We've Got A Bratty Orange 5-Year-Old In The Oval Office
There are people working in government whose job it has become to tape Trump's papers back together.
Annie Karni writes at Politico about Simon Lartey, a records management analyst with a 30-year career -- earning a $66K-a-year salary -- who, for five months, spent his days scotch-taping:
Lartey and his colleagues would sift through large piles of shredded paper and put them back together, he said, "like a jigsaw puzzle." Sometimes the papers would just be split down the middle, but other times they would be torn into pieces so small they looked like confetti.It was a painstaking process that was the result of a clash between legal requirements to preserve White House records and President Donald Trump's odd and enduring habit of ripping up papers when he's done with them -- what some people described as his unofficial "filing system."
Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.
But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor, according to people familiar with the practice. Instead, they chose to clean it up for him, in order to make sure that the president wasn't violating the law.
Staffers had the fragments of paper collected from the Oval Office as well as the private residence and send it over to records management across the street from the White House for Larkey and his colleagues to reassemble.
Yes, that's right -- the guy running our country is such an impulsive baby and a tiny tyrant that nobody can stop him from ripping up documents that, by law, are supposed to be preserved.
Hillary would just have sent an e copy to her unsecured server in her house, and let the cleaning lady put it out with the trash.
Seriously aren't almost all records electronic these days? Cant believe they are handing Trump the only copy of some stupid Memo, that was probably a printed copy of some electronic document anyway.
I for one am pretty happy with the Trump persidency so far. Would not trade him for an alcoholic grandmother in poor health with rage issues.
Isab at June 10, 2018 10:16 PM
Yes, that's right -- the guy running our country is such an impulsive baby and a tiny tyrant that nobody can stop him from ripping up documents that, by law, are supposed to be preserved.
Remember one crucial thing: no matter how impulsive and tyrannical Trump is, to people who voted for him, Hillary would've been worse. Trump could pull out a gun during the State of the Union address, shoot (and kill) three Supreme Court Justices and ten member of Congress and people who voted for Trump would say "Yeah, that was bad but Hillary would've killed all the Justices, most of Congress and then gone outside and killed two hundred tourists."
JD at June 10, 2018 10:55 PM
“Hillary would've been worse. “
Darn right she would have JD but not because of the silly hypothetical strawman teenage arguments you make here.
Hillary would have appointed at least one, more likely three Supreme Court justices and evicerated most of the bill of rights through Lawfare. Further more, she said so on the Campaign trail.
If you are going to attack Trump at least do it in regards to the way he governs and his policies, not based on some gossip from Politico about Trump suposedly shredding original one of a kind documents.
It doesnt pass the laugh test.
Isab at June 10, 2018 11:22 PM
Ah, Isab, Ms. Reliable.
JD at June 11, 2018 12:01 AM
When you can't attack someone based on substance, you may as well attack their style.
Has the story even been verified? Nowadays there are very few papers a person handles that can't simply be reprinted.
That being said, I'm pretty sure it's a slippery slope from tearing up paper to heralding the apocalypse.
Snoopy at June 11, 2018 3:51 AM
Theodore Roosevelt: A Voracious Reader Who Tore Out Pages Until Done
http://www.writewithwarnimont.com/theodore-roosevelt-a-voracious-reader-who-tore-out-pages-until-done
Snoopy at June 11, 2018 4:00 AM
Funnily enough, the same day this news about Trump comes out, there's this news about Obama -
Crisis at the National Archives
"In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the historically important records of the Obama administration into the National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a serious problem: A lot of key records are missing."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html
Snoopy at June 11, 2018 4:02 AM
Perhaps keeping all documents made sense in 1950 or 1976, but there might be a need to acknowledge the president is not the Doge. This is a bit stupid, since somebody had a copy of the document before it was sent to him. Further, we’ve seen enough of this behavior where the executive branch agencies make fake emails - I thought it was Obama EPA that did this egregiously, but they all do it. The record keeping regulations need to be revised, but usually they’re just a reaction - e.g., to Watergate - because the Congress doesn’t get in front of things.
El verde loco at June 11, 2018 4:30 AM
Count me as another who can't believe these are one of a kind memos that didn't just get printed off and put on his desk. When I read the story it sounded like a typical government attempt to fire someone. I.e. you've got someone who can't be fired. So how do you get rid of them? Make their lives a living hell until they quit. Classic government and union action. I doubt that these documents couldn't be just reprinted and weren't already electronically archived. But I would believe taking some sad sack and making their job unshredding millions of documents all day long as an encouragement to find employment somewhere else.
And before someone calls that childish and acts like this is a Trump phenomenon, this is a practice with several decades of tradition behind it. Perhaps even over a century.
Ben at June 11, 2018 6:15 AM
Were's the skepticism? if nothing else, over the past 3 years you should learned to trust, but verify. Otherwise, you still believe Trump hired escorts in Moscow and had a pee party.
And since we're counting coup, Hillary is never going to be president. This...does put a smile on my face.
Also: Hillary would never sit down to talk turkey with Kim Jung Un. She would have done the same thing President Nobel Peace Prize did: kick the can down the road, maybe offered more bribes for better behaviour.
Sometimes, we get the leadership we need, not the one we deserve.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 11, 2018 6:49 AM
As much as I agree with the argument that Hillary would have been worse, it's purely speculation.
And worse how? In attitude or governance? Trump is an ass, a petulant ass. His demeanor is childish. His governance, however, is fairly solid at this point, shaky in places but solid in others.
Gorsuch was a good choice for SCOTUS.
Trump's handling of North Korea shows an innate understanding of tyrants and bullies not displayed by his predecessors, Republican or Democrat.
His arguments against the Pacific trade deal and the Iran nuclear deal are spot on. They were both terrible deals. And he's right that NAFTA was more beneficial to Mexico and Canada than to the US. Whether he can negotiate better trade deals than his predecessors remains to be seen.
His isolationism and insistence on punitive tariffs is misguided, but he's hedged his bets on those so far, allowing individual countries to negotiate their way around them.
Trump's overturning of Obama's executive orders is not extra-Constitutional, as some critics have alleged. Removing the US from the never-ratified Paris Climate Accord and Iran Nuclear Deal is well within his purview. He's constrained his actions within Constitutional limits at this point.
Trump's dressing down of NATO and G-7 countries is long overdue - not diplomatic, but overdue nonetheless.
His handling of the media and his Democratic critics, while off-putting and ugly, is sauce for the goose and fair-play turnabout.
Any argument of Hillary's inferiority in the office is based solely on political prejudices and extrapolations from her past performance. It's a pretty solid assumption that she'd have been a terrible president, but it's not a given.
Hillary would have put a polished Wellesley veneer over the ugliness. Trump, on the other hand, is Queens blue collar, warts and all - despite the Wharton education.
Conan the Grammarian at June 11, 2018 7:15 AM
This.
We should thank God we didn't get the government we deserve.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves." ~ Joseph de Maistre (in 1811)
Conan the Grammarian at June 11, 2018 7:19 AM
OMG, this the first White House staff ever to have to deal with a petulant president or clean up after a president's misconduct. How will they cope?
Of course, they could always print two copies and file the intact one after the president sees the other copy. Or are the president's fingerprints required to be on the document?
At least he's not diddling the interns (WJC), having extra-marital sex with secretaries in the White House pool (JFK), or swinging his penis around in front of the staff (LBJ). Nope, he's ripping up paper!
Conan the Grammarian at June 11, 2018 7:44 AM
And worse how?
She is corrupt.
Think Lincoln Bedroom AirBNB writ large.
More and more foreign donations into the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Think hot shooting wars because she thought it was a good idea to lead from behind. Or our European allies thought an intervention was a good idea. Or some potentate pissed her off. Or failed to pay her off. How's Libya doing these days?
Think handling of classified material. Another private server?? why not? who or what would stop her? The CIA? The FBI?
Think blackmail from various and sundry sources who accessed her private server and has all the juicy details. Not just personal blackmail, but state-level blackmail. Agree to this treaty or else.
We'd still be signed up for the lunacy of the Paris accords, as well as the "give nukes to Iran" deal.
That's her track record. It's who she is. And all started with a $1,000 investment into cattle futures.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 11, 2018 8:40 AM
I'm aware of all those things, Darth. You'll note that I agreed with the assessment that she'd have been a worse president. And I'm coming to that conclusion from a policy standpoint as well as a personal ethics standpoint.
I was really looking for a more analytical approach to defending Trump with something other than a flippant "Hillary would have been worse, so there!"
Hillary, no doubt would have been more "presidential," with a more reserved public behavior and a more adult-like public demeanor. Unlike Trump's warts and all personality and child-like tantrums.
However, the people Hillary's election would have empowered disturb me. The Occupy and BLM movements are authoritarians-in-waiting.
The precedents Obama set by governing through executive orders and executing policy through un-vetted czars instead of vetted Cabinet secretaries is a recipe for an executive branch takeover.
Hillary, with her impatience for democratic governance, would have taken those practices farther than the naive so-called Constitutional scholar, Obama, ever imagined they could be taken.
With poorly-regulated agencies such as the TSA, the CFPB, and a deeply-politicized FBI and IRS, the US only needed a strong nudge for an authoritarian government to begin to assert itself. Hillary likely would have provided that nudge, even if by accident.
Not that she wants to be a dictator outright, but she is just the sort of tragic figure who would believe she was forced to be a benevolent dictator and that her policies once fully-realized can redeem any transgression. Her authoritarian takeover would be an attempt to get around "obstructionist" Republicans and would be condoned by an approving Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who have yet to demonstrate a reverence for the Constitution or democratic processes when a Democrat is in the White House.
With Trump, the Democrats (and some Republicans) have rediscovered Congressional privilege, checks and balances, and the value of an opposition party. So, if for nothing else, we can thank him for that.
Although I'm attempting to be as unbiased as possible in this, an element of bias will, of course, seep into any political observation; hopefully not enough to cause a disinterested observer to dismiss it outright.
Conan the Grammarian at June 11, 2018 9:45 AM
Maybe this staffer could un-hammer Hillarys phone?
To me the worst thing with a Hillary presidency would be the fawning and complete coverup that would be happening by the mainstream news. We could be in 8 new wars, half of the Supreme Court could mysteriously die and the public would hear only positive spin.
Joe J at June 11, 2018 9:52 AM
Hillary, no doubt would have been more "presidential," with a more reserved public behavior and a more adult-like public demeanor. Unlike Trump's warts and all personality and child-like tantrums.
A "basket full of deplorables" come to mind. Not to mention the whole "I wuz robbed" global tour were everyone was blamed except of course the remarkably flawed candidate who lost bigly.
A major difference would be a media that would suddenly become reticent to publish wild rumors being spread about as news.
As Iowahawk remarked, the media covers important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. Then there's Treacher's maxim: Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.
If Trump were getting that kind of kid glove treatment, well it's much easier to look presidential if no one is looking or reporting from behind the curtain.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/332494589934047234?lang=en
https://twitter.com/jtlol/status/501493192953319424?lang=en
I R A Darth Aggie at June 11, 2018 11:34 AM
And worse how?
