Chris Hayes: Trumpism Must Be Peacefully But Completely Destroyed
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Partial transcript:
[...] It is a classic model of corrupt governance. The capo on the top, and the many, many bosses below, who are given control of their domain to do as they wish.
Because Trump doesn't care at all about EPA policy, or Labor, or Iran really, or anything other, really, than making money, which the Presidency allows him to do with public dollars, and being the center of attention, which, same.
But the base, what does the base get? The folks in that arena? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? They get to chant. They get to revel in their own Americanness and primacy at the expense of others. They may not get much more than that, but Trump, and now the entire Republican Party, and most of the Conservative movement realize that that is enough for them. They realize that no one actually cared about deficits or small government. That was never the fuel that fired the engine of Republican politics. It was always roiling rage against 'them', in the 'send her back' chants last night. Without that rage, and that passion, that enthusiasm and fire in that room, this entire project falls apart.
That sentiment, at the core of the coalition, cannot be pried loose, and it cannot be negotiated with, and it cannot be appeased. It must be peacefully, non-violently, politically destroyed. With love, compassion, and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed.
That is the only way to break the coalition apart. Not by prying off this or that interest, they are in too deep, they have shamed themselves too much. The heart of the thing must be ripped out. The darkness must be banished. The people who feel moral revulsion at that display we saw last night must collectively mobilize in greater numbers than the chanters. We got a taste of what that looks like when Congresswoman Ilhan Omar returned home to Minnesota today. [...]
Tags
Who is online
187 visitors
We aren't even into the real campaign season yet. How will this tragedy end?
The people will be collateral damage when the carnage begins.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way about progressive leftist liberalism...
You know, sometimes I wish you guys could get exactly what you want: a totally right wing, laissez-faire, super class-stratified hell hole. Especially for working class righties. Unfortunately, everyone else would have to suffer as well.
No environmental regulations, no pollution controls, no workplace safety regulations, no minimum wage law, no 40 hour work week, no overtime law, no unemployment insurance, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, no consumer protections, no public education, no public services whatsoever. You get the gist. Private everything. No collective action or government intervention whatsoever.
It could be like the Gilded Age all over again, back when the working class was having such a splendid time, but with a lot more disease and pollution. Company towns, company scrip, people tearing their bodies up before the age of 30 in mines, mills or factories paying just barely enough to survive (if you're lucky), and then dying young, ignorant and illiterate after a hellish existence. You know, the good old days.
It was precisely those conditions that created "progressive leftist liberalism" in the 20th century to begin with, along with a few other "isms". It blows my mind that so many people on today's right take all of that stuff for granted, especially people in the working class.
Didn't Hegel say something like, "the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history?" Bright guy, Hegel.
Incidentally (and this is for anyone interested in the Gilded Age), HBO has taken on Julian Fellowes's new show called The Gilded Age, taking place in NYC in the 1880s. He's the guy who made Downton Abbey, so you know it's going to be lavish and have lots of period-specific societal stuff in it.
No premiere date yet that I know of, but it's supposed to be sometime this year so keep an eye out.
I'm looking forward to the new show, and the Downton Abbey movie. I rarely bother going to the movie theater, but for this one, I probably will.
Whoa. I'd almost forgotten about that. Looks like Sep 20th. Awesome.
Yup. Gotta love Mark Twain. Gilded because it was only shiny on the outside. Rotten underneath.
That was a really extreme parody of what we actually want. You can’t beat us with over the top rhetoric like that.
As soon as I find out I'll post a heads up and maybe seed an article about it here on NT in the entertainment category.
Oh, I forgot. All of that Randian Objectivism and Austrian School stuff got temporarily moved to the back burner when Great Leader was elected, in order to test the waters for a proto phase of ethnic cleansing.
It'll be back to full bore soon enough, though. As soon as this current phase of darkness is defeated, the right will need another outlet for its psychotic rage and will almost certainly fall back on the old anti-gubmint stuff again. The playbook isn't very thick.
And just who are the "you guys" you are referring to above pray tell?
You and people who share your sentiment, obviously.
Pretty vague there considering you have absolutely no clue about me or what people share sentiments of mine or even what my sentiments are. Go fish much?
Of course I do. I've come across conversations you were involved in here on NT, and most obviously, a sentiment was clearly expressed above in 1.3 .
Still vague and still reaching. I am assuming you are trying to label me as a Trump supporter. If that is the case, please feel free to post any example you have come across stating that I said I am because actually I am not.I am. I await your response. Have a good day now.
