[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-March-08, 20:42, said:

Michigan and Mississippi, too? This is feeling too much like neo-fascism 1930s style.

And Hawaii!

And from the Y66 article:

Quote

Is it too late to say to them: People! Please listen! We, your leaders have screwed up.

I think the answer is now clear. Yes, it is too late, at least as far as the nomination is concerned. Trump will be the GOP nominee. If they want to come out in favor of Clinton or Sanders, it is not too late for them to do that, but don't hold your breath. So yes, it is too late.

It is the Democratic nomination that is not yet settled. And neither candidate looks all that strong to me. This is ominous. I watched HC last night explaining that she wants REsults, not INsults. Everyone cheered. Hillary, Hillary, this is not going to do it.

An interesting tidbit. Both HC and DT had unkind words to say about Nabisco. Where have the jingles from my childhood gone?

N-A-B-I-S-C-O
Nabisco is the name to know
For a treat that can't be beat
Try Nabisco shredded wheat

Much catchier than REsults versus INsults. Maybe she should try it.

C-L-I-N-T-O-N
She will be the one to win
Hillary just can't be beat
She'll knock the Donald off his feet

I watched Race to the White House on CNN last Sunday. It was a somewhat superficial re-telling of the Kennedy/Nixon race. Apparently the Kennedy campaign played jingle commercials on the afternoon soap operas. And Frank Sinatra led sing-alongs of an adaptation of High Hopes.

A guy just can't lose with a campaign strategy like that. Such a powerful message raised voters from the dead in Chicago.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2016-March-09, 07:51, said:

Much catchier than REsults versus INsults. Maybe she should try it.

C-L-I-N-T-O-N
She will be the one to win
Hillary just can't be beat
She'll knock the Donald off his feet

Isn't that playing the Trump game? Avoid issues and just bragging about wins? Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud, the pig will win. And it will enjoy it.

538 just had a piece about Rubio being every GOP voter's second choice. This shows how terrible the voting system works. He is their most electable candidate and he is the one they would chose if they were to compromise on a concensus candidate. Now it seems he will come in 4th. If I were in that electorate I would be seriously frustrated.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2016-March-09, 08:28, said:

Isn't that playing the Trump game? Avoid issues and just bragging about wins? Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud, the pig will win. And it will enjoy it.

538 just had a piece about Rubio being every GOP voter's second choice. This shows how terrible the voting system works. He is their most electable candidate and he is the one they would chose if they were to compromise on a concensus candidate. Now it seems he will come in 4th. If I were in that electorate I would be seriously frustrated.

I was joking, sort of.
My point was that REsults versus INsults is embarrassingly dumb. I prefer the jingle, but not by much. Seventy years later, I still remember the jingle. Nabisco sponsored one of the radio shows I listened to, maybe it was The Green Hornet. Bzzzz. A memorable jingle. And jingles worked for Kennedy. So. Yes, I am still joking. Still sort of.

[billw55]

I have talked to some would-be R voters who say they will not vote for Trump. While they did not say what they would do, I suspect they will abstain rather than actually vote for Clinton or Sanders. Although they may end up deciding that any D is so bad that they must vote for Trump even though they dislike him.

I have said in the past that R voters would support any R candidate at all, no matter how big a buffoon. I didn't realize then how real this proposition would become. Looks like we are going to test it.

[blackshoe]

Talked to a guy today who said that though he is a Republican, if it comes down to Clinton or Trump, he'll vote for Clinton. Why? He thinks, based on a lifetime of doing business overseas, that if Trump becomes president, people like Putin, or the Saudis, or the Chinese, will eat him alive. Hilary, he says, is at least cunning enough to survive. He may have a point. Whatever happens, I suspect we're not going to enjoy the next few years.

[y66]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-10, 18:10, said:

Talked to a guy today who said that though he is a Republican, if it comes down to Clinton or Trump, he'll vote for Clinton. Why? He thinks, based on a lifetime of doing business overseas, that if Trump becomes president, people like Putin, or the Saudis, or the Chinese, will eat him alive. Hilary, he says, is at least cunning enough to survive. He may have a point. Whatever happens, I suspect we're not going to enjoy the next few years.

vs, say, the last 15? Welcome to the 21st century.

[kenberg]

I watched a bit of the R debate last night, as much as I could stand, and Trump is now trying to sound like a polite reasonable guy. The problem is that once you take away the insults, he has nothing left to say. He was asked to explain specifically what was wrong with Common Core. Answer: It's a disaster. Asked for more detail: It's been taken over by the federal government. Asked about Social Security, he explained that no changes were needed, the money could be found by eliminating waste and abuse. Asked for more detail, he explained that he would make America great again.