Well, for one Clinton claimed she had hit her head so hard she forgot over 30 years of classified materials handling briefings, and failed to retaining the ten years worth of briefing after the blow to her head
lujlp at June 11, 2018 11:59 AM
Funnily enough, the same day this news about Trump comes out, there's this news about Obama -
Crisis at the National Archives
"In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the historically important records of the Obama administration into the National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a serious problem: A lot of key records are missing."
Snoopy. It's different when they do it. See Sandy Berger.
Richard Aubrey at June 11, 2018 12:22 PM
FAKE NEWS ✓
EVEN IF IT'S TRUE IT DOESN'T MATTER ✓
BUT HILLARY BUT HILLARY ✓
I've got a free space in the middle of my card and I'm just waiting for BUT OBAMA BUT OBAMA to win Trump Bingo.
Kevin at June 11, 2018 12:49 PM
Kevin. the "but obama" you're looking for is kind of cute. If you find it, you'll note that the Right Sort didn't mind. They do now, of course, now that we have a republican president. But they're (not) on record as objecting when Obama did it. And that means they're not principled, as they pretend.
Richard Aubrey at June 11, 2018 1:06 PM
How does someone live in DC on $66k???? That's the real story here.
Momof4 at June 11, 2018 1:07 PM
I've got a free space in the middle of my card and I'm just waiting for BUT OBAMA BUT OBAMA to win Trump Bingo.
Kevin at June 11, 2018 12:49 PM
I’d be quite happy to talk about Obama’s domestic and foreign policies compared to Trump’s all day long.
When you guys want to get real instead of slinging mud drummed up by juice box journalists and their allies, feel free to post a substantive comment.
I was a Cruz supporter early on. Voted for Trump only out of no preferred alternatives on the ballot and the Supreme Court issue. Us gun owners are kind of senstive on that one, and the Democratic party has been making war on us since 1968. They have been making war on liberty and freedom since at least the 1850’s. Granted the GOPe hasn't been much better, but it will be hard to top Woodrow Wilson as a racist bigot.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think Trump would do so many things that I liked, and that most reasonable people should like if they could just get their head out of the ass long enough to see where this country was headed, and lay off the juvenile personal attacks. Cruz couldn't have done it. His skin just isnt thick enough.
Isab at June 11, 2018 1:12 PM
How does someone live in DC on $66k???? That's the real story here.
Momof4 at June 11, 2018 1:07 PM
That’s just his federal salary. Sounds like a maxed out GS-11. He probably gets double that as a Union rep for the Public employees union. And he lives in Virginia.
Isab at June 11, 2018 1:35 PM
So Trump rips up papers that the staff should keep a copy of?
So what? Is this really news? Is it even true?
Is Trump making false promises about me being able to keep my doctor? or keep my insurance? Is Trump calling me a bitter clinger or typical white person? Or calling me a racist? Or is Trump telling me that at some point I've made enough money? Or is Trump claiming that the economy is doing well when in reality it was double digit unemployment? Or is Trump, Like Hillary's Bill serial raping interns and others while she defends him?
Until Trump actually does something that I thought Hillary would have done better I have no gripes about Trump. None! (and hell will freeze over when I believe that Hillary or any of the Republican asshats that ran would have done a better job than Trump has done)
I actually hope "news" stories like this one (This is not the Onion? Really?) keep on coming out because most Americans are smart enough to know hogwash when they see it; and, realize that there are many who want Trump to fail which means they want middle America to fail. Which means more voters will turn out for Trump. So, the only thing this kind of tripe will do is guarantee us EIGHT years of Trump. Yea!
charles at June 11, 2018 5:19 PM
That's our President: still not getting above a C for me.
mpetrie98 at June 11, 2018 5:29 PM
Remember one crucial thing: no matter how impulsive and tyrannical Trump is, to people who voted for him, Hillary would've been worse. Trump could pull out a gun during the State of the Union address, shoot (and kill) three Supreme Court Justices and ten member of Congress and people who voted for Trump would say "Yeah, that was bad but Hillary would've killed all the Justices, most of Congress and then gone outside and killed two hundred tourists."
Actually, I voted for Trump, and if he did such a thing, I would cheerfully help draft the impeachment papers and write out the murder warrants. (Not to mention arm myself for possible civil war.) I'm not sure as of yet whether I support him running in 2020.
Geez, you people think we're ALL a bunch of knuckleheads.
mpetrie98 at June 11, 2018 5:32 PM
Meh. On the scale of Presidential quirks and bad habits, this rates too low for me to care one way or the other.
Cousin Dave at June 11, 2018 5:57 PM
Amy, if this is the worst criticism you can make of Trump, you're pretty much calling him the best President we've had in your lifetime, or maybe even mine (I've got 15 years on you). This offense isn't even on the same order of magnitude as Monica Lewinsky, much less Obamacare, TSA, Watergate, Vietnam, etc.
Rex Little at June 11, 2018 8:52 PM
I would sure like to have this story vetted, and contextualized. I'm about 50-50 that it's true, but questions abound. Does Trump rip up EVERY document? Is it a habit that he had all his life that's hard to break? My husband does this too, by the way--he rips pages that he no longer needs in half so that he knows which documents to keep. Trump seems to have some fastidiousness; does that comport with throwing trash on the floor? If it's a maddening, illogical quirk that makes needless extra work for subordinates, how do we possibly measure that against other quirks that so many bosses have? I'm not saying that he is definitely NOT doing something petulant and irresponsible here; I'm saying that we need verification and context.
RigelDog at June 12, 2018 7:28 AM
I have had a job were we were supposed to shred most everything once it was not needed for business and didn't have a legal requirement to keep. In my position that was most everything. If you couldn't shred it or drop it in a shred box immediately then you were supposed to rip in half such that it split most of the text.
A former employer had an upset employee take an early draft of a proposed contract and later send it to the customer as the proposed contract. That could have caused real problems.
The Former Banker at June 12, 2018 7:55 AM
In the real estate business, he probably got used to destroying old draft versions so they didn't get mistaken for the final version.
Version Control has been an issue at several employers for whom I've worked. I'd find that Department A was working off Version 2.2 while Analyst B was working off Version 2.3. In the meantime, I'd be preparing to send out Version 3.0 with the original 2.2 and 2.3 updates already incorporated.
A lot of times the confusion stemmed from an executive who printed out an earlier version and used that earlier version as the working copy when it was already out-of-date.
Conan the Grammarian at June 12, 2018 8:22 AM
Yes, that's right -- the guy running our country is such an impulsive baby and a tiny tyrant..."
mpetrie98: "That's our President: still not getting above a C for me."
Because of crap like this?
Every day I use printouts and copies of documents and worksheets so the originals don't get lost or defaced; and I rip them when I'm done, because it's an easy way to mark them as trash and make sure they don't get confused with the original or final copies and end up in a record where they could cause confusion and harm.
I think that's pretty much a standard practice in places where information is collected, stored and communicated - especially when those things are done electronically.
I'm more concerned with what President Trump does with regard to the Supreme Court, affirmative action, North Korea, ISIS, relations with Israel, trade with China, illegal immigration, excessive government regulation, Constitutional rights, individual rights and freedom, NAFTA and TPP, relations with Russia, and changing the nature of the previous five administrations' diplomatic felationships with the rest of the world.
I didn't vote for Trump in the 2016 election, and that was a mistake. I'm looking forward to voting for him in '20. I couldn't care less about the President ripping a printout of some memo that he's done with, or about housekeeping staff having to pick it up. And if there's a $66K staff member spending his time restoring garbage, then there's $66K that could be better spent.
Ken R at June 12, 2018 9:34 AM
You know, the National Archive would never tell anyone to reconstruct a President's documents with scotch tape - right?
This whole story is total BS from a bunch of people who were fired under suspicion of leaking to the press.
marion at June 12, 2018 1:36 PM
...the "give nukes to Iran" deal.
Oh, please explain this desciption to those of us who are not your intellectual equals, sir.
DrCos at June 12, 2018 3:20 PM
.the "give nukes to Iran" deal.
Oh, please explain this desciption to those of us who are not your intellectual equals, sir.
DrCos at June 12, 2018 3:20 PM
So, you aren't familiar with the fact that this was a photo op pretend deal (unratified by congress) where Obama shipped boatloads of cash to the Iranian mullahs for a sorta promise that they wouldn't continue with their nuclear weapons program for ten years, after which they were free to carry on?
With of course, no provisions in place to actually check whether they were complying with the terms of the agreement?
Which of course, they had no intention of doing because they knew it was a sham from the beginning?
Isab at June 12, 2018 4:38 PM
It is a funny deal Isab. It wasn't binding on the US and it wasn't binding on Iran. The people who are required in order to make a deal binding didn't sign it, on both sides. I don't know about the Europeans though.
Ben at June 12, 2018 6:54 PM
Conan: Trump's handling of North Korea shows an innate understanding of tyrants and bullies not displayed by his predecessors, Republican or Democrat.
A good example of: it takes one to know one.
I'd add "admiration of" or "envy of" to "understanding of." I think Trump admires/envies the power that people like Putin and Kim Jong Un have.
JD at June 12, 2018 11:34 PM
Isab Says:
"I was a Cruz supporter early on."
I don't know if I can trust your judgement on Trump when you were a Cruz supporter.
I mean... if you lacked the ability to discern that Cruz was a sniveling coward, pathological liar, whose father was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, and who had a backup plan to be the canadian prime minister if the whole presidential election fell through... how on earth can we believe that your judgement of Trump is any better?
Now you may wonder where I have come up with such outrageous claims about Cruz... well they are all taken from Trump quotes:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/worst-things-donald-trump-ted-cruz-said-about-each-other/index.html
Needless to say this puts you in a kind of logical conundrum. One of two things must be true:
1 - You do not have a strong ability to judge character or quality of people running for high public office.
2 - Trumps claims about Cruz were all a pack of lies and you are now supporting a manipulative conman who is willing to make up stories to sway the american public.
Artemis at June 13, 2018 5:15 AM
You would, would you? Well, good for you.
I, on the other hand, will refrain from presuming that I know the inner workings of someone's heart and mind simply because I disagree with their politics.
Unlike "stroke of the pen, law of the land" Obama, Trump is thus far not governing by regulatory agency fiat and "Dear Colleague" letters.
Besides, every recent president has wistfully lamented not wielding the absolute power that their authoritarian counterparts have wielded. Even Winston Churchill lamented that dictatorships were so much more efficient than democracies. Does that mean they were all authoritarians at heart yearning to wield that absolutist "stroke of the pen?" Or does that mean they were merely frustrated with their political opposition?
And even authoritarians have political minefields they must navigate. One thing Kennedy underestimated about Nikita Krushchev in their 1961 Vienna summit was that Nikita had climbed his way to the top of a brutal party bureaucracy and was still subject to oversight by that bureaucracy. Kennedy merely got elected. And that wide-eyed naiveté was why, when he emerged from the first meeting, Kennedy told a reporter "He beat the hell out of me."
