Dershowitz criticizes McCarthyism of the Left
Join LibraryThing to post.
You know things are bad when Alan Dershowitz is the cool voice of reason.
This morning on Neil Cavuto's program, Harvard professor and devoted liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz criticized the McCarthyite tactics of the Democrats. This is not America, he said. This is not who we are. Tactics include threatening to prevent Kavanaugh from teaching or coaching and threatening to impeach him. As well know, you can't be impeached for something you did before you were appointed to the Supreme Court.
It's always been this way with the left. If you study the French Revolution, you see it clearly. Start with slogans about "Libery, Equality, Fraternity". Wind up inventing the guillotine and slaughtering priests and nuns.
"You be tolerant and compassionate and peaceful and good! Or we'll chop your head off!
So you see, nothing's changed. No human progress. Medical progress, tech progress, and the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. But no human progress. Human regress? De-evolution?
Delusional Democrats, which is most of them, because they can't tolerate disagreement, because of their fanaticism, have engaged in the following
The shooting of Sen. Scalise during a softball game.
The near fatal assault on Sen. Rand which put him in the hospital.
Harassment of Rand at the airport after black Democrat Sen. Booker advised people "get up in the face of some congresspeople"
Harassment of Ted Cruz in restaurants
"Florida GOP Attorney General Pam Bondi required a police escort away from a movie about Mister Rogers after activists yelled at her in Tampa — where two other Republican lawmakers say they were also politically harassed last week, one of them with her kids in tow."
"If you see anybody from that Cabinet — in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station — you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” implored black California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters at a Saturday rally. On MSNBC the next day, she doubled down, saying that Americans are fed up. “The people are going to turn on them, they are going to protest, they are going to absolutely harass them,” she said.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was told by the co-owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, to leave. The owner did not want Sanders there in part because she works for an "inhumane and unethical” administration.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who became the face of her boss’ “zero tolerance” immigration policy, was interrupted at dinner at a Mexican restaurant in downtown Washington several days earlier by protesters who shouted "Shame" and "If kids don't eat in peace, you don't eat in peace." Demonstrators also chanted outside her northern Virginia townhouse on Friday morning.
Stephen Miller, the White House senior adviser who is heavily involved in Trump’s immigration policies, tried to eat at an upscale Mexican restaurant in Washington on June 17 and had a fellow patron call him a "fascist"
In Tampa, state Rep. Jackie Toledo 's children were harangued about their mother by a fellow patron at a Kahwa Coffee shop
Florida state Sen. Dana Young said she filed a police report after four unknown protesters staked out a Thursday evening meeting she had with a professional group at an area restaurant and, as she left, they began yelling at her about the Feb. 14 Parkland massacre, saying she had “blood on her hands” and calling her a “killer” or a “murderer.” She said they shoved smartphone cameras in her face and initially blocked her from leaving.
The censoring of conservative opinion on social media at Facebook, Google, and Twitter
Hillary Clinton praised Saul Alinksy in her thesis. President Barack Obama taught Alinsky’s tactics to grass-roots organizations in Chicago. Alinsky’s fifth rule states: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. It infuriates the opposition, who then reacts to your advantage.”
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has said anyone supporting Kavanaugh would be "complicit in his evil"
Sen Purdue: "One of my Democratic colleagues called Judge Kavanaugh your worst nightmare," he said. "Another called him a nominee who wants to pave the path of tyranny, Mr. President. Yet another said this Supreme Court confirmation would mean the destruction of the Constitution. Seriously."
On Friday, Martin Astrof went to the campaign headquarters of Rep. Lee Zeldin, and then threatened to kill Zeldin and Trump supporters generally, according to news accounts of the incident. As he left, he nearly ran over a campaign staffer with his car.
An angry Trump critic allegedly punched a homeowner in Boynton Beach, Fla., for having a Trump flag in his front yard, and then dragged the homeowner 30 feet while driving away.
A bookstore owner in Richmond, Va., called the cops after a woman started harassing former Trump advisor Steven Bannon, who was browsing in the store. Former Clinton aide Philippe Reines later tweeted out the bookstore owner's contact information, in a thinly veiled attempt to encourage attacks on the store. Reines defended the tweet, saying, "I'm providing a service."
A group of "protesters" following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell out of a restaurant in Kentucky shouted "vote you out" and "we know where you live, bitch."
Brandon Straka — a gay former liberal who posted a video complaining that "the Left devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided, ill-informed, un-American, hypocritical, menacing, callous, ignorant, narrow-minded, and at times blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric" and sparked the #walkaway Twitter trend — says a local camera store refused to serve him. Thereby proving his point.
