we have long known to be true: Hyde blocks people — particularly women of color and women with low incomes — from accessing safe, legal abortion care,” said Leana Wen of Planned Parenthood.

You can’t make this up. And it’s no laughing matter. Just ask Elizabeth Warren. Choking back tears, filled with anger, she insisted to an audience of clapping, stomping women that Hyde be reversed: “Understand this,” said Warren, voice trembling. “Women of means will still have access to abortions. Who won’t will be poor women.”

This is the prevailing position of today’s Democratic presidential candidates and the party generally, with the party’s old men no longer summoning the intestinal fortitude to oppose the hysterical pack. Biden is merely the latest Democrat man without a chest, an ongoing line of lily-livered gutlessness that the late Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Bill Casey foresaw over two decades ago. The Joe Biden of 2019 is selling his soul for the political approval of today’s unhinged Democratic Party, which has completely lost its mind on moral-cultural issues.

What’s especially sad is that Democrats are hellbent on this policy at a time when the number of abortions have been in decline. For those who hoped and prayed that the scourge of black abortion would likewise decline, well, too bad: the Democrats are doing their damnedest to ensure that when it comes to public funding of abortion, no child is left behind.

Liberal Democrats tell us they love blacks and the poor. They are just oozing with compassion for them. So much so that they will strive to ensure that you — as a taxpayer, and regardless of your religious or conscience objections — are forced by the state to help ensure that every black or poor woman who wants to terminate her child will not be financially prohibited.

Wow, what compassion.

Pretty sick, folks. Pretty sick, Joe.

June 15, 2019 2:27 PM  
Anonymous watch out for the racist donkeys said...

Democrats have quite a racist history

they sacrificed their lives in the Civil War to try to save slavery

they started the KKK

they devised Jim Crow laws

in the early 60s, they blocked the doors to prevent blacks from going to school with whites

in 72, George Wallace was winning Democrat primaries until he was gunned down in Maryland

they passed laws on the 90s that led to a large swath of young blacks permanently incarcerated

in the 21st century, they have resisted giving inner city black parents the same kind of choice to educate their kids as they want that most whites have

and, now, they want to make sure that blacks aren't even protected in the womb

sick, sick, sick

June 15, 2019 2:36 PM  
Anonymous two gays will never become parents together - they need the other gender to do that ! said...

Let’s not mince words. President Trump and his loyalists were dead right. His threat of tariffs pushed Mexico to work harder to stop the Central American caravans, and the migrants who hope to exploit immigration law loopholes in order to receive asylum in the United States.

And the bipartisan, Trump-loathing political, business and media establishments were all dead wrong. They warned that his strong-arming would ignite a trade war, disrupt the thick web of supply chains linking the American and Mexican economies, and risk a recession. Equally off-base was the establishmentarians’ angst that Trump’s gambit would endanger the revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) that he has sought and which Mexico and Canada recently signed.

Trump busted a ballyhooed — but entirely phony — globalist policy norm. Immigration and trade policy must kept completely separate? Seriously? When one of Nafta’s selling points is a promise that prosperity in Mexico will keep Mexicans home? All the same, I hope Trump doesn’t whip out the tariff threat again. Not because Trump’s tactics were ‘bullying’ — a childish charge that pretends coercion plays no part in international relations. And not even because further actual or threatened levies will undermine Nafta’s intended replacement, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Instead, I hope Mr Trump doesn’t use this weapon again because the further down the tariff road he travels, the likelier he is to forget the big picture. He should be seeking a trade overhaul with Mexico, as with the rest of the world.

Trump’s gambit vividly illustrates a fundamental truth about the global economy. For all the bloviating about interdependence and international supply chains, and commerce being a win-win proposition by definition, Trump gets that the United States needs foreign economies much less than foreign economies need the United States. He fully understands this, but the establishment doesn’t. Most journalists and politicians simply don’t understand economics. Most business and financial interests want to keep this dark, because their top priority is restoring the pre-Trump trade policy of offshoring.

June 15, 2019 8:15 PM  
Anonymous Don't break your arm patting Rump's back said...

Hard times for farmers got tougher with President Donald Trump’s trade war. Now Midwestern farmers are filing the highest number of bankruptcies in a decade, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal data.

