Perhaps we need to establish a national media moratorium/gag order on TFG. Enough is enough of this awful hateful spiteful non-truth rubbish that seems to spew constantly from the far-right. How much more can the U.S.A. take of the (fill in the blank)___________TFG. *sigh* ? Also, why does no one talk about the fact that TFG is 76? Isn't that age also considered "old"?
Sick, sick, sick to my stomach and in despair. Why did I have children? They will spend their lives in a totalitarian klepto "shithole" country...
America is a sick, sick place. This clip of Tump, coming onstage, getting a standing ovation from the crowd, tells us everything there is to know about the future. And about who we really are, inside. Not citizens, not human beings. Deep inside, who we are and what we truly admire and aspire to be: death camp guards.
So here we are: The top candidates for the Republican 2024 ticket are a 2x impeached, mysoginistic, delusional 76-yr old found liable for sexual abuse , and a mini-Mussolini wannabe from Florida. The potential candidates that are somewhat reasonable and not in the cult are polling in the low single digits. This is today's Republican party!
RFK Jr will fade quickly. Right now, many people do not know about him. They most likely associate his viewpoints with those of his father and uncles Ted and John. Once people realize that he is a loony conspiracy monger he will be history.
I knew they would say that at least he's not a rapist. But lets be real, the only reason it wasn't full-on rape is that she repelled him and escaped before he penetrated her. I really believe this sleazy traitorous scum will not be the Republican nominee. Once each subsequent indictment comes out, he will be further revealed as the criminal lowlife he is and his support will diminish.
I sincerely hope you are correct, but I have very little faith that you are. Republicans no longer have shame or any kind of ethics. It simply does not matter to them.
It seems very much like a negotiated verdict, of the "we know that something bad happened, but we can't be sure what" type. Fair, I guess. Let the $5 million speak for the jury.
Let us not forget what else happened after the access Hollywood tape was released. Less than an hour later wikileaks started dumping John Podesta e-mails and the MSM obediently jumped on this shiny new bauble greatly mitigating the fall out from the tape. I expect it was planned to hold these e-mails until just before the election but they had to be dumped early as a distraction. They had the reserve of Wieners laptop which the FBI had looked at weeks before Comey gave republicans the heads up that ultimately cost Clinton the election. If you believe Comey he did this because someone in the NY office of the FBI had threatened to leak it.
"'When it comes to Donald Trump, the New York legal system is off the rails,' declared Lindsey Graham."
Actually, the New York legal system is working exactly as it's supposed to: trump is tried by a jury of his peers, the people who've known him longest and best.
Hillary Clinton was not a candidate for president that I particularly wanted to vote for back in 2016, if for no other reason (though there were others) than I wasn't interested in any more family dynasties at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But my take on Trump was exceedingly simple when he became the GOP nominee, since it only involved 2 main elements:
1. I wouldn't trust him behind closed doors, or even in broad daylight, with my wife and daughters.
2. I wouldn't trust him with my money.
So, why the f**k would I trust him with the whole damned country?
I believe there is more than enough accumulated evidence now that those simple criteria were more than appropriate. But the GOP simply can't get past this guy, and based on their lickspittle subservience to him and *his voters* since 2016, why the f**k would I trust any of them with the same task? And the answer to that is that I would not.
Declaring that one would never vote for a person with an "R" after their name is both short sighted and lazy. While it appears that they are becoming a dying breed there *are* Repubs who are still part of Team Normie. Neither party has a lock on purity and altruism; As a perfect example take (please) RFK Jr (D - Wack), or consider Joe Manchin - who at least represents his heavily R and R leaning constituency but can't be referred to as a consistent Dem, or Kyrsten Sinema who even though she turned Independent was as flighty a D as can be imagined. A valued voter is one researches the candidates and then considers the positions taken by them.
You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. And mine is that, never having been a member of a party or a partisan or a one-or-two issue voter, and seldom having voted a straight ticket until the advent of Donald Trump and the current incarnation of the GOP, I am neither short-sighted nor lazy, thank you.
