More than your racism, you just reminded me why I gave up entering discussions with you. You can't make a straight argument - to be prolix on purpose is just unbearable these days.
[Clovis:] Are you ever going on topic again to defend your hero president, or we need to suffer more of your bad mouth?
I presume "bad mouth" is in response to this: "... that makes you a lying jackass."
English isn't your first language, although you could fool most people that it is. However, there is nothing "bad mouth" about the term:
jack·ass | ˈjakˌas | noun 1 a stupid person. 2 a male ass or donkey.
Whenever you incontinently toss out the r-word, and then can't back it up, you are, by definition, a liar. Doing so repeatedly (as does Harry) makes you a stupid person.
“As you know, for many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers,” Trump said as some in the crowd jeered..."
Even a cursory knowledge of the history of Jim Crow should provide the necessary background to understand this. Just because he doesn't call Somalis the n-word directly, or call for their lynching (directly, at least), doesn't make the meaning less obvious, unless you are actively interested in denying it. It's to your credit that you feel the need to deny it, I suppose, but that's a bit like a robber forgoing a juicy-looking house because of the big dog inside.
This one should be rather obvious:
"...Trump told the crowd at a campaign rally in Minneapolis they had “suffered enough” as a result of “filthy refugee vetting” that had allowed an influx of Somalis into their state."
It's not as though there is a group of white people of any sort that inspires Trump to use the word "filthy" - which, as a reported germophobe, and coupled with his prior claims that immigrants at the southern border bring disease and sickness with them, is difficult to interpret as anything other than a particular brand of racism - the kind that views nonwhites as inherently "dirty."
You want a swastika tattoo on the man's shoulder before you'll believe otherwise, but for the rest of us, his rallies are too evocative of history we learned a long time ago.
Calling you a racist is a statement of character by my own judgment, but not exactly an insult. To call someone stupid is:
---- stu·pid /ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. ----
To use "jackass" instead of stupid is just a bit more offensive, I am sure it is an ugly word for native ears too.
Now, I am not really offended, because I have been over 9 years old for too long now. What really gets to me is that, being typically you, the original conversation is corrupted and no longer it follows the chain of arguments. There is supposedly a defense to be made of your President's behavior (and hist party) that is the focus of this thread, and that defense is not coming.
Does it make you happy to disrupt Harry's blog with your logorrhea?
Is there anything to it that makes it a compulsion on your part?
[Clovis:] Calling you a racist is a statement of character by my own judgment, but not exactly an insult.
Not exactly an insult? Which planet did you just arrive from?
The accusation of racism carries with it an assertion of gross moral and mental defects, to think that isn't an insult is to be truly ignorant, or stupid.
Your judgment, if it isn't to be viewed as entirely empty and completely untrustworthy must be based upon something other than vapors. So, if you wish to avoid being considered a jackass — baseless accusations of racism is just the sort of thing jackasses do — at least try and prove the accusation.
Every time you have tossed out that slander, just as with Harry, and pretty much all other progressives, you are the one corrupting the conversation: More than your racism ..., which you got to long before trying to assess any actual facts.
Which, as it turns out, aren't particularly friendly to those suffering fourth stage TDS.
Racism is a character flaw. There are lots of character flaws one might have; this one just happens to have general political ramifications. It is also a mental state that most Americans harbor, to one degree or another, simply by virtue of the air they breathed as they grew up. Acknowledging this really shouldn't be so difficult.
The GG thread you link is 2 years old. You can update it: nowadays I believe you are racist. And no, I won't bother to further assert why I think so. Just mark my judgment as "entirely empty and completely untrustworthy" and move on to the actual point of this thread.
BTW, for whatever definition of racism you may want to go by, none includes people having "gross mental defects". I do believe you are morally flawed - we all are, though in different ways - but I don't doubt you have a very sound and smart brain there, with IQ at the higher end.
The GG thread you link is 2 years old. You can update it: nowadays I believe you are racist. And no, I won't bother to further assert why I think so. Just mark my judgment as "entirely empty and completely untrustworthy" and move on to the actual point of this thread.
Repeatedly — and once more here — trotting out an empty accusation is all the evidence I need to conclude you are a jackass, a judgment with a firm basis in fact.
The reason I went back to that post is that nothing has changed. Progressives still hurling slanders, and the rest of us wondering when they will finally get some glimmering of a clue as to why they are accompanied by such an unpleasant odor.
The actual point to this thread, which "More than your racism ..." promptly derailed, is that the facts aren't what Harry, or you, thought (and may still think) they are.
Good, so we'll agree you are a racist and I am a jackass.