Good grief. I'm not going to go picking through your comment history for some kind of gotcha. Where do you think you're going with this? I made no mention of Trump to you. I didn't even allude to him. You expressed disdain for "progressive leftist liberalism", and I gave a response. Is this about the "you guys" part? Are you under the impression that the sentiment is unique to you? Opposition to active, interventionary progressivism is the entire point of non-interventionist Libertarianism, for one thing, and the general sentiment is nearly ubiquitous across the political right these days. You're not alone on an island with that.
Please note that as I said in #1.3.18 above, your comment came off to me as vague and somewhat ill defined. As such, I tried to word my statement with care. I guess I did not succeed. I said I "assumed" you were trying to label me as something, I could not tell for sure. I also added the caveat "If that is the case...". It seems I handled this poorly and for that please accept my apologies if I offended. Have a good day.
"It must be peacefully, non-violently, politically destroyed. With love, compassion, and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed."
Poor Chris. He knows not what he just did.
Peaceful, non-violent, Loving, Compassionate and Determination will be "Left" out when things he said "Was Needed" starts, and we will only see the "Destroy" part. Chris thinks he's speaking to "Common Sense" types folks. Boy....is Chris Fucking WRONG !
And he has the Gaul to say Trump is the "Bad" inciteful one ?
From knowing my family and other religious conservatives who watch Fox vs most of those I know who watch MSNBC, I'd have to say there's no contest as to who has more "common sense" and it's definitely not the Fox watchers.
There ISN'T (just a couple out of MANY, MANY, MANY Loving protests these last couple years):
Then you need to expand your ring of friends. That or adjust your understanding of common sense.
Too many people like Chris try to make "common sense" political. Common sense isn't partisan. It just .... is.
True, and it's rarely found on Fox or any right wing media outlets. Reality has a liberal bias as does common sense. If you're having to defend a President who is telling Americans to "go back to where they came from", you're not using any common sense.
No pictures of the Charlottesville marchers? No pictures of the car that was rammed into the crowd of peaceful protestors? No pictures of the nine black Americans murdered in their Church by the confederate loving white nationalist Dylan Roof? No photos or comments about the more than 50 Americans killed by right wing extremists last year?
"Right-wing extremists were linked to at least 50 extremist-related murders in the United States in 2018, making them responsible for more deaths than in any year since 1995, according to new data from the ADL."
None of that justifies anything any of those idiots in your photos did, they do not represent the left, they are anarchists and opportunists. I just find it sad that some here continue to push this bullshit narrative about how it's the "leftists" we should worry about, what a total joke. The facts are in black and white, right wing extremism kills and kills often and those who refuse to admit it are essentially providing cover and comfort for worthless racist terrorists hiding among them.
ADL = A leading choosey anti-hate organization.
You can put up your own pics if you want.
Folks who make such clearly false comments and sweeping generalizations have consumed ALL of the Hives koolaide are hopelessly mired in partisan bias and hatred.
Any semblance of common sense has left their building. Replaced only by bias and partisan hatred. Luckily that is still not the majority of America. But only the "rude and obnoxious" fanatically partisan minority like "the squad" we are experiencing today.
You'll find that out once again in 2020. It keeps going the way it is and 2020 is going to make 2016 look like a picnic to left wing fanatics.
Enjoy!
Considering the majority of Americans disapprove of this President and the job he's done, I'd say you're right, the majority still have a grasp on common sense. As for the minority of bitter bigots Trump has embraced, they haven't a smidgen of common sense among them.
Perhaps, but lightning doesn't usually strike the same spot twice. Trump was an anomaly in 2016 and won by the thinnest of margins, just 110,000 votes in three States while he lost with the majority of Americans by over 3 million. Those with common sense won't be staying home this year, they will not be fooled by the Russian bots and Putin media blitz in support of the Delinquent Doofus Donald. Anyone can fantasize all they want about two ridiculous anomalies happening in a row, but its the long shot and his supporters know it which is why they are so desperately trying to claim otherwise.
Considering how Gallup has Trump at a higher approval rating than Obama did this time in his first tenure, meaning even more Americans disapproved of him, how did he get reelected?
Gallup poll?
Obama July 14, 2011 44% approval
Trump July 12, 2019 44% approval
Opps.
OK, so the numbers were/are the same. So what?
You insinuate that because of Trump's low approval, he will not be reelected. However, Obama had the same numbers, and got reelected. How is that possible? Is Obama's 44 mysteriously a higher number than Trump's 44? Is it because Obama is the liberal messiah and Trump is not?
Did the majority of Obama's disapproval have a grasp on common sense then? To liberals, they were probably just a bunch of racists who just hated "the black man in the White House". How dare anyone disapprove of the messiah?
I guess liberal "logic" is in play with this one.
So as much as you may dislike it, facts matter.