As to laziness, I suspect I'm at least as well-informed as the *average* voter and probably better so than many, many voters, average or not. I put in the effort to peruse much written and other info in the way of news and opinion from all over the political spectrum. Doubt it? Take a look at my Substack subscription list in my profile. That's about a third or so of the sources I look at regularly.
I research the backgrounds of candidates for judgeships and university trustees. I was once involved in getting a piece of legislation passed and signed into law in my state. Not a huge role, but enough of one I was invited to the bill signing and met the governor who signed it. A Republican. Whom I voted for. Twice.
As to short-sighted, there's nothing wrong with my vision. I'm of an age that a lot of folks can't pass their driver's license renewal eye exam without their glasses, if then. Did just fine without mine a few months ago. And it is precisely that age and the clarity of vision it brings that allows me to remember when the Republican party and the majority of its candidates were at least worth my consideration year in and year out. But no more. And that is the clear-eyed view from a voter who is not short-sighted but rather strategic. For any win by any Republican in any race anywhere is another affirmation to the GOP that its current *business model* and draconian and obstructive stances on issues such as abortion, gun safety and especially liberal democracy itself are viable and sustainable. And they will get no affirmation from me on that, anytime, anywhere, until that model changes drastically and gives me a reason to view them as something other than a threat to the welfare of this nation.
I have no great love for the Democratic party. And yes, they have their share of 'less than optimals' with some genuine fruitcakes thrown in. But, as a party, they are not a threat to this country, its ideals and its existence as a liberal democracy. And I love this country, liberal democracy and the respect for the rule of law. So, until there are enough Rs on your so-called Team Normie who are willing to stand up straight and at least make a serious and sustained effort to push the wack-job fringe and mainstreamed-autocrats in their party back into the shadows where they belong, Jesus Christ could run for POTUS - or anything else - in 2024, and if he ran as a Republican, I would not vote for him.
But hey, that's the great thing about this country, no? You get to have your opinion, and I get to have mine. And we can both believe each other to be right as rain or dumb as a post and not suffer any consequences for it. And we both get to vote our conscience on election day. And I'll cast my vote for that particular status quo with those I feel the most confidence in when it comes to preserving it.
I apologize that you took my first reply personally, and I see where I could have been much more tactful. In no way was I using an ad hominem argument, and again, I was not directing my reply to you directly; Although I did say that without knowing your attention to your voting, so, again, please accept my apology.
OTOH, I think you might admit that a majority of American voters, especially those that are definitely tribal from either major party, and some third party adherents, care more about the letter after a politician's name than (to take out of context) MLK Jr's "content of their character." What have they actually accomplished or what are they currently working on for the benefit of their constituents rather than enhance themselves in the eyes of the base and therefore the Party is a question too few ask themselves.
I consider both major parties two sides of the same coin. The cynic in me sees that politics is nothing more than another industrial sector. Until the advent of TFG there was the Board of Directors (the elite), the CEOs and their advisors (the federal level politicians), the regional managers (state level politicians).... Today, who knows? And, like you, I do my due diligence before I accept the responsibility of voting for those who will govern. IMO, we are a shrinking demographic - and getting smaller every election cycle. And the states where our votes can have an effect on a national ballot are shrinking, too.
I guess one big difference between us is that I would at least listen to what (and how) the Christ has to say - what is he running on, what does he stand for. I will then cast my vote accordingly. (In the case of politicians I do the same and then compare it to whatever track records I can find.) But, as you say, different strokes for different folks, with the G-d given rights to be that way. Even in today's political upheaval I still feel that a voter should vote for the person and not the party, but you do you and I'll do me.
I have no love for, or much trust in, either major party. Given time, the vocal extremist fringe will hijack their party. We're witnessing it happen to the Republican Party to the point where Reagan nor Bush41 would recognize it. The same will happen to the Democrats, unless the moderate wing stands stronger than those on the other side stood up to the Trumpettes. The federal guidelines for who get monies for their election needs to change to give at least one third party a chance to receive some. This will add some actual competition in some races and make others realize there is a real choice between candidates.