But then I note that the Sanders plan for paying for free tuition is that the billionaires will pay for it, the Sanders plan for medicaid for all is that the billionaires will pay for it, and so on. I watched about as much of the D debate as I did of the R debate. See Alexandra Petri for a summary.

I gather that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now totally dead. DT, HC, BS and everyone in between seems united on this point. Do any of these folks have an alternative idea as to how to deal with the 21st century world? Oh yes, Donald has explained his plan. Let China and Japan know that we are serious. Presumably this would require that we elect someone other than Donald.

Ok, I will drink some stuff and chill.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-March-11, 14:17, said:

I watched a bit of the R debate last night, as much as I could stand, and Trump is now trying to sound like a polite reasonable guy. The problem is that once you take away the insults, he has nothing left to say. He was asked to explain specifically what was wrong with Common Core. Answer: It's a disaster. Asked for more detail: It's been taken over by the federal government. Asked about Social Security, he explained that no changes were needed, the money could be found by eliminating waste and abuse. Asked for more detail, he explained that he would make America great again.

But then I note that the Sanders plan for paying for free tuition is that the billionaires will pay for it, the Sanders plan for medicaid for all is that the billionaires will pay for it, and so on. I watched about as much of the D debate as I did of the R debate. See Alexandra Petri for a summary.

I gather that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now totally dead. DT, HC, BS and everyone in between seems united on this point. Do any of these folks have an alternative idea as to how to deal with the 21st century world? Oh yes, Donald has explained his plan. Let China and Japan know that we are serious. Presumably this would require that we elect someone other than Donald.

Ok, I will drink some stuff and chill.

Just how idiotic does one have to be to get a job as a Dem debate moderator - questions from 3rd grade.

[blackshoe]

y66, on 2016-March-10, 19:25, said:

vs, say, the last 15? Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm saying things are going to get worse before — if — they get better. That's taking into account not just the last 15 years, but the last 60 or so.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-11, 19:37, said:

I'm saying things are going to get worse before — if — they get better. That's taking into account not just the last 15 years, but the last 60 or so.

Can you be more specific? What things are going to get worse. What are the things you feel are bad today?

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2016-March-11, 20:13, said:

Can you be more specific? What things are going to get worse. What are the things you feel are bad today?

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2016-March-11, 22:18, said:

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

Nah, this is Blackshoe we're talking about...

Things all started going downhill with the Civil War and accelerated with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1907.
Once the 16th amendment passed in 1913, the great experiment had come to an end.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-12, 03:50, said:

Nah, this is Blackshoe we're talking about...

Things all started going downhill with the Civil War and accelerated with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1907.
Once the 16th amendment passed in 1913, the great experiment had come to an end.

I would have thought that, but he specifically said that things started getting worse about 60 years ago. So he must be perturbed about things that Eisenhower did to affect the course of US history.

[Winstonm]

If there is something sadly wrong about America, this article sums up, for me, the problems. Democracy begins to fail when the press loses its way.

Quote

Do you remember these headlines: “Republicans Oppose Civil Rights”; “Republicans Work to Defeat Expansion of Health Insurance”; “Republicans Torpedo Extension of Unemployment Benefits”; “Republicans Demonize Homosexuals and Deny Them Rights”; “Republicans Call Climate Change a Hoax and Refuse to Stop Greenhouse Gases”? No, you don’t remember, because no MSM paper printed them and no MSM network broadcast them. Instead, the media behaved as if extremism were business as usual.

I don’t think the media would deny their indifference. They would say they don’t take sides. They’re neutral. They just report. Partisanship is for Fox News and MSNBC.

Of course, this is utter nonsense. Accurate reporting means taking sides when one side is spouting falsehoods. I am still waiting for the media to correct the GOP pronouncements that Obamacare has cost us jobs and sent health care costs skyrocketing – both of which are screamingly false. I am not holding my breath.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2016-March-11, 22:18, said:

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

Bullshit.

[mike777]

There are strong arguments that say Truman was a pretty lousy President. At the very least it is an interesting historical discussion.

I Understand as of today Truman is regarded as far above average in the History books.

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2016-March-12, 21:41, said:

There are strong arguments that say Truman was a pretty lousy President. At the very least it is an interesting historical discussion.

I Understand as of today Truman is regarded as far above average in the History books.

Those were exciting times. And nobody would accuse Truman of being indecisive. The Berlin airlift, the attempt to take over the steel mills during the Korean war, the firing of Douglas MacArthur, the integration of the armed forces, and, of course the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Among many other things.

