[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 19:24, said:

It registers.
I am opposed.
I think he lied. I find it hard to believe that there are people who don't see that. The Senate saw what I saw, they confirmed him. I think the separation of powers now applies. They confirmed him knowing what he is, he is now there. As bad as I think this is, I oppose what I see as crossing an important line for the separation of powers.

If you believe Kavanaugh lied, there is another conclusion that could be drawn, is there not?

Kavanaugh lied. If so, this is a criminal offense.
Republicans in the Senate confirmed him anyway.
It is the duty of those in power to correct this abuse of power.

[y66]

From What the Left Misses About Nationalism by John B. Judis at NYT:

Quote

Two decades after political theorists in the United States and Europe celebrated a “post-national constellation” and “cosmopolitan democracy,” politics is increasingly shaped by explicitly nationalist appeals. The avatar of this new nationalism is Donald Trump, who urged the world in his United Nations speech last month “to reject the ideology of globalism and accept the ideology of patriotism.”

In Mr. Trump’s version of nationalism, Muslims and Mexican-Americans are stigmatized, and African-American football players who protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem are denounced. Some of his applications of “America first” — repudiating the Paris climate agreement or abandoning the Iran nuclear deal — may not even prove to be in the national interest.

But these failings should not lead you to dismiss the value of nationalism, which, by itself, is neither good nor evil, liberal nor conservative. The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state, which depends on the willingness of citizens to pay taxes to aid fellow citizens whom they may never have set eyes upon.

Today’s nationalist revival is in reaction to the failure of global, not nation-based, initiatives that sailed over the heads of ordinary citizens. The reaction has been most potent on the political right, but there is certainly a basis for a liberal or social-democratic nationalism. If anything, the decline of liberal and social-democratic parties is a result at least in part of their inability to distinguish what is legitimate and justifiable in nationalism from what is small-minded, bigoted and contrary to the national interest it claims to uphold.

The bold supranational initiatives of globalization — a system of floating exchange rates in relation to the dollar; the unrestricted flow of capital; free trade (with few tariffs and government subsidies) monitored by the new World Trade Organization; the expansion of NATO and the European Union to ensure that former Communist states became liberal capitalist democracies — have unquestionably done some good. They helped expand trade and benefited immigrants who fled from less to more developed nations.

But in the United States and Western Europe, none of these initiatives really delivered as promised. The global economy has suffered a succession of financial crises culminating in the Great Recession and continuing to this day in Turkey and Argentina. The free movement of companies has led to a global race to the bottom for wages, taxes and regulation and to growing inequality within nations. Instead of producing convergence between the richer export-driven economies of Northern Europe and the less developed countries of Southern Europe, the euro has widened the gap between them.

They also failed to transform the global order in a way beneficial to Western democracies: NATO’s expansion eastward, betraying a pledge the George H.W. Bush administration made to Soviet leaders, contributed to rising conflict with the new Russian federation. And China’s entry into the W.T.O. didn’t lead to Beijing embracing free enterprise and liberal democracy. China used its command economy to run huge trade surpluses with the United States and Europe, helping to create a new class of angry “left-behinds” in factory towns in the American South and Midwest and in northeastern England.

The rush of immigrants in the United States has brought about a clash of culture just as it had in past centuries. Employers have also used low-skilled immigrants to undercut unions and to turn mid-wage jobs in construction, meatpacking and janitorial services into low-wage labor. After Sept. 11, 2001, the resentment toward immigrants became fused with a rising fear in the United States and especially in Europe of Islamist terrorism. That created a huge political backlash against immigrants and refugees.

Put that backlash together with the anger bred by lost manufacturing jobs and declining social services from reduced tax revenues, and you have the political base for Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016, Brexit and Italy’s League party.

In the United States, Mr. Trump’s nationalist policies have not been without merit. Where his predecessors have feared alienating China, he has boldly challenged its transfer of technology, cybertheft and hidden trade subsidies and barriers. He has also spoken up for American manufacturing industries and their workers, and chided footloose companies like Nabisco, Ford and Carrier.

But much of what Mr. Trump has done to make America great may eventually make it poorer. His corporate tax cut accelerates globalization’s race to the bottom. Much of the savings have already gone to corporate buybacks rather than new investment, and the resulting loss of tax revenues will threaten social spending for the people he claims to represent.