FIWI, I was a conservative Republican until around 1986 when the stench of the Neocons started pouring from the White House with increasing strength. I progressed through libertarian then Classical Liberalism. Today, I consider myself a Conservative Liberal.
No 'apology' needed for expressing your opinion, since you weren't ugly or mean-spirited about it. That's what comment sections are for.
I wasn't particularly *offended* personally, but I did want to set the record straight since your opening sentence was seen as aimed at me from its directness and declaratory nature. (This is often a shortcoming of communicating sans voice / facial cues with people one has never met and knows little about.) If it was a generalization, I understand the point of view perfectly well, since that used to be my own, as I tried to point out in my response. And I can't and won't try to fault someone for making that argument generally, since I'm well aware of the *tribal* nature of many straight ticket voters.
We differ in our viewpoint about voting in today's political climate. You have a tactical outlook as to how to achieve the most desirable result, which, as noted, was once my view as well. And I've switched to a strategic tack for the reasons given. I'll concede the JC thing was a bit of hyperbole meant to emphasize not only my resolve about my current view but the fact that I'm more than just a little bit pissed off that the actions of the GOP as a whole these past years have led me to that conclusion. I would very much like to see a viable 3rd party of centrist, moderate views from both sides of the political divide, since I've always seen something on each side to value. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Yeah, the fringe can creep in and hijack the show on either side if the moderates don't plant their feet and say 'no'. I mean... RFK Jr.? Really?? WTF. Trump Lite in a blue patina garnered from left over Camelot name recognition. Please.
If I had to label myself, I'm not sure I could come up with one that would really fit. So, I pretty much just refer to myself as 'non-ideological' if pushed for an answer. Funny the reaction that evokes on occasion. Like I just grew a third eye, or something.
While you're doing you and I'm doing me it would be well if we remember that we both apparently want pretty much the same thing in the end...good governance.
Now. What the hell is that "fnord" thing I see at the end of your posts about? I've found a number of meanings, none of which seem to fit too well in this context. Perhaps you might help a myopic old coot see a bit more clearly?
It's hard to explain "fnord" and it is not being used in context. It's how I sign off on all of my posts across all the sites I comment on. I first saw fnords in "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea when one of my closest friends turned me on to Discordianism in the mid '70s. It has stuck with me ever since.
BTW: Conservative Liberalism is a real political belief - it even has its own Wikipedia page. Basically, it's the right wing of the liberal movement.
Thanks for the explanation. I saw that reference to The Illuminatus! Trilogy when I was snooping around trying to suss out the meaning. Knowing what I do about Discordianism, which isn't much beyond the very basics, it does sort of make your sign-off 'make sense' in a strange kind of way, especially considering the tone, tenor and characteristics of the times we are currently living through.
I'm aware that Conservative Liberalism is an actual *thing*, as is Liberal Conservatism. I sort of see them as "Liberalism, but not overdone Liberalism" and vice versa, the elements of one 'ism' acting as a throttle on the other, putting the brakes on the less desirable aspects (to me) of each. I sometimes thought of myself as a 'liberal Conservative' or 'conservative Liberal", but being such a middle-of-the-road mixed breed mutt, I just stick with non-ideological. Or, sometimes, just an 'American', since what I truly believe in is the 'aspirational' nature of our country's founding vis a vie "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". I suppose the discrepancies creep in when it comes to how, exactly, to affirm, implement and maintain those 'truths'.
Perhaps this will give you a grin, as it does me whenever I happen to think about it...
For a long time I thought, if pressed, I'd have to say I leaned just a bit more right than left. Some years ago, for grins I took a 'test' put out by an organization called More In Common. I won't get into an explanation about who they are or what they do other than they to say they do a lot of work on 'political identity'. If you haven't heard of them, you can easily find them online if interested. Anyway, they categorized American political identities into 5 tribes. After taking the test (and I answered the questions honestly), I discovered that, according to their parameters at least, I'm a 'Traditional Liberal'.