Alan Dershowitz, once the darling of the liberal left until he started to question the merits of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, says that a woman at a party on Martha's Vineyard was heard saying, "if Dershowitz were here tonight, I'd stab him through the heart."
– Protesters jumped on cars, stole hats, fought with and threw eggs at Trump supporters outside a Trump rally in downtown San Jose, Calif. Trump supporters sued San Jose over the violence.
-A Hillary Clinton supporter lights a flag on fire and attacks a Trump supporter in Pittsburgh.
-Anti-Trump protesters attacked pushed, spit on and verbally harassed attendees forced to walk a “gauntlet” as they left a Trump fundraiser in Minneapolis, Minn., and beat an elderly man. Protesters also attacked Trump’s motorcade.
–A Tennessee man was assaulted at a garage sale for being a Trump supporter.
-A Trump supporter in New Jersey was attacked with a crowbar on the street.
-Protesters in El Cajon, Calif., chased and beat up a Trump supporter.
-A GOP office in North Carolina was firebombed and spray painted with “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else.”
-A high school student was attacked after she wrote that she supported Trump on social media. The perpetrator ripped her glasses off and punched her in the face.
-The president of Cornell University’s College Republicans was assaulted the night after Trump won the election.
-Students protesting Trump punched and kicked a Maryland high school student wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
-A high school student was arrested in Florida after he punched a classmate for carrying a Trump sign at school.
-A group of black men in Chicago attacked a white man while raging against Trump.
-Maryland high school students punched a student who was demonstrating in support of Trump, and then kicked him repeatedly while he was on the ground.
-“You support Trump. You hate Mexicans,” a California high school student yelled at a Trump supporter, before viciously beating the girl.
-An anti-bullying ambassador was arrested for shoving a 74-year-old man to the ground in a fight outside Trump tower where people upset over his win had gathered. The woman tied to Black Lives Matter caused the man to hit his head on the sidewalk.
-A Texas elementary school student was beaten by his classmates for voting for Trump in a mock election.
-Two men punched and kicked a Connecticut man who was standing with an American flag and a Trump sign.
-A Trump supporter was beaten and dragged by a car.
-A Trump supporter was knocked unconscious after airport protesters repeatedly beat him on the head.
-A Trump supporter was attacked after putting out a fire started by anti-Trump protesters.
-When Trump protesters encountered a driver with a pro-Trump flag on his car, they surrounded the vehicle, ripped off and began burning the flag, and pounded the car. They also punctured the tires.
-California GOP Rep. Tom McClintock had to be escorted to his car after a town hall because of angry protesters. The tires of at least four vehicles were slashed.
-Protestors knocked a 71-year-old female staffer for California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher unconscious during a protest outside the representative’s office.
-Milo Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California-Berkeley was cancelled after rioters set the campus on fire and threw rocks through windows. Milo tweeted that one of his supporters wearing a Trump hat was thrown to the ground and kicked.
-Masked protesters at Middlebury College rushed AEI scholar and political scientist Charles Murray and professor Allison Stranger, pushing and shoving Murray and grabbing Stranger by her hair and twisting her neck as they were leaving a campus building. Stranger suffered a concussion. Protesters then surrounded the car they got into, rocking it back and forth and jumping on the hood.
-A parade in Portland, Ore.,was canceled after threats of violence were made against a Republican organization.
-Fears of violent protests shut down Ann Coulter’s UC Berkeley speech. Campus police had gathered intel on protesters who were planning to commit violence.
– Republican Rep. Tom Garrett, his family and his dog were targeted by a series of repeated death threats deemed credible by authorities.
-FBI agents arrested a person for threatening to shoot Republican Rep. Martha McSally over her support for Trump.
-Police in Tennessee charged a woman for allegedly trying to run Republican Rep. David Kustoff off the road.
-Police in North Dakota ejected a man after he became physical with Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall.
-A former professor was arrested after police said they identified him on video beating Trump supporters with a U-shaped bike lock, leaving three people with “significant injuries.”
-James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.
-Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email threat that read, “One down, 216 to go,” shortly after the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice.
-A man driving a white Malibu reportedly fired several shots at a man driving a truck displaying a “Make America Great Again” flag in Indiana.
Liberal America has a political violence problem
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Hamburg, Germany, July. As world leaders gather for the G20 summit, far-left “anti-fascist” (antifa) rioters set fire to cars and property, terrorize residents and injure more than 200 police officers attempting to keep the peace. Did you miss it? CNN’s initial reports referred to the “protesters” as “eclectic” and “peaceful.”