Now, I did point out a fact not in question: Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate Biden. Were the role inverse, a Dem President asking it against a Rep opponent, would you and Republicans asking for impeachement?
[Clovis:] Good, so we'll agree you are a racist and I am a jackass.
We will agree no such thing. I have plenty of evidence you are a jackass, you have none that I am a racist.
I thought physicists cared about evidence. Do I have to report to the re-education booth?
Now, I did point out a fact not in question: Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate Biden. Were the role inverse, a Dem President asking it against a Rep opponent, would you and Republicans asking for impeachement?
You left out the most important part of all: Why?
If Joe Biden was allowing his son to engage in influence peddling, yet neglected to recuse himself from those areas where his son was peddling influence, would that be a significant fact that should be known?
If your answer is yes — as mine is — then the question is structural and not specific. Hypothetically, had the tables been reversed, and the Obama administration asked the Ukrainians to investigate a political oppon ...
Oh.
Wait.
That's not a hypothetical.
From what I know, Obama's motives were at least as cynical as Trump's. You don't hear me asking for some jeremiad on Obama therefore.
--- I thought physicists cared about evidence. Do I have to report to the re-education booth? --- Harry is the one here who likes to restate the obvious, I have better uses of my time.
---- You left out the most important part of all: Why?
If Joe Biden was allowing his son to engage in influence peddling, yet neglected to recuse himself from those areas where his son was peddling influence, would that be a significant fact that should be known? ----
As I see it, and as I guess any Republican would agree if the roles were reversed, even if the Bidens are absolutely guilty of all the fervid dreams you lot have, a President still ought to be impeached by what Trump did.
If the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
To which your racism comes to fit this thread - the same moral flaws that are behind it, are the ones behind supporting such an egregious act by Trump. It is the Republic of Deplorables.
M., where I grew up, being a racist -- or called one -- was not a character defect or an insult. The racists around me were proud of it.
They still are but socially most are circumspect because attitudes have changed as much as they have about throwing your trash out the car window.
Thus, the dog whistle.
I had been thinking about making the following a separate post but your comments make it fit better here.
In 1975 only one state went out of its way to welcome refugees from Indochina. That was Iowa under the leadership of Gov. Robert Ray. He set up a resettlement office and Iowa ended up with a higher percentage of Indochinese refugees than any state except California.
There were ethnic Vietnamese and Montagnards, primarily Hmong (who, by the way, we could compare with the Kurds this week). The Hmong had a particularly difficult time adjusting to life in the Midwest.
Until our Green Berets supplied them with weapons, they had lived their lives virtually without any machinery. There were difficulties, especially marriage customs involving ritual kidnapping which looked to American authorities like plain old kidnapping.
With the humane assistance of political and civic leadership things evolved well and the children of the Indochinese refugees seem to have done especially well.
(I did my part when there was a campaign to accuse the Vietnamese of eating digs. The Legislature was well on its way into passing an anti-dog-eating law when I stopped them.)
The turmoil spilled over into Minnesota because the Twin Cities provided more different economic opportunities than Iowa did and Minneapolis-St. Paul became a center of Indochinese settlement..
So Minnesota had some experience in dealing successfully with immigrants about as far from American customs as it is possible to be before the Somalis showed up.
This time there was no Robert Ray but the civic efforts were similar. So were the problems. The one that got the most attention was at the Minneapolis airport: Somali cabdrivers refused to accept fares with dogs or carrying alcohol.
It was really nasty for a while with the white racists in full cry. However local civic leaders worked with Somali cultural and religious to educate the cabdrivers.Everything settled down and the racists went back to their caves until being lured to the Trump rally.
Thee comes a point -- we are there now -- when a movement is so profoundly racist that to associate with makes you a racist, even if your original attraction was something else. You can join the Klan because you like mystic rituals but you can't also claim not to be racist.
[Clovis:] As I see it, and as I guess any Republican would agree if the roles were reversed, even if the Bidens are absolutely guilty of all the fervid dreams you lot have, a President still ought to be impeached by what Trump did.
If the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
That is pretty much nonsense, from top to bottom. Hard to say part is the most nonsensical.
To which your racism comes to fit this thread - the same moral flaws that are behind it, are the ones behind supporting such an egregious act by Trump. It is the Republic of Deplorables.
Oh, for the love of God, please stop it with that crap. You have long since demonstrated your jackassery, no need to hammer that nail any harder.
What Trump did was no where close to impeachable, nor would have been if Obama had done something similar. Which he did, by the way.
Trump's act was not egregious, it was completely legal, and, had it not been leaked, would have been completely unknown unless Hunter Biden had actually been the recipient of influence peddling.