Quite some time ago here at the Bulwark, a link was posted to a 'test' from another organization along the same lines. Don't remember all the particulars now, but I learned from that one that I'm actually a 'Disaffected Democrat'. :-D
Thanks for this conversation. We should perhaps 'argue' about something else sometime.
From most here that post that, I take it as more of a short hand for #Never Republican until something drastically changes.
And yeah, there are still some 'normal' republicans, but I can't help but note that you didn't name any. And I'll give you one, Romney. Very normal and head and shoulders better than most. And if I lived in Utah I might well support him since a democrat can't win there and I wouldn't want another Mike Lee. But apart from him, who, in office on the Republican side deserves my support over someone who won't play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling, isn't empowering MTG and her ilk, and isn't ready to line up behind DJT for try number 3?
In the House there are Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) for example. In the Senate, besides Romney there are Sens Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Governors include Larry Hogan (R-MD retired), Charlie Baker (R-Mass), Phil Scott (R-VT), and Chris Sununu (R-NH).
As I said, "[t]his is far from a complete list." There are many others out there who can fit the into this roll (I do admit that the list is slowly shrinking), I just mentioned a few since I was asked to produce some names, not an exhaustive list.
The four Rs who voted against My Kevin's going-nowhere bill did so because they thought that there was still more left on the table that should have been in the bill. They did not do it because they were siding with the Ds on this - far from it. (Personally, I expect to see a call to vacate the speakership before the dust from the debt ceiling debacle settles. Gaetz and his bomb-throwers will not vote for anything less than total capitulation to their demands, and it won't be hard to get another MAGA to sign on giving the required five needed as written in the ill-begotten Rules.)
I never said that my "2 good Republicans in the House" would not vote tribally when push comes to shove. I was asked to name some Normies, and these two, among others in the House, are willing to work across the aisle. They want to legislate, not castigate those that the Trumpettes deem enemies of the People. They are willing to consider a compromise if it's for the good of their constituents and the country. That's how our political system is supposed to work.
The Trumpite mantra "We know he's flawed!" always carried the implicit corollary: "Therefore you have no moral right to object to his flaws."
MAGA-land was willing to give unlimited ethical indulgence to Trump -- under the claim that it was all for a higher purpose that he was uniquely capable of serving. And then MAGA-land declared that holding Trump to any ethical standards outside himself was the greater evil.
Oh, and it has something to do with defending Christian values.
It obviously isn't changing yet. Rubio and Graham have decided that being a fellow human is not in their best interest. Rape, mass shootings, murder, cruelty, total corruption - are just part of their politics
You ask how long it will take for Kaitlin Collins to bring up yesterday's guilty verdict. My question is why is CNN allowing this interview to happen in the first place? Why is CNN giving this criminal air time at all? Forgive me as I may not have all of the correct legal terminology, but wasn't he Indicted in NY on a hush money fraud scheme? Wasn't he found guilty YESTERDAY for assault and abuse also in New York? Doesn't he also have current ongoing investigations in Washington and Fulton Counties in Georgia? Isn't he a party to at least three other criminal investigations including two for a COUP against our country? I'm flabbergasted and a little bit disgusted that CNN would allow him any kind of stage at all.
But, to answer your question, I believe Kaitlin will ask him about yesterday's verdict within the first ten seconds of the interview. I also believe she will handle the entire Town Hall with savvy, smarts and success.
Hilarious that a day ago there was no story for Trump to tell--don:t know her, never met her--but now he has been deprived of his right to defend himself. Boo hoo.
Perhaps we need to establish a national media moratorium/gag order on TFG. Enough is enough of this awful hateful spiteful non-truth rubbish that seems to spew constantly from the far-right. How much more can the U.S.A. take of the (fill in the blank)___________TFG. *sigh* ? Also, why does no one talk about the fact that TFG is 76? Isn't that age also considered "old"?
Republicans take note; when your daughter limps home bowlegged with a black eye, she'll know she took one for your team.
Sick, sick, sick to my stomach and in despair. Why did I have children? They will spend their lives in a totalitarian klepto "shithole" country...