Limited wars with limited objectives are common these days. In the early 1950s they were not. I recall Korea being described as the first war in history that was fought in terms of pleasing the enemy. And with regard to the use of atomic weapons, Truman once commented on Oppenheimer "What's he whining about? He only built it, I'm the guy who decided to drop it". His civil rights efforts were advanced for the time, but when King was planning his march on Washington he spoke against it, saying that they would lose every friend that they had. Or so I recall.

Passive he wasn't.

And, for comic(?) relief, there is the well known story about his response to Paul Hume. I take this from the Wikipedia:

Quote

On December 6, 1950, music critic Paul Hume wrote a critical review of a concert by the president's daughter Margaret Truman:

Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality ... [she] cannot sing very well ... is flat a good deal of the time—more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years ... has not improved in the years we have heard her ... [and] still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.


Harry Truman wrote a scathing response:

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

[y66]

From What Liberals Can Learn From The N.R.A. by David Cole

Quote

VILIFYING the National Rifle Association’s tactics has long been standard practice among liberals. In October, Hillary Clinton compared dealing with the N.R.A. to “negotiating with the Iranians or the Communists.” In January, President Obama accused the gun lobby of “holding Congress hostage.” The New York Daily News recently called Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s chief executive, a “terrorist.”

The passion underlying such condemnations may be understandable, especially in the wake of the horrific mass shootings that often prompt them. But this rhetoric does little to change the gun debate, and most likely reinforces gun owners’ worst fears about how liberals see them. Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them. The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias. In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.” Yet in 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the individual right to bear arms was no fraud, but a constitutional right.

How did the N.R.A. do it? It did not litigate Heller itself. But its efforts over three decades paved the way for the court’s decision.

The story begins in 1977, when hard-line members of the N.R.A. took charge at its annual convention and formally committed the group to defending the right to bear arms. The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns. The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there, in part by mobilizing its members, in part by working with the local affiliates it had in every state, and in part because opposition at the state level was largely absent. (Gun-control advocates tended to focus unproductively on Congress.)

The strategy paid off: By the time the Supreme Court took up Heller, most state constitutions protected an individual right to bear arms; nearly all states afforded citizens a right to carry concealed weapons unless they were specifically disqualified from doing so; gun makers enjoyed immunity from tort liability for illegal use of their guns; and the right to self-defense had been strengthened — all at the urging of the N.R.A. These changes made it much easier for the Supreme Court to recognize a federal right to bear arms, because for all practical purposes such a right already existed in so much of the country.

The N.R.A. also enlisted the academy. Beginning in the 1980s, it offered grants and prizes designed to encourage scholarship that buttressed its view of the Second Amendment. With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment, so that by the time the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, the dominant view in the legal literature supported an individual right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion closely tracked that scholarship.

In addition, the N.R.A. succeeded in getting both Congress and the executive branch on record as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

[PassedOut]

Looks like Trump is serious

Quote

Repeatedly underestimated as a court jester or silly showman, Mr. Trump muscled his way into the Republican elite by force of will. He badgered a skittish Mitt Romney into accepting his endorsement on national television, and became a celebrity fixture at conservative gatherings. He abandoned his tightfisted inclinations and cut five- and six-figure checks in a bid for clout as a political donor. He courted conservative media leaders as deftly as he had the New York tabloids.

At every stage, members of the Republican establishment wagered that they could go along with Mr. Trump just enough to keep him quiet or make him go away. But what party leaders viewed as generous ceremonial gestures or ego stroking of Mr. Trump — speaking spots at gatherings, meetings with prospective candidates and appearances alongside Republican heavyweights — he used to elevate his position and, eventually, to establish himself as a formidable figure for 2016.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he had encountered many who doubted or dismissed him as a political force before now. “I realized that unless I actually ran, I wouldn’t be taken seriously,” he said. But he denied having been troubled by Mr. Obama’s derision.

“I loved that dinner,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “I can handle criticism.”

If this actually turns out to be performance art intended to expose the US electorate, I'll say "Well done." But I'm starting to doubt that more and more.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-March-13, 12:46, said:

Looks like Trump is serious


If this actually turns out to be performance art intended to expose the US electorate, I'll say "Well done." But I'm starting to doubt that more and more.

The dinner being referred to can be seen at
https://www.youtube....outu.be&t=2m51s

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump uses it as a recruiting tool.

They used to, and maybe still do, show a video at Yellowstone about why it is a bad idea to torment the buffalo.