And farmers aren’t hopeful about this year.

ice as many farmers in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin declared bankruptcy last year compared to 2008, according to statistics from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Journal reported. Bankruptcies in states from North Dakota to Arkansas leaped 96 percent, according to figures from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Farmers are being battered by sinking commodity prices — and stiff tariffs from China and Mexico in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on imports.

The new 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) treaty last year slashed tariffs — but not for U.S. farmers since the Trump administration pulled out of negotiations. That drove customers to farmers and ranchers in competitive countries, like Australia, serving another dunning blow to American operations.

Farmers fear it will take years to rebuild those trading relationships.

According to figures from the U.S. Agriculture Department, farm income last year was about 50 percent of what it was in 2013, the Wisconsin State Farmer reported.

The dairy industry was hopeful about meeting growing demand in China, but now trade is a major stumbling block. “The problem is that both nations have stubborn leaders,” Mark Stephenson, director of dairy policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said at an agricultural forum last week in Madison.

Soybeans were also a major victim. “Agriculture prices live and die by exports. In all commodities, we’re heavily dependent on China, especially for soybeans,” Kevin Bernhardt, agribusiness professor at the University of Wisconsin in Platteville, told the Milwaukee Independent.

Government subsidies to farmers were up 18 percent last year over the previous year, due to the $4.7 billion in tariff aid and $1.6 billion in disaster payments for farmers impacted by hurricanes, floods and other disasters. But it wasn’t enough to stave off the end for some.

June 16, 2019 11:08 AM  
Anonymous stand with America said...

"Hard times for farmers got tougher with President Donald Trump’s trade war. Now Midwestern farmers are filing the highest number of bankruptcies in a decade, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal data."

China has engaging and winning an economic war for decades and Trump is the first President with the balls to fight back. We should do whatever is necessary to help farmers get through it. In the long run, we'll all be better off. And will the rest of the world. A world where China dominates, at least with the current leadership, will be an Orwellian nightmare. Meanwhile, for political purposes, Dems act like Russia is our #1 threat. Trump was right to try to build good relations with Russia to counter this threat. Dems have crassly interfered.

Those committed to our values will, as JFK said, pay any price, bear burden.

There's no easy way to be free.

But, standing united will assure victory.

June 16, 2019 1:42 PM  
Anonymous LMAO said...

Look at the TTFtroll spinning like a top, trying to rewrite history and having to reach all the way back to 1972 to find a racist Democrat who ran for office.

And here's a newsflash for the racist Trumpette: Giving poor women autonomy over their bodies will help them reach economic and social equality.

GOPers are scared to death of Deomcrats' polling numbers over Trump.

In fact according to FOX News polling at this early date:

Biden beats Trump by 10
Sanders beats Trump by 9
Warren beats Trump by 2
Harris beats Trump by 1
Buttigieg beats Trump by 1

2018 started the blue wave.

2020 will show how large it has grown.

June 16, 2019 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Pay no attention to the man behind the orange curtain said...

"China has engaging and winning an economic war for decades and Trump is the first President with the balls to fight back."

Dude, China has been practicing capitalism. US corporations have GIVEN AWAY jobs to China in pursuit of bigger and better profits for their owners. Corporations didn't have to send all those jobs to China, they could have stayed here. The owners wouldn't have been quite as rich, but more workers here would have remained employed, and much of China would have stayed an economic backwater.

Marx believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment.

US capitalists saw the opportunity to better exploit an underclass - in China. It was getting too hard to keep exploiting middle class Americans, so they took it. Since then, US workers' wages as a portion of productivity has dropped, as well as the real value of their wages. As Marx predicted, this has led to a lot of resentment in the American worker, and Rump's election showed that the risk of blowing up the system was better than keeping things the same in the minds of many voters.

Unfortunately, much of the Rump proletariat completely ignored the fact that Rump was one of the bourgeoisie that prefered to exploit workers in China for 85% of his products rather than produce here in the US with American workers.

And while Rump was blaming China for the "hoax" of climate change, China built itself into the world's largest supplier of solar panels, bringing down the cost so much that it can now compete - and win on price - against coal. Meanwhile, Rump campaigned on bringing back all those wonderful black-lung causing coal jobs.

