WTF now?

[John Eppstein]

I'm watching Maddow now (for the second time this evening - we get it twice on the West Coast), and the current news is just beyond belief. Do we not have ANY control over the progress of Justice in this country(or what attempts to pass for it...?)

Blatant criminal activity RIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY? And they don't care because although we carried the house in a landslide THEY are in firmer control of the Senate than ever - and although the House is the larger body by headcount, the Senate is where the final (except for SCOTUS) power rests. (And SCOTUS doesn't look to be much relief at the moment.

Rump infiltrates a spy into the Muller probe as a faux-"flipper" (NOT the band or the dolphin) and we can't do anything about it because we'd need the Senate, SCOTUS, or both to have any real effect?

Nixon never had it so good.

Here's a real Flipper....




Disclaimer: I mixed the live sound at that gig.

[nobby]

The big questions:

1) Will the country and the planet survive 2 more years of this shit, and...

2) When Dems take over the WH and Senate in 2020, will this mess be something that can be fixed? The usual deal is Яape-ubliKKKriminal$ do everything they can to rape the country and the world and Democrats get into power and fix things somewhat but we won't know until 2020 whether or not they are permanently broken. Unfortunately you can't put the world out on the curb and order a new one.

The bad news is that Rape-ubliKKKans$$ have been legalizing white collar crime*, corruption and voter suppression just as fast as they can for the past 2 years with Trump as their mindless rubber stamp. The KKKon$$eЯvative Supreme Court didn't wait for Trump to be elected to start legalizing voter suppression but now they have 2 more KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian Justices to criminalize abortion, etc.
Also they will be appointing judges as fast as they can but judges don't always go along with their agenda. I'm also pretty sure judges can't be convicted criminals unlike Republican nominees. And Trump can still wreak havoc with Executive Orders.

The good news is that the House can block any new legislation that originates in the Senate. Of course, the Senate can block any bill that originates in the House, but gridlock in this case is a blessed relief.

Sound about right so far?



*I'm considering the laws they have passed to make it easier to poison the land, air and water, to be white collar crimes

P.S you heard about Trump using an EO to undo the safeguards put in place by the Obama admin. to keep another Deepwater Horizon disaster from happening? The distruction has been so fast and furious that it's hard to keep track.

[nobby]

In case my ranting makes me look like some hyperventilating, hyperbolic, paranoid nut, this is the current reality in the USA:

Former New York congressman Michael Grimm is a felon who has admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath. To hear him tell it, that’s a reason Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office.

“It’s almost identical to what the president has been going through,” Grimm says of the federal investigation that led to his imprisonment. “It’s not an accident that under the Obama administration, the Justice Department was used politically. And that is all starting to come out.”

Grimm has uncovered a new reality in the constantly changing world of Republican politics: Criminal convictions, once seen as career-enders, are no longer disqualifying. In the era of President Trump, even time spent in prison can be turned into a positive talking point, demonstrating a candidate’s battle scars in a broader fight against what he perceives as liberal corruption.
[....]
Grimm says only some convicted criminals have a justification to run in a Republican primary.

“You can’t say a guy that was an ax murderer can use this,” he said. “It has to be that you only were criminalized because of the politicization of the Justice Department.”

So if you're a convicted axe murderer, apparently that's disqualifying for a ЯepubliKKKan congressman. Anything less than that and you're golden as long as your constituents are too fucking stupid to know not to vote for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 81fd2480a3

[Bob Olhsson]

Nixon, Reagan and now cryBaby drrumpfh commited treason in order to get elected. You need to consider why would somebody risk that?

The ONLY reasonable answer is corruption!

[John Eppstein]

The big questions:

1) Will the country and the planet survive 2 more years of this shit, and...

2) When Dems take over the WH and Senate in 2020, will this mess be something that can be fixed? The usual deal is Яape-ubliKKKriminal$ do everything they can to rape the country and the world and Democrats get into power and fix things somewhat but we won't know until 2020 whether or not they are permanently broken. Unfortunately you can't put the world out on the curb and order a new one.

The bad news is that Rape-ubliKKKans$$ have been legalizing white collar crime*, corruption and voter suppression just as fast as they can for the past 2 years with Trump as their mindless rubber stamp. The KKKon$$eЯvative Supreme Court didn't wait for Trump to be elected to start legalizing voter suppression but now they have 2 more KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian Justices to criminalize abortion, etc.
Also they will be appointing judges as fast as they can but judges don't always go along with their agenda. I'm also pretty sure judges can't be convicted criminals unlike Republican nominees. And Trump can still wreak havoc with Executive Orders.

The good news is that the House can block any new legislation that originates in the Senate. Of course, the Senate can block any bill that originates in the House, but gridlock in this case is a blessed relief.

Sound about right so far?

Not really. Gridlock is a bad thing any way you slice it (the only thing worse is full control by the opposition) - what we need is control of the Senate and over the top, inflammatory ravings will not get us there - in fact you're playing right into their hands.

The mess CAN be fixed - if we plan our strategy carefully and prevent ourselves from indulging in gonzo ravings.

We just don't have much time, so we need to stop playing into their hands. It's far easier to tear down than to build up.

BTW, all the superfluous "K"s and "$"s and backwards "R"s (how do you do that?) make your writing very difficult to read - it's as bad as the ignorant propaganda spewed by the far right. It makes us look dumb when others read it.

[John Eppstein]

Nixon, Reagan and now cryBaby drrumpfh commited treason in order to get elected. You need to consider why would somebody risk that?

The ONLY reasonable answer is corruption!

And the "unreasonable" answer is megalomania.

In Rump's case I also suspect that the man is a bona fide traitor. He has as much as admitted it if you look at his rhetoric from the right direction.