By the way, how is that Russian collusion thing working out for you?
[Harry:] Somali cabdrivers refused to accept fares with dogs or carrying alcohol.
It was really nasty for a while with the white racists in full cry.
I'm sure you can provide us examples of white racists in full cry.
Actually, I'm sure you can't. Like always.
Thee comes a point -- we are there now -- when a movement is so profoundly racist that to associate with makes you a racist ...
There comes a point — actually you are long past it — where endless, empty, invocations of racism makes you an idiot, shouting at the sky.
But, by all means, prove me wrong. Show me where this Movement is profoundly racist. Then we can compare and contrast with all the race-mongering progressives routinely engage in.
We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.
As for Hunter Biden, you cannot peddle influence unless the group wanting to corrupt you has an action it wants your government to do. Tell us what Burisma was plottingto get the US government to do.
--- That is pretty much nonsense, from top to bottom. Hard to say part is the most nonsensical. ---
You better start somewhere, because if you can't recognize the perils of a US president leveraging US power to attack political opponents at home, you are just beyond hope.
If you are going to accuse someone of a crime you have to identify the offense. There was no offense. We can be sure of that, because if there had been, Trump or Giuliani would have specified it.
[Clovis:] You better start somewhere, because if you can't recognize the perils of a US president leveraging US power to attack political opponents at home, you are just beyond hope.
This, from the NYT news summary a couple days ago:
1. Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, effectively confirmed the main premise of the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
He told reporters that the Trump administration withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate what the president has long insisted was Kiev’s assistance to Democrats during the 2016 election. “And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mr. Mulvaney said.
“The briefing was jaw-dropping by any metric,” said our White House correspondent Maggie Haberman. Watch the clip.
Over to you, Clovis. What peril is there in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the potential of Kiev assisting the Democrats in the 2016 investigation?
Also worthy of note: Maggie Haberman and the NYT got a Pulitzer for their reporting on the Trump-Russian collusion. Which they backed all the way until it blew up in their faces.
Mollie Hemingway and [darnnit forget her name at the WSJ] got that story right from the very beginning, and got nothing. Why is that?
[Harry:] If you are going to accuse someone of a crime you have to identify the offense.
As usual, your comprehension is bizarrely off base.
The question here isn't the accusation of a crime, but the investigation of activities, which may, or may not be criminal.
If you read the papers at all, you would have known most of the previous three years was consumed in an investigation for which no crime was ever specified.
I guess the rule of law translates into: Mighty fine if the left does it.
--- Over to you, Clovis. What peril is there in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the potential of Kiev assisting the Democrats in the 2016 investigation? ---
IOW, it is all fine with you that a president ought to ask another president to start investigating not only his political opponent, but also his whole party? And under the veiled threat that hundreds of millions may not come if something doesn't give?
Well, looking this way, I guess you are right, that doesn't look to be impeachable at all. It sure can't be seen as immoral or an abuse of power. No, no way.
Remind me again why I am losing time arguing with you Skipper?
[Clovis:] IOW, it is all fine with you that a president ought to ask another president to start investigating not only his political opponent, but also his whole party? And under the veiled threat that hundreds of millions may not come if something doesn't give?
If the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
You are wrong as a matter of fact, and hypocritical as a matter of history.
Yes, the investigation is of a US national, but the investigation is not within US territory, which means it must be done by the Ukrainians, not Americans.
If the rule of law means anything, of course.
So, unless the transparent influence peddling is to be investigated, the request must come from the US government, the Dept of State, to be exact. Being a component of the executive branch, the DoS acts on POTUS's behalf. Whether the request comes directly from the President, or goes through State, or is a result of State acting on due diligence are differences without distinction.
And threatening Ukraine with holding back financial aid is par for the course.
It helps to keep the facts in mind, too. Trump's threat was with regard to Ukrainian potential involvement with meddling in the 2016 election, not Joe Biden. But even if was only with regard to Biden, influence peddling corruption is rife in Ukraine, and it is in the US national interest to see that reduced. Hard to do if we are tolerating Biden's doing that very thing.
And you are a hypocrite. I don't recall any outcry when the Obama administration relied on foreigners to create pretexts for the investigation of US nationals. The difference between what Trump did, and what the Obama administration did is that the former is legal, and the latter felonious.
Remind me again why I am losing time arguing with you Skipper?
I'm having a hard time remembering the last time you have provided a substantive reply to something I've written.
[Harry:] A crime was specified, admitted to, and backed up by a huge amount of evidence. A crooked AG committed a further crime by throwing all that out.
It's a shame there is no vaccine for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
From soup to nuts, you are wrong.