China is doing capitalism better than the US because US (and other) corporations have been helping to build all the necessary infrastructure China needed to do it - so the bourgeoisie could get cheaper labor. China brought 300 million people out of poverty and into the middle class with jobs from western corporations. 300 million people just happens to be about the size of the US populace. Just think how much that money could have done here in the US instead.

There is one thing Rump is good at though: Pointing the finger of blame at someone else and having conservatives believe it's really his target's fault.

China and Mexico didn't steal any jobs from the US. US corporations GAVE those jobs away to them. And US corporations seem to be hell-bent on proving Marx right.

June 16, 2019 5:15 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality doesn't generate life and doesn't deserve special preferences from society said...

"Dude, China has been practicing capitalism."

Dude, China has been stealing our intellectual property because their dreary society can't produce innovation. Their unwillingness to stop doing this is why a trade deal has yet to be completed.

They have also been manipulating currency and engaging in monopolistic practices that aren't tolerated in capitalist society.

"Look at the TTFtroll spinning like a top, trying to rewrite history and having to reach all the way back to 1972 to find a racist Democrat who ran for office."

if you're calling me a troll because I post a few facts inconvenient to your worldview, you're only making yourself look like a fool

I mentioned 1972 but gave examples of Dem racism from the civil war to the present

did I forget 1976, when Southern Dem Jimmy Carter said it was important to maintain the "ethnic purity" of America's neighborhoods?

or the 1920s when Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was pushing birth control to reduce the number of blacks in America?

in the 90s and 21st century, Dems have resisted policies that make inner city black neighborhoods safe, have resisted giving inner city blacks the same educational choice that wealthy whites have, devised mandatory sentencing laws that have imprisoned large swaths of young blacks, resisted economic policies that have produced the lowest black unemployment in history, and now are pushing to have the government pay to help "women of color" kill children of color

civil rights leaders, Dr. Alveda King, calls government support for killing children of color “Black Genocide”

that sounds racist

in fact, Dem history is riddled with racism

"And here's a newsflash for the racist Trumpette: Giving poor women autonomy over their bodies will help them reach economic and social equality."

hasn't worked so far

"Giving poor women autonomy" is quite a euphemism for paying for the killing of poor black children

"GOPers are scared to death of Deomcrats' polling numbers over Trump.

In fact according to FOX News polling at this early date:

Biden beats Trump by 10
Sanders beats Trump by 9
Warren beats Trump by 2
Harris beats Trump by 1
Buttigieg beats Trump by 1"

elections are processes, not snapshots from 15 months before Election Day

the only of those with a chance of winning is Biden, and that chance is slim

"2018 started the blue wave.

2020 will show how large it has grown."

it'll show Americans don't appreciate Dems wasting time investigating Trump when this country has problems that need attending to

and, by 2025, there will be few liberal unconstitutional judges left

June 16, 2019 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Hope you like Gen. Tso's Chicken said...

"China has been stealing our intellectual property because their dreary society can't produce innovation."

China didn't have to steal it - US companies gave them everything they needed to know to build products for us. The US companies knew that going in. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to do business in China. They could have said "no," we'll keep all our intellectual property and production in the US. But they didn't. But keep believing Rump's propaganda if you like being spoon-fed all the answers.

And if you think American culture is unique or special in innovation, you need to check out other parts of the web.

There's all sorts of advanced software on GitHub, SourceForge and other places that you can download (free) to do machine learning, artificial intelligence, neural networks, image processing, computational physics (including fluid dynamics, electromagnetics, heat flow, etc.) and just about anything you'd need to start developing new, high-tech projects.

The other day I stumbled upon the YouTube channel of a young black guy that started teaching himself how to program video games as a young kid. In one of his recent videos he explained how he applied machine learning algorithms to a Forest Gump themed maze game he built. All apparently without formal education in the topics. All using code you can download for free.

If you pop open any electronic device, you will find part numbers or other identifiers on most (if not all) of the parts in the system. It doesn't take rocket science to duplicate that. The only thing stopping most people from building things themselves (besides ignorance) is that economies of scale mean that the original factory can sell it to you cheaper (and faster) than you can build it yourself.