[John Eppstein]

In case my ranting makes me look like some hyperventilating, hyperbolic, paranoid nut, this is the current reality in the USA:

You really should try to control that.

Former New York congressman Michael Grimm is a felon who has admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath. To hear him tell it, that’s a reason Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office.

“It’s almost identical to what the president has been going through,” Grimm says of the federal investigation that led to his imprisonment. “It’s not an accident that under the Obama administration, the Justice Department was used politically. And that is all starting to come out.”

Grimm has uncovered a new reality in the constantly changing world of Republican politics: Criminal convictions, once seen as career-enders, are no longer disqualifying. In the era of President Trump, even time spent in prison can be turned into a positive talking point, demonstrating a candidate’s battle scars in a broader fight against what he perceives as liberal corruption.
[....]
Grimm says only some convicted criminals have a justification to run in a Republican primary.

“You can’t say a guy that was an ax murderer can use this,” he said. “It has to be that you only were criminalized because of the politicization of the Justice Department.”

So if you're a convicted axe murderer, apparently that's disqualifying for a ЯepubliKKKan congressman. Anything less than that and you're golden as long as your constituents are too fucking stupid to know not to vote for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 81fd2480a3

As long as we keep playing into their hands this stuff will continue. Why we persist in handing them a splitting wedge and a sledgehammer is beyond me but we do.

Yes, I'm talking about gun control again, and the totally wrong headed way the "progressive" wing of the party has been mishandling it.

FWIW, I also suspect that the occurrence of high profile incidents has been manipulated, probably via skillful control of social media by the same operators who have been found to have manipulated other social factors in our electoral process.

It would be very interesting to analyze the social media contacts of the perps in these cases.

[nobby]

The big questions:

1) Will the country and the planet survive 2 more years of this shit, and...

2) When Dems take over the WH and Senate in 2020, will this mess be something that can be fixed? The usual deal is Яape-ubliKKKriminal$ do everything they can to rape the country and the world and Democrats get into power and fix things somewhat but we won't know until 2020 whether or not they are permanently broken. Unfortunately you can't put the world out on the curb and order a new one.

The bad news is that Rape-ubliKKKans$$ have been legalizing white collar crime*, corruption and voter suppression just as fast as they can for the past 2 years with Trump as their mindless rubber stamp. The KKKon$$eЯvative Supreme Court didn't wait for Trump to be elected to start legalizing voter suppression but now they have 2 more KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian Justices to criminalize abortion, etc.
Also they will be appointing judges as fast as they can but judges don't always go along with their agenda. I'm also pretty sure judges can't be convicted criminals unlike Republican nominees. And Trump can still wreak havoc with Executive Orders.

The good news is that the House can block any new legislation that originates in the Senate. Of course, the Senate can block any bill that originates in the House, but gridlock in this case is a blessed relief.

Sound about right so far?

Not really. Gridlock is a bad thing any way you slice it (the only thing worse is full control by the opposition)

Full control by the opposition is more than a little bit worse.

- what we need is control of the Senate and over the top, inflammatory ravings will not get us there - in fact you're playing right into their hands.

No I'm not. You completely misread my post, as usual.

What I meant was that when one describes the situation in our country in 3rd world terms it sounds to many like exaggeration.

If the country starts taking on characteristics of a banana republic should you just downplay it, sweep it under the rug?

I'm not playing into anyone's hands. But if you think that shutting up and minding your own business while criminals take over the country is a good idea, you are.

BTW, all the superfluous "K"s and "$"s and backwards "R"s (how do you do that?) make your writing very difficult to read

I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary. Either your brown acid flashbacks are acting up again or youЯ Яeading compЯehen$ion sux

I have them copied and pasted to a buffer. Glad you find it annoying. You can copy and paste this backwards Я if you need it to annoy someone (I forgot where I found it)

P.S. There are only about 3 people reading this thread so your fears that my post will ruin our country are overblown.

[Gronk]

P.S. There are only about 3 people reading this thread so your fears that my post will ruin our country are overblown.

Not only am I reading this, but there are some parts of it that I actually understand.

It seems to me that if anyone mentions gun control, you get a cartoon character for a President. Was Ghostbusters real?

[weedywet]

I keep reading some version of : “don’t call the Nazis ‘nazis’ or ‘racists’ or ‘antisemites’ or ‘criminals’ because then you’ll never “win over” their supporters.

It should go without saying that that’s idiotic.

But it somehow doesn’t.

[weedywet]

For years we’ve been saying that Republiklans in Congress aren’t “doing their jobs” of oversight and consent.
And that’s true.

But that’s why it’s at LEAST equally important to expect Democrats to do that JOB, when they have the House now, whether people think it’s politically expedient or not.

[Bob Olhsson]

Winning over "their" supporters will require a great deal of education over a period of years if not decades. They need to be taught why there is nothing to fear but being sold fear by a despot, aka "fear itself."

Most of these people's grandparents supported Roosevelt except for the uber-rich who were pro-Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor. When I was a kid in Michigan, people in my mother's family were just as anti-hillbilly as anti-colored. If you didn't own a home, you were considered to be "trash."

I posted this before but I'll repeat: the folks who inherited great wealth see two ways to prevent a labor revolution that could cost them their privilege. One is buying off labor with socialism and the other is oppressing labor with fascism. Republicans have been trying to replace socialism with fascism since Franklin Roosevelt was elected.

Racism is the most common excuse given to Christians for oppression.

[John Eppstein]

I keep reading some version of : “don’t call the Nazis ‘nazis’ or ‘racists’ or ‘antisemites’ or ‘criminals’ because then you’ll never “win over” their supporters.

It should go without saying that that’s idiotic.

But it somehow doesn’t.

