If you like your health plan and doctor you can keep them.

I did not send any classified documents via my email.

It was all about the video.

I did not have sex with that woman.

I had nothing to do with firing those people.

Oh yeah. Trump is a bad human being and we've not seen one of those before. The sky is falling.

Same here. My state always goes Democrat, so I can feel safe voting for Johnson. Both Trump and Hillary are horrible.

And, that's the sad thing: the DNC cheats and we get Hillary; the RNC doesn't and we get Trump.

-Jut

Let Hillary get a couple of SCOTUS appointments in, and you can kiss your first and second amendment rights away.

Oh, sure, on paper they'll exist. Try exercising them in a way the government does not approve and you'll feel their wrath.

Pffft. Their parents put them up to this.

How embarrassing that a bunch of Harvard students repeated the misattribution of that "America is great..." quote to Tocqueville. The Weekly Standard debunked this 20 years ago. Of course, that was before some of these students were born, so I guess they can be forgiven for not having read this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-tocqueville-fraud/article/8100

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html?smid=tw-share

This is not a woman anyone who respects the constitution can vote for, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

In politics, all the fine upstanding principles and standards in the world don't matter if you don't win. The GOP is alienating a big part of its base. It's quite possible that this election will see record low turnout, with huge gains by the Democrats at the federal, state and local levels.

The Left will take this as a mandate for all-out socialism. Having been so enabled, there will no longer be any Constitutional, legal or moral impediments standing in their way. Things like this blog will disappear. Now what?

Of course the Harvard Republicans oppose Trump. They are practically the definition of Rockefeller Republicans, a group heavily opposed to him.

"He isn't eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency."

And that is the heart of the matter. They don't have policy differences. Just like the nevertrumpers they object based on manners. Their complaint is about style not substance.

Thankfully while the Rockefeller Repubs are the 'leaders' of the GOP they are not numerous or that influential. They just have enough money to wait everyone else out.

A Harvard RINO is worth a pitcher of warm spit.

It can get spun any you choose. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

The Left will take this as a mandate for all-out socialism. Having been so enabled, there will no longer be any Constitutional, legal or moral impediments standing in their way. Things like this blog will disappear.

No, it won't, regardless of who wins.

As far as the Harvard Republican Club goes, its opinion means about as much to me as the Pope's or Kim Kardashian's.

All I know is that I won't be voting for Donald Trump or Jill Stein. Did you see this quote about Trump's new economic plan, in which he's proposing ALL childcare expenses be tax-deductible?

A campaign aide who asked not to be identified told a Reuters reporter that 'we don't want it to be an economic disadvantage to have children.'

Isn't that nice. Why don't we just exempt anyone who has kids from paying taxes at all?

A Hillary presidency will result in all Congressional Democrats joining as a voting block, as they did for Obama, to give Hillary anything she wants.

A Trump presidency will result in a voting block that despise him: all Congressional Democrats and 1/2 of the Congressional Republicans. Thus the Congressional co-equal branch of government will make the Trump presidency ineffective.

that nice. Why don't we just exempt anyone who has kids from paying taxes at all?

Kevin at August 8, 2016 8:40 AM

We already do that for the most part. Low income people gets huge exemptions plus an earned income tax credit which means that most of them receive more back than they ever put in.

They also receive free and/or heavily subsidized child care. Healthcare, etc.

Yes, our tax system actively encourages single jobless motherhood.

Learn something about the tax code. Deductions are not the same as exemptions.

We need a lot more of the former, and fewer of the later.

If you weren't so bitter about people with kids, you might have more perspective.

You have to meet a pretty big floor for deductions to have any value at all.

If you want to make things more fair, other than a flat tax, you need to allow deductions for child care, and educational expenses, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction especially for second homes. (This is the one all the wealthy gay guys love).

CD: Things like this blog will disappear.

Kevin: No, it won't, regardless of who wins.

I have 100 quatloos that says you haven't examined the situation. You see, net neutrality and then the FEC telling Amy she can't host discussions such as the one we're having.

Here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-move-to-regulate-internet-campaigns-blogs-drudge/article/2555270

I guarantee you that most bloggers will simply stop talking politics the minute the get a nastygram from the FEC. They simply don't need to waste the time, nor have the money, to fight any such malarkey.

Did you see this quote about Trump's new economic plan, in which he's proposing ALL childcare expenses be tax-deductible?