Back in the 70s, Japan was known for their cheap products and lack of "innovation." Americans liked to pride themselves on how superior they were, and how inferior Japanese products were. Then they started building pocket calculators; and tiny little gas-sipping cars. Now there are litteral boatloads of Toyotas and Hondas sitting in American driveways.

I know you're old enough to remember that.

But given how old you are, I don't know if you'll be around long enough to see China do the same thing. It is that mistaken notion that Americans are inherently superior to other cultures that has made many Americans lazy and sent them looking for scapegoats while they pat themselves on the back, rather than do things like "build more reliable, fuel efficient cars" to compete head on with the Japanese.

China isn't going to sit back and wait while you wallow in how "innovative" American culture is. While America is trying to dig more black rocks to burn, China has turned itself into the world's largest producer of solar panels, and a major wind turbine supplier as well.

Modern solar cells were invented in the US. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagan had them removed. They now sit in a museum in China, where Chinese people laugh at our stupidity and ignorance.

June 16, 2019 11:39 PM  
Anonymous not into Gen Tso but love Kung Pao said...

You should get a job promoting the virtue and nobility of the People's Republic.

Just be careful to memorize the party line closely. They don't tolerate deviance and will increasingly use Orwellian technology to find and eliminate enemies worldwide.

You know why they have hacked and downloaded the personnel files of millions of Americans?

June 17, 2019 8:46 AM  
Anonymous I'm right at the right time said...

btw, thanks for not giving me any backtalk about how racist Dems are.

knowing when you're wrong is an important quality

June 17, 2019 8:50 AM  
Anonymous sick, sick, sick said...

Pete Buttigieg, a breakout 2020 Democratic candidate, said that it's "statistically almost certain" the US has had a gay president in the past.

Speaking to "Axios on HBO" on Sunday, Buttigieg defended himself against critics who say he would be too young, liberal, or gay to be elected commander-in-chief.

"People will elect the person who will make the best president," he said. "And we have had excellent presidents who have been young. We have had excellent presidents who have been liberal. I would imagine we've probably had excellent presidents who were gay — we just didn't know which ones."

"Statistically, it's almost certain," he added.

According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, 9.8% of Washington D.C. identifies as LGBT, the highest of any US state. Gallup estimated that 4.5% of the US population identifies as LGBT in 2017.

When asked whether he could point to historically which president may have been gay, Buttigieg said his "gaydar" was not well tuned.

"My gaydar even doesn't work that well in the present, let alone retroactively." he said.

Pete Buttigieg is a rising star in the leadup to the 2020 elections, with recent polls indicating that most voters find him more "electable" than many other more established Democratic candidates.

Buttigieg would be the first openly gay nominee for either party. The 37-year-old said he and husband Chasten, who celebrated their one-year wedding anniversary on Sunday, would be open to raising kids in the White House.

"I don't see why not," Buttigieg said. "I think it wouldn't be the first time children have arrived to a first couple."

June 17, 2019 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"btw, thanks for not giving me any backtalk about how racist Dems are."

Your twisted worldview of how racist Dems ARE is laughable. The history of Dems going back to the Civil war doesn't define who they ARE now.

You could make the argument that they have a history to be ashamed of - just like Christians and their long history of things like genocide, slavery, and child abuse. News reports show Christians are still abusing children and blaming gay people for it.

Black people today can see for themselves who the most racist people are. They don't need Republican propagandists telling them what they can see with their own eyes - like who was at the "Unite the Right" rally.

"knowing when you're wrong is an important quality"

This would be an excellent idea to familiarize yourself with something called the "Dunning-Kruger" effect.

"You should get a job promoting the virtue and nobility of the People's Republic."

No thanks. I know that I'd look like a rank amateur compared to how well you do extolling the virtues of being friendly with Russia.

"You know why they have hacked and downloaded the personnel files of millions of Americans?"

Probably the same reasons Russia hacked our computer systems - to enhance the targeting of their propaganda, and may even influence our elections. Then of course, there's all the tempting bank fraud, if you're into that kind of thing.

June 17, 2019 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Ruth Bader may as well retire and let Amy Coney Barrett take over - get it over with said...