But you need not cross the shining seas to experience violence, destruction of property and a general dismantling of liberal values from the political left. You could simply visit America’s elite college campuses like Yale or Middlebury or Berkeley, where tomorrow’s leaders attempt to shut down conservative voices with protest or riots. At Middlebury, rioting students landed liberal professor Allison Stanger in a neck brace for the crime of defending a conservative academic’s right to speak. At Berkeley, mobs of students created a “war zone” ahead of a planned visit from conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, injuring Trump supporters and causing $100,000 in damages.
Or head to Portland, Ore., one of the most liberal cities in the nation in the heart of the progressive Pacific Northwest, which this month Politico labeled “America’s Most Politically Violent City.” The progressive paradise —where Republicans are virtually an extinct species — has witnessed millions in damages attributed to the same types of anti-fascists-in-name-only that kept Hamburg residents paralyzed in fear this month. A “counter-protest” to a planned pro-Trump rally landed 14 antifa in jail for attacking the police with explosives and bricks.
Witness the blood-soaked congressional baseball field in Alexandria, Va., site of the June attack on U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and other Republicans batting up for their annual bipartisan game. James Hodgkinson, a “fervent supporter of progressive politics,” showed up to the field with a rifle, a handgun and a hit list of Republicans. As Scalise fought for his life, MSNBC host Joy Reid felt conflicted: The attempted assassination was a “delicate thing” because of Scalise’s conservative views like opposition to gay marriage. “Are we required in a moral sense to put that aside in the moment?” she wondered. Yes, Joy, you are. The shooting of a mainstream, congressional Republican leader is reprehensible, and in no way justifiable.)
Now cross the Potomac and visit the halls of Congress, where Democratic lawmakers have accused Republicans of murder for supporting an overhaul to the spiraling, ruined Obamacare program, which by next year will leave dozens of counties without a single option for insurance. Reasonable people can disagree about how much our Medicaid program should grow without comparing the Republican bill to 9/11, as Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, did recently. Or saying the health care bill is paid for with “blood money” of dead Americans, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted shortly after the Scalise attack. If our sitting senators don’t act more responsibly, who will?
Instead of retweeting, liberals who care about preserving our political system should be outraged that these are the standard-bearers of their party.
When we have Democratic senators accusing political opponents of murder, when our college campuses descend into assault zones for conservative speakers (or those who defend them), when our major cities become playgrounds for far-left rioters and the news media gloss over it, we move toward a more violent and fractured society, not a safer one.
If gay people were pouring into bars and punching straight people, I as a gay man would speak out. If Jews were propagating terror in the name of our religion, I would condemn it vociferously. And when violence has come from the conservative side, I don’t hesitate to stand against it. But it’s not.
There have been no right-wing groups storming campuses and flinging feces at speakers we don’t like; no tea party mobs destroying property, assaulting police officers, and paralyzing our major cities; and no Republican senators calling their colleagues murderers just weeks after a political assassination attempt.
From Portland to New Haven to Washington, the violence we’re witnessing is largely a product of the hard left, and the reaction from mainstream liberals — mostly silence, dismissiveness, equivocation — means it will continue to flourish.
To move toward a less violent and hyper-charged society, we must be clearheaded about violence where we see it, and not avoid the subject. We must condemn it without conditions.
If you think Republicans are murderers, you’re an extremist. If you’re trading in that kind of rhetoric just to shut the other side up or raise a buck, you’re giving cover to extremists. And if you object to political violence but fail to speak out, your weakness is causing our society to fracture.
It’s time for liberal America to speak out against violence and the rhetoric that incites it.
I am a liberal, but I'll admit that I have been taken aback at times by some of the things I have heard people on my own side of the political spectrum say. I think this country is in a bad place right now, and I think that people are very angry. I can understand some of the anger, but I don't agree with running Ted Cruz and his family out of a restaurant and I think that Doxxing Republican congresspersons because you don't like their views is dangerous.
I live in eastern Kentucky, and I know from experience that Republicans around here are mostly good people, but there are a lot of people who expressed that President Obama ought to be assassinated and someone made the news a few years ago around here by burning an Obama figure in effigy. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think the most extreme on both sides are going too far. If Barney wants to watch Fox News and get the idea that it is only the left, I guess there isn't much to be done about that.
I think peaceful political protest can be valuable, but it doesn't mean anything if we don't go to the polls in November. I can only say that if people on my side of the political spectrum don't like what is happening, we should try a novel approach here for democrats and actually show up for a midterm election. And the election after that. And the election after that. If we hadn't whiffed on the last election, we'd probably have two Supreme Court picks in the last two years.