I didn't 'insinuate' anything, I merely corrected your error.
Since everything you cited came out of your own head, it looks more like bugsy logic.
There was no error. We have come in contact with debates several times and I have never lost.
This is no different.
Didn't you state:
That was you right? Then you said:
I presume that you were acknowledging that their approval ratings were/are the SAME.
So LOGICALLY, your statement that Trump's are higher was an ERROR.
This isn't a debate bugsy. I cited factual data. You didn't. No 'debate' necessary.
OK, so I will be a man and admit my error. The numbers are the same, but the hatred of this President is far more than anything Obama "experienced". My guess is most polls are skewed to fit their narrative.
The context of your original post INSINUATED that Trump would lose reelection, but did not acknowledge that we are sill a year and almost a half from the 2020 election.
Can you see the future where Trump's numbers TODAY will keep him from getting reelected in a year in a half?
Liberals have lost pretty much every attack they have made against the President, and most Americans see that now.
Dumbass Nadler is still hoping beyond hope that Mueller's testimony Wednesday will make it clear Trump did something wrong. He has been hoping that for 3 years now.
On top of that, dumbass Schiff is now saying the DOJ will indict AFTER Trump leaves office.
So much for liberal"we got him now" crap.
Hey, you're the one that cited the Gallup poll...
What 'original post' are you talking about? Please cite the #.
I could not care less about Trump's numbers. I DO however care about the accuracy of the information posted here.
Try telling the ACLU that...
If more people just read Mueller's report, they wouldn't have to rely on Mueller's testimony.
Schiff knows that the statute of limitations are...
We've dealt with 'we got her now' for decades.
Reality and common sense have a liberal bias?
A more ridiculous comment i have not seen in a LONG, LONG time.
The arrogance and ignorance of of that premise is exponentially high.
Meh, pretty much what the mass media and many of the left has been trying to do since 2016. Although the "loving" and "compassionate" components of the gambit are sorely missing in most cases.
This is just SOSDD.
I’m sure that they will prepare loving and compassionate re-education camps for us courtesy of FEMA and homeland security if only they could whenever they can.
Bingo.
The USA electorate, for the most part, strikes me as being akin to sports fans or rock band groupies. They support their 'team' or 'band' based on emotion and habit more than reason.
Yet unlike sports fans or rock band groupies, political sycophants insist that their support is objective.
Yep, I'm a Bears fan. I have very little empirical evidence to point to for that support, I just AM.
I don't deny that the Bears suck, or that they lost, or that their QB throws more interceptions than touchdowns.
Yet my delusional support for the Bears doesn't cause anyone any harm.
You are quite familiar with an individual who stubbornly ignores all attempts at reason, ignores all facts contrary to his beliefs and blindly doubles down on his position in response to challenges.
How does one dissuade this Trump groupie?
How does one reach Trump supporters in general?
My answer to both is that it is not possible. The people to reach are those who are capable of reason and thus capable of considering facts and logic. These are people who are not part of the Trump base but who might vote for him depending upon the circumstances (particularly, the D candidate).
For groupies, I agree.
For 'supporters' there is, IMHO, hope that they do have a line that they won't allowed to be crossed.
Where that line is and whether they'll allow themselves to recognize that it's been obliterated is the question. After all this time, after accepting and defending so much, I worry that their ego won't let them admit that enough is enough.
Many of his supporters have hidden behind the 'goals' they share. Oh they pretend to abhor Trump as a person but they like him as a vehicle for their agenda.
At some point, they have to weight those goals against what Trump is doing to the soul of the country. Most of the supporters don't care that the scales have tipped and believe that achieving their political goals was worth it.
Ultimately, I don't think pursuing the vote of Trump supporters is worthwhile. My recommendation is that the Democrats concentrate on registration and getting out the vote. As the GOP is so quick to point out, the Presidential election isn't effected by gerrymandering.
Yes, that is very sensible And I further recommend that people encourage all those who might not vote for Trump to operate as one faction. The infighting (e.g. attacking fellow non-Trump-supporters because they are not sufficiently incensed and vocal -as some seem to do- is counterproductive.)
So shut up and vote for whatever, or whoever, rolls out of the exploding insane clown car of Democratic candidates that is running ever further left. It is your only choice, so says the big brother left.
I thought maybe Biden could get my vote; but he has jumped the into the leftist race with his normal two left feet and tongue tying brain jumbles.
Forget it. This is coming from a fiscal conservative independent that hasn't voted for anyone from either of the two major parties since Bill Clinton second term. (He has made me regret that vote forever).
Please keep pushing, I am almost to the point of voting for Trump to try and keep whatever train wreck the Democrats put forth out of the White House.