"Your twisted worldview of how racist Dems ARE is laughable. The history of Dems going back to the Civil war doesn't define who they ARE now."

no, what they do now does

but it's notable that they ave always worked against the interest of African-Americans

in the 90s and 21st century, Dems have resisted policies that make inner city black neighborhoods safe, have resisted giving inner city blacks the same educational choice that wealthy whites have, devised mandatory sentencing laws that have imprisoned large swaths of young blacks, resisted economic policies that have produced the lowest black unemployment in history, and now are pushing to have the government pay to kill children of color

not to mention that they consider Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, to be a liberal saint while she is one of the most racist public figures of the 20th century

indeed, she was dangerous

June 17, 2019 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Four years ago this week: Trump's escalator ride and the Charleston shooting. It's not a coincidence said...

IIt was four years ago (plus one day) when Donald Trump descended his golden elevator at Trump Tower and announced to the world that he was running for president to make America great again. It was a memorable day, although I don't think anyone believed at the time it would be more than a bizarre blip in presidential campaign history.

It was a patented Trumpian spectacle, ridiculous and over the top. Needless to say, the speech itself was offensive and absurd. He called Mexicans rapists and criminals, bragged about his allegedly enormous wealth and said that the U.S. had never beaten China and Japan at anything. He lied about the crowd size and insulted the press. In other words, it was the template for all the speeches that were to come, throughout his campaign and his presidency.

The immediate reaction among the media was incredulity mixed with smug condescension. Most apparently assumed this was one of those laughable gadfly campaigns, like former Sen. Mike Gravel's 2008 Democratic run, or the 2012 bid by Republican businessman and flat-tax fan Herman Cain. After all, Trump had feinted toward running for years, even launching a short-lived bid for the Reform Party nomination in 2000. And the GOP primary of 2016 was already proving to be one for the books. On the day Trump announced for president, the man leading in the polls was Dr. Ben Carson, a political neophyte who had recently declared that the United States is "very much like Nazi Germany."

I wrote about the announcement for Salon and I saw it a bit differently than most. To me, this mixture of Tea Party right-winger and wealthy showbiz celebrity seemed like a potentially potent combination. He had enough money to self-finance, which meant he could stay in for the long haul. I looked up the numbers for his TV show and found that he had reached millions more people with his various iterations of "The Apprentice" than Fox News could ever dream of. He had the potential to reach a far bigger audience as a right-wing blowhard than most professional politicians.

While Trump's guy-at-the-end-of-the-bar style was flamboyant, nothing he said was anything that a person who watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh wouldn't nod along with in agreement. In fact, the headline for my piece was "We must take Donald Trump seriously: Yes, he's a right-wing blowhard. But he's rich & famous, and his kooky ideas fit snugly in the Tea Party mainstream."

But there was something much darker happening that I didn't see coming. That piece didn't run as planned on the day after the Trump Tower announcement. It ran the following Saturday. That's because on the evening after Trump's announcement a 21-year-old white supremacist named Dylann Roof went into a prayer meeting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and murdered nine African American church members, injuring three more. He confessed that he was hoping to start a race war...

June 17, 2019 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous Four years ago this week: Trump's escalator ride and the Charleston shooting. It's not a coincidence said...

...That tragedy necessarily meant that any snarky pieces about Donald Trump were suddenly inappropriate. But looking back on it four years later, those two events were psychically connected.

Roof was not motivated by anything Donald Trump said in his announcement speech, of course. He probably didn't even know about it. According to the FBI, he was "self-radicalized" on the internet and through contacts with other white supremacists. The manifesto he posted on a website called "The Last Rhodesian" featured derogatory opinions about African Americans, Jews, Hispanics and others, and featured pictures of him posing with the Confederate flag. He explained that the 2012 shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin made him "racially aware" because Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, had been right to shoot him.

But there are threads of similar ugly thought processes at work in these two events that took place within a day of each other. When Roof began to open fire on those people at the prayer meeting he reportedly said, "I have to do it. You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go."

One day earlier on a stage in his golden Manhattan tower, Donald Trump announced his campaign for the presidency by saying, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people ..."


These racist ideas have been with us a long time, and America's history is full of the violent horrors that result from them. Neither Trump or Roof said or did anything that hasn't been said or done before. Indeed, Trump himself had quite a history of racist activities, from the disgraceful rhetoric in the Central Park Five case to his "birther" crusade against Barack Obama.