Even Kim Jong Un must walk a tightrope between the power of his military and the hunger for power of his family members when governing. The Sword of Damocles hangs heavy over the heads of dictators in a way that it does not over the noggins of elected heads of state. And Trump, coming from a family-run company, may know that better than most presidents.
Conan the Grammarian at June 13, 2018 6:18 AM
Conan Says:
"I, on the other hand, will refrain from presuming that I know the inner workings of someone's heart and mind simply because I disagree with their politics."
Since when?
You have all but made a career of telling liberal leaning commenters what is in their heart and mind when it suits your purposes.
I would love it if you stuck to the issues and never resorted to arm chair psychology as a means to dismiss the arguments of those on the other side of the political aisle, but when push comes to shove you have not demonstrated a sincere commitment to your stated ideals.
Artemis at June 13, 2018 6:31 AM
"A manipulative conman who is willing to make up stories to sway the [American] public?" Why, Artie, you've just described every politician in history.
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers." ~ Nikita Khrushchev
Our history is full of outrageous claims made on the campaign trail.
In 1836, the Whigs claimed opponent, Martin Van Buren, wore women's corsets.
In 1856, John Fremont claimed that his opponent, James Buchannan's head tilted to the left because he once tried to hang himself. Buchannan suffered from a congenital palsy, which caused the leftward tilt.
In 1876, Samuel Tilden supporters claimed Rutherford B. Hayes shot his own mother in a fit of insanity. Hayes' mother was dead, but not because her son shot her.
The 1884 sex scandal involving Maria Halpin and Democratic nominee, Grover Cleveland, was a whiplash-inducing volley of back-and-forth outrageous accusations.
In 1928, Catholic Al Smith faced an uphill battle against Herbert Hoover, including claims he was taking orders directly from the Pope (through a tunnel under the Atlantic no less) and that he engaged in "card-playing, cocktail drinking, poodle dogs, divorces, novels, stuffy rooms, evolution ... nude art, prize-fighting, actors, greyhound racing, and modernism." Poodle dogs?
Not to be outdone by Tilden in 1876, supporters of Eisenhower's 1952 bid claimed Adlai Stevenson once killed a young girl in a jealous rage.
Lyndon Johnson's 1964 campaign distributed a children's coloring book showing his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in a Klan robe; and engaged in a letter-writing campaign to Ann Landers to discredit Goldwater. And who can forget that famous commercial, "In your heart, you know he might."
Or, perhaps you believe that the GHW Bush administration was planning to disrupt the wedding of H. Ross Perot's daughter with doctored pictures.
Conan the Grammarian at June 13, 2018 7:10 AM
“I don't know if I can trust your judgement on Trump when you were a Cruz supporter.”
Don't bother trusting my judgment. Why on earth would you rely on anything I said or advocated for?
The facts speak for themselves.
The only reason to trust anyone’s judgement on anything is because you have none of your own, which has become readily apparent to everyone here, with your first three posts on this web site.
Isab at June 13, 2018 8:29 AM
LOL Amy. I can't stand the guy but really with this shit? The chic who hates the government's myriad stupid and outdated rules for the sake of rules is mad that the latest moron in the White House has a paper ripping habit?
Since this is my science-based comment I'll remind you to always be wary of confirmation bias.
Sam at June 13, 2018 11:46 AM
Since always, Artie, since always.
Not even then, Artie, not even then.
I don't know what's in people's hearts and minds unless they reveal the contents. I am not The Shadow; I do not claim to know what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men.
The only person I've even attempted to arm-chair analyze, Artie, is you. And that's due to the incredible naiveté shown in your posts and the sanctimonious self-righteousness you convey when addressing the arguments of those who challenge your stated positions.
Your posts show all the sophisticated understanding of the world around you of a child. Your arguments consist of repeating talking points ad nauseam until your opponent gives up, then you claim victory by getting the last post in.
In addition, your unwillingness to disclose even the least detail about yourself in all the years we've been subjected to your pointless ramblings furthers my suspicions that you navigate this world neither independently nor confidently.
Experience shapes the man, Artie, and without experience one cannot trust that the man has sound judgement.
Always good to hear from you Artie. Keep passing those open windows.
Conan the Grammarian at June 13, 2018 12:08 PM
"I would love it if you stuck to the issues..."
Back atcha. You have the lowest content/syllable ratio here.
Radwaste at June 14, 2018 12:40 AM
Isab Says:
"The only reason to trust anyone’s judgement on anything is because you have none of your own"
Just a few points:
1 - My comment to you was obviously tongue in cheek... of course I don't trust your judgment on anything.
2 - It is completely natural and expected to trust the judgment of others in a large variety of circumstances. This does not indicate a lack of personal judgment. For example, if I visit a physician because I have a sore throat and they do a culture to determine whether or not I have a viral or bacterial infection... it is completely reasonable for me to trust their expert judgment on the results of that test as well as their judgment on the proper prescription if necessary. It would be insane for me to demand that I evaluate the culture for myself and then determine my own course of medical treatment independent of their advice.
Needless to say, your statement as usual is categorically wrong in terms of how to operate in a society such as our own.
Note - This does not mean one blindly follows the advice of others. However we do as a matter of necessity trust the judgment of others when it is warranted.
Artemis at June 14, 2018 5:02 AM
Conan Says:
"Our history is full of outrageous claims made on the campaign trail."
What is your point Conan?
All you are doing here is trying to make excuses for notably poor behavior and comportment.
Your argument is no different than a child making excuses for their misdeeds by pointing out that "little timmy did it too"!!!
All adults know that this isn't a valid excuse. You cannot justify the shitty behavior of one person by pointing out the shitty behavior of others.
As we all should understand, there is a spectrum of individual behavior. This is as true for politicians as it is for children.
As it stands Trump is way off to one side of that distribution in terms of spewing outrageous bullshit. He most certainly isn't even close to the honest or dignified part of the spectrum.
What is amazing to me if the following:
When people such as yourself talk about Hillary Clinton you rant and rave about how awful it is that she is "corrupt" and "dishonest"... yet in your next breath you completely dismiss Trumps corruption and dishonestly as unimportant because that is just how politicians are... then you will rattle off a dozen examples.
Well which is it... are you concerned about corruption and dishonestly within our political candidates or not?
It seems to me you are selectively okay with corruption and dishonestly so long as it is coming from members of one particular team.
In other words, if you didn't have a double standard you wouldn't have any standards at all.
Artemis at June 14, 2018 5:13 AM
Conan,
Even you have to recognize that you are full of shit at the moment.
First you claim the following:
"I, on the other hand, will refrain from presuming that I know the inner workings of someone's heart and mind simply because I disagree with their politics."
I recognize this as a principle that you fail to consistently follow and call you out on it and in your response you double down that you *always* follow this principle.
Then in your very next paragraph you admit the following:
"The only person I've even attempted to arm-chair analyze, Artie, is you."
So you admit to engaging in this behavior right after you were adamant that you never do this.
I think I have made my point.
You can and will resort to presuming that you know the inner workings of someones heart and mind when it suits your purposes.
I have no reason to believe that in all the world I and I alone am the exception. This behavior is in your character and yet you chastised someone else for it.
To add even more irony to your statement, you added this:
"sanctimonious self-righteousness you convey when addressing the arguments of those who challenge your stated positions"
Don't you see how self-righteous and sanctimonious your original response to JD was?
This was your response in full context:
"You would, would you? Well, good for you.
I, on the other hand, will refrain from presuming that I know the inner workings of someone's heart and mind simply because I disagree with their politics."
That response is literally dripping with sanctimony and self-righteousness... declaring that you are somehow better than JD because you would *never* lower yourself to presuming the inner workings of another persons mind as JD has done.
As usual, your statement is full of projection.
You speak to others here with an obvious sense of self-righteousness... I wasn't even in the tread when you did this, so you cannot use me as an excuse.
This is how you act... then you bitch and moan if you sense that it is happening to you.
Here is some advice Conan, treat others the way you expect to be treated. When you can do that perhaps you will also get the treatment you want in return.
Artemis at June 14, 2018 5:27 AM
Annnd there it is.
Radwaste at June 14, 2018 3:35 PM
By the way, so long as we're comparing disparate items, that $66K a year was expended, supposedly to patch official documents which were printed on government machines with their own data retention requirements...
Sixteen people working for Michelle Obama made more money than that.
For what, I leave to you.
Radwaste at June 14, 2018 3:54 PM
Radwaste,
The unfortunate reality is that what someone can confidently assert without evidence in one sentence can often take quite a while to correct with proper justification.
For example, please correct the following statement with proper justification in an extremely short statement:
"The earth is 6000 years old, the bible says so. All of that radio carbon dating is nonsense."
That is the kind of statement a young earth creationist would make with extreme confidence. They would be utterly wrong... but extremely confident.
To explain the details of radio carbon dating and how accurate it is, how it was calibrated, and under what conditions and time frames different radio isotopes are useful cannot be achieved quickly.
Accurate information takes time to explain. Nonsense can just be asserted.
Artemis at June 14, 2018 9:14 PM
Wow. Put a nickel in 'im and you get a dollar's worth of crap out.
Conan the Grammarian at June 15, 2018 8:20 AM
And, as I was saying...
Trump’s Envy of Kim Jong-un
JD at June 16, 2018 10:11 AM
Related: The Trump Foreign Policy Doctrine? "I'm Trump, Bitch"
JD at June 16, 2018 10:15 AM
JD, an opinion piece, even one in as distinguished a publication as The New York Times is not proof of your earlier assertion of Trump's envy of dictators.
Nor does the unfounded allegation that "Trump dreams of building condos on [North Korea's] deserted beaches and seeing a Trump Boulevard in Pyongyang," serve as proof of Trump's "envy" of Kim Jong Un.
Now, if you'd said Trump's coziness with and expressions of warmth for Kim are cause for concern, I'd have agreed with you. While realpolitik is one thing, open praise for a totalitarian's expressed concern for his people is another.
All totalitarians attempt to sugarcoat their brutality with expressions of fatherly concern for their nation and its people. However, even Chamberlain did not return from Munich praising Hitler's love for his people and extolling Der Führer's personal warmth.
It's possible that Trump may be playing a long game, using immediate expressions of warmth as a velvet glove for the iron first that Pompeo is to put to use later.
Perhaps Trump is attempting to co-opt Kim in a political chess game with China - as Nixon did when he cozied up to China while struggling against the North Vietnamese.
Of course, to believe either of those, we'd have to believe a non-political entity possesses a level of gamesmanship not shown by his more-experienced predecessors. It's possible, but a long shot nonetheless.
Whatever Trump's shortcomings, and they are many, an opinion piece by an author of a series of critical editorials in a newspaper known to be hostile, perceptive though the editorialist may be, does not offer unbiased insight into Trump's heart and mind. It does not prove your assertion.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2018 10:44 AM
The problem with the Reason editorial is that Trump has not yet signed an actual deal with North Korea. He's only made a deal to make a deal. And he's admitted publicly that he may have to walk back even that if North Korea is not willing to cooperate.
