WTF, Radley Balko is digging in on the idiot side of Covington. I thought his moral compass was truer than this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1087756288111587335

1. I "did" both Swisher and Flanagan in yesterday's freeplay comment stack. For that, I expect what we point-keeping Americans call "The Love."

Where is it? Where is the love?

2. I strongly concur with Aber. Balko has done some great things, but [A.] he's too precious to interact with and [B.] since the '16 election he's become so foamingly resentful and condescending that he's no fun to read. I tried to hang in for the first year, but couldn't.

The major media have blown too many stories of late to have much credibility with anyone but fellow travelers.

• Doctoring the George Zimmerman 911 call to color the story as a racist attack on an innocent teen just going to the store.
  
• Excluding mention of Michael Brown's strong-arm robbery just before his encounter with the police officer in any Ferguson stories.
  
• Furthering the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative after Michael Brown was shot while advancing on an officer he'd just attacked.
  
• Insisting that the McGlockton-Drejka shooting was a "stand your ground" case - as long as months afterward, it was still labelled as such by most major newspapers.
  
• Legitimizing the "rape culture" narrative by spreading the party line about the University of Virginia fraternity rape case.
  
• Not searching for the truth in the Duke University lacrosse team rape case, instead reporting the accusation as ipso facto true.
  
• The George W. Bush Army National Guard memo - typed in MS Word using courier sans in an easily-disproved attempt to make it look like it was written on a '70s-era manual typewriter.
  
• Omitting any mention of "Mattress Girl's" fawning text messages to her "attacker."
  
• Downplaying the impromptu runway meeting of Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in the middle of a DOJ investigation of Bill Clinton's wife.
  
• Fawning coverage of the Obama campaign in 2008 - "tingle up my leg" anyone?
  
• Legitimizing the "wage gap" calumny.
  
• Reporting the "1-in-5" sexual assault statistic as fact without questioning the methodology.
  
• Reporting as fact that "right wing anger" was the underlying cause of the Gabby Giffords shooting.
  
• Using the doctored Covington video as the entire story to confirm an ingrained and biased view of MAGA-wearing right-wing racism.
  

Newspapers lost their place as America's news source to television. They later found a niche as providers of thoughtful analyses that television could not provide. Both panicked when the Internet began being viewed as a source for news and began using on sensationalism to grab headlines and beat the digital competition.

When you're no more reliable than some random guy with a Twitter account, you're no longer the nation's "newspaper of record," he is.

We're in an era of Yellow Journalism again, with each side having its in-house news organs and reliable, impartial, well-researched news hard to come by.

Another one for you, Conan. Reporters who sleep with their sources.

https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/10821/2018-06-14/when-reporters-sleep-with-elephants.html

All true. But I bet Trump doesn't get a wall. I'd not be at all surprised if he loses in 2020. This might be humanity's last gasp for the 90-IQ voting bloc.

Whodda thunk it? BuzzFeed to lay off 15% of workforce.

https://twitter.com/lalpert1/status/1088217558891880448

All true. But I bet Trump doesn't get a wall. I'd not be at all surprised if he loses in 2020. This might be humanity's last gasp for the 90-IQ voting bloc.

Crid at January 24, 2019 8:03 AM

Two bits Kamala Harris or some other idiot socialist left winger Obama clone is the democratic nominee in 2020, and he beats her or him like a rented mule.

I’m starting to think the shutdown, is the flip side of he sequester. DOD is funded, and all the alphabet agencies which the Republicans don’t have the guts to cut through the legislative process will lose half their people thru a RIF. It could also spell the end of the TSA, as airlines move to privatize security. Win, win.

All true. But I bet Trump doesn't get a wall. I'd not be at all surprised if he loses in 2020. This might be humanity's last gasp for the 90-IQ voting bloc. ~ Crid at January 24, 2019 8:03 AM

Perhaps.

I don't think he wants a literal 2,000-mile-long wall, despite his rhetoric. I think he's playing for strong immigration reform - the kind Schumer and Pelosi have been dodging for the combined 68 years they've been in Congress (Schumer elected in '81 and Pelosi in '87).

As I pointed out with a link in an earlier thread, even legal immigrants (anybody counted in the Census) skew the voting patterns in Congressional districts. That's how AOC won her district with 16,898 votes when it took thrice that to win other districts.

That's also one reason why urban district Democrats want illegal immigrants counted in the Census and used to apportion districts; and one reason why Republicans are opposed.

Trump may lose on the wall gambit, but immigration reform is a conversation we need to have; and an undertaking we need to attempt.

Trump losing the election isn't guaranteed, despite his low approval ratings. The Dems are likely to nominate a far-left candidate whose appeal is limited to urban and close-in suburban areas; one whose identity politics bona fides are touted as her main qualification for office.

The legacy media are trying to race against the instant news of Twitter and gossip, but this does not leave any time for checking any facts. Their financial state due to competition (falling sales) means they have fewer editors. Worst of all, they are so blinded by ideology and the desire to "do something" to "save the world" that they have lost all ability to see anything objectively.

I put myself in the shoes of that boy. I'm in the middle of a big crowd of my friends waiting for the bus, don't know what is going on over there with some black guys shouting at us, and this Native American wades into the crowd and starts beating a drum in my face and chanting something something. Is he friendly? Is he trying to intimidate me? I don't think I am in danger so I just stand there and smile. And for this I get death threats. WTF is all I can think.