Specify the crime. Be precise.
Show the evidence backing up that crime. Not manufactured evidence paid for by the DNC. Actual evidence.
And please show where that actual evidence existed in the Mueller report.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of your epic wrongness, how about:
April 12 meeting, Manafort delivery of polling data, plenty of collusion.
Then you don't understand what "collusion" is. Here are some examples: Journolist was an example of collusion. As was the CNN's passing of debate questions to Hilary!.
Specify the crime. Collusion, to the extent it happened — and it didn't — isn't a crime.
Obstruction of investigation.
You are no better with "obstruction".
Let me help. Destroying evidence is obstruction. Hmmm. Who might have done that?
Here is everything I've ever written about The Bell Curve:
[coffee spew]
Dammit, Peter, warn me when you are going to do that.
I read the book also, and found it an interesting, if not entertaining read.
Hebert and Reed, among other progressives, should not have a license to use the word "racist". The book reported factual data, and drew conclusions from that data, which itself is no more racist than the boiling point of water.
Progressives become astonishingly hostile when their shibboleths get attacked. Stephen Pinker for both The Blank Slate and Better Angels; Napoleon Chagnon for Noble Savages.
(I've read all three; they are excellent.)
Don't you get tired of being the internet's singularity of wrong?
Congratulations, Harry: you have just proven you shouldn't have a license to use the word "racist", since you applied it to a post that has not the first thing to do with race. You might as well look at an airplane and accuse it of being submarine.
Ironically, you slander others while forgetting this: I've said all along that I do not believe that Muslims in general and Arab Muslims in particular are capable of popular self-government.Harry Eagar, March 21, 2006
The only racist around here is looking at you from your mirror.
I did say that, several times, referencing the studies of the Syro-German political scientist Bassam Tibi. Neither he nor I attributed that to race but to history, religion and culture. All acquired characteristics.
Yet people ignore all three at times and change the way they behave fundamentally. What Tibi argues is that Arabs are uninterested in democracy. Perhaps it wold be better to say that when it comes down to it, they are always interested in something else even more.
It hasn't helped that those supposed paragons of democracy the US, Britain and France have always worked against and never for democratic movements in Arab states.
As for Kavanaugh, there was enough information to have required an investigation. The rightwingers blocked thst, so we don't know what happened.
I don't know how I would have testified to the Senate had I been in his position, except that I would not have put on that kind of frat boy performance.
So Froman and Parnas got dinner with Trump at the White House but Zelensky couldn't. I bet tongues are clucking in Kiev about that.
ReplyDeleteFar better than the Progressive pack of liars, moral cretins and lunatics.
ReplyDeletePlease do try and keep up.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDeleteEven your link tries to deflect from the central point: POTUS did ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.
That central fact is not in question, and of course it would be impeachable enough if the roles were reversed (imagine if Obama...).
Even your link tries to deflect from the central point: POTUS did ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.
ReplyDeleteDid you think about this before you hit Publish?
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteMore than your racism, you just reminded me why I gave up entering discussions with you. You can't make a straight argument - to be prolix on purpose is just unbearable these days.
[Clovis:] More than your racism ...
ReplyDeleteI have an idea, quote exactly what I have ever said is racist, and why it is racist.
Until then, piss off with that lazy nonsense.
Racist Skipper,
ReplyDeleteThat would make me as prolix as you.
No, Clovis, that makes you a lying jackass.
ReplyDeleteAre you ever going on topic again to defend your hero president, or we need to suffer more of your bad mouth?
ReplyDeleteOn the farm the pigs run from the gelder's snips. Republicans, on the other hand, line up to be fixed.
ReplyDeleteAll Trump supporters are racists. No more room to pretend:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/trump-somali-refugees-minneapolis-rally/
[Clovis:] Are you ever going on topic again to defend your hero president, or we need to suffer more of your bad mouth?
ReplyDeleteI presume "bad mouth" is in response to this: "... that makes you a lying jackass."
English isn't your first language, although you could fool most people that it is. However, there is nothing "bad mouth" about the term:
jack·ass | ˈjakˌas |
noun
1 a stupid person.
2 a male ass or donkey.
Whenever you incontinently toss out the r-word, and then can't back it up, you are, by definition, a liar. Doing so repeatedly (as does Harry) makes you a stupid person.
QED.
[Harry:] All Trump supporters are racists. No more room to pretend:
ReplyDeleteI read the entire WaPo article. I couldn't find anything in it that was racist.
Your turn: quote directly from the article something that is racist, using the dictionary definition of the term, and explain why it is racist.
You won't, because, like always, you can't. Instead, there will be whingeing and epic goal post shifting.