I never said anything remotely like that. There's a difference between calling something by its rightful name and behaving like a 3rd grader to anyone who just might have a more responsible viewpoint that your own. One which might actually work

You might remember that one of the reasons I have reservations about gun control is the fact that the Nazis and Klansmen have guns already and are not likely to turn them in and, as a Jew (or half Jew depending on how orthodox you are) that makes me profoundly nervous, especially since those people appear to have the full support of The Usurper and his stooges..

There are still a fair number of relatively rational, well meaning people who consider themselves conservatives (small "c") and are repelled by the actions of the far right, We need to open a dialog with them and not repel them with puerile rhetoric - BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER TAKE THE SENATE WITHOUT AT LEAST SOME OF THEIR VOTES and we also may very well blow the Presidential election again.

Keep your eye on the prize. Which is to retake the country from the gang of criminals, traitors, and fascist demagogues who currently control it.

To do that we need to behave like adults, not like a mirror image of those we oppose.

BTW, France is burning - has anybody noticed?

[John Eppstein]

Winning over "their" supporters will require a great deal of education over a period of years if not decades. They need to be taught why there is nothing to fear but being sold fear by a despot, aka "fear itself."

Most of these people's grandparents supported Roosevelt except for the uber-rich who were pro-Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor. When I was a kid in Michigan, people in my mother's family were just as anti-hillbilly as anti-colored. If you didn't own a home, you were considered to be "trash."

I posted this before but I'll repeat: the folks who inherited great wealth see two ways to prevent a labor revolution that could cost them their privilege. One is buying off labor with socialism and the other is oppressing labor with fascism. Republicans have been trying to replace socialism with fascism since Franklin Roosevelt was elected.

Racism is the most common excuse given to Christians for oppression.

Where's that 'LIKE" button?

However, I suspect that a lot of folks would be very open toward our goals if we'd just cut the yapping about gun control. That's extremely off-putting to people who live in the rural states. City folks have no idea how much. It's about the only thing that can make them vote against a party that wants to give them subsidized medical care and education. Obamacare had a HUGE impact among the rural and working poor - and yet we manage to blow that advantage time and time again.

[John Eppstein]

For years we’ve been saying that Republiklans in Congress aren’t “doing their jobs” of oversight and consent.
And that’s true.

But that’s why it’s at LEAST equally important to expect Democrats to do that JOB, when they have the House now, whether people think it’s politically expedient or not.

Of course. If the Democrats can get some semblance of a proper strategy and stop squabbling with each other.

Democrats appear to be extremely susceptible to false-flag operations in social media.

[nobby]

I never said anything remotely like that. There's a difference between calling something by its rightful name and behaving like a 3rd grader to anyone who just might have a more responsible viewpoint that your own. One which might actually work

When did that happen on this thread?

Put up, or shut up.

[weedywet]

Speaking of juvenile, what's juvenile is thinking you’re going to have some sort of sensible ‘self defense’ shoot out at the ok corral with those armed nazis etc.

[John Eppstein]

I never said anything remotely like that. There's a difference between calling something by its rightful name and behaving like a 3rd grader to anyone who just might have a more responsible viewpoint that your own. One which might actually work

When did that happen on this thread?

Put up, or shut up.

Really?

The usual deal is Яape-ubliKKKriminal$ do everything

bad news is that Rape-ubliKKKans$$ have been

The KKKon$$eЯvative Supreme Court

they have 2 more KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian Justices

KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian Justices

your utterly clueless patronizing attitude, you fucking overweening asshole.

Fuck you, you goddamned asshole and be thankful for the 2000 miles between my fist and your face.

Shall I continue?

Nah, I think the point has been belabored enough for now.

I'm trying to talk about a viable political strategy that might actually have a reasonable chance of winning.

You're just venting, and not very coherently at times.

THAT'S not a winning strategy.

It's also a major problem with the current Democratic party, unfortunately.

You don't change people's minds by ranting at them.

[John Eppstein]

Speaking of juvenile, what's juvenile is thinking you’re going to have some sort of sensible ‘self defense’ shoot out at the ok corral with those armed nazis etc.

So you'd meekly board the cattle car to the gas chamber? If you're going to die, at least make it count for something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Not juvenile - perhaps a bit paranoid.

But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

[weedywet]

Democrats just won 40 House seats.

And one might add that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump (and that’s even WITH all the voter disenfranchisement and intimidation they could muster).

They have a “winning strategy” in terms of policy.
(Including reasonable fun control and universal healthcare).

What they need is better policy to address voter suppression in key electoral States and to meaningfully address Russian meddling.

The idea that they need to move right (or to the imaginary “center”) is simply nonsense.

It’s not 1990.

[nobby]

You're just venting, and not very coherently at times.

THAT'S not a winning strategy.

It's also a major problem with the current Democratic party, unfortunately.

You don't change people's minds by ranting at them.

I'm not running for office and there are maybe a half dozen people following this thread, things you apparently aren't taking into consideration.
That has everything to do with your utterly offensive patronizing tone which you seem oblivious to, and nothing to do with Democratic politics. And I'm not trying to win you over -- we're on the same side.

You are 3 years older than I am.
Didn't know that, did you? Get with the times, gramps.

While I was a welder for 11 years, at one of the places I worked at, the owners and most of the people in the shop had arranged for a special deer hunting holiday (you have to travel away from Long Island to hunt anything with a gun except for duck). I wasn't into hunting and these guys were drinking while hunting which is an accident waiting to happen, anyway, so I'd use the time to work on my music instead. But these guys saved money by having a freezer full of venison for their families -- I get that.

Actually, they probably didn't break save any money due to travel and lodging costs, but in most places in the country they would have.
But I must not know anything about the common working man or his affinity for guns and hunting because I never lived in Oklahoma, right? And you magically know everything about me.