And that's different from Hillary? here, let me give you a handy guide to tell the difference between the 4 major candidates:

one is a crony capitalist liberal;
one is a corrupt crony capitalist liberal;
one agrees with TEH BERN! 73% of the time;
and one is a greenie;

Yes, that's right, they're different by mere degrees, not of anything terribly major.

If you weren't so bitter about people with kids, you might have more perspective.

I'm not bitter at all. I just don't want to pay for other people's choices, any more than I expect them to pay for mine.

I have 100 quatloos that says you haven't examined the situation. You see, net neutrality and then the FEC telling Amy she can't host discussions such as the one we're having.

You think it will happen; I don't, for various reasons. That's fine.

Ugh. As if Trump supporters (or.....anyone) care what out-of-touch elitists think about who they should vote for.

I'm w/momof4. They lost me at "Harvard".

I've not seen anything that indicates that Clinton is an adult other than in age. She's about as adult as a Kardashian. The only difference is she costs more.

"I'm not bitter at all. I just don't want to pay for other people's choices, any more than I expect them to pay for mine."

I don't know what kind of anarchist fantasy land you live in, but you do that, and I do that all the time.

It is the nature of government to do things that are in the collective interest, and other than military defense, raising, socializing and educating the next generation, is about the only thing that keeps a country going.

I much prefer this to be paid for by the parent, with tax deductions if necessary, instead of through the wholly bought and paid subsidiary of the Democratic Party called the teachers union.

"Trump's global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well"
Funny, I remember when keeping America out of foreign wars and entanglements was indeed Republican tradition.

"Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world."
And psycho Hillery does? 'cause that is who you are endorsing Mr. Harvard.

"Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, heard that name? How about, Lyndon Baines Johnson, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, Barack Hussein Obama II, everyone of these people was a Fascist POS who did his level best to shred the Constitution and used division, especially racial division, to get their way. F.D.R. put people in concentration camps because of their race for Christ sake.

Look I get it, I've been beating my head against the Libertarian wall since Regan left office. If the LP had nominated anyone with an ounce of Libertarian principle I would be shouting from the rooftops but the two asshats they put up were not even good Republicans, much less Libertarians.

The sad truth is that you get to choose Hillery or Trump and a great deal of the GOP prefers Hillery. Think about that for a moment. One of the most corrupt, narcissistic, misogynistic, Psychotic, Psychopathic human beings ever to stalk the halls of power in this country (and THAT is saying something) and they would rather see HER in the highest office in the land than Donald Trump. Trump won't get much of anything done and has little resembling a plan. Hillery DOES have a plan and perhaps enough support to kick it off and the 99% WILL NOT LIKE WHAT HAPPENS.

Frankly, most people are preparing to vote but the smart people are stocking up on food, firearms and ammo. We are witnessing the death of America and she will not go quietly into that good night. I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on there even being an election and no matter who wins I expect blood in the streets in no more than 18 months. We are no longer Americans, they have divided us into competing minority groups to rule us and the consequences of that are coming home to roost.

Do what you want, but remember, the people in power intend to stay there and those they have enslaved with their debt and their laws are on the verge of revolt and few wars are as bloody as slave revolts.

I don't know what kind of anarchist fantasy land you live in, but you do that, and I do that all the time.

Oh, I'm well aware that I subsidize other people's children with my tax money, all the time.

I think it's sad, and telling, that the simple notion that people should take care of their own children, physically and fiscally, would relegate me to "anarchist fantasy land."

But I suppose it takes a village -- to write the checks.

Choosing a president in this election boils down to something other than the candidates, who are both reprehensible choices.

Two questions to ask yourself in November:

Who will they appoint to the Supreme Court? There will be at least three choices in the next four years. Scalia's seat that is open now, Ginsburg (85), and an unknown (Thomas is said to be considering retirement). Whoever is the next president will have an opportunity to pack the Court for years to come.

Who will they choose as advisors and Cabinet secretaries? Hillary will choose the standard Democrat party apparatchiks and Clinton cronies, including Sydney Blumenthal, a man even Barack Obama considered unqualified and dangerous (Obama vetoed Hillary's appointment of Blumenthal to the State Department). Trump's appointments are still kinda vague, as his circle does not include many experienced foreign affairs, military, and government veterans; not to mention that the Republicans have been out of power for eight years and many of their frontrunners for such jobs have refused to support Trump.

I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on there even being an election and no matter who wins I expect blood in the streets in no more than 18 months.

You don't expect there will be an election, but you predict blood in the streets "no matters who wins" the election you don't expect? That makes no sense.

Here: I'll bet you 100-1 odds that there will be an election. That's how confident I am there will indeed be an election.