Also, I shall remember this every time you make another one of your witless, and hypocritical, invocations of "democracy".
You won't, but you should, listen to This American Life episode about Somali immigration into the MSP/St Paul area.
“As you know, for many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers,” Trump said as some in the crowd jeered..."
DeleteEven a cursory knowledge of the history of Jim Crow should provide the necessary background to understand this. Just because he doesn't call Somalis the n-word directly, or call for their lynching (directly, at least), doesn't make the meaning less obvious, unless you are actively interested in denying it. It's to your credit that you feel the need to deny it, I suppose, but that's a bit like a robber forgoing a juicy-looking house because of the big dog inside.
This one should be rather obvious:
"...Trump told the crowd at a campaign rally in Minneapolis they had “suffered enough” as a result of “filthy refugee vetting” that had allowed an influx of Somalis into their state."
It's not as though there is a group of white people of any sort that inspires Trump to use the word "filthy" - which, as a reported germophobe, and coupled with his prior claims that immigrants at the southern border bring disease and sickness with them, is difficult to interpret as anything other than a particular brand of racism - the kind that views nonwhites as inherently "dirty."
You want a swastika tattoo on the man's shoulder before you'll believe otherwise, but for the rest of us, his rallies are too evocative of history we learned a long time ago.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteCalling you a racist is a statement of character by my own judgment, but not exactly an insult. To call someone stupid is:
----
stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
----
To use "jackass" instead of stupid is just a bit more offensive, I am sure it is an ugly word for native ears too.
Now, I am not really offended, because I have been over 9 years old for too long now. What really gets to me is that, being typically you, the original conversation is corrupted and no longer it follows the chain of arguments. There is supposedly a defense to be made of your President's behavior (and hist party) that is the focus of this thread, and that defense is not coming.
Does it make you happy to disrupt Harry's blog with your logorrhea?
Is there anything to it that makes it a compulsion on your part?
[Clovis:] Calling you a racist is a statement of character by my own judgment, but not exactly an insult.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly an insult? Which planet did you just arrive from?
The accusation of racism carries with it an assertion of gross moral and mental defects, to think that isn't an insult is to be truly ignorant, or stupid.
Your judgment, if it isn't to be viewed as entirely empty and completely untrustworthy must be based upon something other than vapors. So, if you wish to avoid being considered a jackass — baseless accusations of racism is just the sort of thing jackasses do — at least try and prove the accusation.
Every time you have tossed out that slander, just as with Harry, and pretty much all other progressives, you are the one corrupting the conversation: More than your racism ..., which you got to long before trying to assess any actual facts.
Which, as it turns out, aren't particularly friendly to those suffering fourth stage TDS.
You need to re-read this.
And wonder why it is that progressives are so prone to the floridly incontinent spreading of RAFAMIHO.
Racism is a character flaw. There are lots of character flaws one might have; this one just happens to have general political ramifications. It is also a mental state that most Americans harbor, to one degree or another, simply by virtue of the air they breathed as they grew up. Acknowledging this really shouldn't be so difficult.
DeleteBecause this is where it ends up.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDeleteThe GG thread you link is 2 years old. You can update it: nowadays I believe you are racist. And no, I won't bother to further assert why I think so. Just mark my judgment as "entirely empty and completely untrustworthy" and move on to the actual point of this thread.
BTW, for whatever definition of racism you may want to go by, none includes people having "gross mental defects". I do believe you are morally flawed - we all are, though in different ways - but I don't doubt you have a very sound and smart brain there, with IQ at the higher end.
The GG thread you link is 2 years old. You can update it: nowadays I believe you are racist. And no, I won't bother to further assert why I think so. Just mark my judgment as "entirely empty and completely untrustworthy" and move on to the actual point of this thread.
ReplyDeleteRepeatedly — and once more here — trotting out an empty accusation is all the evidence I need to conclude you are a jackass, a judgment with a firm basis in fact.
The reason I went back to that post is that nothing has changed. Progressives still hurling slanders, and the rest of us wondering when they will finally get some glimmering of a clue as to why they are accompanied by such an unpleasant odor.
The actual point to this thread, which "More than your racism ..." promptly derailed, is that the facts aren't what Harry, or you, thought (and may still think) they are.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteGood, so we'll agree you are a racist and I am a jackass.
Now, I did point out a fact not in question: Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate Biden. Were the role inverse, a Dem President asking it against a Rep opponent, would you and Republicans asking for impeachement?
[Clovis:] Good, so we'll agree you are a racist and I am a jackass.