"and I apologize to the kids from Kentucky unilaterally..."

Ms. Swisher, before I accept your apology, answer me this: You have clearly discarded the standards and norms of Western civilization. As one of those white guys that you clearly hate, why should I continue to be bound by them?

That one guy, the really muscular one?

That's me.

Thanks! I've been practicing for years.

Conan Says:

"I don't think he wants a literal 2,000-mile-long wall, despite his rhetoric."

I don't think he wanted to literally be the president either, despite his rhetoric.

And yet here we are.

If the shutdown continues the Republicans will most likely lose the senate in 2020 just like they lost the house in 2018... it might even be too late to salvage things... public polling is pretty clear that Trump is losing ground.

"Trump losing the election isn't guaranteed, despite his low approval ratings. The Dems are likely to nominate a far-left candidate whose appeal is limited to urban and close-in suburban areas; one whose identity politics bona fides are touted as her main qualification for office."

It is also appealing to the young... which it is necessary to point out that 2020 will be the first year that the Boomer voting block is outnumbered by younger generations. Trump is more than likely DOA come 2020. My guess is he will be challenged in the primary despite being the incumbent... if he doesn't resign in disgrace before then and make way for Pence.

Wrong thread for that last comment. But still! I'm grateful for your adoration, no matter how well-deserved.

> and he beats her or him
> like a rented mule.

+

I don't think he wants anything at all. Certainly not on behalf of other people... And probably not even for himself.

White House is a good gig, and battling a really aggressive set of enemies is a fine way to spend time. But had the ratings for some failed pilot from 2014 gone the other way, he'd be doing that... And probably, in material terms, he'd be just as famous and comfortable. What pleasures of 1700 Penn is he taking advantage of? Concerts with Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma, or dance tunes from Earth, Wind & Fire? Shirtsleeve conversation with the most articulate minds for essentially any topic you could find listed in a card catalog? Alternatively, he has finger-flick access to the best formal information money can buy... But as it happens, he's not a big reader. No, on weeknights, it's Fox & Friends... And he eats fast food a lot, even when Clemson's not in town.

Sure, there's a lot of golf... A LOT of golf. But his (third!) trophy wife, whose shine is fading rapidly anyway, has been *globally* humiliated... The household vibes can't be that cheerful. She might well go public if he started bringing his idiot whores into the West Wing. And I don't doubt for a minute that he's asked his staff about it. So how eager will he be to fight for re-election?

So far as a gelatin-brained percentage of his voter base is concerned, this IS another successful TV show. And ratings on those almost always start to dive in the third season.

And whether he gets the wall or not, some voters will recognize that the sneering pleasure of his bitter tweets has not actually made their lives any better.

Maybe Kamala will get the nom. But maybe not. She's a cop, she's the fuzz, she's po-po, she's Johnny Law, she's The Man... And many American's don't like the police.

But it's early. I read on twitter this morning that some city councilman from Toledo or something has formed a committee. Could be anybody.

Maybe Trump will win, but I don't see any particular reason to think so. He was novel, and even children tire of their loudest toys eventually.

1600. Whatever. I never been.

Isab Says:

"Two bits Kamala Harris or some other idiot socialist left winger Obama clone is the democratic nominee in 2020, and he beats her or him like a rented mule."

Obama was a socialist???

I feel like that term has lost all meaning at this point.

Obama if anything was a corporatist Democrat... definitely not a socialist by any standard definition.

“The best argument in favor of Trump’s presidency is what Trump’s presidency has taught us about the character of the people who oppose him, and who would be wielding power if he weren’t.”

Glenn Reynolds

“Obama was a socialist???”

No, Obama was an empty suit.

"Obama if anything was a corporatist Democrat... definitely not a socialist by any standard definition."

Does "facist" suit you better? Because what Obama encouraged, and what we have now, completely meets the dictionary definition of the word. And, whatever his faults may be, that is the #1 reason Trump was elected.

I don't think he wanted to literally be the president either, despite his rhetoric. ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 10:37 AM

I think he did. I think, like most candidates, he had visions of being a beloved historical figure, something he could never become as a real estate developer or reality TV star. And, like most candidates, he probably deluded himself about the amount of work and politics the job actually entailed.

Obama was a good example of that delusion. He came into office with little-to-no executive, or even government, experience and was handed an overwhelming majority in Congress.

As a result, he saw no need to woo the opposing party. Thus, when he lost that majority, he had no legislative relationships built up with anyone on the other side from which to begin negotiations.

Bush II came into office with some experience dealing with a committee overseeing him (board of directors) and tried to make legislative allies immediately , but Pelosi, still mad about the Clinton impeachment was dead set on revenge. She shut down any early attempts by Bush at bipartisanship. Nonetheless, events interfered and Bush was able to get some things passed with a bipartisan vote in Congress.

With a newly-radicalized party base in the 2008 election, those Bush-era bipartisan votes came back to bite the Democrat presidential candidates (namely Hillary) in the ass. As a result, the Democratic Party has taken bipartisanship off the table.