Before we declare the resultant deal to be weak, let's see what deal he actually makes.
And let's see if, unlike his predecessor, he's actually willing to submit his foreign deals to Congress to be ratified as treaties and made into US law.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2018 10:49 AM
You to Artemis (earlier): I don't know what's in people's hearts and minds unless they reveal the contents.
You (just now): JD, an opinion piece, even one in as distinguished a publication as The New York Times is not proof of your earlier assertion of Trump's envy of dictators.
See how you've just done what you earlier claimed to not do?
JD at June 16, 2018 11:07 AM
By the way, I enjoyed your Droogs/Ludwig van reference on the thread about classical music.
Hope you have a nice Saturday. I'm off to catch the nude bicyclists -- and other assorted folks -- at the Fremont Fair Solstice Parade.
JD at June 16, 2018 11:11 AM
Au contraire, mon ami. I did not claim to see into the author's heart or mind alleging outright that he hates Trump. I simply cited his past editorials and pointed out that they've been hostile to Trump; and noted that a history of hostile editorials does not constitute a body of proof for allegations made therein.
Trump's an egotistical ass. I've said that before. And that's based on his behavior, not any feigned keen insight into him. He might be the egotistical ass we need right now, but he's still an egotistical ass.
Have fun at the parade. I miss the nuttiness of the San Francisco Bay Area and things like that - e.g., the Folsom Street Fair. North Carolina is much less hospitable to nude bike parades, although Charlotte has opened up a bit to alternative lifestyles. And there's always Asheville.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2018 11:26 AM
“Au contraire, mon ami. I did not claim to see into the author's heart or mind alleging outright that he hates Trump. I simply cited his past editorials and pointed out that they've been hostile to Trump; and noted that a history of hostile editorials does not constitute a body of proof for allegations made therein.”
Just remember Conan, in la la SJW land, challenging someone’s facts, citations, and opinions, is telling them what to think, and your only possible motivation is that you, me and the rest of us Libertarian leaning, opponents of socialism are just a bunch of nasty bigots.
They are quite right to despise us, and not pay any attention to what we write, because shut up.
Isab at June 16, 2018 4:15 PM
"The unfortunate reality is that..."
AGAIN?
The example you gave can be explained with a single link.
Your mistake is that anyone wants you to "explain" things.
Radwaste at June 16, 2018 9:09 PM
Conan Says:
"I simply cited his past editorials and pointed out that they've been hostile to Trump; and noted that a history of hostile editorials does not constitute a body of proof for allegations made therein."
This is an example of where you have an extremely obvious double standard.
You presume that you are able to ascribe motivations to individuals based upon historical behavior and actions.
Yet at the same time you presume that no one is capable of ascribing motivations to Trump based upon copious amounts of historical evidence.
It isn't as if Trump just appeared out of thin air.
People have been observing his antics since the 1970's... that is 40+ years of observational evidence.
Yet you constantly act as if people are misinformed or under-informed about him.
When I say he is a con artist it isn't because of misguided opinion... it is because he has continually stiffed small business owners, continually scammed customers, continually balked on business deals with banks and other financial institutions.
You do in fact behave as if you are the only one capable of deducing motivations from past behavior.
I have news for you... you aren't.
Artemis at June 18, 2018 9:33 AM
I'm going to call it now... all of the aged dupes/marks are going to flip their shit when Trump finally comes for their social security and medicare.
I'm going to say I told you so now.
Artemis at June 18, 2018 9:36 AM
You do that, Artie.
No one cares.
Conan the Grammarian at June 18, 2018 11:23 AM
Conan Says:
"No one cares."
What is becoming clearer by the day is that devout Trump supporters care about no one... so this isn't a surprise.
Keep defending a person who rips 4 year olds from their parents and tosses them into detention centers.
This is how fascism starts you feckless moron.
I used to have a modicum of respect for you, but no longer.
When you can see what is going on and say things like this:
"He might be the egotistical ass we need right now"
You have completely lost the plot.
Artemis at June 20, 2018 8:25 AM
First of all, dumbass, I am not a "devout" Trump supporter. And if you bothered to actually read what I write instead of making it up, you'd know that. By the way, "he might be the egotistical ass we need right now" is hardly a statement of "devout" support.
Secondly, dumbass, fascism is a collectivist ideology - on the left side of the political spectrum.
The fasces from which fascism takes its name - was originally a bundle of sticks used by Roman magistrates as a badge of office. Mussolini used the bundle to show that Italians were stronger as a group than as individuals and that they should join with him in a glorious new Roman Age.
Mussolini, once a devout disciple of French Marxist, George Sorel, initially appointed a classical economist as his economic minister. De Stefani simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions, and abolished rent controls. The Italian economy grew more than 20 percent under Stefani's guidance.
Desiring a "class collaboration," Mussolini then turned to the economics of John Maynard Keynes, referring to them as "useful introduction to fascist economics" and expanded spending on public infrastructure and schools, spending Italy into a structural deficit that grew exponentially and tanked the Italian economy.
Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party advocated social welfare programs, a higher minimum wage, universal health care, retirement pensions, the nationalization of all corporations, abolition of incomes not earned through work, profit-sharing of large enterprises, land reform, public works projects to increase employment, deficit funding of public works, and other programs very similar to FDR's New Deal.
The main philosophical thing that separated the Fascists from the Communists was an emphasis on nationalism and nation-states by the Fascists vs. the internationalism advocated by the Communists. That opposition to Communism has caused many to mistakenly place Fascism on the right side of the political spectrum.
The reason the right wing in the Weimar Republic allied itself with the National Socialists is because the Nazis and the Communists were at odds (competing for the same voters will do that) and the Nazi emphasis on nationalism. The Weimar right wing parties were more interested in restoring a Prussian-style government with a strong executive than in shoring up what they saw as a weak republican form of government.
By the way, "Nazi" was an insult heaped upon the National Socialists by the Social Democrats, whom the Nazis derided as Sozis.
So, fascism starts, you feckless moron, with the emphasis of the "state" or the "people" over the individual and the destruction of individual rights and liberties.
By the way, Hitler promised the “creation of a socially just state" in his speech in 1939. Social Justice? Where have I heard that before?
Read this if you'd like to know more about Hitler's socialism and why the Holocaust was motivated more by fiscal concerns than by racial ones: pick a sector of your society with a lot of money, demonize it, marginalize it, and then plunder it. "Tax the Rich" ring a bell?
The angry rhetoric of the various SJW groups should concern you far more than the barely coherent blathering of Donald Trump. The biggest fascists in this country right now are the ones most loudly claiming to be anti-fascists. And, Artie, I can see you being one of them.
You never did - and I never cared.
Artie, I've read your stuff over the years and I've come to the conclusion that you move through this world neither confidently nor independently. And you have not demonstrated the intellectual chops to formulate realistic analyses in a vacuum. You're a pseudo-intellectual SJW. As such, your opinion means little to me.
Conan the Grammarian at June 20, 2018 10:54 AM
Conan Says:
"First of all, dumbass, I am not a "devout" Trump supporter."
Really... so what do you call your constant minimizing of his disregard for rule of law... and your constant excuses for his aberrant authoritarian mode of operation?
When you say things like this:
"He might be the egotistical ass we need right now"
You are quite literally declaring that while you may not entirely like his methods... it could very well be for best.
I am calling bullshit on all of this Conan.
When you can see a person tearing children away from parents and locking them in cages you don't get to hide behind that kind of rhetoric as a shield.
You've got to own that shit Conan. Any person with decency in their heart just plainly declares that this is wrong, without qualification and without excuses.
Tell me again that we just might need someone in office willing to throw toddlers in cages.
Someone who can say that with a straight face has lost sight of their own humanity.
There are simply lines that we never cross... and declaring that doesn't make someone a "pseudo-intellectual SJW".
Also:
"Secondly, dumbass, fascism is a collectivist ideology - on the left side of the political spectrum."
Well that is interesting considering most scholars/historians place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum. Incidentally, that is why the oxford english dictionary defines fascism in the following way:
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism
But sure Conan... fascism is on the left of the political spectrum (in your fantasy world at least).
You live in a delusion of your own creation where all the evils of the world originate on the left.
This is why you cannot clearly see when things are going wrong and the republican party is holding all the levers of power.
You simply cannot fathom that there is a serious issue at play here when the source can only be the party you are affiliated with, and you do everything you can to distort, lie about, minimize, and ignore what is plainly seen by any unbiased observer.
I've said before it is disheartening to see many folks here putting party over country... but some of you have reached a new low in putting party over humanity.
"And you have not demonstrated the intellectual chops to formulate realistic analyses in a vacuum."
One does not need intellectual chops to understand that it is fundamentally wrong to rip toddlers away from their parents and lock them in cages.
Either you get it or you don't.
That you do not appear capable of fathoming this simply reality suggests you have no moral core.
Artemis at June 21, 2018 12:09 AM
First of all, what you used to illustrate his "disregard for rule of law" consisted of campaign rhetoric about Ted Cruz. And, as I pointed out in my examples, campaign rhetoric in the US has always been a bit hyperbolic. Unless you really think Rutherford B. Hayes actually killed his mother in a fit of insanity.
Yes, Artie, with collectivism being on the far left and anarchy on the far right, outdated Revolutionary French National Assembly legislative seating definitions of Right and Left notwithstanding.
No, not all evils originate on the far left. Anarchy is not a desirable state either, nor a sustainable one - just look at Somalia in the '90s.
As I said earlier, pay attention this time, most scholars put fascism as a right-wing ideology because of its emphasis on nationalism (versus Communism's internationalism) and its opposition to Communism, but it's also a collectivist ideology, putting the welfare of the state ahead of that of the individual.
While I don't agree with the separation of families in detention, the current public outrage is misplaced. Those pictures of "toddlers in cages" are from 2014, and CNN knows it (as, I suspect, do you).
The main problem in this issue is the Flores Consent Decree signed in 1997 to settle Flores v. Reno; modified by the Ninth Circuit Court in 2016. That decree limited the time the government could hold unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors to 20 days. The Ninth later modified it to include accompanied illegal immigrant minors.
Even as left-leaning a publication as Vox has said Trump may not be able to simply overturn Flores with an executive order, that Congress will need to act, something both Republican- and Democrat-dominated Congresses have been reluctant to do of late.
You mean like appointing administration czars not submitted to Congress for approval? Or governing through regulator agencies, executive orders ("stroke of the pen, law of the land"), or "Dear Colleague" letters? Or modifying portions of Congressionally-enacted laws when it was inconvenient to implement them? 'cause you were silent or cheering when the previous administration did all of that.
Yeah, you're really bothered by an "aberrant authoritarian mode of operation" - but not when it's the guy on your side exercising it. Speaking of putting party ahead of humanity.