ReplyDeleteWe will agree no such thing. I have plenty of evidence you are a jackass, you have none that I am a racist.
I thought physicists cared about evidence. Do I have to report to the re-education booth?
Now, I did point out a fact not in question: Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate Biden. Were the role inverse, a Dem President asking it against a Rep opponent, would you and Republicans asking for impeachement?
You left out the most important part of all: Why?
If Joe Biden was allowing his son to engage in influence peddling, yet neglected to recuse himself from those areas where his son was peddling influence, would that be a significant fact that should be known?
If your answer is yes — as mine is — then the question is structural and not specific. Hypothetically, had the tables been reversed, and the Obama administration asked the Ukrainians to investigate a political oppon ...
Oh.
Wait.
That's not a hypothetical.
From what I know, Obama's motives were at least as cynical as Trump's. You don't hear me asking for some jeremiad on Obama therefore.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
I thought physicists cared about evidence. Do I have to report to the re-education booth?
---
Harry is the one here who likes to restate the obvious, I have better uses of my time.
----
You left out the most important part of all: Why?
If Joe Biden was allowing his son to engage in influence peddling, yet neglected to recuse himself from those areas where his son was peddling influence, would that be a significant fact that should be known?
----
As I see it, and as I guess any Republican would agree if the roles were reversed, even if the Bidens are absolutely guilty of all the fervid dreams you lot have, a President still ought to be impeached by what Trump did.
If the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
To which your racism comes to fit this thread - the same moral flaws that are behind it, are the ones behind supporting such an egregious act by Trump. It is the Republic of Deplorables.
M., where I grew up, being a racist -- or called one -- was not a character defect or an insult. The racists around me were proud of it.
ReplyDeleteThey still are but socially most are circumspect because attitudes have changed as much as they have about throwing your trash out the car window.
Thus, the dog whistle.
I had been thinking about making the following a separate post but your comments make it fit better here.
In 1975 only one state went out of its way to welcome refugees from Indochina. That was Iowa under the leadership of Gov. Robert Ray. He set up a resettlement office and Iowa ended up with a higher percentage of Indochinese refugees than any state except California.
There were ethnic Vietnamese and Montagnards, primarily Hmong (who, by the way, we could compare with the Kurds this week). The Hmong had a particularly difficult time adjusting to life in the Midwest.
Until our Green Berets supplied them with weapons, they had lived their lives virtually without any machinery. There were difficulties, especially marriage customs involving ritual kidnapping which looked to American authorities like plain old kidnapping.
With the humane assistance of political and civic leadership things evolved well and the children of the Indochinese refugees seem to have done especially well.
(I did my part when there was a campaign to accuse the Vietnamese of eating digs. The Legislature was well on its way into passing an anti-dog-eating law when I stopped them.)
The turmoil spilled over into Minnesota because the Twin Cities provided more different economic opportunities than Iowa did and Minneapolis-St. Paul became a center of Indochinese settlement..
So Minnesota had some experience in dealing successfully with immigrants about as far from American customs as it is possible to be before the Somalis showed up.
This time there was no Robert Ray but the civic efforts were similar. So were the problems. The one that got the most attention was at the Minneapolis airport: Somali cabdrivers refused to accept fares with dogs or carrying alcohol.
It was really nasty for a while with the white racists in full cry. However local civic leaders worked with Somali cultural and religious to educate the cabdrivers.Everything settled down and the racists went back to their caves until being lured to the Trump rally.
Thee comes a point -- we are there now -- when a movement is so profoundly racist that to associate with makes you a racist, even if your original attraction was something else. You can join the Klan because you like mystic rituals but you can't also claim not to be racist.
[Clovis:] As I see it, and as I guess any Republican would agree if the roles were reversed, even if the Bidens are absolutely guilty of all the fervid dreams you lot have, a President still ought to be impeached by what Trump did.
ReplyDeleteIf the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
That is pretty much nonsense, from top to bottom. Hard to say part is the most nonsensical.
To which your racism comes to fit this thread - the same moral flaws that are behind it, are the ones behind supporting such an egregious act by Trump. It is the Republic of Deplorables.
Oh, for the love of God, please stop it with that crap. You have long since demonstrated your jackassery, no need to hammer that nail any harder.
What Trump did was no where close to impeachable, nor would have been if Obama had done something similar. Which he did, by the way.
Trump's act was not egregious, it was completely legal, and, had it not been leaked, would have been completely unknown unless Hunter Biden had actually been the recipient of influence peddling.
By the way, how is that Russian collusion thing working out for you?
[Harry:] Somali cabdrivers refused to accept fares with dogs or carrying alcohol.