America is a sick, sick place. This clip of Tump, coming onstage, getting a standing ovation from the crowd, tells us everything there is to know about the future. And about who we really are, inside. Not citizens, not human beings. Deep inside, who we are and what we truly admire and aspire to be: death camp guards.
.
https://twitter.com/NTDNews/status/1656525549458669569
So here we are: The top candidates for the Republican 2024 ticket are a 2x impeached, mysoginistic, delusional 76-yr old found liable for sexual abuse , and a mini-Mussolini wannabe from Florida. The potential candidates that are somewhat reasonable and not in the cult are polling in the low single digits. This is today's Republican party!
Will Saletan was an outstanding acquisition for The Bulwark stables.
RFK Jr will fade quickly. Right now, many people do not know about him. They most likely associate his viewpoints with those of his father and uncles Ted and John. Once people realize that he is a loony conspiracy monger he will be history.
I knew they would say that at least he's not a rapist. But lets be real, the only reason it wasn't full-on rape is that she repelled him and escaped before he penetrated her. I really believe this sleazy traitorous scum will not be the Republican nominee. Once each subsequent indictment comes out, he will be further revealed as the criminal lowlife he is and his support will diminish.
I sincerely hope you are correct, but I have very little faith that you are. Republicans no longer have shame or any kind of ethics. It simply does not matter to them.
It seems very much like a negotiated verdict, of the "we know that something bad happened, but we can't be sure what" type. Fair, I guess. Let the $5 million speak for the jury.
I really hope you’re right, but so far each legal incident that has occurred has only increased his lead in primary polls.
Let us not forget what else happened after the access Hollywood tape was released. Less than an hour later wikileaks started dumping John Podesta e-mails and the MSM obediently jumped on this shiny new bauble greatly mitigating the fall out from the tape. I expect it was planned to hold these e-mails until just before the election but they had to be dumped early as a distraction. They had the reserve of Wieners laptop which the FBI had looked at weeks before Comey gave republicans the heads up that ultimately cost Clinton the election. If you believe Comey he did this because someone in the NY office of the FBI had threatened to leak it.
Someone named McGonigal maybe? https://open.spotify.com/episode/18mV689YurvvpLC52fnYf6?si=kv0lESmaT6qZRYi6P8a-eQ
"'When it comes to Donald Trump, the New York legal system is off the rails,' declared Lindsey Graham."
Actually, the New York legal system is working exactly as it's supposed to: trump is tried by a jury of his peers, the people who've known him longest and best.
And apparently little Marco thinks sexual battery and defamation are just jokes.
What have we become that such a tawdry man is a persistent threat to us?
Or that such a tawdry man is held up by so many to be the very definition of patriotic integrity and wisdom. And champion of religious values to boot.
If it's really October 7, 2016, again, please: Would everyone just vote for Hillary this time.
Hillary Clinton was not a candidate for president that I particularly wanted to vote for back in 2016, if for no other reason (though there were others) than I wasn't interested in any more family dynasties at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But my take on Trump was exceedingly simple when he became the GOP nominee, since it only involved 2 main elements:
1. I wouldn't trust him behind closed doors, or even in broad daylight, with my wife and daughters.
2. I wouldn't trust him with my money.
So, why the f**k would I trust him with the whole damned country?
I believe there is more than enough accumulated evidence now that those simple criteria were more than appropriate. But the GOP simply can't get past this guy, and based on their lickspittle subservience to him and *his voters* since 2016, why the f**k would I trust any of them with the same task? And the answer to that is that I would not.
Not just #Never Tump.
#Never Republican.
"#Never Republican."
-----
Declaring that one would never vote for a person with an "R" after their name is both short sighted and lazy. While it appears that they are becoming a dying breed there *are* Repubs who are still part of Team Normie. Neither party has a lock on purity and altruism; As a perfect example take (please) RFK Jr (D - Wack), or consider Joe Manchin - who at least represents his heavily R and R leaning constituency but can't be referred to as a consistent Dem, or Kyrsten Sinema who even though she turned Independent was as flighty a D as can be imagined. A valued voter is one researches the candidates and then considers the positions taken by them.