I actually have a couple of guns but if the gov't wants to kill you, small arms aren't very effective against tanks, artillery and air power. And most of the guns of military pedigree are in the hands of people on the right and far right. If the gov't turns fascist, they'd be on the gov't's side.

You don't have to take my word for it; do a search on "prepper". Not "preppy", that's something else entirely.

The idea that I'm going to be part of some liberal liberation army would be kind of ludicrous. I do get that taking out a couple of the bastards before they kill you would be preferable to just being rounded up for the gas chamber. But that's about the best you can hope for which is why most people tend to flee conflict if they can.
And it's 2018 and the gov't has unmanned armed drones and bulletproof police robots that can come into your hiding place, guided by heat seeking imagery software and drop a grenade at your feet.

[John Eppstein]

He's a good example of a way to write a strong criticism of the opposition without coming off like an immature, overly emotional schoolkid:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... =emaildkre

Note: I don't usually refer to the Daily Kos because too often they come off like irrational scaremongers, but this article is pretty good and still gets the point across well.

[John Eppstein]

Democrats just won 40 House seats.

And one might add that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump (and that’s even WITH all the voter disenfranchisement and intimidation they could muster).

They have a “winning strategy” in terms of policy.
(Including reasonable fun control and universal healthcare).

What they need is better policy to address voter suppression in key electoral States and to meaningfully address Russian meddling.

The idea that they need to move right (or to the imaginary “center”) is simply nonsense.

It’s not 1990.

Won 40 House seats but lost 5 Senate seats, which means that we can initiate a lot of action but can't get anything passed and can't get a conviction in an impeachment proceeding.

We needed to take 4 but instead we lost 5.

We HAVE to take the Senate, otherwise we still can't actually DO anything.

Clinton got 3 million more votes but failed to take the White House.

This is NOT what I would call a "winning policy" - it's a losing policy. Because it ignores The Senate. Any halfway decent strategist can see that - it's inherent in the way the mechanism of our government was set up - a holdover from the old British system with a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The House gives the people a semblance of a voice, but the real power lies with the Senate, especially if they're aligned with the Executive.

[John Eppstein]

You're just venting, and not very coherently at times.

THAT'S not a winning strategy.

It's also a major problem with the current Democratic party, unfortunately.

You don't change people's minds by ranting at them.

I'm not running for office and there are maybe a half dozen people following this thread, things you apparently aren't taking into consideration.
That has everything to do with your utterly offensive patronizing tone which you seem oblivious to, and nothing to do with Democratic politics. And I'm not trying to win you over -- we're on the same side.

I'm sorry that you find my tone offensive and patronizing. It's what I get from growing up as an only kid in a house with my father, who was a man who if you asked him the definition of a word was liable to delivery a half-hour lecture on the etymology and history of the word going back to the ancient Greek, Latin, or Sanskrit before getting around to telling you what it meant. He was an extremely intelligent man of very wide interests but anything he explained to you (and he was always explaining things) was going to be in depth. And he didn't suffer fools gladly - he was always getting into intellectual arguments. Of course argument is the favorite sport of rabbis...

You are 3 years older than I am.
Didn't know that, did you? Get with the times, gramps.

Study your History, junior!

While I was a welder for 11 years, at one of the places I worked at, the owners and most of the people in the shop had arranged for a special deer hunting holiday (you have to travel away from Long Island to hunt anything with a gun except for duck). I wasn't into hunting and these guys were drinking while hunting which is an accident waiting to happen, anyway, so I'd use the time to work on my music instead. But these guys saved money by having a freezer full of venison for their families -- I get that.

Actually, they probably didn't break save any money due to travel and lodging costs, but in most places in the country they would have.
But I must not know anything about the common working man or his affinity for guns and hunting because I never lived in Oklahoma, right? And you magically know everything about me.

Ah, I didn't know that. But you should then be sympathetic to my argument that the Democrats MUST stop yapping about gun control in what other people view as wildly radical ways if we are to take back control of the government - which means a majority in the Senate at a bare minimum and a 2/3 majority to be able to pass certain crucial matters - like overriding a presidential veto.

BTW, Maine's a lot closer to Long Island. There aren't many deer in most of Oklahoma. Wild pigs though...

I actually have a couple of guns but if the gov't wants to kill you, small arms aren't very effective against tanks, artillery and air power.

I don't have any. I keep thinking that if things get more dangerous maybe I should, but I keep spending my free cash on microphones. (Just got a nice pair of C414EBs for a grand - the EBs are generally regarded as the best of the 414s - transformer output, simplest circuit.)

It's not the formal government forces I'm really worried about right now. If you know anything about the history of the early 20th century you should know that most of the actions against Jews, Leftists, Gypsies, Gays, etc were carried out by civilian gangs (known as "brownshirts") until the Nazi party had subverted the government to the point where the SS could take over. And Trump appears to be following Hitler's playbook as closely as possible.

Later, if they start herding people into formal ghettos and then camps I'll worry about official action.

And most of the guns of military pedigree are in the hands of people on the right and far right. If the gov't turns fascist, they'd be on the gov't's side.

Yep, those are the ones. But if the left have disarmed themselves who do they have to blame? And I doubt that the fascist gangs are going to go dig up their arms caches out in the woods to turn them in.

You don't have to take my word for it; do a search on "prepper". Not "preppy", that's something else entirely.

"Survivalists", yeah, I know.

"Be Prepared", the motto of the Boy Scouts.