Pot, have you met Kettle?
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2018 5:49 AM
Of course, if a left-right spectrum is too simplistic for you, you could use the Nolan Chart or a modified version of it, but then you couldn't deride your opponent as a "leftist" or "right-wing nut." You'd have to describe him as an "upper left quadrant nut."
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2018 6:21 AM
If you use a Pournelle Chart, you can see that Communists and Fascists both operate on the right of his Statism spectrum, but I take issue with his putting Communists at the higher end of the Rationalism spectrum.
Communism may pay lip service to rationality, but it is, in practice, often anything but rational. Pol Pot even went so far as banning eyeglasses and jailing anyone who even looked "intellectual."
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2018 6:39 AM
Yes. I am. Quite literally.
Sometimes things need a painful re-adjustment. And they do today.
We had 8 years of a president who, while not an evil person, put into place precedents that could be used to seize power - e.g., ruling by executive order ("stroke of the pen...."), regulatory agency fiat, and "Dear Colleague" letters. And a political party that sat back and cheered him on.
And Donald Trump may just be the president to put a stop to that, either by his own rectitude or by the sudden discovery of Constitutional limits on presidential power by the party that sat back and allowed his predecessor free rein. Probably more than latter than the former, but still.
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2018 9:13 AM
Conan Says:
"Yes. I am. Quite literally."
If you can with a straight face declare that it might be for the best that we have an administration who actively stripped toddlers and infants from their parents and locked them in detention centers... you have lost your humanity.
Also:
"First of all, what you used to illustrate his "disregard for rule of law" consisted of campaign rhetoric about Ted Cruz."
I said no such thing. His disregard for rule of law has more to do with the fact that he has been caught paying hush money to individuals in order to cover up a crime. That is just one example of course, there are MANY others that are in the public record.
You have lost your mind if you actually believe that Obama was some kind of tyrant and Trump is going to in some sense restore the presidency.
For all of your criticisms of Obama, Trump is objectively worse.
I am convinced at this point that folks like you have no issues with tyranny... you just want a form of tyranny where you like what the tyrant is doing.
Artemis at June 22, 2018 5:17 AM
Conan Says:
"As I said earlier, pay attention this time, most scholars put fascism as a right-wing ideology because of its emphasis on nationalism"
BINGO!!!
This is why when you declare that fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum you were so far off it was astonishing to me. You had everything completely backwards.
Now to the nationalism bit.
You don't believe that Trump's base is extremely nationalist?
You don't believe that the policy to tear infants away from their migrant parents and lock them in cages was a nationalist policy?
I stand by my original statement... policies such as that is how fascism starts.
It is too bad that you are in so deep that you cannot recognize this simple fact.
You and people like you are the reason that fascist forms of government emerge... because you are always making excuses for and trying to justify the clearly unethical behavior of leaders who display fascist tendencies.
It shouldn't be this difficult for you to stand up for what is right when this isn't a difficult moral or ethical question.
Artemis at June 22, 2018 5:35 AM
Conan Says:
"Yeah, you're really bothered by an "aberrant authoritarian mode of operation" - but not when it's the guy on your side exercising it. Speaking of putting party ahead of humanity."
What are you talking about Conan?
I have been quite vocal in the past that I think that things like the "Dear Colleague" letters were wrong because it violated due process.
The only one being inconsistent here is you.
I've openly criticized Obama on many occasions and I did so without qualification or other weak sauce justifications like "well... maybe this is just what we need right now".
You are projecting.
I call out nonsense from any direction it is coming from. I have no party allegiance.
I could criticize the democrats all day on a wide variety of issues.
Right now the republicans hold all the cards though, so it makes sense for my focus at the moment to be on those pulling the levers.
Artemis at June 22, 2018 5:45 AM
By what objective standard? You're certainly not objective on this subject.
This isn't grade school, Artie, it's real life. And sometimes, the asshole is the right person for the job.
Trump is not ruling via executive order or agency fiat, as his predecessor did. We have yet to see if Trump will submit whatever agreement, if any, he negotiates with Kim Jong Un to Congress for ratification. If he does not, you'll hear my voice criticizing him, as I criticized Obama for not submitting the Iran Deal and the Paris Agreement for ratification.
By not submitting those two deals, signature deals of his administration, to Congress, Obama ensured they never became treaties and did not become part of the body of US law; meaning they were easily, and legally, overturned by a stroke of the pen of his successor.
Likely as not, I won't vote for Trump in 2020. We'll see who the Democrats run. And if William Weld runs on the Libertarian ticket, there will be a real conservative for whom to vote, although Weld would encounter many of the same issues governing that I pointed out in another thread Gary Johnson would have, if he'd won.
We've been through this earlier and in greater depth on other threads. This issue is being overblown to force Trump to back down on his zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration.
And, yes, I did notice your attempt to tug on heartstrings with the "stripped toddlers and infants" line. Yes, like Time, let's show the crying baby (who is still with her mother by the way) and try to use that to tug on the heartstrings about how eeeevil Trump is. The New York Times even compared this to slavery. See how eeeevil Trump is? Slavery!
Democrat senator, Chuck Schumer, has admitted he won't agree to any bill that abrogates Flores, the root cause of all this, because he wants to force Trump to back off zero tolerance and effectively open the border to all comers.
So, a US Senator is cynically keeping toddlers and infants "in cages" to play politics and prevent Trump from getting a win. And yet you're silent on his complicity.
You really don't care that "toddlers and infants" are "in cages," you only care that Trump can be blamed for it. Putting politics ahead of "toddlers and infants," Artie? Where's your humanity?
You were awfully silent about this policy during the last administration when it was first implemented. Not a peep out of you. Partisan much?
I'm opposed to all forms of tyranny.
The biggest tyrannies in history have come into power by claiming to be "for the people" and "progressive." Millions were imprisoned or killed in "people's republics" and "democratic republics" like the USSR, Red China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, and East Germany.
Even the Nazis came to power promising progressive benefits like welfare, pensions, minimum wages, and public works projects.
Based on a history of tyrannical regimes, I'm more worried about the velvet glove than I am about the naked iron fist.
I'm not worried about Trump becoming a dictator. He can't. Not even his own party would stand for it. But I watched Democrats sigh adoringly and keep silent whenever Obama usurped more and more Congressional authority.
That silence bothered me even more than the usurpation did - after all, presidents and Congress have engaged in power struggles, as our Founding Fathers intended, for centuries.
Your squawking, Artie, is childish petulance that your favored candidate didn't win. Had a Democrat won, you'd be silent as the grave on any and all transgressions; as you were with Obama. You'd happily support the implementation of a "progressive" dictatorship and blithely dismiss the growing body count as "enemies of the revolution."
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2018 7:01 AM
Conan Says:
"By what objective standard? You're certainly not objective on this subject.
This isn't grade school, Artie, it's real life. And sometimes, the asshole is the right person for the job."
I don't understand why this is so confusing for you Conan.
If you are arguing that it is only "subjectively" wrong to rip children from their parents and lock them in cages in detention centers... then I once again have to question your humanity.
This isn't a challenging ethical dilemma.
You are correct that this isn't grade school... moral adults know the answer to the question.
I think you need to return to grade school and learn some fundamental life lessons you obviously missed.
There are no ends that these means can possibly justify.
This is cruelty plain and simply... perpetrated on the most vulnerable members of society.
You have lost the plot.
You aren't against tyrants... you just have preferred types of tyrants.
Artemis at June 22, 2018 9:08 AM
"Even the Nazis came to power promising progressive benefits like welfare, pensions, minimum wages, and public works projects."
They came to power by stoking the flames of an incredibly nationalistic base that all of their problems came from a series of marginalized groups.
Then they started locking people up in cages.
Cut the crap already Conan... if you were in germany circa the 1930's you would probably also be saying that maybe what was going on was just what they needed.
After all:
"And sometimes, the asshole is the right person for the job."
Artemis at June 22, 2018 9:11 AM
"Trump is not ruling via executive order or agency fiat, as his predecessor did."
Wake up Conan... this entire mess with children being locked in cages was a Trump polish by agency fiat.
You aren't paying attention.
Artemis at June 22, 2018 9:17 AM
Read a book once in a while. "Drawing on secret files and financial records, Aly shows that while Jews and citizens of occupied lands suffered crippling taxation, mass looting, enslavement, and destruction, most Germans enjoyed an improved standard of living. Buoyed by millions of packages soldiers sent from the front, Germans also benefited from the systematic plunder of conquered territory and the transfer of Jewish possessions into their homes and pockets. Any qualms were swept away by waves of government handouts, tax breaks, and preferential legislation."
This one gives a pretty good insight into pre-War German culture and politics, the environment in which the Nazis came to power.
Hitler needed the riches plundered from the Jews and non-Germans to fund the benefits he was bestowing on the Germans. The Holocaust as much financial as racial, perhaps more so. It was simple: take a segment of your society with lots of money, isolate it, demonize it, marginalize it, and plunder it.
Do the persistent cries of "the rich don't pay their fair share" coming out of the DNC and the Bernie Sanders camp ring a bell? They should - and they should alarm you.
Likely not, as I've been pretty up front as to my opposition to marginalizing and demonizing segments of society, whether the religious or the liberal.
And Trump ≠ Hitler, no matter how much you hate Trump and want the two to be the same.
It has been said that had Adolf Hitler died before June 1940, he'd likely have been a hero in Germany. The Final Solution was still in its embryonic stages, not yet the mass slaughter it would later become, beginning in 1942. Without violence, Hitler had added millions of new German citizens and square miles of territory to Germany (Danzig, Sudetenland, etc.). His public works projects (e.g., the Autobah) were marvels of modern engineering and put millions of Germans back to work after the Depression. He'd engaged in limited war and avenged Versailles, conquering France in only a few weeks and driving the British off the continent. The war with Russia (June 1940) and German involvement in North Africa (February 1941) had not yet begun.
First, we've already gone through the timeline of this - and the Trump policy role in it. I won't repeat myself simply because you refuse to read and instead cherry pick words at which to declare outrage and repeat party talking points ad infinitum.
I'm not supporting the separation of families at the border, but I don't see how you keep families intact in detention when a consent decree signed twenty years ago forces you to release the children after 20 days and releasing the parents means losing them (an INS-estimated 97% don't show up later for their hearings).
Second, enforcing Congressionally-enacted laws is not an agency fiat. Trump, well within his purview as president, declared that there would be zero-tolerance for breaking Congressionally-enacted immigration laws.
Now, I've never been a fan of zero-tolerance policies, viewing them as rigidly absolutist and prone to brutal enforcement. And I don't support this one.
However, it's well within Trump's authority as president to declare his intent to enforce existing laws according to such a policy - and, if Congress opposes such a policy, it's up to Congress to enact a revised law, over Trump's veto if necessary. But Democrats, enamored of having a cudgel with which to beat Trump, refuse to give in to his entreaties to abrogate Flores with Congressional action.