>1 barney67: As well know, you can't be impeached for something you did before you were appointed to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution says "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It says a couple other things--the subject is spread across several sections--but it doesn't say that.
The idea is stupid. If a Supreme Court justice is discovered to have accepted bribes as a District Court judge, that's justification to remove them. If any federal official is discovered to have committed murder, that's justification for removing them from office and throwing them in jail, no matter when it happened.
I don't think it wise to impeach Kavanaugh based on what is known now. But that does not forestall further actions if it can be established he clearly committed perjury at any point, or if a criminal charge could be brought for sexual assault.
>6 prosfilaes: That's what Dershowitz said. He's a Harvard law professor.
Are you American? I learned it in high school government class. You must have been sick that day. Impeachment applies to what you do in office. It never occurred to me that someone would dispute that. But I lack the imagination to comprehend the depravity and delusional behavior of Democrats.
A Senate hearing is not a trial. Perjury doesn't apply. Too bad. I don't think Kavanaugh lied but a lot of Democrats lied.
You win by losing, remember?
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
>5 Dr_Flanders: "If Barney wants to watch Fox News and get the idea that it is only the left"
Fuck you, cunt.
Fuck you and your knee-jerk conclusions about me. You don't know what I watch. I've given you enough text here to comment on. There's no need to read between the lines and insinuate. You don't know what I watch or what I read or who I know. Fuck you and your insulting insinuations about me and the "people who watch Fox". Ugh. What a loathsome, narrow view of reality.
Just to make a distinction. Dershowitz--liberal democrat? Maybe. Left? Definitely not. I kind of look at him as an overrated Harvard elitist and a Netanyahu apologist. Supported Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama but so what? I look at them as overrated elitists too.
But Republican politicians and aparatchiks getting chased out of Mexican restaurants?--who cares?--what's wrong with them anyway?--that they run away whenever they're challenged? Why do so many Mexican hating republicans love Mexican food so much? Can't they eat hamburgers and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches like good red blooded Americans? Some advice for them--don't want to face the heat for bad immigration policy?--then don't eat out so much.
>7 barney67: Are you American?
If you really care, you should have listened the last three times that question was answered.
I learned it in high school government class.
Wow. What a cite. Again, the Constitution does not say that, and in Nixon v. United States (1993) (not that Richard Nixon) the Supreme Court ruled that the Supreme Court does not have the power to adjudicate the correctness of impeachments. I have no idea where this idea that you can't be impeached for something that you did before you were given office comes from.
A Senate hearing is not a trial. Perjury doesn't apply.
18 U.S. Code § 1621 does not mention trials.
To quote a publication of the Congressional Research Service:
"Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath.
"In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses. The same five-year maximum penalty attends the separate crime of conspiracy to commit any of the four substantive offenses."
So yes, multiple laws prohibit making material false statements under oath at a Congressional hearing.
You win by losing, remember?
You mean like when the Republicans were railing at Obama, and doing voting over and over to repeal ObamaCare when they knew it wouldn't go through both houses? As I said on that blog post on someone else's website, that post is willfully blind and even incoherent.
And you are guilty of projection again if you think I'm the one who is blind and incoherent. I'm talking about the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge, and you brought up Nixon. Try to follow along, OK?
>11 barney67: I'm talking about the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge, and you brought up Nixon.
There's never been an impeachment of a Supreme Court judge before, so the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon, is the closest fit available.
Jeez, I specifically mentioned not that Nixon. But you choose to be condescending instead of looking up the case.
>8 barney67: Barney, perhaps I shouldn't have said that you watch Fox News. You responded by saying a bunch of nasty things even though I was partly acknowledging that I think you are right to be concerned about the escalation of rhetoric and behavior by people on the left.
But if you want to talk about a "narrow view of reality" I mean, really? All I ever hear you say is that the left is bad, bad, bad.
Again, I think that some on the left have gone too far. I show a concert poster a while back from a fairly major rock band that depicted the White House in flames and the president either maimed or worse. It made my stomach sick to see that, from a band that I have listen to for years. Whether it is Kathy Griffin or actual politicians, like Cory Booker calling people evil... that is going too far. And I think that when you start casting the other side as evil, it allows others to feel they have the license to say or do very dangerous things in the name of whatever cause they think they have.
But I could cite the same type of stuff from the political right, going back for years. Half the people in my neck of the woods still think Hillary Clinton is responsible for the deaths associated with Benghazi, because a bunch of Republicans ran around to all the news outlets pushing investigation after investigation, only to conclude that she couldn't have done anything to prevent it once the attack began.