The funny thing is that they're right in a way - there will eventually be a civilization threatening disaster - but they're totally wrong about where it's coming from or how to deal with it. Sooner or later (probably sooner, statistically) we're going to get hit with a whopping HUGE EMP from a mega solar flare that will knock out everything that relies on electrical power. It's a documented fact - the last one was in the late 19th century and was strong enough to set telegraph wires on fire. The effect on urban areas will be devastating - no food, no water, no power, no fuel, no sanitary facilities, no hospitals.

The idea that I'm going to be part of some liberal liberation army would be kind of ludicrous. I do get that taking out a couple of the bastards before they kill you would be preferable to just being rounded up for the gas chamber. But that's about the best you can hope for which is why most people tend to flee conflict if they can.

I'm more concerned with semi-organized gangs of fascist (or Neo-communist, for that matter) thugs.

And if you're fleeing gangs of thugs it might be useful to be able to defend yourself.

And it's 2018 and the gov't has unmanned armed drones and bulletproof police robots that can come into your hiding place, guided by heat seeking imagery software and drop a grenade at your feet.

Ah, the only hope must be Heroic Hackers! Heroic Hackers to the rescue!

Sooner or later the world will end as a bad science fiction movie.

But for now we need viable political strategies to get the country back from the thugs, fundies, and robber barons.

[nobby]

I'm sorry that you find my tone offensive and patronizing. It's what I get from growing up as an only kid in a house with my father, who was a man who if you asked him the definition of a word was liable to delivery a half-hour lecture on the etymology and history of the word going back to the ancient Greek, Latin, or Sanskrit before getting around to telling you what it meant. He was an extremely intelligent man of very wide interests but anything he explained to you (and he was always explaining things) was going to be in depth. And he didn't suffer fools gladly - he was always getting into intellectual arguments. Of course argument is the favorite sport of rabbis...

Semi-apology semi-accepted.
Your father sounds a lot like mine. He didn't argue for a living as would be the case with a rabbi or lawyer but if you got into an argument with him, you'd never know it.
Fortunately, we had a dictionary so I wasn't usually asking my father the meaning of words and I'd usually look up the etymologies also, being a weird kid.

Ranting? Please. You started this thread knowing that as an older shut-in whose relatives and friends are mostly dead, arguing, maybe even arguing senselessly, beats a lack of human interaction. Or am I the one making baseless assumptions now?

Profanity? Spare me the lecture. I can turn it on or off, as with a switch. I think most people can. Parents avoid cursing in front of the children. Children avoid cursing in front of their parents

One of my facebook friends is a lawyer who curses rather frequently. Why? She's a liberal and she lives in Florida. You would curse too, if it happened to you.

No chance that she curses in court, though.

Ah, I didn't know that.

You shouldn't make assumptions based on what you don't know. I guess you could fault me for being kind of introverted and holding my cards close to the vest, but that's usually the way I roll.

But you should then be sympathetic to my argument that the Democrats MUST stop yapping about gun control in what other people view as wildly radical ways if we are to take back control of the government

That's a generalization. CMIIW but most Democrats want the type of minimal gun control that over 90% of Americans support -- background checks at gun shows, limits on magazine capacity -- that's about it. They also want to make bump stocks illegal but those things are far too easy to jury-rig. And pretty useless with a 10 round capacity mag.

I think there are only a few Democratic lawmakers/ nominees advocating the confiscation of all guns. Agreed that those people should stuff a sock in it. I also don't think far left positions such as housing as a basic human right or confiscating all guns even work as populism.

- which means a majority in the Senate at a bare minimum and a 2/3 majority to be able to pass certain crucial matters - like overriding a presidential veto.

At what point does selling your soul become counterproductive?

Joe Manchin is a "Democrat" but he's so Republican that he voted to confirm Kavanaugh. The Senate was rigged from the start and now a handful of hillbillies in West Virginia (among other red states) have the same voting power as millions of people in California or NY. How far should we sell out in a faustian bargain for the Senate? How is a Democratic Senator who votes Republican on the most important issue of all, a Supreme Court Justice who will be in power for generations to work for the greedy and religious against the vast majority of the American people, leaving aside his lack of judicial qualifications (the only cases he ever tried were cases of beer) and probable guilt of sexual assault and obvious guilt of perjury, any different from a Republican?

A pyrrhic victory is not much of a victory.

How are you going to reach people who don't have access to real news and don't particularly want to hear it? Gomer's pickup truck has only AM radio and the only stations it can pull in are the local religious and/or right wing hate radio stations. Then he goes home and tunes in to Fox News.
How you sculpt the message is irrelevant if you can't deliver the message.

BTW, Maine's a lot closer to Long Island. There aren't many deer in most of Oklahoma. Wild pigs though...

Maine isn't flat and crowded like much of Long Island is. The only places you can legally fire a rifle on Long Island are designated firing ranges. Same for handguns and they make it hard to get a handgun license here.

I don't have any. I keep thinking that if things get more dangerous maybe I should, but I keep spending my free cash on microphones. (Just got a nice pair of C414EBs for a grand - the EBs are generally regarded as the best of the 414s - transformer output, simplest circuit.)

If things become more dangerous, guns and ammo might become unobtanium.

In any case, there are reasons why the military has limits on whom they accept into the service. Can you run? I would probably be telling the enemy to hold their fire while I put on my other pair of glasses.

It's not the formal government forces I'm really worried about right now. If you know anything about the history of the early 20th century you should know that most of the actions against Jews, Leftists, Gypsies, Gays, etc were carried out by civilian gangs (known as "brownshirts") until the Nazi party had subverted the government to the point where the SS could take over. And Trump appears to be following Hitler's playbook as closely as possible.

In a case in which armed groups of thugs are allowed to take over instead of being arrested for their crimes, how are government forces not complicit?

Later, if they start herding people into formal ghettos and then camps I'll worry about official action.