Pelosi, in this go-round, seems to think she'll be rid of Trump once the Mueller report comes out and she can stonewall and obstruct without even a pretense of negotiating. Even without Mueller, she must obstruct to keep the party's increasingly radicalized base compliant.

I feel like that term ["socialist"] has lost all meaning at this point. ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 10:51 AM

When people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling Denmark and Sweden "socialist" countries, it has.

Obama was a socialist??? ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 10:51 AM

In the AOC model, he was.

He was definitely somewhere in the collectivism and authoritarianism quadrant of the political map, advocating government solutions to any and all public issues, not trusting a free market to come up with solutions.

Collectivist solutions to social issues fit better with homogenous societies where everyone feels like they're in the same tribe. The US is too diverse a population for such programs.

Socialism views social divisions as a problem imposed on society by capitalists when, in reality, they're part and parcel of the human condition. Socialists, even quasi-socialists, while decrying social divisions, encode them into law and create more problems than they purport to solve.

I also don't think Trump ever really wanted to be president. He ran for fun, to get his face on TV, and to sell some books. Then he started to win and said, 'What the hell, lets go for it.' And now he is president. And from what I can see he has a pretty good chance at a second term.

"The elite media have botched the story so completely that they have lost the authority to report on it."

And not just on this story - the "elite" media have been trash for decades; so to say they botched this story is calling them out way too late.

I am getting the distinct picture that folks here just despise Obama... but cannot quite agree on why.

First Isab Says he is a socialist:

"Two bits Kamala Harris or some other idiot socialist left winger Obama clone is the democratic nominee in 2020"

Then she says he wasn't, but is actually an empty suit:

"“Obama was a socialist???”
No, Obama was an empty suit."

Then Cousin Dave chimes in that he was actually a fascist:

"Does "facist" suit you better? Because what Obama encouraged, and what we have now, completely meets the dictionary definition of the word. And, whatever his faults may be, that is the #1 reason Trump was elected."

Not only was he a fascist apparently... but he ushered in a fascist regime and that is the #1 reason why Trump was elected.

So apparently Trump was elected to lead a fascist regime initiated by Obama... who also happens to be an idiot socialist that the democrats will find a political clone of to run in 2020... but actually is just an empty suit.

Got it!!!

The latest from the Lady With The Gray Drapes regarding Trump's inevitable loss in 2020:

"Democrats will win big in more urban, more diverse, better-educated and more liberal-friendly states and will continue to lose ground in other states like Missouri. "

That's right, the Times insists that Democrats are well-educated and diverse and urban, unlike the non-diverse black people of St. Louis or Kansas City, for instance, or the uneducated professors and doctors at UMKC or KU Medical.

I'm not a betting man but - are going to see another election night of hysterical, weeping Democrats? This seems awfully early to call the election. Again.

Why Trump Will Lose In 2020

Conan Says:

"Obama was a good example of that delusion. He came into office with little-to-no executive, or even government, experience and was handed an overwhelming majority in Congress.
As a result, he saw no need to woo the opposing party. Thus, when he lost that majority, he had no legislative relationships built up with anyone on the other side from which to begin negotiations."

Sometimes I worry that you and I aren't living in the same reality.

When Obama came into office he was met with a minority party in Congress that filibustered more than at any other point in our nations history:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/27yz6i/number_of_senate_filibusters_by_minority_party/

When the midterm elections came the Senate minority leader summed up the republican party position as follows:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Mitch McConnell was such a raging obstructionist that he even famously filibustered his *own* policy proposal after requesting a straight up or down vote because it seemed like the Democrats would pass it:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4472713/mcconnell-filibusters-proposal

And yet Obama was somehow supposed to "woo" the opposition party???

I'm just going to put it out there that it is probably not possible to build relationships with people who filibuster their own policy proposals when they find out you agree with them.

> definitely not a socialist by
> any standard definition.

Orion, is it my imagination, or do you spend a lot of time thinking that it's important to be just like other people, and not press the boundaries of your understanding or terms of expression or anything else?

I sometimes think you had some sort of institutionally-circumscribed childhood.

Crid,

It's your imagination.

I like you much better when you are telling F1 racing stories as opposed to when you are displaying your spot on impersonation of a distended sphincter. Please regale us with tales of how awesome it would be to see "Lewis Hamilton’s famous gold-plated accelerator footpedal, the one with the little Pussycat Dolls logo stamped on it." or what a tragedy it is that "We don’t all dream of being Martin Whitmarsh when we grow up."

Just know this Crid... I believe in you... when you grow up I think maybe... just maybe you can be Martin Whitmarsh.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/08/how-mclaren-turned-a-dog-into-a-winner/

Artie, reddit? Really? That's your reliable source for news?

Sometimes I worry that you and I aren't living in the same reality. ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 11:10 PM

Well, seeing as you're living in a fantasy world of your own creation, I'd say you're right to worry.

Mitch McConnell was such a raging obstructionist that he even famously filibustered his *own* policy proposal after requesting a straight up or down vote because it seemed like the Democrats would pass it: ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 11:10 PM

I believe what you're referring to, Artie, is a gambit McConnell launched to show that not all Democrats wanted the president (in this case, Obama) to have control over the debt ceiling. Thanks to the fact that Congressional Democrat leaders almost never allow the caucus members to vote their conscience and insist upon sheeplike obedience, McConnell was forced to filibuster his own bill.