And I remember well the scare tactics associated with the ACA. Obama's new law was going to install death panels that were going to kill grandma. It is no wonder that impressionable people thought he was some type of comic book villain, when in most ways, he was actually a slight left of center politician, like so many others we have seen.
I think that we have begun to see the other political party as evil. And insofar as you acknowledge that that is dangerous, we agree. And my Dad watches a lot of Fox News, and you and I have discussed our backgrounds a little bit before, so I think maybe you thought I meant something worse than what I intended with the Fox News comment.
Took only eight posts to reveal that this thread is really about "cunts."
A Party of Stalkers
By The Editors
October 12, 2018
ames Hodgkinson seems to have slipped down the memory hole.
Hodgkinson was the left-wing activist who accused Donald Trump and Mike Pence of treason and — “fueled by rage against Republican legislators,” as the Virginia attorney general put it — attempted to massacre a group of Republican congressmen practicing for a baseball game. He shot Representative Steve Scalise, along with a Capitol Police officer and two others, and very likely would have murdered a goodly chunk of the GOP caucus if not for the police assigned to protect Scalise, the majority whip. Senator Rand Paul was there, too, and escaped injury — that time: A few months later, he was attacked while mowing his lawn, suffering six broken ribs. The man who attacked him, Rene Boucher, is a left-wing Chomskyite social-media rage-artist who wrote about his desire to see someone “fry Trump’s gonads.” In 2013, a gunman attacked the conservative Family Research Council. In 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson massacred police officers in Dallas. Before that, five men associated with the Occupy movement made plans to blow up a bridge in Ohio.
We have a memory, a faint one, of Democrats lecturing Republicans about their “tone” not so long ago, something about Sarah Palin and metaphorical crosshairs.
We are a long way from arguing about graphic design.
The Democrats in 2018 seem to have taken the wrong lesson from Hodgkinson and the rest: They have embraced stalking and terror as political tactics. The so-called antifa have firebombed college campuses and committed political violence in order to silence dissenting speakers and to bully students into political conformity; Democrats have taken up stalking with gusto, recently chasing Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant, while Representative Dave Brat recently discovered stalkers photographing his cars and property; police cordons have been broken, and buildings have been entered illegally; Senator Susan Collins has been threatened with rape. Hillary Clinton told her gang: “You cannot be civil.”
An angry crowd at a town hall is protest, even when it is vulgar or unruly. Protest is part of democracy. But stalking and assault are not protest. Arson is not protest. The destruction of property is not protest.
This is terrorism — the attempt to instill in people the fear of physical harm or death in the service of a political agenda. This terrorism has been undertaken with the encouragement of Democratic elected officials and party grandees ranging from Senator Cory Booker to former attorney general Eric Holder. It has been justified and minimized by left-leaning media figures such as Don Lemon.
The Left is in the grip of mass hysteria. Unable to get their way through the ordinary democratic process, the Democrats have resorted to extraordinary tactics, from the smear campaign organized against Brett Kavanaugh to attempting to pound down the doors of the Supreme Court. (We’re betting on the 13-ton bronze door.) They now insist that institutions of American government ranging from the Senate to the Electoral College to the Supreme Court are illegitimate because . . . they’re a little unclear on that part, but they are sure that they are not getting their way, and that’s enough for them.
It’s a temper tantrum, true, but a temper tantrum thrown by antifa thugs is a riot.
A screaming mob cornering someone in an elevator is not ordinary democratic discourse. It is a campaign of intimidation, and it should be recognized as such.
The first, best, and most effective remedy for this kind of undemocratic mob behavior is the ballot box. Republicans are right to make an issue of Democratic mob attacks in the upcoming elections, and voters ought to take it into account. The Democrats have shown themselves incapable of responsible political action, and incapable of responsible government, too. There are those who make the law and those who break the law, and leading Democrats have aligned themselves, enthusiastically, with the latter. They should be kept as far from the levers of power as voters can put them.
>15 barney67: I see you forget to actually cite what you're copying.
They now insist that institutions of American government ranging from the Senate to the Electoral College to the Supreme Court are illegitimate because . . . they’re a little unclear on that part,
The only way they could get that impression is if they didn't actually bother listening to Democrats. I don't understand, barney67; why post this? It's not going to convince anyone who knows anything about what's going on. Articles attacking strawmen of the author's opponents don't convince anyone who is the least bit familiar with both sides of the issue.
It's a science experiment. If I post a certain piece of information to a deranged group of people, will it get through? If it does, it has the making of an article for Psychiatry Today, a lucrative lecture tour, and a meeting with Oprah.