If that starts happening it's likely too late.

Ah, the only hope must be Heroic Hackers! Heroic Hackers to the rescue!

Sooner or later the world will end as a bad science fiction movie.

I'm hoping it will be much, much later. The bad guys have hackers also, BTW.

[John Eppstein]

But you should then be sympathetic to my argument that the Democrats MUST stop yapping about gun control in what other people view as wildly radical ways if we are to take back control of the government

That's a generalization. CMIIW but most Democrats want the type of minimal gun control that over 90% of Americans support -- background checks at gun shows, limits on magazine capacity -- that's about it. They also want to make bump stocks illegal but those things are far too easy to jury-rig. And pretty useless with a 10 round capacity mag.

I think there are only a few Democratic lawmakers/ nominees advocating the confiscation of all guns. Agreed that those people should stuff a sock in it. I also don't think far left positions such as housing as a basic human right or confiscating all guns even work as populism.

Ah, but in politics it's often the perception (by the other guy), not your actual position (of the majority on your side) that's important in swaying votes. And having a few high profile people incessantly yapping and making something a major plank in your party position can be very damaging. It can be a deciding factor in major elections.

- which means a majority in the Senate at a bare minimum and a 2/3 majority to be able to pass certain crucial matters - like overriding a presidential veto.

At what point does selling your soul become counterproductive?

Joe Manchin is a "Democrat" but he's so Republican that he voted to confirm Kavanaugh. The Senate was rigged from the start and now a handful of hillbillies in West Virginia (among other red states) have the same voting power as millions of people in California or NY. How far should we sell out in a faustian bargain for the Senate? How is a Democratic Senator who votes Republican on the most important issue of all, a Supreme Court Justice who will be in power for generations to work for the greedy and religious against the vast majority of the American people, leaving aside his lack of judicial qualifications (the only cases he ever tried were cases of beer) and probable guilt of sexual assault and obvious guilt of perjury, any different from a Republican?

A pyrrhic victory is not much of a victory.

First, it's the way our government is set up. To change it would take a major constitutional amendment and we'd have a hell of a time getting it ratified.

It's not a "Faustian bargain" to simply hold your tongue about stuff that is going to hurt your chances until you've won. It's just basic strategy. You don't send a weak force up against overwhelming odds that will allow the enemy to break through your lines. You make your stand where you can win and play defensively elsewhere. I'm not advocating that our candidates should be turncoats like Manchin, just that they look at the big picture and engage in some really basic strategic planning. You don't win by shooting yourself in the foot.

Taking the Senate would not be a Pyrrhic victory. Taking the Senate is key to winning the war.

The ability to override a Rumpian veto would be neither a "Faustian bargain" not a "Pyrrhic victory". Indeed, it would go a long way toward winning the war.

Impeachment conviction requires a supermajority in the Senate and is the only to to not only get rid of a president, but to get rid of a SCOTUS Justice as well. You want to get rid of The Rapist? We need a Senate Supermajority.

You want to get rid of gerrymandering once and for all? Control of the Senate is key.

How are you going to reach people who don't have access to real news and don't particularly want to hear it? Gomer's pickup truck has only AM radio and the only stations it can pull in are the local religious and/or right wing hate radio stations. Then he goes home and tunes in to Fox News.
How you sculpt the message is irrelevant if you can't deliver the message.

Most of those "gomers" have pickup trucks with better sound systems and radios that my Prius. I don't think they even make vehicles with only AM and haven't for at least a decade and a half or two.

And you don't have to hand the right wing propagandists ammunition on a silver platter. Which Democrats do every time they make general pronouncements about "gun control", which sounds a lot like "gun suppression". And we don't need ignorant morons yapping about "banning semiautomatic rifles" who are too stupid, blind, and willfully uniformed to understand that the majority of hunting rifles are, in fact, semiautomatic. Not all semiautomatic rifles look like AR-15s and Kalashnikovs. A lot of them don't even have removable clips.

BTW, if the Left has any sense they'd have their media allies start buying up contracts for broadcasting major sports networks. Faux has a lock on that now and it's where a huge percentage of their propaganda power comes from. If you've got them watching your networks for Sports, you've very probably got them watching your news as well. The NFL would be a good start, then MLB.

BTW, Maine's a lot closer to Long Island. There aren't many deer in most of Oklahoma. Wild pigs though...

Maine isn't flat and crowded like much of Long Island is. The only places you can legally fire a rifle on Long Island are designated firing ranges. Same for handguns and they make it hard to get a handgun license here.

I don't have any. I keep thinking that if things get more dangerous maybe I should, but I keep spending my free cash on microphones. (Just got a nice pair of C414EBs for a grand - the EBs are generally regarded as the best of the 414s - transformer output, simplest circuit.)

If things become more dangerous, guns and ammo might become unobtanium.

So you're saying I should stock up now?

Problem is, I really don't like guns.

In any case, there are reasons why the military has limits on whom they accept into the service. Can you run? I would probably be telling the enemy to hold their fire while I put on my other pair of glasses.

Run? With arthritis in my hips?

No, I waddle with a cane.

Fortunately I don't need glasses for distance vision. I wear readers, but balance them on the end of my nose so I can see over them.

It's not the formal government forces I'm really worried about right now. If you know anything about the history of the early 20th century you should know that most of the actions against Jews, Leftists, Gypsies, Gays, etc were carried out by civilian gangs (known as "brownshirts") until the Nazi party had subverted the government to the point where the SS could take over. And Trump appears to be following Hitler's playbook as closely as possible.

In a case in which armed groups of thugs are allowed to take over instead of being arrested for their crimes, how are government forces not complicit?

Complicit? Sure. But there's a big difference between being complicit and actually doing the action.