"He isn't eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency."

Of course, in their eyes it's the same thing. You can't call yourself a decent human being if you don't follow PC (whatever it is this hour).

"All I know is that I won't be voting for Donald Trump or Jill Stein. Did you see this quote about Trump's new economic plan, in which he's proposing ALL childcare expenses be tax-deductible?"

I'm not claiming that Trump isn't wack. My reasoning goes like this: President Hilary will have the controls of a vast political apparatus -- Congress, the judiciary, industry cartels, lobbyists, activist groups, NGOs, campaign consultants, party machinery, the civil service, the unions, the media, and anti-American foreign interests will all be in the tank for her. (As long as they get their cut...) President Donald might crave the power, but he won't have that kind of access; most of said interests will be wary at best and hostile at worst. He will have to assemble coalitions in order to govern, and so will not have the ability to do nearly as much harm.

"Thus the Congressional co-equal branch of government will make the Trump presidency ineffective."

It's more of a return to separation of powers. Congress will suddenly recall that it is a co-equal branch of government rather than a rubber stamp or Executive branch co-conspirator. It should be hard to pass laws that deprive citizens of liberty or property.

"It is the nature of government to do things that are in the collective interest, and other than military defense, raising, socializing and educating the next generation, is about the only thing that keeps a country going."

Isab at August 8, 2016 10:27 AM

Thank you.

I would add to that list - birth control, and health care that impacts herd immunity and public health (vaccinations, paid sick leave for public health workers, public food handlers, and jobs with similar reach/ impact on public health).

would add to that list - birth control, and health care that impacts herd immunity and public health (vaccinations, paid sick leave for public health workers, public food handlers, and jobs with similar reach/ impact on public health).
Michelle at August 8, 2016 1:08 PM

I might agree with you that some of this list is the job of government without necessarily agreeing that it is the job of the *federal* government.

Most of the good work in disease prevention and transmittal is being rapidly undone by the huge influx of undocumented immigrants from third world shit holes, where things like drug resistant strains of TB, Measles and Zika are common.

Controlling our borders and the people that enter the US should be the first mission of public health.

Cousin Dave:

It's more of a return to separation of powers. Congress will suddenly recall that it is a co-equal branch of government rather than a rubber stamp or Executive branch co-conspirator. It should be hard to pass laws that deprive citizens of liberty or property.

I've said this before, but the three branches of government were never intended to be coequal. It was intended to be Congress as supreme, but it didn't work that way.

One reason for this is power grabs by the other two branches, for instance, SCOTUS and their unilateral power grab in Marbury v. Madison. They threw away their right to give Writs of Mandamus to the President (who was complaining about it so much, he might have chosen to defy them anyway, like Andrew Jackson would later do).

I think another reason is that Congress is simply too large to flex its muscle. They need to have a majority in one mind to exercise their authority over the other two, through impeachment.

Looking back through U.S. history, I think impeachments should have been a lot more frequent.

For instance, Andrew Jackson needed to go. He defied a SCOTUS order and as it turned out, with impunity, and inflicted one of the most egregious offenses in our nation's history.

(I'm referring, of course, to the Trail of Tears.)

I've said this before, but the three branches of government were never intended to be coequal. It was intended to be Congress as supreme, but it didn't work that way. ~ Patrick at August 8, 2016 2:05 PM

As I've said before, I disagree with your hypothesis here, Patrick. The drafters of the Constitution had seen how an unchecked legislative body could abuse its power during and after the English Civil War and the ineffectiveness of a purely legislative government with the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, they set a powerful chief executive in opposition to a powerful legislature. Powers were divided between them to ensure that none could overcome the other. Co-equal branches of government.

Don't forget, we had seven presidents before Washington. We experimented with a weakened chief executive before the Constitution.

The Supreme Court did indeed seize the review power in Marbury v. Madison, but the court system was intentionally set apart from the other branches of government to secure its independence and such review power was in SCOTUS's purview to seize.

Remember, in the debate over the new form of government to replace the Articles of Confederation, many representative to the Convention argued for a king or strong chief executive. Others argued for no executive and a powerful legislature. Co-equal branches of government was the compromise reached.

(I'm referring, of course, to the Trail of Tears.) ~ Patrick at August 8, 2016 2:05 PM

Hyperbole much?