In science and in academia people tend to cite their sources.
Good question. Why use someone else's words without acknowledging where/who you've borrowed them from?
In the wake of Obama, the Democratic party was a shipwreck, to be saved only by Hillary and the Supreme Court . . .
What has transformed the Democratic party into an anguished progressive movement that incorporates the tactics of the street, embraces maenadism, reverts to Sixties carnival barking, and is radicalized by a new young socialist movement? Even party chairman Tom Perez concedes that there are “no moderate Democrats left,” and lately the rantings of Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez confirm that diagnosis.
Obama, the Fallen God
Paradoxically, Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 and 2012 and yet helped to erode the old Democratic party in the process. He ended up in opulent retirement while ceding state legislatures, governorships, the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court to conservative Republicans.
Obama had promised leftists — in his prior brief tenure in the Senate he had compiled the most partisan record of his 99 colleagues — that his social-justice methods and agendas would lead to a proverbial “permanent Democratic majority.” Do we remember the February 2009 Newsweek obsequious cover story “We Are All Socialists Now”?
But while Obama sermonized about our predestined “arc of history” and how its moral curve bent this way and that, he managed to lose both his supermajority in the Senate and the House itself by 2011. By 2015, the Senate lost its Democratic majority.
Ruling by pen-and-phone executive order only took the country more leftward. And it came at the price of stagnating the economy, acerbating social, cultural, and racial differences, raising taxes, and recalibrating foreign policy.
Obama bequeathed to his successors neither a popular progressive record nor a robust economy nor a stellar foreign-policy success. If he did ensure massive minority voting registration and bloc voting, that served largely himself — and came at the cost of alienating independents and the working classes. In other words, Obama most certainly did pass on to his successors the downside of his polarizing sermonizing and divisiveness, but not the upside of record minority turnout and uniform voting.
But then with the loss of local, state, and federal legislative power, progressives grew understandably bitter. Never had so much been promised and so little delivered. And they began to recalibrate Obama the erstwhile savior as mostly a narcissist who had thrived while emasculating his followers.
Progressives soon woke up to the reality that without power they were unable to stop Trump, and so they embraced any desperate means necessary to trap the ogre. The effort proved as frenzied as it was impotent: boycotting the inauguration, suing over state voting machines, using the courts to stymie Trump appointments and executive orders, appealing to the emoluments clause and the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, and winking and nodding at the assassination chic of celebrities and politicos such as Johnny Depp, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffith, Madonna, Robert de Niro, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others. The many methods to subvert Trump’s presidency or fantasize about his gory death were as varied as the number of faux-accusers who would come out of the woodwork to smear Brett Kavanaugh. And the result was eerily the same: the more the impotent frenzy, the more it discredited its source
Blacks Lives Matter, Antifa, and #MeToo were all in a sense weaponized to do what elections had not. Finally, in exasperation, Democrats have begun demonizing the Electoral College itself, which has gone from the legal basis of Obama’s treasured “blue wall” to a relic of old, white male Founders who supposedly favored rural hicks over the better people of the cities. Progressives now damn the idea of a nine-person Supreme Court and mysteriously praise the discredited, hare-brained scheme of FDR to pack the court with progressive toady judges.
They bitterly lament the unfairness that a Wyoming or Montana might have as many senators per state as California or New York, though they had no such complaint in 2009 when they had a Senate supermajority — a margin they won in part because a tiny progressive state such as Rhode Island had the same number of senators as odious conservative Texas.
How could it be that a picture-perfect system that had empowered Barack Obama now gave the country Donald Trump? How unfair of the deplorable Founders to have bequeathed that ball and chain to the better people of 2016!
If the system does not deliver the correct results to progressives every time, then change the damned system to ensure that it does!
Given what the Trump administration is saying are record achievements for a president at this stage in office, why would anyone consider voting for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections?
Writing in The Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard lists 289 accomplishments of the Trump administration, beginning with the obvious one, the economy: “They include 173 major wins, such as adding more than 4 million jobs, and another 116 smaller victories, some with outsize importance, such as the 83 percent one-year increase in arrests of MS-13 gang members.”
They also include two justices now on the U.S. Supreme Court and 82 other federal judges confirmed to lower courts.
As the White House has touted, unemployment in all demographics is the lowest it has been since 1969. Despite a recent blip in the stock market, portfolios have grown fatter since Donald Trump became president. An analysis in The Wall Street Journal predicts economic growth is likely to continue “for years.”
Other positives include updated trade deals with Mexico and Canada that will produce benefits for American manufacturers and workers far more than the old NAFTA deal ever did.