Later, if they start herding people into formal ghettos and then camps I'll worry about official action.

If that starts happening it's likely too late.

Yep.

Ah, the only hope must be Heroic Hackers! Heroic Hackers to the rescue!

Sooner or later the world will end as a bad science fiction movie.

I'm hoping it will be much, much later. The bad guys have hackers also, BTW.

The bad guys have Evil Hackers. The Good Guys have Heroic Hackers. The Government has Complicit Hackers.

[nobby]

Ah, but in politics it's often the perception (by the other guy), not your actual position (of the majority on your side) that's important in swaying votes. And having a few high profile people incessantly yapping and making something a major plank in your party position can be very damaging. It can be a deciding factor in major elections.

The reason why that doesn't seem to matter that much to me is that if nobody on the left says anything to inflame the right, the right will just make up lies to that effect and feed them into their well-oiled, high-dollar propaganda machine, which is what they've been doing. The "birther" thing is just the tip of the iceberg and bending over backwards to try to appease them by making the Democratic platform more racist and ignorant would most likely only result in a racist, ignorant Democratic party.

Should a Democratic candidate for Senate in Mississippi strongly imply that lynching people of color is great because that's what the Republican who won did?

I think not.

Evangelicals main and often only concern is overturning Roe v. Wade and criminalizing abortion. A Republican candidate with a criminal record as long as your arm can get nominated and elected just by claiming to be anti-abortion.

Are you still a Democrat if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I would hope not.

First, it's the way our government is set up. To change it would take a major constitutional amendment and we'd have a hell of a time getting it ratified.

I know, pops

I'm not advocating that our candidates should be turncoats like Manchin

And you don't have to, since that has proven to be a winning strategy in West Virginia.

Taking the Senate would not be a Pyrrhic victory. Taking the Senate is key to winning the war.

Getting a Democratic majority in the Senate isn't a Democratic majority if the4 "Democrats" vote Republican.

The ability to override a Rumpian veto would be neither a "Faustian bargain" not a "Pyrrhic victory". Indeed, it would go a long way toward winning the war.

I don't think Trump is going to win re-election, do you? And we don't get a new Senate until 2020, so the ability to override a veto from this "president" (his quotes, not mine ) would be an impossibility.

Impeachment conviction requires a supermajority in the Senate and is the only to to not only get rid of a president, but to get rid of a SCOTUS Justice as well. You want to get rid of The Rapist? We need a Senate Supermajority.

A Senate Supermajority is about as likely to happen as I am to win the lottery, and since I never buy lottery tickets -- they only occasionally show up on my birthday and Christmas...

You want to get rid of gerrymandering once and for all? Control of the Senate is key.

With the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gerrymandering? Seems kind of unlikely. This was with the newly minted Justice Gorsuch KKKon$$eЯvative majority (it's an abbreviation I cooked up, saves me a paragraph. Hurts your eyes? Deal with it.)

Now the SCOTUS should be even more involved in creating/ sustaining massive voter fraud with the addition of Kavanaugh.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Texas and North Carolina on Monday in two more cases on the contentious issue of politicians manipulating electoral district boundaries for political gain, known as gerrymandering.

The justices upheld a batch of Republican-drawn legislative districts in Texas, including two in the U.S. House of Representatives, that had been thrown out by a lower court for diluting the power of black and Hispanic voters. The ruling was 5-4, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberals dissenting.

Separately, the justices threw out a lower court ruling that had struck down North Carolina’s Republican-drawn U.S. House districts, directing that the decision be revisited in light of its ruling in a Wisconsin gerrymandering case last week that also preserved a Republican-drawn electoral map."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1JL2KE

Most of those "gomers" have pickup trucks with better sound systems and radios that my Prius. I don't think they even make vehicles with only AM and haven't for at least a decade and a half or two.

Maybe so. I junked my '95 E250 last year and it only had AM. But there are a lot of old vehicles in arid states where they don't rot out and a lot of people who can't afford new vehicles, so there's that...

And you don't have to hand the right wing propagandists ammunition on a silver platter.

Right. In fact you don't have to give it to them at all because they will simply fabricate it themselves and their constituents will believe them.

Which Democrats do every time they make general pronouncements about "gun control", which sounds a lot like "gun suppression". And we don't need ignorant morons yapping about "banning semiautomatic rifles" who are too stupid, blind, and willfully uniformed to understand that the majority of hunting rifles are, in fact, semiautomatic.

Nope. Most hunting rifles above cal. .223/ 5.56 which is considered inadequate for deer, are bolt guns. The Browning .30-06 is a rare exception and it only holds 4 rounds.

They say the AR-15 platform is dandy for coyotes and feral pigs, though.

Not all semiautomatic rifles look like AR-15s and Kalashnikovs. A lot of them don't even have removable clips.

In NY you aren't allowed to own a semi-auto that resembles an AR-15 or AK.

BTW, if the Left has any sense they'd have their media allies start buying up contracts for broadcasting major sports networks.

Yeah, I don't know the particulars off hand but I thought Clear Channel had a virtual monopoly on radio stations and a strong right wing bias. And I guess the grifters selling overpriced gold on these stations (which not coincidentally predict that the financial sky is falling) and dietary supplements have pretty deep pockets since these stations don't seem to need legitimate sponsors.

And there's no way to see any dark money involvement because it's dark money.

Complicit? Sure. But there's a big difference between being complicit and actually doing the action.

Really? I think any prosecutor or defense lawyer would disagree.

Charles Manson died in prison (before he could be pardoned by Trump and made AG ) . He wasn't convicted of killing anyone himself but rather of getting others to do his bidding. Think someone won't get in trouble for having a contract killer murder their spouse because they were merely complicit? This country executes people for driving a getaway car (in some states) along with their accomplice who actually pulled the trigger.