And I thought hard line conservatives were bad about bullying voters with their whole "Vote for us or you are not patriotic Americans" garbage. WTF.
Don't feel left out , last person I voted for that occupied the WH was GHWB, I haven't voted for anyone of them that has sat there since .
Just wait a while.
With over 20 candidates, I am confident that one of them will pander to the rabid-dog voting contingency.
Please explain to us why Trump is so dangerous to this country. I really am curious of what runs the liberal mind.
Keep in mind, though, I am asking for true facts, and not what the liberal mind "feels".
From what I gather from most liberals is that they hate a low unemployment number, they hate a booming economy, they hate that the President wants a safe and secure country, and they hate getting more of their earned money in their paychecks, thanks to the tax cuts. This is only a few things they hate.
Seems to me, the liberal simply hates this country because of its successes.
That is the best description i've seen on here, of Trump supporters. Blind loyalty, without logical thinking.
I've thought of it often, when discussing at my local watering holes, and you've nailed right here.
Since i don'tbtalk too much sports on here, i failed to use your most accurate description of Trump supporters.
Thank You, for the best comparison, i've failed to come up with, but full heartedly, agree with.
Trumpism is only a threat because Trump supporters have discovered its okay to ignore the Democrats' racial, religious, and social intolerance. Democrats pointing fingers and screaming 'racist' means nothing. Everything and anything is racist to Democrats; Democrats have turned racism into a joke.
Any display of patriotism is challenged by a Democratic litany of past wrongs. That's why 'Americanness' has become something to be removed from society by Democrats. Yet, everyone overlooks how the Democratic Party has played a central role in creating many of those past wrongs. Democrats are fighting to overturn the legacy of their own political party without giving up political power. Democrats are hiding their history and blaming everyone else for their own party's legacy.
Democratism is really a bigger problem for our future than Trumpism. Trump may use divisive language. But Democrats use the courts and Congress to force divisions onto the country. Democrats have been promoting a stark choice: be a racist, misogynous, homophobe or support Democrats who promise to use their political power to divide the country.
The republican controlled senate has had only one objective these past two years. To stack the courts with partisan conservative judges.
No different than a Democratic president or democrat controlled Congress.
Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?
And the Dems tried to block Trumps picks also.
Denying a pick and being against a pick are two different things.
What "Year" was Trump running for president, that he nominated a "Justice" again ?
What does that have to do with what I said?
But Obama DID nominate someone.
And when has Trump nominated anyone in an election year?
Nominating someone and confirmation are two different things, too!
You don't know what you ACTUALLY said ?
Your comment: "Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?"
Now what election was Obama working on again.
And Democrats have promised that giving them control of government would allow them to stack the courts with liberal judges. Why is that any better?
The courts system has either been liberal or conservative before Republicans began doing anything. If the court system was already conservative, the Republicans aren't changing anything. But if the courts had already been stacked with liberal judges, then Republicans are turning the courts toward more conservative views.
Are Democrats afraid they will lose the ability to use the courts to veto legislation and divide the country? Are Democrats afraid they are losing the liberal stacked court system as a political weapon to use against Republicans?
If the court system does become more conservative then Democrats will have to compete for political power by selling a political agenda rather than imposing their agenda onto the country with a team of lawyers. Not too surprising that Democrats are worried since they haven't been politically proposing a workable agenda.
Ask McConnell.
It was blocked from even getting on the floor.
So what?
The Senate doesn't have to rubberstamp a President's nomination.
Odd that when the courts rule against a party they are a bad thing. The Liberals are using the courts for their agenda? And what would that be?
If anyone is dividing the country, it is not Liberals....
The only thing republicans can come up with is cutting taxes for corporations and gutting environmental regulations.
You don't know if Obama was running for President or not when he put up a nomination for "Justice" ?
And the right of communities to govern themselves. Republicans have not tried to use the Federal government to cut state taxes in New York or California, have they?
Democrats, on the other hand, have argued to increase Federal taxes and spending to lower the burden of state taxes. Wasn't Obamacare really about lowering state expenditures for healthcare in the Democratic stronghold of the northeastern states?
Since McConnell used the 'nuclear option' it's totally different.
You mean the "nuclear option" that Harry Reid and associates put into play with the mindset that they could use it to get everything they wanted over Republicans?
Boy, the shit sure did backfire, huh?
So it IS different. Glad we can agree.
Yep..it's different. Reid did not expect it to backfire on his ass and a well hated President by the extreme left to get 2 SC justices and a large amount of lower court justices onto courts.
Neither Reid nor Obama are in office. HOW did it backfire on them?
???
I agree with federal taxes to pay for things. Letting corporations pay zero taxes and making the middle class pay for everything is only setting things up the way some want...to make it fail.