For the record, I'm with McConnell on that one. Presidents should not have the ability to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval - whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican.

Democrats wanted Obama to have authority and power they'd never have approved for a Republican president. Reid was so shortsighted that he cut his own party off at the knees, destroying the filibuster because he wanted to push Obama's judicial nominations through without the bother of any opposition. Giving a president the ability to raise the debt ceiling without consulting Congress would have been a stupid move.

And, yes, sheeplike obedience. John Boehner was famously unable to herd his Republican cats into a united front ("And Boehner's ability to rally his caucus around a deal remains as questionable as ever." ~ The New Republic | November, 2012). Ryan had the same problem. Yet, Pelosi has generally been able to get almost 100% compliance with her wishes in Congressional votes - denying party support and funding to any who stand in her way or don't comply.

And yet Obama was somehow supposed to "woo" the opposition party??? ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 11:10 PM

Yes. As is any president who wants to try and establish a working relationship with the opposition party. A president is not a dictator. "I won, deal with it" is not how a president should approach doing his job, no matter his party affiliation.

"I'm not a betting man but - are going to see another election night of hysterical, weeping Democrats? This seems awfully early to call the election. Again."

Well Gog, that is not a bet I'd be willing to take. Just look at who they seem to be putting up. Warren? Harris? I mean, I'll agree they are no Hillary, but those two have an awful lot of baggage. We'll see what happens when the primary voting actually starts but for the moment the key trait Democrats seem to be looking for is female. Too bad for Beto I guess.

Conan Says:

"Artie, reddit? Really? That's your reliable source for news?"

Data is data Conan... the Republican Senate during the Obama initial years put forth more filibusters than any other era in American history.

Those are facts... that they are inconvenient to the point you *want* to make is immaterial.

That someone happened to post the data on reddit doesn't matter.

I notice you aren't actually disputing the facts, just ranting about who happened to aggregate the data.

The same data is available from any number of sources:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/454162/rise-filibuster-maddening-chart

Do you dispute the facts presented in these charts?

That is the only relevent question.

Conan Says:

"I believe what you're referring to, Artie, is a gambit McConnell launched to show that not all Democrats wanted the president (in this case, Obama) to have control over the debt ceiling."

What you generously call a "gambit"... I call evidence of an individual who is not willing to work in good faith with the party on the other side of the isle.

When someone insists on an up or down vote for a proposal... and then they are given an up or down vote... and then they filibuster their own proposal... that isn't a person who can be bargained with.

That is a person who isn't looking to work across the isle, that is a person determined to block and obstruct at every turn.

"McConnell was forced to filibuster his own bill."

No, he wasn't... he never had to put forth a bill he didn't actually believe in.

People like that aren't there to make bipartisan deals... they are there to cheat and play games.

Conan Says:

"Yes. As is any president who wants to try and establish a working relationship with the opposition party. A president is not a dictator. "I won, deal with it" is not how a president should approach doing his job, no matter his party affiliation."

That is precisely not how Obama acted though.

The best evidence for this is when Scalia unexpectedly died.

Obama could have in principle put forth a recess appointment of the most left wing judge he could think of.

That is what a dictator would have done. That is what a "I won, deal with it" president would have done.

That isn't how things went down though. Obama instead allowed congress to resume session and then appointed a center-right justice that was recommended to him by one other than Oren Hatch... you know, the guy who holds the record for being the longest-serving Republican senator in American history.

And how did things play out?... Mitch refused to even give Garland a hearing, and instead left the Supreme Court down to 8 members for about a year so that he could "gambit" on a Republican winning the 2018 election and putting in a right wing judge.

This isn't a guy who you can "woo"... this is a manipulator.

Needless to say, your perspective on things appears very distorted.

A dictator president would have just put someone in during the recess and made a "gambit" of his own.

Conan,

By the way, here is the data directly from the source (i.e., the united states government):

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Incidentally, this is why folks like Patrick call you dishonest.

You know that the data presented in that graph on reddit accurately represented the facts... and yet instead of addressing those facts you make some bogus claim about the link not meeting your standards for a blog conversation... and then just ignore those facts as if they did not exist.

The reality is that Obama walked into a situation where he was dealing with the most obstructionist minority party in the history of American politics and yet you assert that the blame for a lack of bipartisan bridge building landed at his feet.

It takes two to tango Conan... and Mitch don't dance.

Artie, your "facts presented in these charts" don't show anything that's news. The use of the filibuster is increasing as partisanship increases. I am somewhat surprised it was not used more during the expansion of slavery debates.

Yes, Republicans filibustered Obama's judicial nominations. They did so because they were not the majority in the Senate and felt those nominations were bad for the country. I'd expect Democrats to do the same as the minority party if they feel that a Republican president's appointments are bad for the country.

The Democrat response to that high number of filibusters was to cripple it for lower-level judicial appointments. Now, they whine that it's been crippled and they cannot use it. Don't think for a minute they would not have set a new record on your chart if they'd had the filibuster to use. Very short-sighted of them to have crippled it in spite when it was used against them.