His Hobbesian take-no-prisoners approach to trade and foreign policy — sowing conflict with allies as well as rivals and foes — will threaten the underpinnings of global peace and prosperity, which still depends on a grudging acceptance of American economic and military power. There are already foreshadowings of future financial disorder — in discussions by the European Union, Russia and China to defy American sanctions against Iran by creating a new funding authority that would evade the dollar and by Russia and China’s decision to use their own currencies rather than the dollar as the medium of exchange. Mr. Trump’s immigration initiatives, too, have merely reinforced cultural resentments and done little to stem the oversupply of unskilled and easy-to-exploit unauthorized immigrants.

In all of these areas, Mr. Trump has harmed, not strengthened, our nation. Yet in the United States, the liberal opposition has generally failed to acknowledge what is valid in the today’s nationalist backlash. Many liberal pundits and political scientists continue to echo Hillary Clinton in characterizing Mr. Trump’s supporters in 2016 as deplorables. They denounce Mr. Trump’s tariffs without proposing any plausible means of counterbalancing the huge surpluses from China and Germany. They dismiss as a lost cause the attempt to revive the towns of the Midwest and South by reviving manufacturing. They rightly insist that the United States find a way to integrate and assimilate the country’s 12 million or more unauthorized immigrants, but they ignore the continuing flood of people without papers crossing the border or overstaying their visas and they dismiss attempts to change national priorities toward skilled immigrants.

Here is the simple truth: As long as corporations are free to roam the globe in search of lower wages and taxes, and as long as the United States opens its borders to millions of unskilled immigrants, liberals will not able to create bountiful, equitable societies, where people are free from basic anxieties about obtaining health care, education and housing. In Europe, social democrats face very similar challenges with immigration, refugees and euro-imposed austerity. To achieve their historic objectives, liberals and social democrats will have to respond constructively to, rather than dismiss, the nationalist reaction to globalization.

What the left misses about a lot of stuff could probably rival this thread for number of posts.

[Winstonm]

POTUS is now floating the idea that rogue agents of Saudi Arabia killed Kashoggi. Anything to not have to condemn a strongman's horrific acts.

An Update:

Quote

President Donald Trump said Monday after speaking with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman that “rogue killers” may be responsible for the mysterious disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

″I just spoke with the King of Saudi Arabia who denies any knowledge of what took place with regard to, as he said, his ‘Saudi Arabian citizen,’” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn. “He firmly denied that.”

Trump added: “Maybe these could have been rogue killers. Who knows?”

What's next, suggesting it could have been a 400 lb guy on his bed who hired 15 Chinese hitmen?

[PassedOut]

A very effective video from Elizabeth Warren -- seems sure now that she plans to run against Trump -- about the 'Pocahontas' mockery: ELIZABETH WARREN’S NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE

I'm guessing that Trump will renege on his $1 million bet. In fact, it's quite remarkable to see the contrast between Warren's character, upbringing, and accomplishments and those of Donald Trump and his sycophants. This will make great political theater.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2018-October-15, 09:51, said:

A very effective video from Elizabeth Warren -- seems sure now that she plans to run against Trump -- about the 'Pocahontas' mockery: ELIZABETH WARREN’S NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE

I'm guessing that Trump will renege on his $1 million bet. In fact, it's quite remarkable to see the contrast between Warren's character, upbringing, and accomplishments and those of Donald Trump and his sycophants. This will make great political theater.

Quote

Warren was born on June 22, 1949,in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma....Warren lived in Norman until she was 11 years old, when the family moved to Oklahoma City.

Small world - I would have been 9 years old, living in Norman also, when she moved. I had no idea she was from Oklahoma originally.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-October-14, 21:19, said:

If you believe Kavanaugh lied, there is another conclusion that could be drawn, is there not?

Kavanaugh lied. If so, this is a criminal offense.
Republicans in the Senate confirmed him anyway.
It is the duty of those in power to correct this abuse of power.

Perhaps if the Dems announced that they thought the evidence of lying was strong enough to warrant an immediate investigation, or an investigation as soon as soon as they think the House could bring it, with the investigation confined to whether he did or did not lie, I might re-think. But of course no such thing is happening. You can read the posts here to get the drift. It's much more along the lines of how to make the best use of this to advance the agenda of getting a justice with different legal views confirmed. For example, maybe wait until 2020 (presumably really until January 2021).