Don't sell me bullshit.
More fed taxes to lower state? Haha What red state rep told you this...
Now the O'care rant....when the damn reps have not lifted a finger.
But go ahead, believe the bullshit that having a functioning government is bad.
Good God, don't be so naive. I never mentioned Obama...why did you? Deflection?
Reid was the majority leader of the Senate when he slammed through the nuclear option. He did it only because he wanted to allow for a stacking of activist liberal judges on various benches. He retired without that dream being put through because Republicans took control of Congress, then used the nuclear option to get through Republican agenda items, and rightfully dismiss liberal ones.
Taxes are necessary to pay for the operation of government. That only states the obvious. But the only area where the Federal government pays the bulk of program costs is defense.
Pension taxes provide a large revenue stream but those taxes are returned directly to taxpayers. State & local governments pay for about 55 pct of government provided healthcare. State & local government pays about 85 pct of government provided education. The Federal government pays 99.9 pct of costs for defense. State & local government pays 45 pct of the cost of income security programs (welfare).
The Federal government is not the main source of money for most government programs. State and local governments use taxes to pay for a large share of the government provided programs. Shifting more of the burden of paying for these programs would naturally lower the burden on state & local governments. That would be a way of shifting the higher programmatic costs of some states onto the rest of the country. That's a way to socialize cost while maintaining an unequal distribution of benefit.
State & local governments already utilize wealth taxes, flat taxes, and both progressive and regressive taxes. And state & local governments have used SALT deductions to allow the wealthy to hide income from the Federal government.
Reid enacted the nuclear option in 2013 and they confirmed quite a few judges.
McConnell extended the nuclear option to the SCOTUS.
FAIL.
Sorry, who the hell cares? Reid opened the door part way and the Republicans kicked it in the rest. Wouldn't have happened w/o Reid getting it started. But of course Reid gets a pass in your book because of the all powerful D behind his name.
Not really. More like your fail.
McConnell can still use the nuclear option today if he wants, including for a SC. Your President, President Trump, has five and a half more years, a total of eight years, to install more conservative judges.
Reid lost control of the Senate in 2016. At most, Obama had 3 years to stack the courts.
Your President, President Trump, and this country, win.
Those that hate this country...lose...again.
There are a couple of big IFs that need to be checked off bugsy , one of them is will trump get the nomination at the convention? anything can happen between now and then.
the other big IF is will he win re election if he gets the nomination , same thing applies to this as does to the other , anything can happen between now and then.
reid took and used a power ( nuke option) opening the door for its use by anyone in power as they saw fit where ever they saw fit . Once the government , in this case the Senate, takes or grants itself a power , it is nigh on impossible to remove it by the people.
, and they are highly unlikely to let that power go on their own accord.
Really? How so?
He does, every time they vote on a Judge or nominee...
Actually, McConnell blocked Obama's SC nominee.
Those that think that sycophancy to Trump is the only way to 'love this country' are idiots.
No kidding. It is like only their version of the US is the one that can be. The anyone against them hates the US and all it stands for rhetoric is one reason this country is so divided. I am so sick of the Liberals hate the US propaganda. I sometimes have to wonder if they relish in the damage they are doing.
Garland was confirmed for the DC Circuit 76–23 in a GOP controlled Senate.
It was a brilliant move by McConnell and many liberals thought it would cost the Republicans at the ballot box when the fact is it helped them to win big.
well what that tells me is 76 senators thought he qualified for the DC circuit so they confirmed him , that does not translate that he would have even come close to a confirmation for the next step up the ladder to the USSC.
it could very well be he was thought qualified for the circuit court as long as there was another court over his that had oversight , but not qualified for the highest court by those that would have to vote to confirm him.
Well what that tells me is that plenty of GOP Senators didn't think he was a partisan, which is what I was addressing with my comment.
BTW. Garland is the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country.
It could very well be that McConnell blocked his confirmation for political reasons. That's what happened.
Your entitled to your opinion .
And just because he is now the chief judge on the SECOND most powerful court , still does not translate to being qualified to be on the MOST powerful court, you will have to take that up with the individual senators though.
Of course McConnel did it for politics, only an idiot wouldn't see that come into play, and no one can show me in the constitution OR the rules of the senate itself where it says that a comfirmation hearing is mandated for any nominee, simply refusing to have one , is the justifiable grounds that the nominee will not be getting consent from that sitting senate to be confirmed . but it was an idea he got from democrats themselves from years gone by and decades of trying to pack the court by them.
bullshit.
again see above , your entitled to your opinion .
google "Biden rule"
I know.
No such 'rule' exists. It's a figment of McConnell's partisan imagination.