No offense to the Cherokee, but their suffering was hardly the "most egregious offenses in our nation's history." It might not even be one of the most egregious offenses of the Indian Wars. There were several tribes subjected to forced marches to reservations. Others were all but wiped out. Others were wiped out. Slavery seems like pretty egregious offense in our nation's history. Labor abuses by industry and allowed by Congress that led to the deaths of thousands of workers also comes to mind.

And, yes, I know you wrote "one of," but that does not obscure the fact that you elevated the Trail of Tears to the top ranks of egregious offenses and equated it to the worst of the others.

I've said this before, but the three branches of government were never intended to be coequal. It was intended to be Congress as supreme, but it didn't work that way - Patrick

The drafters of the Constitution had seen how an unchecked legislative body could abuse its power during and after the English Civil War and the ineffectiveness of a purely legislative government with the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, they set a powerful chief executive in opposition to a powerful legislature. Powers were divided between them to ensure that none could overcome the other. Co-equal branches of government. - Conan

You are both a bit right and wrong.

The founders didnt set it up as three co equal branches, the did set it up with a more powerful legislature.

However, that legislature was divided and in opposition. While the House was based on population demographics and elected by the public to act as their advocates the Senate was APPOINTED by state legislatures and beholden to them to advocate for the needs and wants of the STATES as legal entities.

Info graphic arent my thing but

https://postimg.org/image/uad46ux6j/

I've said this before, but the three branches of government were never intended to be coequal. It was intended to be Congress as supreme, but it didn't work that way - Patrick

The drafters of the Constitution had seen how an unchecked legislative body could abuse its power during and after the English Civil War and the ineffectiveness of a purely legislative government with the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, they set a powerful chief executive in opposition to a powerful legislature. Powers were divided between them to ensure that none could overcome the other. Co-equal branches of government. - Conan

You are both a bit right and wrong.

The founders didnt set it up as three co equal branches, the did set it up with a more powerful legislature.

However, that legislature was divided and in opposition. While the House was based on population demographics and elected by the public to act as their advocates the Senate was APPOINTED by state legislatures and beholden to them to advocate for the needs and wants of the STATES as legal entities.

Info graphic arent my thing but

https://postimg.org/image/uad46ux6j/

Well she certainly is proving the "corrupt" part.

http://halturnershow.com/index.php/news/world-news/197-fbi-raids-hillary-clinton-campaign-offices-inside-union-hall-in-phila

Amy, you've now made me waste a good three minutes trying to figure out why I would give a single fuck about the Harvard Republican Club. But I won't hold it against you.

As Harvard goes, so goes Princeton.

I'll be voting for Trump - and not ashamed to say it.

Sure, his talk is over the top at times; but, so what?

He is saying a big fat screw you to the political establishment. If he had run as a Democrat and won; the Democrats would be pulling the same shit the Republicans are doing now.

The more they speak out against him, the more I like him. Fuck the political elites and their shameful ways.

A vote for anyone but Trump at this point is a win for Hillary - which really means Bill as Hillary is mentally and physically not able to carry out the duties of being President.

"Most of the good work in disease prevention and transmittal is being rapidly undone by the huge influx of undocumented immigrants from third world shit holes, where things like drug resistant strains of TB, Measles and Zika are common."

Depends on the disease. Measles for example is our little devil because of the whole vaccines cause autism thing (in fact the WHO reports we Californians export it to Mexico D:) Honduras, Guatemala, etc. haven't had outbreaks since 1990 while our list is uh...pretty big...

http://www.who.int/csr/don/13-february-2015-measles/en/

TB however is Mexican:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5001a1.htm

Zika is too fresh to track.

"might agree with you that some of this list is the job of government without necessarily agreeing that it is the job of the *federal* government.

Most of the good work in disease prevention and transmittal is being rapidly undone by the huge influx of undocumented immigrants from third world shit holes, where things like drug resistant strains of TB, Measles and Zika are common.

Controlling our borders and the people that enter the US should be the first mission of public health."

Isab at August 8, 2016 1:43 PM

I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head I'm thinking most of the efforts needed to be in densely populated areas where a lot of levels of government, non-profit, and business entities have motivation to work together. I worked at a university that had to turn its gymnasium into a flu quarantine one September - it gavequickly away the vaccine for free. I'd be happy to give my business to restaurants known for generous sick leave, but I don't know which ones have (or can afford) that practice.

I wonder whether immigration controls are going to be such a saving grace in this regard in light of international travel, and our own propensity for imprisoning people. A PA correctional facility said that it screened incoming inmates for Hep C, but not HIV. Kind of a problem given the reports of rape in prison and male/ male sex in prison.