Schumer has admitted the Democrats are not going to act because they want looser enforcement of immigration laws without putting their names to a bill - which might cost them re-election. And the zero-tolerance policy blowback, stoked by the Democrat outrage machine, gives them leverage on the issue. Who's the Nazi here, again?
There's always the possibility that Trump is taking a page from Ulysses Grant, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." He's said we need comprehensive immigration reform and this might be the way to get it.
By the way, reinterpreting a Congressional Act without consultation, (e.g., A "Dear Colleague" letter that expands Title IX to include transgendered bathrooms and locker rooms) is rule by agency fiat. Signing an agreement with a foreign power, then not submitting it to the Senate for ratification, yet having your regulatory agency enforce the provisions of the heretofore unratified agreement (e.g., the Paris Agreement and the EPA) is rule by agency fiat. Enforcing existing law, even strictly, is not.
Now, Artie, you've made me defend Trump far more than I ever wanted to - and far more than he deserves. If you're going to attack him, attack him on things he's actually guilty of, not ginned up controversies in which both sides equally have blood on their hands.
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2018 2:35 PM
Heather McDonald breaks down "WHo's Really to Blame at the Border?:
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2018 4:55 PM
Another columnist enters the fray, Bruce Thornton:
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2018 5:09 PM
Correction: the German invasion of the Soviet Union kicked off in June 1941, not 1940.
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2018 6:50 PM
Conan,
You have clearly lost your mind.
"And Trump ≠ Hitler, no matter how much you hate Trump and want the two to be the same."
I didn't even bring up Hitler in this conversation.
I never even mentioned him.
You are the one who keeps talking about Hitler... in fact you have mentioned him 8 separate times.
Do a quick search of the thread to confirm for yourself.
How can you accuse me of comparing Trump to Hitler when you are the only one who even mentioned his name?
Artemis at June 25, 2018 1:37 AM
Conan Says:
"I've been pretty up front as to my opposition to marginalizing and demonizing segments of society"
Unless of course it is immigrant children being stripped from their parents and locked in cages... then you don't seem to care so much.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 1:41 AM
Conan Says:
"Unlike "stroke of the pen, law of the land" Obama, Trump is thus far not governing by regulatory agency fiat and "Dear Colleague" letters."
And:
"However, it's well within Trump's authority as president to declare his intent to enforce existing laws according to such a policy"
Okay Conan... humor me for a moment.
How exactly was the "Dear Colleague" letter outside of Obama's authority as president?
The "Dear Colleague" letter was a guidance to universities on how the Obama administration planned to enforce title IX requirements related to sexual harassment and sexual violence.
So let's be crystal clear here:
The Trump administration interprets/enforces existing law in the most cruel and inhumane manner possible and that to you he is just acting within his authority.
The Obama administration interprets/enforces existing law in a manner that is incompatible with due process expected in criminal accusations... and to you he governed with agency fiat.
Anyone with at least two functioning brain cells can see you aren't measuring these administrations with the same yard stick.
You are just full of excuses.
Where you saw Obama as overreaching you see Trump as acting within his authority... and yet the situations are analogous.
I would argue what Trump is doing is worse if for no other reason than the victims are toddlers. That being said I wasn't a fan of punishing people for criminal offenses outside of the criminal justice system either... but at least they weren't put in cages.
Oh... and just to further hit home Trumps utter disregard for law and order, here is a lovely recent tweet of his:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1010900865602019329
"When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came."
Yeah... there is mister law and order for you... just cut the courts out and declare them guilty and sentence them to a punishment without trial.
The obvious question here is this... how exactly does one adjudicate if they have a right to stay or not if we don't bring them before a judge?
We could very well end up deporting our own citizens because a board patrol agent thinks they look foreign.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 2:03 AM
Conan Says:
"By the way, reinterpreting a Congressional Act without consultation, (e.g., A "Dear Colleague" letter that expands Title IX to include transgendered bathrooms and locker rooms) is rule by agency fiat."
This is going to be fun. Please show me where in the "Dear Colleague" letter it references anything about bathrooms or locker rooms:
https://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
You don't even know what you are talking about.
The "Dear Colleague" letter was guidance for how the Obama administration wanted Universities to handle cases of sexual assault.
There is nothing in there about locker rooms or bathrooms.
Your brains have been scrambled by watching far too much fox news and alex jones.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 2:25 AM
Conan Says:
"Now, Artie, you've made me defend Trump far more than I ever wanted to - and far more than he deserves. If you're going to attack him, attack him on things he's actually guilty of, not ginned up controversies in which both sides equally have blood on their hands."
You require no inducement to defend Trump. You were doing so before I even entered this conversation. In fact you defend him on a repeated basis.
Here is your problem summed up as succinctly as possible:
You are rabidly partisan.
I mean seriously, in your most recent comments you have compared both Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer to Nazi's (both of whom I will remind you are Jewish so this is particularly offensive behavior on your part)... all while contorting yourself into knots to defend Trumps clearly inhumane actions of rounding up toddlers and locking them in cages:
"There's always the possibility that Trump is taking a page from Ulysses Grant, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." He's said we need comprehensive immigration reform and this might be the way to get it."
So just to be absolutely clear... when Bernie Sanders contends that wealth inequality is an issue that needs to be dealt with with economic reform... you see indications of his intent to wage a holocaust (this was your description verbatim).
"The Holocaust as much financial as racial, perhaps more so."
That you can even say things like this demonstrates how incredibly sick you are.
Homosexuals and gypsies were ALSO targets of the holocaust and they weren't exactly financially well off. Even the stereotype of the Jews being financially well off was off base generally speaking. People were tattooed and forced to wear gold stars irrespective of their financial status.
Your understanding of history is distorted and deranged.
Yet... when you see Trump carting off two year olds and locking them in cages, you see no evidence of inhumanity... no, what you see is this:
"There's always the possibility that Trump is taking a page from Ulysses Grant, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." He's said we need comprehensive immigration reform and this might be the way to get it."
Sure Conan... up is down, left is right, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength... George Orwell must have had you in mind when he was thinking up what the typical citizen of Oceania must have been like.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 3:02 AM
God, Artie, you are tedious.
No, I don't see "indications of his intent to wage a holocaust" from Bernie's contentions.
I see hypocrisy when a man whose income topped $1 million for the second year in a row and who owns three houses contends that confiscatory taxes on everyone else who has a $1 million income and owns three houses is the only solution.
I see a Holocaust or a Holodomor coming from the demonization of others in rhetoric like that and the polarization of society resulting from such demonization.
Damn it, Artie, read a book!
I've forgotten more about history than you've ever known.
Your knowledge of history is quite shallow. You know enough to say "Nazis were evil" but not enough to have a serious and informed discussion of Weimar Germany and the conditions that led to the rise of Naziism.
You really think that millions of Germans went along with Hitler solely because they hated Jews? And that the Nazis came to power solely because they excoriated Jews in speeches? You really are that naive? Anti-Semitism was widespread and practically de rigueur in Europe at the time. Have you never heard of the Dreyfus Affair?
You rail about fascists without knowing what fascism actually is. You just know what you hear from Antifa and the Democratic Party - which is that "fascist" has come to mean anyone who disagrees with them.
And, for the record, you brought up fascism first, "you feckless moron."
The inane ramblings of rabid "know nothing" partisans like you are plenty inducement to defend even Trump. And, for the record, I've defended Obama from partisan ramblings as well.
You would have the two-year-olds locked up in detention centers with their parents awaiting trial - in direct violation of a federal consent decree?
You would leave the two-year-olds with the adults who brought them illegally across the border and claim to be their parents, despite not knowing anything about them (as is frequently reported by ICE)?
Perhaps you would have the "parents" released into society with only a promise to return up to a year later for their asylum hearing? That promise is broken an ICE-estimated 97% of the time.
You, like so many of your kind, on both sides of the aisle, are very good about stoking the fires of outrage when you dislike a particular president and/or his policies, but are strangely silent when one you like commits the very same infraction.
And you never offer solutions, just insults and name-calling.
So, Artie, what is your solution to this issue? What would you have the government do when enforcing a law creates hardship?
Conan the Artemis-destroying Grammarian at June 25, 2018 5:55 AM
Let's check Snopes first.
Hmmm. "Mostly True."
"The Departments of Justice and Education's respective civil rights divisions issued significant guidance to schools about transgender students and Title IX. According to that guidance, no students would be asked to 'prove' or otherwise document their gender identity, and adherence to Title IX is 'a condition of receiving Federal funds.'"
AND
"The letter detailed federal guidelines for transgender students and bathroom use [emphasis mine] and provided definitions for the terms 'Gender identity,' 'Sex assigned at birth,' 'Transgender,' and 'Gender transition'"
Now, let's check that "Dear Colleague" letter itself:
That quote is from Page 3 of the aforementioned and linked "Dear Colleague" letter.
Hmmm. You're right, this is fun.
Conan the Artemis-destroying Grammarian at June 25, 2018 5:59 AM
Here's the link to the archived "Dear Colleague" letter. Amy's software gave me fits trying to couch in an HTML tag.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf
Conan the Grammarian at June 25, 2018 6:02 AM
Conan Says:
"I see hypocrisy when a man whose income topped $1 million for the second year in a row and who owns three houses contends that confiscatory taxes on everyone else who has a $1 million income and owns three houses is the only solution."
It would only be hypocrisy if he sought to be exempt from taxes he would seek to impose on others.
There is nothing hypocritical about a wealthy person seeking to tax himself AND other wealthy folks at a higher rate.
I don't recall him ever stating that everyone else should be taxed and he shouldn't.
Isn't that a requirement to call him a hypocrite?
What I frequently see is the following:
1 - If a poor or middle class individual seeks to raise taxes on the wealthy there are cries of class warfare.
2 - If a wealthy individual seeks to raise taxes on the wealthy they are called a hypocrite.
In other words... apparently no one is permitted to suggest that taxes on the wealthy should ever be increased... which sounds a lot to me like propaganda.
At least someone should be able to legitimately bring such a policy proposal to the table.
Just who might that person be?... Does it need to be a fantasy being like Santa perhaps?
Artemis at June 25, 2018 6:59 AM
Conan Says:
"And, for the record, you brought up fascism first, "you feckless moron.""
First of all, since when does bringing up fascism mean that I am saying Trump=Hitler or calling anyone a Nazi???
While it is certainly true that Hitler and the Nazis were fascists... not all fascists were Hitler or the Nazis.
If I call someone a christian it doesn't imply I am comparing them to Jesus... just because Jesus is the iconic christian figure.
Second of all, that quote from me is from June 20th... but you were talking about Hitler as early as the 16th, 4 days earlier:
"However, even Chamberlain did not return from Munich praising Hitler's love for his people and extolling Der Führer's personal warmth."
So no, I never brought up Hitler or Nazis here... you just love chatting about him for some reason.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 7:06 AM
Conan Says:
"I've forgotten more about history than you've ever known."
Well you may have the first half correct, but certainly not the second.
When you say things like this:
"The Holocaust as much financial as racial, perhaps more so."