Consumer confidence reached an 18-year high in September, according to Lynn Franco, director of Economic Indicators at the Conference Board, which conducts the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index.
Top this off with the successfully negotiated release of Pastor Andrew Brunson from a Turkish prison and a more realistic foreign policy in confronting America’s enemies.
In view of Republican successes, including tax cuts and the booming economy, what Democratic policies would produce results better than these? Other than spite for the president, why would voters elect candidates who want to return to a past where things were far different?
Do people who didn’t have jobs during the previous administration want to embrace policies that kept them unemployed? Do businesses once prevented from hiring people because of regulations now wish to have regulations re-imposed and to lay off workers they recently hired?
By what logic do some people wish to return to the recent past, including a recent past that includes Republican presidents who cannot lay claim to the type of successes President Trump is enjoying?
Perhaps most amazing is the president’s growing approval among African-American voters, whose votes he is openly campaigning for as evidenced by rapper Kanye West’s endorsement and the president’s reciprocal embrace. USA Today reported on a new Rasmussen poll that shows “approval rating among African Americans is at 36 percent, nearly double his support at this time last year.” Despite the NAACP’s hostility toward the president, African-American voters seem focused more on results than symbolism.
>15 barney67: >21 barney67: So which of these is false? One of them claims the Democrats are unclear on the problems with the Electoral College and Senate, and one of them claims they are clear on the problems.
>21 barney67: If the system does not deliver the correct results to progressives every time, then change the damned system to ensure that it does!
And if the system doesn't deliver a popular majority to the president, he'll claim that there were millions of illegitimate voters! If black people and Native Americans want to vote, change the rules to make it as hard on them as possible!
>22 barney67: They also include two justices now on the U.S. Supreme Court and 82 other federal judges confirmed to lower courts.
So... he's doing the bare minimum his job requires? Every president is supposed to, and does, fill spots that come open, though Trump has been notoriously bad about doing that. The question is are the people he's appointed any good, which has been violently debated.
USA Today reported on a new Rasmussen poll that shows “approval rating among African Americans is at 36 percent, nearly double his support at this time last year.” And the Washington Post pointed out many, many polls that contradict that, and CNN points out that while's he's had a small improvement, it's no where near 36% approval.
You can't post partisan drivel and impress anyone.
Downplaying the attempted assignation of a Democratic Representative and successful murder of a District Court judge and five other people as "graphical design" (>17 barney67:) at the same time you rant about every small act done (or even considered) by anyone on the left is unconvincing and even offensive to anyone not politically aligned with you. Ranting about how the other side does something that your side is clearly engaged in, again, not useful in a discussion.
>15 barney67: There are those who make the law and those who break the law,
The division is bizarre; law makers can't break the law? That seems counter-factual.
More deeply, it is damning when someone stands with "those who make the law" because they make the law; that's praising power for power's sake. Do they write the law that "in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread"? Do they pass laws that bring suffering to the poor, the alien, the refugee? Do they pass laws to provide benefits for them and their friends at the cost of the more deserving? Then damn them and all who stand with them.
Since when has American patriotism been about being unctuous to lawmakers because they're lawmakers? As Declaration of Independence says, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...". Note the signers of the document did not mean that it was right of the people to alter it only by legal means, as nothing in British law gave them the right to engage in open rebellion against the king.
I understand that people on the right have done bad things, too. But the liberal-left-democratic habit and desire and goal of levelling, of making everything and everyone equal, obfuscates the fact that today, esp. the past two years, it is the Democrats who are behaving badly. By far. Not even close. If you are married to the party, or married to an idea or set of ideas the way others cling to religion, then you will naturally dismiss what I'm saying. There's a lot of proof, I mean a lot, to back up what I'm saying, and it's easy to find.
>25 barney67: Do you care to provide any evidence for that? Instead of whining about how we dismiss what you say, make a solid argument. Senator Susan Collins has been threatened with rape; so has Christine Blasey Ford. Threats of death and rape are bad, but they are unfortunately commonplace. Don't omit the acts on your side; >15 barney67: dismisses the murder of six people and the permanent incapacitation of a Representative as "graphic design" and somehow misses the whole "Unite the Right" rally, where one counter-protester was killed and 25 more were injured.
>27 barney67: Another demonstration of the Republican post-truth revolution; make a claim and then refuse to justify it, acting as if the claim itself is enough.
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
You think I'm all of this up? I just told you fucking idiots it's all over the news. Everything I listed in the first post is in the news. Look for it. It's out there. here was another yesterday. Jesus. You have to accept reality first before you even begin to debate. What's the matter with you people? Is it really mental illness? Is it really mass delusion? Are you living with you eyes and ears open? I'm not so sure anymore.