Thanks for the earlier recommendation of The Emperor of Maladies. A dense read and hard on the heart, but it got me through much of a kitchen demolition project.

Ppen, thanks for the links.

> trying to figure out why I
> would give a single fuck about
> the Harvard Republican Club

Well, if (as some of us fear) conservatism dies this year, it will probably be due in part to the shenanigans of Ivy Leaguers. Hawk tweeted about this the other day.

And see this recent Cosh piece on the Canadian Supreme Court... He is, of course, compelled to compare it to `the United States' high chamber:

If you want to sit on their Supreme Court in the 21st century, you must have a credential from either Harvard or Yale, and your chances are much better if it’s Harvard. No current justice lacks a connection to one of those two schools and U.S. President Barack Obama’s doomed candidate for the vacant seat, U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland, has two Harvard degrees. As ethnicity and gender come into play in judicial or other appointments, diversity of other kinds inevitably fades into the background. If you don’t think this process is powerful, well, it has helped make an entire branch of the United States government the property of one academy. And no one revolts. Although, come to think of it, maybe that is what’s happening down there right now.

> I'm thinking most of the efforts
> needed to be in densely populated
> areas where a lot of levels of
> government, non-profit, and
> business entities have motivation
> to work together.

I'll not trust the 'motives' of government (or of the well-connected private-sector enterprises they so often furtively shelter) until those employees are threatened by the endlessly-cracking lash of competitive excellence. For now, government workers most certainly are not. No, I don't trust the government to protect us from infectious diseases anymore.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/ex-secret-service-to-hillary-supporting-gopers-are-you-crazy/

"He isn't eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency."
_________________________________________

Of course, in their eyes it's the same thing. You can't call yourself a decent human being if you don't follow PC (whatever it is this hour). -Cousin Dave
__________________________________________

As I've mentioned before, there's PC and there's PC. Miss Manners tackled this issue very well, in 1995:

"Good PC vs. Bad PC"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1995/06/25/good-pc-vs-bad-pc/0ecede84-2980-4dab-8d51-942341c7f8d5/

Excerpts:

"...insulting a person on the basis of what was clearly said or done out of nothing but goodwill is, obviously, rude. No question about it.

"In fact, this is so obvious that Miss Manners has become slightly suspicious of those stories. And when (as a polite coverup for her inability to double up in shock or merriment at yet another of these tales) she asks dainty questions, some of these incidents turn out to be not quite so clear-cut.

"Perhaps there was a previously omitted detail, such as that those (business) pleasantries the lady was so touchy about had included a little friendly but unauthorized touching. Or that the (black) gentleman who was so surly about his work was getting the dirty work not assigned to his peers.

"Condemnation of PC has become so popular that the distinction between reacting to imaginary and real slights seems to have gotten lost. The anti-PC forces have succeeded in casting suspicion on anyone who won't accept the expression of bigotry with equanimity..."

And, in 1991 (also from MM):

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/20/opinion/dialogue-speech-on-campus-say-the-right-thing-or-else-attack-ideas-not-people.html

First half:

WASHINGTON— Can the university, with its special trust of protecting free speech, be hampered by the restrictions of civility? What kind of a frill is etiquette, anyway, for those in the noble pursuit of truth?

These questions are raised whenever a loose-tongued student turns publicly nasty. When Brown University recently expelled such a student, many argued that all restrictions of free speech are intolerable in the university. Brown's president, Vartan Gregorian, agreed with that premise and neatly reclassified the offensive speech as behavior.

But the premise is wrong.

The special trust of a university is not to foster unlimited speech: It is to foster unlimited inquiry. And totally free speech inhibits rather than enhances the free exchange of ideas.

The law cannot restrict such speech without violating our constitutional rights. But etiquette, the extra-legal regulative system that seeks to avert conflict before it becomes serious enough to call in the law, can and does. You may have a legal right to call your mother an idiot, or somebody else's mother a slut, but you won't if you know what's good for you.

Nor could you convince many people that the controversy that such remarks are likely to provoke will lead to advances in knowledge.

The university needs to enforce rules banning speech that interferes with the free exchange of ideas. It must protect the discussion of offensive topics but not the use of offensive manners. It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another...

"Faith in good grades and the mentality of the 'Best and the Brightest', presumed irrevocably tainted by 'Nam (see Halberstam), continues to poison our national affairs."

Yeah, it's interesting to look back at how the Left denounced those institutions during the Vietnam era. Of course, now they control those same institutions, and it's different when they do it.