It suggests an extremely distorted and deranged view of history... one where you somehow seek to sanitize things because the racial component makes you uncomfortable.
Here is the simple reality Conan... if the Holocaust was primarily financial then there was no reason to try and exterminate anyone.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8119805/Confiscated-Jewish-wealth-helped-fund-the-German-war-effort.html
As you can see here, tax laws in Germany were designed to discriminate against Jews as early as 1934 (note that they weren't designed to discriminate against the wealthy... poor Jews were discriminated against too... but wealthy Christians were not discriminated against).
The German government had already begun pillaging the wealth of it's Jewish citizens 5 years BEFORE the invasion of Poland.
Since you claim to be such a history expert would you kindly remind me where the most prolific extermination camps were located... ah yes... in Poland, where the Germans built the camps and then packed up all of the now impoverished Jews onto trains and sent them to be gassed.
But the German government already had their money... so if it was primarily about finance then what was the point?
The point of the extermination... the point of the holocaust was predominantly racial.
It couldn't be financial because the Germans already had the Jews money by the time they were packing them onto trains.
In case you weren't aware, the holocaust refers to the genocide component of the war, the financial piece was already largely accomplished by the time 12 million people were killed (of which ~50% were Jews... the remaining ~50% were gypsies, homosexuals, individuals with downs syndrome, etc...).
Your comprehension of history suggests you are trying to spin a narrative as opposed to objectively relating the facts.
It is the same thing you are trying to do by bending over backwards to try and link fascism with left wing politics when no one who understands the slightest thing about history would make such an assertion with a straight face.
Here is an entire snopes article devoted to correcting such nonsense:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
Here is a fun section that describes you perfectly:
"Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany."
That is all you are doing... you know very well that fascism is clearly associated with right wing politics, but you are so utterly partisan you are willing to lie and distort to try and distance yourself from it since you happen to be a conservative.
Here is the final quote from the snopes article:
"Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
In other words... your interpretation of history flies in the face of historical reality.
You're understanding of history is ass ways backwards.
Artemis at June 25, 2018 7:25 AM
Conan,
Last point for now with regard to the "Dear Colleague" letter.
First, it seems you and I have been talking about two completely different letters, so I am glad you presented the letter you were talking about. On that point I was wrong.
Second, the letter doesn't imply what you said it did.
You said that the letter "expands Title IX to include transgendered bathrooms and locker rooms" in a manner that is "rule by agency fiat".
How do you argue that? Title IX is quite clear that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. So how is this letter an "expansion"?
Why isn't it a zero-tolerance policy for gender discrimination?
Again, you seem to have different bars for Obama versus Trump.
Trump can steal children from parents and lock them in cages and you say that is within his authority.
Obama can declare protections for a marginalized gender on the basis of existing law and you call it overreach.
It seems to me if it isn't an expansion of strip children from parents for a class B misdemeanor (that is what crossing the boarder illegally is by the way)... then it isn't an expansion to provide protections to all genders equally (that would actually be consistent with the equal protections clause of the constitution, which the President swears an oath to uphold).
Artemis at June 25, 2018 7:39 AM
That's not the only way it would be hypocrisy.
You see no hypocrisy in a man who rails against "golden parachutes" for corporate executives, but uses his wife's golden parachute to buy a third house?
A man who rails against income inequality and instead of donating his newfound windfall to a charitable foundation not bearing his own name, he uses it to buy a third house.
By the way, the little people Bernie claims to speak for would lucky to get a 2-week severance check after being let go, but his wife gets a windfall equal to four years salary for the average American and he's off to buy another house.
And you see no evidence of hypocrisy?
You are willfully blind, Artie.
Yes, I was. That part of my comment actually supported JD's argument against Trump.
And I did not compare anyone to Hitler. I compared Trump's reaction to and comments about Kim Jong Un unfavorably to Neville Chamberlain's reaction to and comments about Adolf Hitler.
You got the "Trump is a fascist" ball rolling.
And, no, I'm not going to spend my time in a "you said it first" argument. You did.
In 1972's Title IX, "gender" is regarded as a biological fact, not an identity. The intent of Title IX was to provide equal access to university-funded athletics to women, not equal access to bathrooms to men who identify as women. The letter in question arbitrarily expanded the definitions and scope of the original Title IX by agency fiat. Yes, I call that "overreach."
No one is "sanitizing" the horror of the Holocaust by pointing out that the motive was at least in part financial. If anything, that makes it even more horrible.
Yes, because Jews could be easily marginalized in what was a pretty anti-Semitic Europe in the '30s. Wealthy Christians could not be so easily marginalized. Thus, they could not be so easily plundered. And if you plunder enough poor Jews, you still amass a fair amount of money.
No one is arguing that there wasn't racism in Nazi Germany. As for the physical extermination of the now-impoverished Jews, once you've left your political enemies nothing, they have nothing to lose in rebelling against you. And, not to be too morbid, but the gold fillings and other products extracted from the remains were still wealth that could be harvested. The Nazis were nothing if not thorough.
You are using the dated right-left spectrum created during the French Revolution - wherein the supporters of l'ancien régime sat to the king's right in the National Assembly and the parties representing the lower classes and demanding change sat to his left.
That spectrum hardly applies to modern political schools of thought where individual freedom and economic freedom are often delineated separately and along separate spectra - as shown in the two alternative spectra for which I posted links.
Fascism's primary difference with Communism is its call for nationalism and its high regard for traditional cultural values, two things Marx, and later Lenin, urged followers to reject.
Both communism and fascism use a state-controlled economy and limit individual freedom in the name of a collective enterprise. Whether that collective enterprise is "the state" or "the people" the resulting oppression is the same.
You have socialism confused with those nice capitalist European welfare states that call themselves "socialist" - countries which, until the recent tax reform, actually had a lower corporate tax rates and greater economic freedom than the US.
Benito Mussolini, founder of Fascism and once a disciple of French socialist, George Sorel, was asked by an American reporter to explain his economic program. He told the reporter it was "very much like your New Deal." He also called called the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, guiding light of American leftist economic thought, a "useful introduction to fascist economics." Not left-wing, eh?
Sorel, arguably an anti-Semite, "inspired socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and Fascists. It is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered."
So, heavily influenced by left-wing economic theories, Benito Mussolini rejected socialism's call for internationalism and gender equality and created modern Fascism.
Remember Reagan's quip about telling the difference between a Communist and an anti-Communist? The former quotes Marx, while the latter has actually read Marx.
Read a book, Artie, read a book.
Bye, Felic ... er ... Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at June 25, 2018 8:32 AM
Conan Says:
"That's not the only way it would be hypocrisy.
You see no hypocrisy in a man who rails against "golden parachutes" for corporate executives, but uses his wife's golden parachute to buy a third house?
A man who rails against income inequality and instead of donating his newfound windfall to a charitable foundation not bearing his own name, he uses it to buy a third house."
Wow... you are really reaching here Conan. It goes to show how very desperate you are to create an issue where none exists.
First you argue that Bernie is a hypocrite for suggesting we raise taxes on the wealthy because he himself it wealthy... but when I point out that this would only be hypocritical if he was trying to apply those taxes only to other people you jump in with this idiocy.
Your new position isn't just wrong... it is fractally wrong (i.e., it is wrong at all conceivable levels). Let me itemize the list for you:
1 - His wife never received a "golden parachute". A "golden parachute" is where a senior corporate executive is provided a guarantee that upon termination they will receive a large financial package. Jane Sanders was never terminated... she never was fired. She received severance and retirement payments associated with earned and unused sabbatical benefits when she voluntarily resigned. By definition you aren't receiving a "golden parachute" if you voluntarily leave a post... you need to accept and receive a guarantee of payment upon involuntary termination. The details are here if you are actually interested in the facts:
https://vtdigger.org/2011/09/27/jane-sanders-resigns-presidency-of-burlington-college-reaches-settlement/
2 - Let's pretend for a moment that Jane was involuntarily terminated... let's pretend that the payment she received was in actuality a contractual guarantee associated with involuntary termination (both of which I have already demonstrated not to be true). What on earth would that have to do with Bernie being a hypocrite or not???
I understand you aren't so great at rational thinking Conan, but please try very hard to understand the following astonishing observation:
Bernie and Jane are two separate individuals.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but married couples do not somehow join minds and magically become one and the same person.
If for example Bernie claimed to be a vegan... it wouldn't be the least bit hypocritical for Jane to eat as much steak as she desired. In the same way, compensation Jane receives for her own employment cannot possibly make Bernie a hypocrite. For all you know such an event would have been cause for many spousal arguments and marital tension.
Do you expect people in relationships to always be in perfect philosophical lock step... or do you just expect wives to bow down and obey husbands?
The is the only way you could hold Bernie accountable for the actions of his wife, but that opens up a whole other disgusting bag of worms with regard to how you view women.
Do you believe women are capable of thought and actions independent of their husbands, or are they bound to obey their husbands commands?
"By the way, the little people Bernie claims to speak for would lucky to get a 2-week severance check after being let go, but his wife gets a windfall equal to four years salary for the average American and he's off to buy another house.
And you see no evidence of hypocrisy?"
No Conan... and no sane person can or would for the reasons I have outlined above.
Only a crazy partisan loon who fails to check their facts and would see things the way you do.
She had earned a year long paid sabbatical due to time already served... that isn't a "golden parachute" no matter how desperate you are to assert that it is.
You also do not appear to be particularly good at math. The payment you refer to as being equal to 4 years salary was $200,000... but her yearly salary was over $100,000... so how exactly did you manage to conclude that 1 x 4 = 2???
You keep pretending you are some great thinker, but you cannot even handle grade elementary school mathematics.
You are clearly a simpleton who has been brainwashed by a constant stream of propaganda and conservative talking points. Facts do not appear to matter to you.
"You got the "Trump is a fascist" ball rolling.
And, no, I'm not going to spend my time in a "you said it first" argument. You did."
Good grief Conan... I never once said "Trump is a fascist"... in fact, when one searches for your quote they find that your statement above is the first mention of such a thing.
You are literally quoting something that was never previously said in this conversation.
You live in an interesting little delusion where you just make things up and then argue against what you image took place.
If you didn't make up nonsense you wouldn't have anything to say.
I will maintain that stealing children from parents and locking them in cages is how fascist governments operate. That statement is easily defended by scrutinizing historical behavior of fascist governments. If that statement suggests to you that Trump is by extension a fascist... that is a conclusion you came to all on your own.
Artemis at June 30, 2018 2:21 AM
Conan Says:
"In 1972's Title IX, "gender" is regarded as a biological fact, not an identity. The intent of Title IX was to provide equal access to university-funded athletics to women, not equal access to bathrooms to men who identify as women. The letter in question arbitrarily expanded the definitions and scope of the original Title IX by agency fiat. Yes, I call that "overreach.""
That is a matter for the courts to decide, not for you to decide.
The point stands that Obama had the authority to extend those protections... that was your criteria for Trump after all.