ReplyDeleteIt was really nasty for a while with the white racists in full cry.
I'm sure you can provide us examples of white racists in full cry.
Actually, I'm sure you can't. Like always.
Thee comes a point -- we are there now -- when a movement is so profoundly racist that to associate with makes you a racist ...
There comes a point — actually you are long past it — where endless, empty, invocations of racism makes you an idiot, shouting at the sky.
But, by all means, prove me wrong. Show me where this Movement is profoundly racist. Then we can compare and contrast with all the race-mongering progressives routinely engage in.
We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.
ReplyDeleteAs for Hunter Biden, you cannot peddle influence unless the group wanting to corrupt you has an action it wants your government to do. Tell us what Burisma was plottingto get the US government to do.
“We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.”
ReplyDeleteYou are a lying vista, Harry, and I can prove it.
“Tell us what Burisma was plottingto get the US government to do.”
Tell us what expertise Burisma hired him for. Or that Chinese bank. Or Amtrak.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
That is pretty much nonsense, from top to bottom. Hard to say part is the most nonsensical.
---
You better start somewhere, because if you can't recognize the perils of a US president leveraging US power to attack political opponents at home, you are just beyond hope.
If you are going to accuse someone of a crime you have to identify the offense. There was no offense. We can be sure of that, because if there had been, Trump or Giuliani would have specified it.
ReplyDelete[Harry:] We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.
ReplyDeleteTime to put up, or shut up.
I'm betting you will scarper. You always do.
[Clovis:] You better start somewhere, because if you can't recognize the perils of a US president leveraging US power to attack political opponents at home, you are just beyond hope.
ReplyDeleteThis, from the NYT news summary a couple days ago:
1. Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, effectively confirmed the main premise of the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
He told reporters that the Trump administration withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate what the president has long insisted was Kiev’s assistance to Democrats during the 2016 election. “And that is absolutely appropriate,” Mr. Mulvaney said.
“The briefing was jaw-dropping by any metric,” said our White House correspondent Maggie Haberman. Watch the clip.
Over to you, Clovis. What peril is there in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the potential of Kiev assisting the Democrats in the 2016 investigation?
Also worthy of note: Maggie Haberman and the NYT got a Pulitzer for their reporting on the Trump-Russian collusion. Which they backed all the way until it blew up in their faces.
Mollie Hemingway and [darnnit forget her name at the WSJ] got that story right from the very beginning, and got nothing. Why is that?
[Harry:] If you are going to accuse someone of a crime you have to identify the offense.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, your comprehension is bizarrely off base.
The question here isn't the accusation of a crime, but the investigation of activities, which may, or may not be criminal.
If you read the papers at all, you would have known most of the previous three years was consumed in an investigation for which no crime was ever specified.
I guess the rule of law translates into: Mighty fine if the left does it.
[[darnnit forget her name at the WSJ] = Kimberly Strassel.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
Over to you, Clovis. What peril is there in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the potential of Kiev assisting the Democrats in the 2016 investigation?
---
IOW, it is all fine with you that a president ought to ask another president to start investigating not only his political opponent, but also his whole party? And under the veiled threat that hundreds of millions may not come if something doesn't give?
Well, looking this way, I guess you are right, that doesn't look to be impeachable at all. It sure can't be seen as immoral or an abuse of power. No, no way.
Remind me again why I am losing time arguing with you Skipper?
A crime was specified, admitted to, and backed up by a huge amount of evidence. A crooked AG committed a further crime by throwing all that out.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] IOW, it is all fine with you that a president ought to ask another president to start investigating not only his political opponent, but also his whole party? And under the veiled threat that hundreds of millions may not come if something doesn't give?
ReplyDeleteAbove, you said this:
If the rule of law means anything, there are ways to initiate an investigation of a US national, and they definitely aren't the ones Trump tried.
You are wrong as a matter of fact, and hypocritical as a matter of history.
Yes, the investigation is of a US national, but the investigation is not within US territory, which means it must be done by the Ukrainians, not Americans.
If the rule of law means anything, of course.
So, unless the transparent influence peddling is to be investigated, the request must come from the US government, the Dept of State, to be exact. Being a component of the executive branch, the DoS acts on POTUS's behalf. Whether the request comes directly from the President, or goes through State, or is a result of State acting on due diligence are differences without distinction.
And threatening Ukraine with holding back financial aid is par for the course.
It helps to keep the facts in mind, too. Trump's threat was with regard to Ukrainian potential involvement with meddling in the 2016 election, not Joe Biden. But even if was only with regard to Biden, influence peddling corruption is rife in Ukraine, and it is in the US national interest to see that reduced. Hard to do if we are tolerating Biden's doing that very thing.