If Dems were really all that heated over lying, Clinton's second term would have been finished with Gore in the WH. The objective here, as then, is political, the possible means are the accusation of lying. This affects how I see it. I would regard it as a disaster if a change of party in Congress would lead to politically motivated prosecution of people in the other branches. Of course I do not claim that this never happens. But I oppose it, whichever direction the ball is bouncing.
I watched a good part of the hearings and I think it is a no-brainer to decide which of the two was telling the truth. Voters might want to think back on that when they cast their votes. But I don't want a purge of Kavanaugh.

[hrothgar]

https://takecareblog...e-supreme-court

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-15, 12:37, said:

https://takecareblog...e-supreme-court

This is a well presented argument for a view that differs from mine. I can well understand someone choosing this route. But not me, at least not for now.

I have various thoughts, not all of then well formed, but one is this: I would like the Democratic leadership to ponder just why it is, if the R's are so pandering to the wealthy and the Dems are so supportive of the common man, that the R's have gotten away with all that they have done. Unless they think this through, I think clever strategies such as presented in this article will be temporary successes at best. Probably not even that. Unfortunately I think the leadership finds a lot of others to blame, but is very slow at any sort of self-assessment. Not that I know the answer, not at all.

I think the country is in serious trouble.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-October-15, 15:28, said:

This is a well presented argument for a view that differs from mine. I can well understand someone choosing this route. But not me, at least not for now.

I would like the Democratic leadership to ponder just why it is, if the R's are so pandering to the wealthy and the Dems are so supportive of the common man, that the R's have gotten away with all that they have done.

I can't answer this question but I can point to this:

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fifty-five percent of Americans now support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a major turnaround from five months ago when 42% approved and 53% disapproved. This is the first time a majority of Americans have approved of the healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, since Gallup first asked about it in this format in November 2012.

How is it possible that the electorate thought Obamacare somehow separate from their own healthcare? It is impossible to reason with stupid. Who is to blame for that?

[Chas_P]

 kenberg, on 2018-October-15, 15:28, said:

I think the country is in serious trouble.

Ken, I always enjoy your thoughts. But as previously pointed out in this thread...


Almost 4 million new jobs have been created since President Trump’s election.
African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American unemployment rates have all recently reached the lowest levels in history.
Women’s unemployment rate has reached the lowest level in 65 years.
Veterans’ unemployment rate recently reached its lowest level in nearly 20 years.
The unemployment rate for Americans without high school diplomas is at the lowest level ever recorded, and the Trump administration’s new workforce initiative will deliver job-training to more than 4 million Americans.
Manufacturing jobs are being created at the fastest pace in over three decades.
Nearly half-a-million manufacturing jobs have been created since the president took office. In the month of July alone, nearly 40,000 new manufacturing jobs were added.
Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since President Trump’s election.
The president crafted the largest tax cut in a generation, which led to savings for more than 80 percent of households and pay raises and bonuses for 4 million American workers.
President Trump protected American taxpayers by asking Congress to rescind $15.4 billion in unused appropriations.
The president has hired/nominated an impressive number of women to senior positions in his administration, including the first female director of the CIA, Gina Haspel.
He’s appointed two Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has now confirmed 26 appellate court judges of his choosing, as well as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
He successfully negotiated the return of four American hostages in one month’s time.
President Trump’s Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action has exceeded the 2:1 mandate, eliminating 22 job-killing regulations for every one new regulatory action.
President Trump signed the “Right to Try” Act to give terminally ill patients a chance to try lifesaving treatments.
The Department of Homeland Security arrested 796 MS-13 gang members and associates in FY 2017, an 83 percent increase from the previous year.
The president signed the VA Mission Act, which allows veterans who don’t live near a VA facility or can’t get an appointment in a timely manner to seek medical care from private health-care providers.
Signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which provides an $82 billion funding increase for the Department of Defense over the current period, including a $617 billion Pentagon budget, $22 billion for the nuclear weapons program and $69 billion for U.S. military efforts abroad, as well as new tanks, ships, and planes. The package includes a salary boost for service members, about a 2.6 percent raise—the biggest military pay raise in nearly a decade.

I view all the above as positives. Where do you think the serious trouble lies?

[Winstonm]

 Chas_P, on 2018-October-15, 19:03, said:

Ken, I always enjoy your thoughts. But as previously pointed out in this thread...