But looking back, it feels as if something shifted in that 48-hour period four years ago this week. A rock was overturned and something truly grotesque crawled out, something that hadn't seen the light of day for quite a while. Since Trump announced his candidacy, white supremacist violence has surged. That's not limited to the U.S., although when it comes to racist violence, Trump has succeeded in making America No. 1. The president's shameful reaction to the racist violence in Charlottesville, and his inflammatory rhetoric about the border — which clearly inspired the massacre of Jewish worshipers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh — are just two incidents among many that illustrate how the white supremacist movement has taken on new life in the last four years, drawing strength and motivation from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

When a man gunned down 51 people in a pair of mosque attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, this March, he too left a manifesto. In it, he claimed he supported Trump “as a symbol of renewed white identity.” When asked if he thought white nationalism was a problem, Trump responded, “I don't really."

The president is holding a big rally on Tuesday in Orlando to announce that he's running for re-election. I don't think anyone will be surprised if he says the same things he said four years ago. He's been repeating them almost daily ever since then. People still laugh and roll their eyes, just as they did back in 2015. But now we've seen the results of his rhetoric, and we know how he reacts when those results inevitably turns violent. It's not a joke. It never was.

June 17, 2019 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Just a few racist GOP current events said...

KUSHNER REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER TRUMP'S BIRTHERISM CLAIMS, MUSLIM BAN WERE RACIST: 'I WASN'T REALLY INVOLVED'

Steve King’s White Supremacy Remark Is Rebuked by Iowa’s Republican Senators

Paul Ryan: Trump made "textbook definition of a racist comment"

Fox Business host: 'No question' white supremacists see Trump as 'kind of on their side'

Georgia election fight shows that black voter suppression, a southern tradition, still flourishes

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019

Trump praises 'great general' Robert E. Lee, defends Charlottesville comments

TRUMP'S RACIST REMARKS HELPED BOOST DOWN-BALLOT REPUBLICANS IN 2016

2013 Donald Trump Tweets About The Central Park 5 Surface After The Release Of ‘When They See Us’

June 17, 2019 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill said...

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a lower court’s findings that some of Virginia’s legislative districts were racially gerrymandered, saying Monday that House Republicans did not have legal standing to challenge the decision.

The decision could give an advantage to the state’s Democrats. All 140 seats in the legislature are on the ballot this fall, and the GOP holds two-seat majorities in both the House (51 to 49) and the Senate (21 to 19).

Democrats have been hoping that a wave of successes in recent Virginia elections will propel them to control of the legislature for the first time since 1995.

The party that controls the General Assembly in 2021 will oversee the next statewide re­districting effort, following next year’s census — potentially cementing an advantage in future elections.Primaries were held last week in the new districts.The case split the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 case, saying that House Republican leaders could not challenge the court ruling because they did not represent the commonwealth.

The state’s attorney general declined to continue the case, Ginsburg wrote.

The case split the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 case, saying that House Republican leaders could not challenge the court ruling because they did not represent the commonwealth.

The state’s attorney general declined to continue the case, Ginsburg wrote...

She was joined in an unusual alignment by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil M. Gorsuch...

Because the state did not draw a new map after the decision by the panel of judges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the judges had an outside expert draw a new map.

It realigns a total of 26 House districts as it remedies the 11 under court order. Six Republican delegates would find themselves in districts with a majority of Democratic voters, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project...

June 17, 2019 3:53 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality violates the first commandment: be fruitful and multiply said...

"He called Mexicans rapists and criminals,"

no, he didn't

that's a lie

"I wrote about the announcement for Salon"

OK, now it makes since why you're lying

"He confessed that he was hoping to start a race war..."

Charles Manson said that too

do you think the Beatles were racist?