And you are a hypocrite. I don't recall any outcry when the Obama administration relied on foreigners to create pretexts for the investigation of US nationals. The difference between what Trump did, and what the Obama administration did is that the former is legal, and the latter felonious.
Remind me again why I am losing time arguing with you Skipper?
I'm having a hard time remembering the last time you have provided a substantive reply to something I've written.
[Harry:] A crime was specified, admitted to, and backed up by a huge amount of evidence. A crooked AG committed a further crime by throwing all that out.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame there is no vaccine for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
From soup to nuts, you are wrong.
Specify the crime. Be precise.
Show the evidence backing up that crime. Not manufactured evidence paid for by the DNC. Actual evidence.
And please show where that actual evidence existed in the Mueller report.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of your epic wrongness, how about:
We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.
Time for you to put up, or shut up.
Because I'm happy to show you up for the liar you are.
April 12 meeting, Manafort delivery of polling data, plenty of collusion. Obstruction of investigation. Further obstruction by Barr.
ReplyDeleteApril 12 meeting, Manafort delivery of polling data, plenty of collusion.
ReplyDeleteThen you don't understand what "collusion" is. Here are some examples: Journolist was an example of collusion. As was the CNN's passing of debate questions to Hilary!.
Specify the crime. Collusion, to the extent it happened — and it didn't — isn't a crime.
Obstruction of investigation.
You are no better with "obstruction".
Let me help. Destroying evidence is obstruction. Hmmm. Who might have done that?
Further obstruction by Barr.
Stop digging.
[Harry:] We've known you as a racist since the days you were flogging The Bell Curve.
ReplyDeleteHere is everything I've ever written about The Bell Curve:
[coffee spew]
Dammit, Peter, warn me when you are going to do that.
I read the book also, and found it an interesting, if not entertaining read.
Hebert and Reed, among other progressives, should not have a license to use the word "racist". The book reported factual data, and drew conclusions from that data, which itself is no more racist than the boiling point of water.
Progressives become astonishingly hostile when their shibboleths get attacked. Stephen Pinker for both The Blank Slate and Better Angels; Napoleon Chagnon for Noble Savages.
(I've read all three; they are excellent.)
Don't you get tired of being the internet's singularity of wrong?
Excellent. eh? That's what I said you said.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Harry: you have just proven you shouldn't have a license to use the word "racist", since you applied it to a post that has not the first thing to do with race. You might as well look at an airplane and accuse it of being submarine.
ReplyDeleteIronically, you slander others while forgetting this: I've said all along that I do not believe that Muslims in general and Arab Muslims in particular are capable of popular self-government. Harry Eagar, March 21, 2006
The only racist around here is looking at you from your mirror.
I did say that, several times, referencing the studies of the Syro-German political scientist Bassam Tibi. Neither he nor I attributed that to race but to history, religion and culture. All acquired characteristics.
ReplyDeleteNeither he nor I attributed that to race but to history, religion and culture. All acquired characteristics.
ReplyDelete"Acquire" doesn't mean what you think it does. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
History, religion and culture are bequeathed, just like race is — you are making a distinction without a difference.
My comment, which has nothing to do with race is racist, and your comment, which is comprehensively racist, isn't.
Don't you get tired of being the internet's singularity of wrong?
I'm most of the way through Justice on Trial, which documents the Kavanaugh confirmation.
ReplyDeleteIf Democrats had any man plums, and even a glancing sense of morality, everyone of them would have voted for him.
None did.
'History, religion and culture are bequeathed'
ReplyDeleteYet people ignore all three at times and change the way they behave fundamentally. What Tibi argues is that Arabs are uninterested in democracy. Perhaps it wold be better to say that when it comes down to it, they are always interested in something else even more.
It hasn't helped that those supposed paragons of democracy the US, Britain and France have always worked against and never for democratic movements in Arab states.
As for Kavanaugh, there was enough information to have required an investigation. The rightwingers blocked thst, so we don't know what happened.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how I would have testified to the Senate had I been in his position, except that I would not have put on that kind of frat boy performance.
[Harry:] As for Kavanaugh, there was enough information to have required an investigation.
ReplyDeleteBollocks. There was no information whatsoever. Not a single fact. Nothing.
Progs were responsible for a vicious, baseless, character assassination campaign. Go ahead, read the book. See if you can point out where it is wrong.
You won't, because you can't, and you know it.
'History, religion and culture are bequeathed'
Yet people ignore all three at times and change the way they behave fundamentally.
Stop quibbling. You proved you are a racist. And you don't know the difference between acquired and bequeathed.