What is Biden Supreme Court rule?
"Informal rule": POV tag. The Biden Rule, as defined by Senator Grassley, states that nominations of new justices to the United States Supreme Court will not be accepted during election years. Senator Grassley named this principle the "Biden Rule" based on his reading of remarks made by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992.
So it was Grassely not McConnel, And in the famous words of former majority leader Harry Reid when caught in a lie about legislation after it passed , "It worked didn't it?" (smiles croquetishly)
What part of none exists don't you understand?
So Grassley made some shit up and dumped it in Biden's lap. Misrepresenting the facts and then blaming someone else. How very conservative.
It was McConnell that stated on the floor to the Senate 'we will continue to use the Biden rule'.
Not only did it work, but McConnell and other Trump sycophants are still blaming Biden for their own actions. One has to wonder what happened to the conservative value of taking personal responsibility.
i'd have to go with
the
non existing one
.
What is a rule,
to Trump and his faithful, that he is unfaithful to...
As
the asz doesn't respect laws, forget about rules
for one who thinks he's the actual ruler,
while he doesn't measure up, falls short, over achieves at under
achievement N definitely shouldn't be in anyone's government
.
So are you saying biden didn't say what Grassley quoted while biden was a senator?
and that once biden became president of the senate by virtue of becoming the USVP his words didn't come back and he got exactly what he had suggested during his career? or is it it bit biden right in the backside during a critical political moment?
Most people would agree that an informal rule is one that is basically a suggestion or an idea , that isn't written down , and whether it is applied depends on the individuals and the situation based on individual choice.
My personal observation is , that democrats would have been fine with using this if it had been used against a rep nominee since it one of their owns idea, but since it was used by the Reps against a Dem nominee it was NOT ok.
But I will admit this , if someone took some idea or something I said to get an advantage politically for what I thought , and used it against me , I might be slightly pissed off , and generally chagrined thinking , that that didn't work like I thought it would or intended .
I'm saying that Biden didn't say what YOU quoted. Care to support you claim with a link?
What McConnell did had NOTHING to do with what Biden 'suggested'. So the answer is yes.
BTW, please learn to use the shift button on your keyboard.
So you and they should be calling it the Biden 'suggestion' right?
So you're saying that you think that McConnell using the Biden suggestion as an excuse was NOT ok. We agree.
In this instance, Biden should be pissed because McConnell, Grassley and other Trump sycophants are misrepresenting what he said and making political hay from it.
Why don't you prove him wrong?
Oh wait, you don't ever support your declarations with facts. Silly question.
That isn't how this works Sean. He made an assertion and he has the burden of proof. That has been explained to you ad nauseam.
I've never had an issue supporting my comments Sean.
Do you have a question, a comment about the topic or do you just want to continue to post personal comments?
Lots of Democrats seem to love laws, and rules, and suggestions-----as long as they agree with them and they seem to change their minds quite readily when it actually affects them in a negative way.
Lots of Republicans and conservatives love laws, rules and suggestions as long as they agree with them and they seem to change their minds quite readily when it actually affects them in a negative way.
The old mans own words are all the proof I need , gotta love cspan and youtube .
Now its up to you to prove that he was misunderstood .since that's your assertion.
No we do NOT agree.
What was said states that dems would have been fine using this , as long as they were in power and Biden was head of the senate judiciary , but as soon as reps gained control it was no longer ok to be used or thought by the very democrats who came up with it in the first place .
Good for the goose but not good for the gander doesn't fly , if one side sanctions it , the other side is free to use it when it is beneficial to them . if y'all don't want something done , maybe you should'nt sanction it being done while on your watch and when your in power and then call foul when its used against you.
IMOO I think McConnel and Grassely stuck a barb wire wrapped baseball bat up Biden and the democrats ass , and now removal is difficult for those feeling the effects.
And no it is not the Biden suggestion , as head of the senate judiciary committee, he could and did make any rule he would follow as ANY head of a committee can do , It took Grassely and McConnel to actually give that rule a name even if it was unwritten and informal .
Biden now owns that beyotch for posterity. Way to screw yourself dude if I had the chance to say it to Biden himself..
So Biden made the suggestion that a nomination and confirmation should wait until after the election and McConnell 'misunderstood' him to mean that a nomination/confirmation should wait until after the next Inauguration.
And you blame Biden. Got ya...
[Deleted]
3 years later and still whining about Obama's pick not being confirmed.
Aw.
This I think addresses how you feel , and very relevant to the issue , its better if you remove that barb wire wrapped ball bat up your butt fast , like pulling off a band-aide, democrats only have themselves to blame for that self inflicted shot in the nutz.