The filibuster was established to prevent the majority party from running roughshod over the minority party (or parties). It was meant to encourage negotiation with the opposing party (or parties) - to enable the minority party (or parties) to force the majority party to the negotiating table.

The Democrats chose to cripple the filibuster rather than negotiate in a fit of "I won, deal with it" pettiness. Now, they're paying the price for that short-sightedness.

I will admit, I am concerned that the parties no longer negotiate and govern the country, preferring instead to score points on each other and have turned governance into a game of chicken. Both parties are complicit in this. Ted Cruz shuts down the government in a petulant bid to win favor from his base. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer do the same, refusing to negotiate at all with a president from another party.

Our parties today do not negotiate and, thus, do not govern. This is partly the fault of the electorate. Hillary was blasted in the 2008 primaries for her compromise positions with Republicans while in the Senate - by her own party's increasingly left-wing base. Obama tacked to the left of her and slid into the nomination. Bernie Sanders took note and tacked even further left in the 2016 primaries, almost winning but for chicanery by the Clinton machine.

Look for the 2020 Democrat candidates to tack even further left.

We used to elect serious people to government. Now, we elect mental midgets, petty tyrants, and fame whores.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, | But in ourselves, that we are underlings. ~ William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar

==================================================

That someone happened to post the data on reddit doesn't matter. ~ Artemis at January 25, 2019 7:51 AM

That you chose reddit as your source material when you could have chosen any other source (it's "widely available" after all) tells me something unflattering about you.

Conan Says:

"Democrats wanted Obama to have authority and power they'd never have approved for a Republican president."

Actually no... if that is what they wanted they could have put forth their own bill to that effect, but that isn't what transpired.

Mitch put forth the bill, and Democrats called his bluff by basically forcing him to admit that despite his request for an up/down vote, he really wasn't sincere about his own proposal.

You and I can either have an honest conversation here dealing with facts and evidence... or I can consider everything you say to be a "gambit" intended to win cheap points if you can manage to get away with it.

But again... this is why folks here call you dishonest.

Conan Says:

"That you chose reddit as your source material when you could have chosen any other source (it's "widely available" after all) tells me something unflattering about you."

That you choose to ignore facts in favor of focusing on subjective interpretation of your own favorite web sites tells me something unflattering about you.

The facts are on my side here and you adamantly refuse to discuss those facts.

This is a trend with you.

Patrick is right about you.

By the way, the fact that the graph depicted on the "data is beautiful" subreddit... a subreddit widely known for accurately presenting datasets... also matches exactly the primary source data provided by the United States government pretty much exonerates my "choice" of link.

If the data had been inaccurately presented or was misleading you would have a point, but that isn't what happened.

That you seem unable to distinguish between subreddits that focus on quality presentations of data and subreddits that display pornography and pictures of kittens tells me that you aren't very computer savvy.

So far as the internet goes, the dataisbeautiful subreddit is a reasonable source for blog discussions. It isn't suitable for citation in academic publications, but I adjust my standards to suit my audience.

"So apparently Trump was elected to lead a fascist regime initiated by Obama."

Pretty much, actually. I've found it mildly amusing that Trump of all people was elected as an anti-fascist candidate, considering that he was pretty much in tight with the economic ruling class up until a few years ago. (Makes me wonder who pissed him off...)

Hint here: At least in economic terms, the word "fascist" does not mean what most people think it means. In a communist form of government, the government owns the means of production. In a fascist form of government, there is an unholy alliance between government and government-preferred companies, in which the companies use the control of production to support the government and enforce government policies, and in return, the government shields them from competition. Nazi Germany was a good example; companies preferred by Hitler grew enormously up until about 1942, while competitors either withered away from being unable to compete with government-preferred companies, or their principals got tossed in prison on various disloyalty charges.

As I see it, the trend towards fascism started sometime during the Clinton years and has built momentum pretty steadily since, through the Bush and Obama administrations.

Incidentally, this is why folks like Patrick call you dishonest. ~ Artemis at January 25, 2019 8:19 AM

Patrick calls anyone who disagrees with him "dishonest." I had hopes you were becoming better than that.

Patrick has also called me "sub-human filth," "full of shit," and a few other choice epithets. He's said that he "despises" me. Patrick can be just a bit hysterical and hyperbolic. You wanna join him in the gutter of name-callling?

Actually no... if that is what they wanted they could have put forth their own bill to that effect, but that isn't what transpired.

They did put it forth. The proposal to implement was from the White House and was based on a proposal made by McConnell in an earlier debt ceiling fight.

From The Week because I can't get past the paywalls for the Washington Post and the New York Times:

The bill at hand was a measure proposed by the White House, based on a "last-choice," one-off fix McConnell himself came up with in the 2011 debt-ceiling standoff, to take America's borrowing limit out of Congress' hands — the president could raise the debt ceiling, and Congress could override him only with a veto-proof majority. McConnell introduced the bill to show that President Obama doesn't have the votes for such a measure even in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Well on Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called his bluff.... [emphasis mine]

Yes, McConnell gambled and lost. That's why I called it a "gambit" earlier.

Gambit: A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage.

McConnell's gambit didn't work. That sometimes happens in politics with gambits.

Notice, too, that the original 2011 proposal to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling was made by the Republican McConnell during the administration of a Democrat president. A bipartisan solution proposed by a guy you called, "a raging obstructionist." Hmm.