A Hillary presidency will result in all Congressional Democrats joining as a voting block, as they did for Obama, to give Hillary anything she wants.

A Trump presidency will result in a voting block that despise him: all Congressional Democrats and 1/2 of the Congressional Republicans. Thus the Congressional co-equal branch of government will make the Trump presidency ineffective.

This!!! Should the Democrats gain control of Congress, Hillary as President will ride roughshod to a degree comparable to FDR, LBJ and Dubya.

The university needs to enforce rules banning speech that interferes with the free exchange of ideas. It must protect the discussion of offensive topics but not the use of offensive manners. It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another...

And yet such codes do not ban behavior, they ban speech with disagrees with leftist dogma.

Who cares that women commit nearly half of all sexual assaults, over 60% of all domestic violence and the majority of child abuse, sexual exploitation, and murder.

Mention this calmly and your engaging in hate speech.

Spit on the person saying that calmly and scream that they are a misogynist who beats women, and thats perfectly fine

"If enacted, Donald Trump's platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad."

The existing Administration allowed an American ambassador to be killed, without reprisal, and then lied to the world about it.

Just how is our present course "secure"?

Gotta love their projection Rad. Everything they claim Trump would do they already beat him to it. There are even rumors that Hillary had that ambassador assassinated for some personal reason. Post him to a virulently Muslim nation and quietly put around that he is gay. Then pull out the troops and let the locals do what they want. They claim Trump can't safely handle classified briefings. Hillary just had the FBI state on national television that she was incapable of safely handling classified data.

They claim that America is doing wonderful. Of course they've claimed that for almost a decade and still haven't convinced anyone. Sub 3% annual GDP growth is not wonderful.

We'll see what happens in November.

"It must protect the discussion of offensive topics but not the use of offensive manners. It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another..."

No. Just no. Have you ever looked at any American editorial cartoons from the early 19th century? There were vicious. But everyone recognized the necessity of allowing it. The reason why: As a matter of law, one person's "hate speech" is another person's free speech, as we're seeing. It is impossible to separate the two. Some people deserved to be attacked personally, because they are horrible people. I don't want any law, regulation, or other restriction that prevents malignant narcissists from being called what they are, especially considering how such people are drawn to positions of power.

You do know there are good reasons for the manners system to cover all sorts of areas that legal laws do not, right?

For one, no one would be able to HEAR anyone's free speech, since we would all abandon the rule that says "no interrupting."

Not to mention that if everyone used foul language and ad hominem attacks, it would only get get harder and harder to get anyone's serious attention - and the "horrible people" would not be affected. Again. Who really takes the tabloids seriously, after a certain age?

BTW, Miss Manners knows perfectly well that getting BOTH parties in a debate to use good, fair manners is hardly easy.

This is her review of the 2000 book "It's the Little Things: The Everyday Interactions That Get Under the Skin of Blacks and Whites" by Lena Williams:

https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/10/15/reviews/001015.15martint.html

First quarter or so:

"Here at Etiquette Central, we are under siege from indignant citizens demanding justice. Applications to be excused from observing the rules arrive bolstered by documentation of illness, moodiness, busyness, family background, cultural background, provocation and plain old temptation, or by undocumented claims of free-spiritedness. Reports of misconduct pour in, along with petitions to amend old rules or institute new ones. True, we welcome citizen participation. A republic must consent to any rules that govern it, question those that are outdated or wrong and address new needs. There is just an awful lot, considering that only yesterday the population was ridiculing etiquette and declaring itself satisfied with unrestrained natural behavior, thank you very much. No sooner did people grudgingly admit the legitimacy of etiquette than everyone began bashing everyone else in its name.

"In 'It's the Little Things,' we have a whole bookload of citations, exemption claims and rule revisions from a black point of view, gathered from Lena Williams's own experience and focus groups. A black doctor is advised by his white real estate agent to remove his African art if he expects to sell his house to whites. Black youngsters who are loudly vulgar in movie theaters are explained as carrying on a tradition that began to protest the racism of 'Birth of a Nation.' Why does 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' attract few black contestants? 'We've spent so much of our lives trying to learn the white man's English, the white man's history, the white man's ways. Who has had time to deal with trivia?'

"But as anyone discovers who tries playing 'Let me tell you what you do that drives me crazy,' gripe sessions must also be governed by rules or they make things worse. Sounding off irritably, with no attempt to isolate the offending factor from legitimate behavior, fails to create change and may itself constitute a nuisance.

"Williams, a reporter at The New York Times, plays by many of the rules...Yet..."

(snip)