Almost 4 million new jobs have been created since President Trump’s election.
African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American unemployment rates have all recently reached the lowest levels in history.
Women’s unemployment rate has reached the lowest level in 65 years.
Veterans’ unemployment rate recently reached its lowest level in nearly 20 years.
The unemployment rate for Americans without high school diplomas is at the lowest level ever recorded, and the Trump administration’s new workforce initiative will deliver job-training to more than 4 million Americans.
Manufacturing jobs are being created at the fastest pace in over three decades.
Nearly half-a-million manufacturing jobs have been created since the president took office. In the month of July alone, nearly 40,000 new manufacturing jobs were added.
Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since President Trump’s election.
The president crafted the largest tax cut in a generation, which led to savings for more than 80 percent of households and pay raises and bonuses for 4 million American workers.
President Trump protected American taxpayers by asking Congress to rescind $15.4 billion in unused appropriations.
The president has hired/nominated an impressive number of women to senior positions in his administration, including the first female director of the CIA, Gina Haspel.
He’s appointed two Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has now confirmed 26 appellate court judges of his choosing, as well as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
He successfully negotiated the return of four American hostages in one month’s time.
President Trump’s Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action has exceeded the 2:1 mandate, eliminating 22 job-killing regulations for every one new regulatory action.
President Trump signed the “Right to Try” Act to give terminally ill patients a chance to try lifesaving treatments.
The Department of Homeland Security arrested 796 MS-13 gang members and associates in FY 2017, an 83 percent increase from the previous year.
The president signed the VA Mission Act, which allows veterans who don’t live near a VA facility or can’t get an appointment in a timely manner to seek medical care from private health-care providers.
Signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which provides an $82 billion funding increase for the Department of Defense over the current period, including a $617 billion Pentagon budget, $22 billion for the nuclear weapons program and $69 billion for U.S. military efforts abroad, as well as new tanks, ships, and planes. The package includes a salary boost for service members, about a 2.6 percent raise—the biggest military pay raise in nearly a decade.

I view all the above as positives. Where do you think the serious trouble lies?

Charles, the trouble is people like you who believe the propaganda. A rigorous person might want to fact check a serial liar's claims in order to find out if they hold water - or is there a bigger story to jobs and the economy than the influence of one personality? To wit, jobs: Factchecker reports this way:

Quote

As we noted when Trump recently claimed the black unemployment rate is the lowest in recorded history “because of my policies,” the years-long downward trend in unemployment rates has continued under Trump, but at a slower pace than in recent years.

When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. But even larger drops were recorded in each of the three years before that. The rate fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

The gap between white and black unemployment remains largely unchanged under Trump. While black unemployment fell to 6.8 percent in December, the white unemployment rate that month was 3.7 percent. So the white rate is 46 percent lower than the black rate, about the same as the gap in December 2016.

The Hispanic unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent in June, October and November, matching a record low recorded in October 2006. The rate dropped by a full percentage point under Trump, from 5.9 percent in January 2017 to 4.9 percent in December. But again, despite remaining constant during 2016, the rate has been declining for years, going from 12.9 percent in December 2010 to 6.2 percent in December 2015.

It's not the cult of personality that drives an engine as big as the U.S. economy, and the economy provides job growth. Before anyone talks jobs and economy, it is best to look at moving averages and longer-term trends.

Also, you left out of the "accomplishment" list the 17% increase in the deficit created by the tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.

This is not to say everything Dennison has done is bad - some are positive and some are neutral. The best way to evaluate what he has done is not to listen to him or his sycophants but to seek out impartial sources:

Quote

Trump’s Numbers (Second Quarterly Update)
Statistical measures of how things have changed since the president took office.

By Brooks Jackson

Posted on July 11, 2018

7.9K
Summary
In the time Donald Trump has been in the White House:

The economy added 3.2 million jobs, unemployment fell to the lowest level in 18 years, and the number of job openings grew larger than the number of job-seekers for the first time on record.
Economic growth picked up, but remains below what Trump promised, and even below the best years under Barack Obama.
The murder rate declined — at least in the 30 largest cities.
The decade-long downward trend in carbon dioxide emissions from energy slowed — and has most recently turned upward.
Illegal border crossings from Mexico slowed, but Trump’s promised border wall is still not funded.
Inflation-adjusted weekly wages rose 1.2 percent.
Home prices rose 17 percent, to a record level.
The U.S. trade deficit continued rising — up 13.6 percent.
The federal debt rose by more than $1 trillion, and projected annual deficits increased.