The facts are on my side here and you adamantly refuse to discuss those facts. ~ Artemis at January 25, 2019 8:46 AM

If you get off your high horse and review what I posted, I never disputed the increased use of the filibuster. In fact, I lamented it.

The Democrats, in the minority in Trump's first two years, would have continued its escalated use on judicial nominees but for Harry Reid's circular-firing-squad destruction of it during the Obama administration.

It's really my placing the blame for increased partisanship and legislative disfunction equally on both parties that you take issue with.

You want to blame the Republicans solely. And, while they do bear a portion of the blame, they do not bear it alone. Notice, I specifically called out Ted Cruz (R-TX) as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for their roles in creating and sustaining legislative disfunction.

I also called out the voters for electing dysfunctional representatives, for eschewing representatives who go to Washington to govern and instead choosing partisan hacks who only want to score political points. The disfunction will only get worse during and after the 2020 election.

Yes, I did comment negatively on your choice of reddit as a source and I stand by that. If your main source of news is reddit, I strongly recommend you add a few old-school news sources, whatever their political bias - e.g., CBS, WaPo, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, etc.

The original chart in your post, by the way, was from the Washington Post. WaPo would have been a better cite for your comment - you could have noted that your comments that you were using reddit as a reference since WaPo has a paywall.

Reddit is a discussion forum, neither a news provider nor a repository of facts, no matter how trusted a sub-reddit might be. It is a place for lively discussion. I will admit, I don't frequent reddit very often, if at all, and mostly visit it from references by others or Google searches on specific topics.

I don't recommend using reddit as a cite for factual assertions, even in blog discussion with people you consider beneath you, because it is a discussion forum and any corrections or clarifications to the original post are made in the comments. Its discussions also degenerate far too often into "Re-thug-lican," "lib-tard," and "Demo-rat" name calling.

Orion has irrational, almost Chinese faith in:

• Authority (of any provenance)


• Institutions


• Groupthink (of any provenance)


• The prosaic


• His/her own (cowering) righteousness

I'm pretty sure it isn't a sociable upbringing in the competitive outdoor liberty of the American model, with its cooperative recognition of individual interests.

Somebody or something pushed the air out of this kid's lungs in very early times.

I'm thinking a group home of some kind.

"pornography and pictures of kittens"

Let's not be redundant.

Conan Says:

"Patrick calls anyone who disagrees with him "dishonest." I had hopes you were becoming better than that."

Do you have examples to back up this claim, as I have only observed him calling you dishonest.

At the time I held my tongue because I agreed it wasn't an appropriate time to call folks out... but you actually are not a fully honest participant actor in these discussions.

This conversation is just the most recent in a string of such behavior... I had hopes that you were becomming better than that.

Where you continually go astray is you will make a claim... then someone (me in this case) will present factual data that disputes your unsupported assertion. At that point instead of dealing honestly with the reality that your opinion doesn't match a reasonable interpretation of the available data... you instead go on an attack to find some way to shift the discussion away from facts.

In this case for example, you know that when Obama took office he encountered the most obstructionist minority party in the Senate in all of US history... twice as obsutuctionist than the nearest comparison. Mitch McConnell weaponized the fillibuster to an extent never seen before in US history.

Furthermore, he made it very clear that the ultimate goal of the Republican party at the time was to prevent Obama from passing any legislation at all and ensuring he was a one term president... this was also an unprecidented admission of severe partisanship.

You know all of this. These are facts... and yet you laid the full blame at Obamas feet for failing to "woo" the minority party. That is patently ridiculous.

Yet instead of dealing with the historical realities you chose instead to "discredit" the link I chose to use.

Here is where that behavior is truly dishonest. Reddit isn't just a single website in the way you are acting. It is comprised of numerous subreddits each with their own standards of behavior and culture. In this case I was linking to the "dataisbeautiful" subreddit... which is a credible source of information for the following reasons:

1 - Thr forum rules require the person posting a graph to "Directly link to the original source article of the visualization (not an image file) or tag the post as [OC] if you made the visualization."

2 - Within the thread you can clearly see that the person posting the graph directly linked to the Senate website where the original data came from as required by the forum rules:

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

The only thing the "dataisbeautuful" subreddit does it is takes cited source data and turns it into a visually aestetic format.

All that happened was the link I provided gave a bar chart of data that was originally in a spreadsheet.

And instead of dealing honestly with the facts and the data that didn't validate your erroneous position... you ignored it entirely and decided to cast personal aspersions at me for having even provided a reddit link in the first place.

That is why you are dishonest.

Conan Says:

"Yes, I did comment negatively on your choice of reddit as a source and I stand by that. If your main source of news is reddit, I strongly recommend you add a few old-school news sources, whatever their political bias - e.g., CBS, WaPo, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, etc."

This isn't the hill you want to die on Conan.

In the same comment where I referenced a datais beautifulgraph on reddit... I also directly linked to a c-span recording of events where Mitch filibustered himself.

So why would you think I get all my news from reddit?

It would be just as reasonable for you to assume I watch c-span all day long to get my congressional news directly from the senate floor.

You chose to dishonestly attack data that you knew to be factually true instead of dealing with it honestly.