Vote the person, not the Party.
fnord
You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. And mine is that, never having been a member of a party or a partisan or a one-or-two issue voter, and seldom having voted a straight ticket until the advent of Donald Trump and the current incarnation of the GOP, I am neither short-sighted nor lazy, thank you.
As to laziness, I suspect I'm at least as well-informed as the *average* voter and probably better so than many, many voters, average or not. I put in the effort to peruse much written and other info in the way of news and opinion from all over the political spectrum. Doubt it? Take a look at my Substack subscription list in my profile. That's about a third or so of the sources I look at regularly.
I research the backgrounds of candidates for judgeships and university trustees. I was once involved in getting a piece of legislation passed and signed into law in my state. Not a huge role, but enough of one I was invited to the bill signing and met the governor who signed it. A Republican. Whom I voted for. Twice.
As to short-sighted, there's nothing wrong with my vision. I'm of an age that a lot of folks can't pass their driver's license renewal eye exam without their glasses, if then. Did just fine without mine a few months ago. And it is precisely that age and the clarity of vision it brings that allows me to remember when the Republican party and the majority of its candidates were at least worth my consideration year in and year out. But no more. And that is the clear-eyed view from a voter who is not short-sighted but rather strategic. For any win by any Republican in any race anywhere is another affirmation to the GOP that its current *business model* and draconian and obstructive stances on issues such as abortion, gun safety and especially liberal democracy itself are viable and sustainable. And they will get no affirmation from me on that, anytime, anywhere, until that model changes drastically and gives me a reason to view them as something other than a threat to the welfare of this nation.
I have no great love for the Democratic party. And yes, they have their share of 'less than optimals' with some genuine fruitcakes thrown in. But, as a party, they are not a threat to this country, its ideals and its existence as a liberal democracy. And I love this country, liberal democracy and the respect for the rule of law. So, until there are enough Rs on your so-called Team Normie who are willing to stand up straight and at least make a serious and sustained effort to push the wack-job fringe and mainstreamed-autocrats in their party back into the shadows where they belong, Jesus Christ could run for POTUS - or anything else - in 2024, and if he ran as a Republican, I would not vote for him.
But hey, that's the great thing about this country, no? You get to have your opinion, and I get to have mine. And we can both believe each other to be right as rain or dumb as a post and not suffer any consequences for it. And we both get to vote our conscience on election day. And I'll cast my vote for that particular status quo with those I feel the most confidence in when it comes to preserving it.
I apologize that you took my first reply personally, and I see where I could have been much more tactful. In no way was I using an ad hominem argument, and again, I was not directing my reply to you directly; Although I did say that without knowing your attention to your voting, so, again, please accept my apology.
OTOH, I think you might admit that a majority of American voters, especially those that are definitely tribal from either major party, and some third party adherents, care more about the letter after a politician's name than (to take out of context) MLK Jr's "content of their character." What have they actually accomplished or what are they currently working on for the benefit of their constituents rather than enhance themselves in the eyes of the base and therefore the Party is a question too few ask themselves.
I consider both major parties two sides of the same coin. The cynic in me sees that politics is nothing more than another industrial sector. Until the advent of TFG there was the Board of Directors (the elite), the CEOs and their advisors (the federal level politicians), the regional managers (state level politicians).... Today, who knows? And, like you, I do my due diligence before I accept the responsibility of voting for those who will govern. IMO, we are a shrinking demographic - and getting smaller every election cycle. And the states where our votes can have an effect on a national ballot are shrinking, too.
I guess one big difference between us is that I would at least listen to what (and how) the Christ has to say - what is he running on, what does he stand for. I will then cast my vote accordingly. (In the case of politicians I do the same and then compare it to whatever track records I can find.) But, as you say, different strokes for different folks, with the G-d given rights to be that way. Even in today's political upheaval I still feel that a voter should vote for the person and not the party, but you do you and I'll do me.