This is the reality - the job picture and economic growth continues heading in the same direction that it has been for the past 10 years. Inflation, the deficit, and the national debt are becoming concerns.

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2018-October-15, 19:03, said:

Where do you think the serious trouble lies?

There was a context for what I said. I'll elaborate.

Richard provided a link: https://takecareblog...e-supreme-court

I read it and commented that it was a well written presentation of a view that I don't hold.

That was the context. Now for more on my concerns. I'll start with the obvious.

There are three branches of government. We elect the president and we elect members of congress. But justices are appointed. This gets tricky. It would be unrealistically idealistic to expect political views to play no role in the appointment and confirmation, and for that matter to play no role in the possible removal by impeachment, of justices but I would hope for better than what we are getting and I oppose making it worse. It will always be possible to find justification for taking one further step into the battle. In my younger years, there was a campaign to "Impeach Earl Warren". We didn't do it. Good. But now? The advocates for restraint are now losing out. Bad choices in past actions are being used to advocate for even worse choices in the future. Rs now control the presidency, the House, the Senate. But the article looks to a time when it will be the Ds. Then the Ds can enlarge the court. He speaks of enlarging it to 10, but surely we want an odd number so make it 11. And then the Rs will take over at some future time and we can raise it to 13. And so on. Now I don't really care whether it is 9, 11, or 13 but I do object to what I see as treating the Supreme Court as subservient to the other two branches. We expect a new president to appoint new cabinet secretaries, but not to add in some extra new justices. I would like people, of various political views, to decide that we really do not want to go down that road. The argument for taking that road was well presented. But I regard it as a mistake to take that path.

So that was my view, placed in the context that I made it. Screwing around with the Supreme Court is a bad idea, and I see it as one of many bad things that are going on.

We could argue about the broader situation, maybe in another post. Perhaps for the moment it suffices to say that when Dante was consigning figures of Florence to various circles of hell he was not addressing economic issues.

[barmar]

 Chas_P, on 2018-October-15, 19:03, said:

I view all the above as positives. Where do you think the serious trouble lies?

So you're basically saying that democracy, civil rights, the environment, etc. don't matter as long as everyone has jobs?

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2018-October-16, 09:33, said:

So you're basically saying that democracy, civil rights, the environment, etc. don't matter as long as everyone has jobs?

Are we not seeing democracy in action? Based on the existing system the voting public chose the current administration. How is that not democracy?

The erosion of civil rights started long before this administration, e.g., the Patriot Act.

The environment is a critical concern but the politicising of the issue has left us powerless to know the truth of it.

And yes, jobs are important. If you can't feed your family other issues become less important.

[Chas_P]

 barmar, on 2018-October-16, 09:33, said:

So you're basically saying that democracy, civil rights, the environment, etc. don't matter as long as everyone has jobs?

No. I was basically asking Ken where he thinks the serious trouble lies. He answered.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-October-16, 10:12, said:

Are we not seeing democracy in action? Based on the existing system the voting public chose the current administration. How is that not democracy?

The same holds true of Mississippi in 1960 or for that matter Mississippi in 1860

Even for Drews, this is incredibly stupid...

[johnu]

Mitch McConnell Calls to Cut Social Security, Medicare

More attacks in the continued assault on the social safety net in the USA by Republicans. My not so funny reaction is that Dennison and the Republicans will soon blame the Democrats for stripping social programs in a cynical attempt to confuse voters in future elections who don't know any better or only get their news from the Fox Propaganda Network.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-16, 14:34, said:

The same holds true of Mississippi in 1960 or for that matter Mississippi in 1860

Even for Drews, this is incredibly stupid...

so answer the question. How is that not democracy in action?

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2018-October-16, 17:37, said:

so answer the question. How is that not democracy in action?

So that's how you think democracy should work? Glad you finally came off your trolling wagon and argued openly for the racism you believe in.

(And no, you can't behind word games here. A "democracy" that disenfranchises a large swath of the population is not a democracy. That is, literally, not how democracy works.)

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-October-16, 17:37, said:

so answer the question. How is that not democracy in action?

Drews, I know that you're not too bright, so let me try to make this as simple as possible:

Apartheid South Africa was a "democracy".
It denied the right to vote to 90% of its population.
But it was a "democracy".
For whats that worth.