The opposition didn't misunderstand him , they simply did as he would have done if given the chance . so that attempt to prove he was misunderstood is an epic fail.
Ya Tex, citing facts is whining.
Thanks for the deeply intellectual argument.
Wow, you like to see your own words so much that you even block quote yourself.
You think wrong.
If it was an epic fail it was yours. I didn't even try since any thinking person who actually LISTENED to what Biden said would recognize that my representation of what he actually said is accurate. Biden made the suggestion that a nomination and confirmation should wait until after the election NOT that it should wait until after the inauguration.
And you still ended up being wrong, remember whether its a foot in the mouth or a bat up the ass , its like a band-aide , a quick determined pull for removal.
Enjoy ruminating for the rest of your evening.
You are entirely welcome.
It was what was warranted.
Your obsession with equating the Democrats of the 19th century with the Democrats of today is just plain weird. Any reasonable points you manage to make are swamped under by your strange need to try and pin the Democratic Party to the world of 150 years ago.
Then enlighten us and explain the difference. Isn't today's Democratic Party still entrenched in racial politics? Isn't today's Democratic Party still dividing the country over issues of race?
How is today's Democratic benevolent patronage to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care at no cost to the recipient any different than Democrat John C. Calhoun's claims that slavery is a positive good?
No.
No.
You've just connected the safety net with race.
Is it your posit that the working poor and military families that need SNAP are slaves? That all of the millions of families in this country that go to public school or receive vouchers are slaves?
Are the Vets that get housing vouchers slaves?
Are all of the families who have children on Medicaid slaves?
You insist that the Democrats take responsibility for ensuring a safety net for citizens in need.
I encourage the Democrats to take up that mantel proudly.
Yes, they are slaves as long as they are dependent upon the safety net. Let's improve the country so the safety net isn't necessary. Let's work to make the safety net obsolete.
I am accusing Democrats of forcing people into the position of needing the safety net. I am accusing Democrats of complicity in making a living wage unlivable, of forcing vets to rely on vouchers, of forcing families to need medicaid. I'm accusing Democrats of creating a slave state.
Democrats could have taken action to avoid the need for a growing safety net. But that's not what Democrats did. Democrats created these programs to become the benevolent patrons of the poor and needy. And that worked so well politically that Democrats have been deliberately doing more to swell the number of the poor and needy.
Democrats warn voters that if Republicans gain control of government, then Republicans will dismantle the safety net. Democrats are arguing that they will protect the safety net and allow more people to be eligible for the safety net; keeping Democrats in power will protect and expand the safety net.
The rich have become fabulously richer when Democrats controlled government, too. And the poor and needy became more dependent upon Democrats when they controlled government, too. Democrats claim ownership of the safety net but Republicans weren't the only politicians responsible for creating the need for the safety net. If the safety net worked so well then why has the dependence upon the safety net grown? Why are the poor becoming poorer? Why has there been an increasing need to expand the safety net?
Democrats have spent a lot of tax revenue and borrowed a lot of public money to create and expand the safety net. And Democrats tell us every election that the need for the safety net is growing. So, what have Democrats really accomplished? What problem has Democrats really solved?
If the need keeps increasing as more public money is thrown at that need then a publicly funded safety net doesn't seem to be a practical solution.
Democrats talk about the public safety net as a positive good in the same way that Democrat John C. Calhoun talked about slavery as a positive good. The Democratic justifications for the safety net are the same justifications Democrats used to preserve slavery.
Yet conservative's repeal and never replace.
I won't ask you to support that drivel as reading the reply may require me to kill too many brain cells.
AGAIN, you connect the public safety net with race. WTF!. [ Deleted ] you think that only black people use the social safety net?
BTW, you Calhoun reference is utter bullshit. I presume it's because, like so many here, you didn't actually READ what was said and are just relying on what you believe from anothers truncated misrepresentation.
Why is that worse than the Democrat's proclivity to legislate and fail to support? It's rare for the Federal government to provide more than half the funds needed to operate mandated programs.
Why do you think only black people can be slaves? Why do you think chattel slavery is the only type of slavery that is important? Does that have something to do with racial biases?
Calhoun argued that slavery was a positive good not only because it provided benevolent care for an inferior people. Calhoun claimed that slavery also provided the positive good of civilizing an uncivilized people; a means of educating an immoral people to become moral.
Your whataboutism is noted. BTFW, Democrats don't have a market on passing unfunded mandates. Why pretend they do?
You said Democrats talk about the safety net the same way Calhoun talked about slavery. Calhoun was talking about enslaved Africans and chattel slavery. And YES, it had EVERYTHING to do with racial bias.
I KNOW, I read Calhoun's supercilious speech.