"Reddit is a discussion forum, neither a news provider nor a repository of facts, no matter how trusted a sub-reddit might be. It is a place for lively discussion. I will admit, I don't frequent reddit very often, if at all, and mostly visit it from references by others or Google searches on specific topics."

Since you do not frequent reddit very often I recommend you hold your opinion of it as a reliable source for online discussion in abayance.

If in the future someone links to the "datais beautiful" subreddit and the source material within the link that the graph/chart is built from is credible then you have no reason to flip out.

That subreddit isn't a "discussion forum" it is a place for folks who appreciate clear and aestetically pleasing presentations of data.

That is all it is... if the source they link to is credible, and if the presentation matches the data set then it is fine.

In my case it meets both of these criteria so you had no reason to complain or remark negatively.

I certainly wouldn't link to reddit to prove a point about an opinion that was being discussed... this was just data... and it was presented accurately and without distortion.

You jumped the gun and you were wrong to do so.

Do you have examples to back up this claim, as I have only observed him calling you dishonest. ~ Artemis at January 26, 2019 7:41 PM

You'd have to go back to my early days on this forum. Patrick was constantly screeching about being misquoted or taken out of context - to everyone who tried to debate a claim he'd just made.

If you want to take your forum cues from a guy who thinks people who don't agree with him are "sub-human filth" or "full of shit," go ahead, but you should strive to be better than that.

That is why you are dishonest. ~ Artemis at January 26, 2019 7:41 PM

You wanna talk dishonest? Okay, let's.

You cherry-pick the filibuster statistic in order to blame one party for the legislative dysfunction we're seeing today; in order to absolve your chosen party from any blame.

You ignore the "never, is never good enough for you?" stance Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House took in response to George W. Bush's second-term proposal to discuss Social Security reform.

The House has not had a filibuster since the early 1800s, so you can conveniently use the increase in filibusters as proof that Republicans, and Republicans only, are obstructionists.

Keep in mind that most of those 137 Obama-era filibusters were for lower-level judicial nominations, a practice that so frustrated Harry Reid that he convened a circular firing squad to destroy its use below SCOTUS nominees - a destruction the Democrats now lament as the minority party. You think the Democrats wouldn't have used it 137 or more times against Trump nominees?

You ignore the fact that for his first two terms Obama had a controlling majority in Congress that ran roughshod over the minority party - e.g., Obamacare passing without a single minority party vote and not even pretense of addressing a single minority party concern about the consequences of tinkering with such a significant percentage of the US economy. Just a series of smug promises that premiums would decrease (they did the opposite) and that you could keep your plan (you couldn't).

It was in the mid-term immediately following that display of unbridled arrogance by the majority party in both houses (Democrats) that Republicans swept the mid-terms and McConnell made his statement, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

And, yes, given the nature of our politics today, Republicans would have done the same thing, given the chance. Perhaps that's why it stung so much.

Each party seeks to put its own people in power and make an opposing president a "one-term" president. That's the nature of politics. McConnell just said it out loud.

And yet Obama was somehow supposed to "woo" the opposition party??? ~ Artemis at January 24, 2019 11:10 PM

Yes.

Smart executives (of which Obama had zero experience in being or working with) woo the opposition with charm offensives, even an opposition that pledged to defeat them.

You think Bill Clinton didn't try to woo Republicans? You think George W. Bush didn't try to woo Democrats? You haven't been paying attention.

Even Trump invited Democrats to the White House, an invitation that was categorically refused. No one wanting to keep his or her seat in Congress can afford to be seen making nice with the opposition these days. It's electoral suicide.

Obama's problem was in starting out with a controlling majority in Congress and being a first-term senator elected to higher office; i.e., having no real experience in seeing legislation get passed or dealing with presidents or executives.

His arrogant "I won, deal with it," was the wrong way to start out. However, by his election the legislative dysfunction and partisan sniping was firmly-entrenched in our politics. His arrogance was a product of it, not the instigator of it.

By the way, "compromise" does not mean "you do what I want." John Boehner often lamented the fact that he'd reach a compromise with Obama and the next day, Obama would change the terms, destroying the compromise. Obama's inexperience was frustrating to the folks on the other side of the aisle.

If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid wanted Obamacare to last beyond Obama's term, they needed to pass it with a bipartisan vote. They, however, believed their own party's propaganda.

They believed the lie that the Democrats alone had passed Social Security and Civil Rights. They didn't. Both were passed on bi-partisan votes.

Eisenhower wanted to eliminate Social Security, but too many Republicans had voted for it; he didn't have support in his own party to eliminate it, much less enough support to overcome Democratic objections.

The 1964 Civil Rights bill only got through Congress because Everett Dirksen (R-IL) and Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) used a procedural loophole to get a compromise bill past the Southern Democrats who had trapped the original bill in committee.

Lesson: if you want a program to last, you need to enact it with bipartisan support. You need to compromise.

Our Congress has lost the ability to compromise - and the fault for that, dear Brutus, is not on Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi, but on us for insisting on ideological purity instead of ability to govern.

You've bought so completely into the partisan talking points that say all this dysfunction is all the fault Republicans. It's not. It's the fault of us, the voters who cannot forgive a candidate for ever compromising.