I have no love for, or much trust in, either major party. Given time, the vocal extremist fringe will hijack their party. We're witnessing it happen to the Republican Party to the point where Reagan nor Bush41 would recognize it. The same will happen to the Democrats, unless the moderate wing stands stronger than those on the other side stood up to the Trumpettes. The federal guidelines for who get monies for their election needs to change to give at least one third party a chance to receive some. This will add some actual competition in some races and make others realize there is a real choice between candidates.
FIWI, I was a conservative Republican until around 1986 when the stench of the Neocons started pouring from the White House with increasing strength. I progressed through libertarian then Classical Liberalism. Today, I consider myself a Conservative Liberal.
fnord
No 'apology' needed for expressing your opinion, since you weren't ugly or mean-spirited about it. That's what comment sections are for.
I wasn't particularly *offended* personally, but I did want to set the record straight since your opening sentence was seen as aimed at me from its directness and declaratory nature. (This is often a shortcoming of communicating sans voice / facial cues with people one has never met and knows little about.) If it was a generalization, I understand the point of view perfectly well, since that used to be my own, as I tried to point out in my response. And I can't and won't try to fault someone for making that argument generally, since I'm well aware of the *tribal* nature of many straight ticket voters.
We differ in our viewpoint about voting in today's political climate. You have a tactical outlook as to how to achieve the most desirable result, which, as noted, was once my view as well. And I've switched to a strategic tack for the reasons given. I'll concede the JC thing was a bit of hyperbole meant to emphasize not only my resolve about my current view but the fact that I'm more than just a little bit pissed off that the actions of the GOP as a whole these past years have led me to that conclusion. I would very much like to see a viable 3rd party of centrist, moderate views from both sides of the political divide, since I've always seen something on each side to value. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Yeah, the fringe can creep in and hijack the show on either side if the moderates don't plant their feet and say 'no'. I mean... RFK Jr.? Really?? WTF. Trump Lite in a blue patina garnered from left over Camelot name recognition. Please.
If I had to label myself, I'm not sure I could come up with one that would really fit. So, I pretty much just refer to myself as 'non-ideological' if pushed for an answer. Funny the reaction that evokes on occasion. Like I just grew a third eye, or something.
While you're doing you and I'm doing me it would be well if we remember that we both apparently want pretty much the same thing in the end...good governance.
Now. What the hell is that "fnord" thing I see at the end of your posts about? I've found a number of meanings, none of which seem to fit too well in this context. Perhaps you might help a myopic old coot see a bit more clearly?
Agree on the bottom line: good governance.
It's hard to explain "fnord" and it is not being used in context. It's how I sign off on all of my posts across all the sites I comment on. I first saw fnords in "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea when one of my closest friends turned me on to Discordianism in the mid '70s. It has stuck with me ever since.
BTW: Conservative Liberalism is a real political belief - it even has its own Wikipedia page. Basically, it's the right wing of the liberal movement.
fnord
Thanks for the explanation. I saw that reference to The Illuminatus! Trilogy when I was snooping around trying to suss out the meaning. Knowing what I do about Discordianism, which isn't much beyond the very basics, it does sort of make your sign-off 'make sense' in a strange kind of way, especially considering the tone, tenor and characteristics of the times we are currently living through.
I'm aware that Conservative Liberalism is an actual *thing*, as is Liberal Conservatism. I sort of see them as "Liberalism, but not overdone Liberalism" and vice versa, the elements of one 'ism' acting as a throttle on the other, putting the brakes on the less desirable aspects (to me) of each. I sometimes thought of myself as a 'liberal Conservative' or 'conservative Liberal", but being such a middle-of-the-road mixed breed mutt, I just stick with non-ideological. Or, sometimes, just an 'American', since what I truly believe in is the 'aspirational' nature of our country's founding vis a vie "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". I suppose the discrepancies creep in when it comes to how, exactly, to affirm, implement and maintain those 'truths'.
Perhaps this will give you a grin, as it does me whenever I happen to think about it...