You claim Trump had the authority to steal children from their parents and lock them in cages because he interpreted the law in a "zero tolerance" manner that was clearly never intended by those who formed the law in the first place.
You don't then get to whine and moan how Obama expanded the interpretation of gender in the law.
Just to point out how wrong you are in the double standard you have established. Trumps policy was recently struck down by a conservative appointee federal judge:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/judge-orders-trump-reunite-migrant-families-678809
So just to be clear... the judicial branch of government, whose purview is to interpret law found that Trump improperly separated children from their parents and acted beyond his authority.
Yet somehow you concluded all on your own that what he did while distasteful was well within his authority.
This court ruling demonstrates 2 things quite clearly:
1 - That you contend this "zero tolerance" policy was a clear cut action well within Trumps authority never actually was... if it was that clear cut no conservative federal judge would order the president to revert said policy.
2 - Your knowledge of the law is so pitiful that what appears plainly obvious to you is always always in error.
Please stop confidently asserting as fact things which you obviously know nothing about.
Artemis at June 30, 2018 2:36 AM
She was "removed" according to this and several other articles. She was allowed to resign to save face, but she was forced out for being a bad manager..
If you don't like that article, try CNN.
Sanders spearheaded a $10 million land purchase that went bust and left the college on the hook and broke.
She also funneled $500,000 into her daughter's for profit woodworking school.
So, before you canonize Saint Bernie and Saint Jane, you might want to get your facts in order, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at June 30, 2018 7:42 AM
Even watchdog.org calls it a "golden parachute."
https://www.watchdog.org/issues/bernie-sanders-parachutes-way-out-of-a-response-to-golden/article_5ff09f6e-dbe5-57a8-aaf5-18a47627837e.html
Conan the Grammarian at June 30, 2018 7:44 AM
Good bye, Artie. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or really are this stupid, but I'm outta here.
Conan the Grammarian at June 30, 2018 7:47 AM
By the way, Artie, you never did answer the question about what solution you propose to the problem of people illegally crossing the border with children (not always their own). How would you propose that the situation be handled? Let everyone go and hope they show up for their hearings? Open the borders? Lock 'em up and run afoul of the Flores Consent Decree? Hmmm?
And how do you handle the fallout from your decision? 'cause there will be fallout, no matter what you decide, the Law of Unintended Consequences is in play, no matter how complete you think your solution.
Conan the Grammarian at June 30, 2018 8:03 AM
Conan Says:
"She was allowed to resign to save face, but she was forced out for being a bad manager.."
Once again you are making things up based upon pure speculation... you have no actual facts or evidence to support your position.
Here is what the article states:
"Sanders' resignation is negotiated with lawyers. Publicly she cites differences with the trustees. Publicly they say very little, but sources close to situation say doubts emerged about her fundraising plans."
So the public record states she resigned due to differences with the trustees... and upon resignation she received compensation for earned and unused paid sabbatical.
That isn't a "golden parachute".
You have decided sans evidence that there is hypocrisy here and then are using flimsy made up reasons for justification.
Honest people collect evidence and then draw conclusions.
Dishonest people have their conclusions first and then desperately try to find reasons to justify their position.
You are clearly in the second group.
Also... as I pointed out above... even if you had evidence that Jane received a "golden parachute" (you don't)... that doesn't say anything about Bernie.
So before you go any further you need to demonstrate the logic behind the following type of statement.
You assert you are a vegan... but someone calls you a hypocrite because your spouse was seen eating a steak.
Prove that this hypothetical person is a hypocrite and then we can move forward with your attempt to smear one person on the alleged behavior of their spouse.
Artemis at June 30, 2018 2:21 PM
Conan,
I don't know how to tell you this... but words have meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute
A golden parachute by definition requires that the executive be terminated. Not resigning because of differences in opinion with the board:
"A golden parachute is an agreement between a company and an employee (usually upper executive) specifying that the employee will receive certain significant benefits if employment is terminated."
That you can find references on the internet that abuse and misuse the English language isn't something I need to seriously address.
When people like Bernie rail against golden parachutes they are usually talking about CEOs running a company into the ground, destroying shareholder value, being terminated from their position due to negligence and/or incompetence and then receiving HUGE pay packages.
Bernie is talking about shit like this:
https://nypost.com/2017/04/25/marissa-mayer-will-get-186m-golden-parachute-from-yahoo/
Marissa Mayer presided over Yahoo and saw it continually lose shareholder value... now the company is being bought out and she is being forced out of her position (she cannot be CEO when it is purchased by another company)... and yet despite her astounding failure she will receive nearly 200 million dollars.
Yet in your delusional world that is apparently the same as his wife voluntarily leaving her position, having her earned 1 year sabbatical bought out upon her departure, and the value of that package being ~1000 fold less.
These are 2 completely different things and yet you are so desperate to equate them you have lost your hold on reality.
Artemis at June 30, 2018 2:34 PM
Conan Says:
"By the way, Artie, you never did answer the question about what solution you propose to the problem of people illegally crossing the border with children (not always their own)."
The reason I never bothered answering this question is because it is a complete and utter distraction.
Why exactly do I need to present a comprehensive immigration plan to accurately observe that stealing children from their parents and locking them in cages is a horrific thing to do?
This is the part you refuse to address with all your excuse making.
Based upon the recent federal court ruling that struck down Trumps policy it can no longer be in question that he went being his executive authority... the courts have already determined that he did.
It is his job to devise a plan for how to ethically handle this and act within the authority granted by congress.
If he is incapable of doing this then he is too incompetent to perform his fundamental job functions... one of which is to ensure the rule of law, which includes guaranteeing proper due process before depriving people of their children.
Illegally crossing the boarder is a class B misdemeanor... the punishment for being charged with such a crime cannot and should not include the loss and imprisonment of your children.
Now if you want me to devise a comprehensive immigration plan of my own, first you should pledge to vote me in for president should I choose to run for office.
If you aren't interested in me as a candidate, then you shouldn't be interested in any comprehensive immigration proposal I might or might not have.
Artemis at June 30, 2018 5:06 PM
Because, according to current immigration law, separating the children is the only thing the government can do. If you'd been paying attention instead of shouting "Trump's evil," you'd know that.
Separation of families was being done under Obama (and you were silent) and it is being done under Trump (and you suddenly discovered your moral outrage). It was policy under both presidents, by necessity.
Seriously, if the the government cannot keep the children locked up with the parents who are awaiting trial (and, by Flores, it cannot), where do you propose the government keep the children and the parents together?
The family detention centers set up by the Obama administration were quickly overwhelmed and were the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that they, too, were a breach of Flores.
Not a distraction, an honest question. So, show me you can do more than read off an SJW talking points memo. Show me you truly understand the situation and the complexities involved.
Conan the Grammarian at July 1, 2018 1:14 PM
Conan Says:
"Because, according to current immigration law, separating the children is the only thing the government can do."
Apparently not since none of the administrations prior to this one saw it as necessary to institute a "zero tolerance" policy that failed to keep track of children and lock them in cages.
Furthermore the federal courts also disagree with you on this point as they also don't find it to be necessary.
You are making excuses for an administration that has clearly over stepped it's executive authority simply because you HATE the idea that it makes you a hypocrite.
However you don't need to be a hypocrite.
You can acknowledge that the Trump administration has overstepped it's executive authority with this policy as the federal courts have already determined.
Stubbornly ignoring the finding of the judicial branch of government doesn't help your assertion that you are against autocratic rule.
Artemis at July 1, 2018 6:25 PM
Conan Says:
"Separation of families was being done under Obama (and you were silent) and it is being done under Trump (and you suddenly discovered your moral outrage). It was policy under both presidents, by necessity."
More fox news drivel... seriously, do you think for yourself or are you programmed by propaganda?
As shown in this factcheck.org webpage this assertion has been classified as misleading:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/
Again you seem to be having great difficulty understanding things like scope.
To you 200 thousand dollars and 200 million dollars are the same thing when it suits you.
Similarly... that you might be able to identify isolated cases of families being separated during previous administrations, that isn't the same as mass separations.
You want me to demonstrate that I "truly understand the situation and the complexities involved." when you haven't even demonstrated that you understand that there is a difference between the numbers 1 and 1000.
These things matter.
The only people who these things do not matter to are partisan hacks who are making excuses for unacceptable policy decisions.
Somehow the ACLU and the judicial branch of government have already agreed with my position... so you need to come to grips with the reality that maybe it is you who dosen't understand the complexities at play here.
Artemis at July 1, 2018 6:33 PM
Conan,
Since I don't want to leave you open to suggesting that I never answered what you claim is an honest question, let me give you some food for thought.
When presented with a social problem of any variety, ones seriousness about addressing that issue is in direct proportion to the quantity of resources one is willing to devote to fix the problem.
The Trump administration claims it is serious about addressing immigration... and yet it is also unwilling to hire more judges or spend money to build infrastructure to speed up the hearing process required to adjudicate asylum claims (he just has rhetoric about building a wall that Mexico will pay for... i.e., it is "free" so far as the American public is concerned).
This actually demonstrates that he isn't at all serious about addressing this issue.
His approach to solving immigration is as mindless as solving cancer with wishful thinking.
Serious solutions require money to be spent solving the problems.
His solution is to be as cruel and inhumane as possible in an attempt to dissuade new immigrants from coming here.
Sure... it might work... and it might be cheap... but it is also unethical, immoral, and so far as current law is concerned illegal.
Artemis at July 1, 2018 8:37 PM
I came back to this thread one last time to see if you were able to answer my question. You weren't.
You're a fool, Artie. You think problems can be solved simply with "money ... spent." That explains a lot about you, and not to your credit.
By Felic ... er ... Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at July 2, 2018 8:03 AM
Conan,
This is precisely why I said the reason I never bothered answering this question was because it was a complete and utter distraction.
You then swear up and down it was an "honest" question, but this response proves I was correct:
"You're a fool, Artie. You think problems can be solved simply with "money ... spent." That explains a lot about you, and not to your credit."
Really?... that's it???
That is how honest and serious you are about all this?
I don't recall suggesting that problems can just dissolve away into thin air by tossing money at it.
I do recall suggesting that when someone isn't interested in investing a single dime in a problem then they can't be all that serious about fixing the problem.
Those aren't the same thing.
Then again, I guess I cannot expect much from someone who fails to be able to distinguish between 1,000 dollars and 1,000,000 dollars. I mean, it is only 3 orders of magnitude... far too close in value for someone of your obvious intelligence to confidently separate out into two different categories.
I must admit that it is hilarious to me that someone who defends Trump so consistently also has a problem with fools... the guy whose boots you are licking isn't exactly known for intellectual rigor.
You sound like an idiot when you defend a Trump policy and then bitch and moan that those criticizing him don't have a sufficient grasp on the complexity of the issues.
Really Conan... this is where you want to plant your flag... with Mr. "You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals"... all while locking infants in cages???
This isn't really your best look.
Artemis at July 3, 2018 2:13 AM
Leave a comment