Hillary Clinton's compromise votes during the Bush administration were used as evidence by the left-wing base of the party in the 2008 primary that she was not "woke" enough to be president. And again in the 2016 primary that Bernie Sanders would be a "better" choice. If not for the vote-rigging by the DNC, Sanders may well have been the party's nominee.

The Republicans took a little longer to jump on the extremist bandwagon, McCain and Romney were not right-wing enough for the extreme base, but got the nomination despite that. Trump was certainly not the paragon of Christian virtue the right-wing of the party says it wants to see as president.

Even the Libertarians are succumbing to ideological purity; Gary Johnson and William Weld were frequently derided for not being libertarian enough for the party's base, which was busy wearing superhero costumes and dancing in its underwear at the party's last convention.

We may have seen the last of a moderate candidate from either party for a long while.

Cousin Dave may be right about the fanaticism starting during the Clinton era. However, I think the seeds were sown during the Reagan-Bush years, perhaps earlier.

Reagan was willing to compromise. However, the more fanatical opposition to Reagan demanded ideological purity - the Reagan years were when Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were first elected to Congress.

GHW Bush compromised on a tax increase and was abandoned by his own party base, losing his bid for a second term despite winning a war. Hillary Clinton lost two bids for president with a fanatical base abandoning her for a more left-wing candidate.

You want to blame one party for the problem. You exonerate your own preferred party using cherry-picked statistics. That's dishonest.

Pot, have ya met Kettle?

Conan Says:

"You cherry-pick the filibuster statistic in order to blame one party for the legislative dysfunction we're seeing today; in order to absolve your chosen party from any blame."

I didn't cherry-pick anything Conan... the filibuster data I presented here includes all filibuster data available on the Senate's own government webpage.

Nothing was cherry picked... you just happen not to like the results.

Secondly, the entire point of that data being presented was precisely because you were placing the blame for legislative dysfunction not just at the feet of 1 party... but at 1 individual, which seemed a bit ridiculous to me.

It wasn't about my desire to "absolve" anyone... it was about pointing out the obvious that Obama wasn't exactly in a position to "woo" the Republican party at the time... they weren't exactly operating in a manner that would have been agreeable to anything.

As you admit, they were willing to filibuster their own proposals assuming the Democrats at the time agreed to those proposals because they were never submitted earnestly... they were part of fake political gamesmanship.

My only point was that you were being particularly unfair to Obama in putting it all on him when the Senate itself was operating in a completely broken fashion... so broken it had never operated in that space before as shown by historical data.

I don't have a chosen party Conan... I just like to live in a reality that is aligned with data and factual observation.

Conan,

I would also like to point something out for you to consider.

While I have no like for either of the main political parties, and while I agree that they are both infected with partisan rot... what I do not agree with is that the rot has spready equally.

My evidence for this is the behavior of the Republican party in congress after 2016.

At that moment in history they held the presidency and majorities in both houses of congress. One would think they would have been able to accomplish some of their key states legislative aims under those conditions... but how exactly did things play out with the repeal of the ACA?

Let's first consider the history. Republicans had already voted 54 times to repeal the ACA... the only thing stopping them from actually succeeding was that they didn't have a veto proof majority in the Senate. As a result these bills were deal on arrival to the presidential office. Of course Republicans knew this... so at this point in time it was all political theater. There was no chance of it passing, so there was no political price to be paid for potential negative consequences.

Great, so once they held majority power in both houses of congress and also held the presidency this should have been a slam dunk, right???

Well that isn't how things played out, because as it turned out you couldn't just repeal it without replacing it with something without causing massive problems that would negatively impact the public. So, the question becomes what legislation did the Republicans have prepared to replace it with?... Well it turns out that despite years of complaining and 54 separate attempts to "fake repeal"... they never actually put anything together for a real legislative measure.

As a result the Republican party wasn't even able to agree with itself on what to do... they had all the power now to do whatever it was they wanted and it was impossible for them to come to an agreement... so they did nothing.

As a result we still have the ACA today despite years of Republicans ranting and raving at how terrible it was.

To sum up, the current Republican party is so intransigent that it is nigh impossible for factions within the party itself to negotiate and agree with each other on key legislative elements they are in principle aligned with. The problem is they have all taken on a legislative philosophy of not being willing to budge an inch.

At least the Democrats are still capable of negotiating with themselves and compromising internally. The current Republican party cannot even do that.

It is also interesting to note that more recently Mitch Mcconnell wouldn't even bring a proposal to the Senate floor to reopen the government because it might pass... a proposal mind you that they had voted unanimously in favor of just weeks before. What is that all about if not another political show or "gambit"... but in this case the "gambit" had real word consequences.

Please note that I am not saying that Democrats are innocent or absolved from guilt here... but one party has clearly deteriorated more than the other at this point.

We aren't living in reality if we just call it even.

Okay, Artie, have it your way. Mitch McConnell is an intransigent obstructionist and is entirely to blame for the legislative dysfunction afflicting the country.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have been open to negotiations on any issue and have not obstructed any Republican president in any way.

Obama was a capable and adept executive and was unjustly obstructed by the incompetent McConnell from turning the country into a paradise on earth.

Artie, your faith in politicians and political ideologies is adoring, bordering on infantile.