What's telling is that even though you accurately summarized part of it, you STILL want to pretend that Democrats talk about the safety net the same way. Your own summary proves it to be a lie.
You are right on!
For fuck's sake. Trumpism is grounded in ethno-fascism. It is bald faced evil. It is a monster crawling out from under the bed, reveling in state-sanctioned cruelty, oozing malevolence from every pore, and feeding on ignorance and bigotry wherever it can find them. Division is the ONLY thing that can come from it, and as the age-old saying goes: a house divided cannot stand. That's why it's a threat. Trump's demagoguery has this country on the edge of disaster.
The President of the United States actually takes it upon himself, almost on a daily basis, to intentionally divide the population for the sake of satiating his maniacal ego, this neurotic delusion he has about being a 'great man', when in truth he's nothing but a con, a fraud, and an utterly pathetic, evil, garbage human being.
Maybe. Let's explore that and see if we can bring some enlightenment to the accusation.
Fascists used government to condemn opposing ideologies, to silence opponents to fascism, and to make those who did not support fascism enemy's of the state. Has Trump done that? No. That sort of misuse of government is coming from Democrats.
Fascists used government to institute a program of indoctrination by requiring schools to teach specific topics in an approved manner that would support the ideology of fascism. Has Trump done something similar? No. Democrats have been imposing indoctrinal teaching requirements onto schools.
Fascists used government to establish a public dependence upon fascist control of government to provide benefits and promised prosperity. Is that a political agenda pursued by Trump? No. Democrats have been promising the public they would provide everything and anything; state provided guaranteed income, state provided healthcare, state provided education.
Fascists used government to force public support of fascism by the press and in public discussion; using their control of government to censor unfavorable press and public discussion. Has Trump done anything like that? No. Democrats have been demanding restrictions and censorship of opposing viewpoints in the press and public discussion.
Much more can be added to the list but isn't really necessary. It seems Democrats are following the fascist playbook more closely than is Trump.
You should read the Mueller report and count how many times Trump tried to get Sessions to go after Clinton. Then there's always the House GOP that demanded that Sessions go after her.
Now we've got Trump's minions chanting 'send her back' and Trump saying that 'they' can't get away with opposing his agenda. How long before Trump has HIS DOJ looking into ways to punish the 'Squad', that is if he hasn't done so already.
You should go read about Mel and Norma Gabler. American textbooks were controlled by those bible thumpers for decades.
Links?
Or are you talking about the bill just passed by the Democratically controlled legislature in Oregon that requires schools to teach about genocide and the Holocaust?
No? So YUGE tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations AND repeal of regulations don't benefit them and make them more prosperous? I thought that was the whole point.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Trump supports Fox and claims that every other source of media is FAKE NEWS. Trump has tried to have Journalists removed from the Press conferences. Trump tweets attacks on the NYT, WaPo, CNN ect. ect. ect. Trump banned journalists and the public from his twitter account until the court stopped him. BTFW, though they argued that his twitter account was PRIVATE, Trump used the DOJ to defend him in that suit.
Trump is using the government to support his form of fascism.
It's astonishing that you missed the entire point of my post. I even went out of my way to bold face it for you. The subject I quoted was why Trumpism is a threat. The reply was because all it can do is divide. That was the point. If I'd known you'd get so hung up on only one word of a two word term in another sentence, I would have just used the term ethno-nationalism instead. Pretty much the same intended meaning.
Sorry you wasted your time on such a nonsense reply. Dulay seems to have sorted quite a bit of that nonsense out for you, though. So, not a total loss, I guess.
And the other point is that Trumpism is a dog whistle created by partisans to call Pavlov's hounds to their side of the divide.
The label Trumpism is deliberately intended to foster and sustain tribal divisions along a partisan divide. But the partisans who have created the dog whistle are not standing on a sound moral foundation, either.
The astonishing thing is that the people complaining about Trumpism don't recognize they are no different than Trump.
I don't know about anyone else here and if this is a deflection, I do apologize, but I for one have had it up to here with today's political atmosphere. I long for a day when the needs of the people outweigh the egos, false promises, and infighting that seems to consume our elected officials. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.
Paula, is it what it is. If we throw our hands up at this point Trumpism wins, and the people whose world view is based on "both sides are equally at fault" win. "Both sides" are not equally at fault for the rise of Trumpism.
Yes John it was Obama the Democrat that gave Trumpism the shot of adrenaline needed to go for the gold and win the nation over. Watch as Obama motivates him into action.
Not deflection at all. Just a very true and realistic comment. Thanks for bringing that up. It is something that seems to getting lost sight of more an more these days.
Completely agree. 100% spot on!