For a long time I thought, if pressed, I'd have to say I leaned just a bit more right than left. Some years ago, for grins I took a 'test' put out by an organization called More In Common. I won't get into an explanation about who they are or what they do other than they to say they do a lot of work on 'political identity'. If you haven't heard of them, you can easily find them online if interested. Anyway, they categorized American political identities into 5 tribes. After taking the test (and I answered the questions honestly), I discovered that, according to their parameters at least, I'm a 'Traditional Liberal'.
Quite some time ago here at the Bulwark, a link was posted to a 'test' from another organization along the same lines. Don't remember all the particulars now, but I learned from that one that I'm actually a 'Disaffected Democrat'. :-D
Thanks for this conversation. We should perhaps 'argue' about something else sometime.
And fnord, right back at you.
From most here that post that, I take it as more of a short hand for #Never Republican until something drastically changes.
And yeah, there are still some 'normal' republicans, but I can't help but note that you didn't name any. And I'll give you one, Romney. Very normal and head and shoulders better than most. And if I lived in Utah I might well support him since a democrat can't win there and I wouldn't want another Mike Lee. But apart from him, who, in office on the Republican side deserves my support over someone who won't play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling, isn't empowering MTG and her ilk, and isn't ready to line up behind DJT for try number 3?
Names:
In the House there are Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) for example. In the Senate, besides Romney there are Sens Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Governors include Larry Hogan (R-MD retired), Charlie Baker (R-Mass), Phil Scott (R-VT), and Chris Sununu (R-NH).
This is far from a complete list.
Any other questions?
Vote the person, not the Party.
fnord
As I said, "[t]his is far from a complete list." There are many others out there who can fit the into this roll (I do admit that the list is slowly shrinking), I just mentioned a few since I was asked to produce some names, not an exhaustive list.
The four Rs who voted against My Kevin's going-nowhere bill did so because they thought that there was still more left on the table that should have been in the bill. They did not do it because they were siding with the Ds on this - far from it. (Personally, I expect to see a call to vacate the speakership before the dust from the debt ceiling debacle settles. Gaetz and his bomb-throwers will not vote for anything less than total capitulation to their demands, and it won't be hard to get another MAGA to sign on giving the required five needed as written in the ill-begotten Rules.)
I never said that my "2 good Republicans in the House" would not vote tribally when push comes to shove. I was asked to name some Normies, and these two, among others in the House, are willing to work across the aisle. They want to legislate, not castigate those that the Trumpettes deem enemies of the People. They are willing to consider a compromise if it's for the good of their constituents and the country. That's how our political system is supposed to work.
fnord
The Trumpite mantra "We know he's flawed!" always carried the implicit corollary: "Therefore you have no moral right to object to his flaws."
MAGA-land was willing to give unlimited ethical indulgence to Trump -- under the claim that it was all for a higher purpose that he was uniquely capable of serving. And then MAGA-land declared that holding Trump to any ethical standards outside himself was the greater evil.
Oh, and it has something to do with defending Christian values.
Yeah. I think Jesus said that. Blessed are the grifters, for they shall fleece the rubes.
It obviously isn't changing yet. Rubio and Graham have decided that being a fellow human is not in their best interest. Rape, mass shootings, murder, cruelty, total corruption - are just part of their politics
You ask how long it will take for Kaitlin Collins to bring up yesterday's guilty verdict. My question is why is CNN allowing this interview to happen in the first place? Why is CNN giving this criminal air time at all? Forgive me as I may not have all of the correct legal terminology, but wasn't he Indicted in NY on a hush money fraud scheme? Wasn't he found guilty YESTERDAY for assault and abuse also in New York? Doesn't he also have current ongoing investigations in Washington and Fulton Counties in Georgia? Isn't he a party to at least three other criminal investigations including two for a COUP against our country? I'm flabbergasted and a little bit disgusted that CNN would allow him any kind of stage at all.
But, to answer your question, I believe Kaitlin will ask him about yesterday's verdict within the first ten seconds of the interview. I also believe she will handle the entire Town Hall with savvy, smarts and success.
Hilarious that a day ago there was no story for Trump to tell--don:t know her, never met her--but now he has been deprived of his right to defend himself. Boo hoo.
Got Will’s book👍🏻