[weedywet]

Right wing Democrats don’t fall into line the way all republiklans do.

So an imaginary ‘super majority’ that includes right wing democrats doesn’t in any way guarantee that they VOTE “like Democrats”.

[Bob Olhsson]

What needs to be let go of is just being lazy and handing campaign messaging and communication over to the personalities we like. Both Sanders and Clinton came across as the upper middle class guilt tripping the rest of the middle class about various characterizations of "helping the poor."

Guess what, "the poor" vote too and as far as most could see the Washington Ivy League Democrats don't really get their plight so they threw a temper tantrum. People voted for CryBaby Donnie the used car salesman in order to shake things up. It didn't need to come to this but that's squarely on you and me for nodding our heads at whichever talking points we liked the sound of instead of coming up with concrete examples of what can be done for rural and rust belt America.

Case in point: Social Security and Medicare are all about protecting children from having to support their elderly parents which would literally throw the American economy into a tailspin. That's the issue impacting most Americans but we're still hearing about "impoverished seniors."

[John Eppstein]

The reason why that doesn't seem to matter that much to me is that if nobody on the left says anything to inflame the right, the right will just make up lies to that effect and feed them into their well-oiled, high-dollar propaganda machine, which is what they've been doing.
The reason why that doesn't seem to matter that much to me is that if nobody on the left says anything to inflame the right, the right will just make up lies to that effect and feed them into their well-oiled, high-dollar propaganda machine, which is what they've been doing.

You seem to think that everybody who voted differently from you are rabid idiots who hold unshakeable far right opinions.

It ain't so. There are lots of people who can be reached by rational discussion. But they can't be reached by acting as crazy and polarized as the ones on the far right. There are plenty of people who are disgusted by the antics of the Rumpians but feel threatened by what they perceive of the Left and acting as crazy and polarized as the Right merely reinforces that impression.

You're looking at the actions of the radical 10% and assuming that everybody who's not exactly like you are like that.

You can't expect radical change all at once, at least not unless you have a firm hold on both houses, the executive, and SCOTUS.

We take one house - which is ONE QUARTER of what's needed - and act like we won ther war. We have not. Right now we're riding high on a backlash to a well planned action from the opposition which fortunately resulted in electing a leader so despicable that he has alienated a large chunk of his constituency. Had they elected someone who was even remotely "presidential" - for example a Bush - we would not have had a "blue wave" in the recent election.

.The "birther" thing is just the tip of the iceberg and bending over backwards to try to appease them by making the Democratic platform more racist and ignorant would most likely only result in a racist, ignorant Democratic party.

Should a Democratic candidate for Senate in Mississippi strongly imply that lynching people of color is great because that's what the Republican who won did?

Who said anything about any of that? You're just talking crazy. That won't win any votes.

Evangelicals main and often only concern is overturning Roe v. Wade and criminalizing abortion. A Republican candidate with a criminal record as long as your arm can get nominated and elected just by claiming to be anti-abortion.

Are you still a Democrat if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Evangelicals are a tiny minority, even in the Deep South. They're just a tiny minority with really big mouths. And as with any well organized tiny minority they can make themselves look a lot bigger than they really are simply by getting all of them into one place in front of a few well-placed TV cameras (Which is a tactic perfected by the German Fascists in the '30s and copied by Rump and their American counterparts.)

I'm not advocating that our candidates should be turncoats like Manchin

And you don't have to, since that has proven to be a winning strategy in West Virginia.

I guess you'd prefer to have a hard core Trumpie?
You're like a little kid who wants the whole cake NOW, even though it'll make him sick.

Strategy. You need to THINK and PLAN if you want real, lasting change.

People REMEMBER and REVERE MLK. Who remembers Stokely Carmichael?

The ability to override a Rumpian veto would be neither a "Faustian bargain" not a "Pyrrhic victory". Indeed, it would go a long way toward winning the war.

I don't think Trump is going to win re-election, do you? And we don't get a new Senate until 2020, so the ability to override a veto from this "president" (his quotes, not mine ) would be an impossibility.

And we didn't think there was any way he'd win last time, either. Declaring victory (and being smug and self-congratulating) is a sure way to lose - and it's something that Democrats are very good at, hence our underdog status.

Yeah, overriding a veto is presently impossible. Because although we swept the House we actually LOST GROUND in the Senate.

Good job.

A Senate Supermajority is about as likely to happen as I am to win the lottery, and since I never buy lottery tickets -- they only occasionally show up on my birthday and Christmas...

You're a defeatist.

If we can't carry the Senate we have no real power. We're just like a bunch of little kids, playing at annoying the "big people" (don't misinterpret that.)

Without the Senate we3 not only don't have a realistic hope of passing any of our programs, we won't even be able to undo any of the damage that's already done. The best we can hope for is to make it difficult to do any more through Congress - but we won't have a ghost of a chance of repairing the damage to SCOTUS.

All we can hope for is a deadlock - and then we get blasted in the press for being "obstructionist".

You want to get rid of gerrymandering once and for all? Control of the Senate is key.

With the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gerrymandering?

Ever heard of a thing called a "Constitutional Amendment"? With the Senate we have a shot at that - and right now the idea is very popular, what with all the news about voter tampering and election fraud.

Now the SCOTUS should be even more involved in creating/ sustaining massive voter fraud with the addition of Kavanaugh.

Not if we impeach Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to hand the right wing propagandists ammunition on a silver platter.

Right. In fact you don't have to give it to them at all because they will simply fabricate it themselves and their constituents will believe them.

Again, you're making the erroneous assumption that you're dealing with a monolithic bloc.

It's really easy to make a minority look like a majority on TV. Rump does it at every rally.