"Four years ago this week: Trump's escalator ride and the Charleston shooting. It's not a coincidence said"

actually, it is

oh look:

"Roof was not motivated by anything Donald Trump said in his announcement speech, of course. He probably didn't even know about it."

so, you admit it was a coincidence

"Trump himself had quite a history of racist activities, his "birther" crusade against Barack Obama."

being black doesn't exempt anyone from the type of things all Presidents have endured

nothing racist about it

"But looking back, it feels as if something shifted in that 48-hour period four years ago"

that feeling is the vain desire for wish fulfillment

"clearly inspired the massacre of Jewish worshipers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh"

Trump's daughter and grandchildren are orthodox Jews, Israel has named streets after Trump

I guess you know more than them

"the white supremacist movement has taken on new life in the last four years, drawing strength and motivation from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth."

actually, it has gained strength by a fiction created by the media that deluded these Nazi psychofreaks into believing they are ascendant

"The president is holding a big rally on Tuesday in Orlando to announce that he's running for re-election."

more than anyone will ever say about Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders (LOL!), or Elizabeth Warren (ROFL!!), or Pete Buttah-jig (yuck!!!)

June 17, 2019 9:44 PM  
Anonymous https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/offenders said...



Here are hate crime statistical facts reported by FBI

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/offenders

Race

In 2017, race was reported for 6,370 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders:

50.7 percent were White.
21.3 percent were Black or African American.
7.5 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (group of multiple races).
0.8 percent (49 offenders) were American Indian or Alaska Native.
0.7 percent (42 offenders) were Asian.
3 offenders were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
19.1 percent were unknown.

More data about hate crimes in the US:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses

Race/ethnicity/ancestry bias (Based on Table 1.)

In 2017, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,832 single-bias hate crime offenses were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry. Of these offenses:

48.8 percent were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias.
17.5 percent stemmed from anti-White bias.
10.9 percent were classified as anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.
5.8 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
4.4 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
3.1 percent resulted from anti-Asian bias.
2.6 percent were classified as anti-Arab bias.
0.4 percent (17 offenses) were motivated by bias of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
6.5 percent were the result of an anti-Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias.

Religious bias (Based on Table 1.)

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,679 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

58.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
18.7 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).
4.5 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
2.4 percent were anti-Protestant.
1.8 percent were anti-Other Christian.
1.4 percent were anti-Sikh.
1.4 percent were anti-Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Other).
0.9 percent (15 offenses) were anti-Mormon
0.9 percent (15 offenses) were anti-Hindu.
0.8 percent (13 offenses) were anti-Jehovah’s Witness.
0.5 percent (9 offenses) was anti-Buddhist.
0.5 percent (8 offenses) were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.
4.9 percent were anti-other (unspecified) religion.

Sexual-orientation bias (Based on Table 1.)

In 2017, law enforcement agencies reported 1,303 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:

58.2 percent were classified as anti-gay (male) bias.
24.6 percent were prompted by an anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (mixed group) bias.
12.2 percent were classified as anti-lesbian bias.
2.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
2.1 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

June 18, 2019 11:12 AM  
Anonymous I LOVE NEW YORK! said...

Supreme Court says states can continue to prosecute for same crime as federal government

"In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday has upheld an exception to the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," allowing a state and the federal government to each prosecute an individual for the same action if it violates both state and federal laws.

The case could have incidentally expanded the presidential pardon power by ending the exception, but the court did not take that step.

"We have long held that a crime under one sovereign's laws is not the 'same offence' as a crime under the laws of another sovereign," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. "Today we affirm that precedent."

"It is difficult to conclude that the people who ratified the Fifth Amendment understood it to prohibit prosecution by a state and the federal government for the same offense," said Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that "no person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life of limb," or double jeopardy.

For more than 150 years, however, the Supreme Court has treated state and federal governments as separate -- each with a distinct set of laws that can each be enforced, even when there's overlap. It's known in legal circles as the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented in the case...

June 19, 2019 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Not the brightest don in the mob said...

Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump

Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people.......

9:20 PM - Jun 17, 2019

ICE agents are shocked that Trump just went ahead and tipped off the entire world to an upcoming law enforcement operation. When Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf alerted city residents about upcoming ICE arrests last year, [Rump's ICE director] Homan was apoplectic. Schaaf, he told the hosts of Fox & Friends, was no better than a “gang lookout.” Now Trump has done the same thing.

From ICE’s perspective, there are two problems with telegraphing arrests. First, ICE agents feel it could put their safety at risk, since people will be expecting them. (No ICE agent has ever been killed by an immigrant during an enforcement operation.) Second, the targets of the operations now have time to hide. "

June 19, 2019 1:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home