Two Minnesota Republican Candidates Assaulted
Two Republican candidates for state office in Minnesota have been physically assaulted in recent days, leading prominent Republican lawmakers to caution their Democratic colleagues against employing inflammatory rhetoric.
Republican state representative Sarah Anderson was punched in the arm last week after confronting a man who was destroying yard signs promoting Republican candidates.
“It was just insane. He was charging at me, saying, ‘Why don’t you go kill yourself?'” Anderson told the Washington Free Beacon. “To have someone physically coming after you and attacking you is just disheartening.”
Shane Mekeland, a first-time Republican candidate for the state legislature, suffered a concussion over the weekend after he was sucker punched while meeting with constituents at a local restaurant.
“I was so overtaken by surprise and shock, and if this is the new norm, this is not what I signed up for,” said Mekeland, who has suffered from memory loss and sensitivity to light since the incident.
Local police confirmed that a suspect had been identified in connection with both assaults and said charges will likely be filed in the coming days.
>30 barney67: When we're talking about school shootings, they're isolated events, to be worried about locally, but when looking at these events over more years, the pattern is obvious and applies nationally? Since when is one person assaulting two people in Minnesota a federal matter for you?
Everything I listed in the first post is in the news.
And? It's notoriously true that if you have a pile of statistics, you can dig through and find something that supports your conclusion. That first post isn't remotely at the reliability of p-hacked data. It's obviously biased, making a list of bad things on the left and ignoring things on the right.
Neither you nor anyone else can be trusted to form an accurate conclusion of a question like that without looking at all the data accumulated in as unbiased way as possible. Pick a definition of what you're arguing about and try to get as complete a collection of data as you can. That's going to still be arguable--that definition is going to bring it up to the reliability of p-hacked data--but at least we'll have a good pile of information.
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/?categories=10 is all physical attacks on journalists. To pull the attacks by politicians or their staff from that list:
I don't know why it doesn't mention Greg Gianforte (R) body-slamming John Jacobs. Either way, all politician violence against reporters in this list has been from Republicans.
That's a small data sample, but I question the coherence or accuracy of trying to take a huge data sample from newspaper articles. It's also a clean box; instead of piling everything on, it looks at clean well-defined set of events.
You mention, for example, Micah Xavier Johnson shooting police officers in Dallas; but police officers aren't part of one political party or the other, Micah Xavier Johnson was part of no group and didn't seem strongly aligned with any larger movement. I don't know that he had any opinions on fiscal policy, or if he did, what they were. To include him in with all the other examples is a huge box.
Some blatant Terms of Service violations on this thread have come to my attention. This is a general reminder to keep things civil, no matter how heated debate may get. Our TOS are pretty simple—no personal attacks. Comment on content/ideas, not on the person.
Re political violence against reporters:
UK joins chorus of disapproval after Trump praises assault on Guardian reporter
It seems to me that the Republican party has settled on a narrative that any vote for a democrat is a vote for violent mob rule.
All the while, "Lock her up!" chants are still a fixture of Trump rallies across the country.
I am not taking the position that every democrat or left leaning person in the country is above violence, but characterizing the entirety of the party as a mob seems ridiculous to me.
>34 johnthefireman: That is a valid point, I think. It seems that Trump's view is that it is okay to be violent, so long as you are within his camp, while any small example of violence from the other side should be exaggerated into a full scale movement.
I'm not usually a doom and gloom person, but it really does seem like any other president in my memory would have condemned any violence, regardless of party affiliation.
Trump was 'playful' in praising assault on Guardian reporter, Ben Sasse says (Guardian)
So now it's just "playful" for a president to praise someone who assaulted a journalist? Likewise I suppose it is just "playful" when the same president admits committing sexual assault against women? Shame on both the president and those who try to justify his words and actions.
'Explosive device' sent to Hillary Clinton and Obama (BBC)
And also to "liberal philanthropist and financier George Soros". A "suspicious package" also caused the evacuation of CNN in the Time Warner building.
Trump critics Booker and Clapper targeted by suspicious mail (BBC)
This is definitely domestic terrorism... anyone who had in any way publicly been a critic of President Trump needed to be on the alert and take extra precautions...
US mail bombs: Man held after campaign against Trump critics (BBC)
>31 prosfilaes: I've been thinking about excluding Micah Xavier Johnson, to avoid bias. He did it for a political cause, but not one as broad as simply being left or right. I'd say he's similar to the anti-abortion bombers, attacks for a cause that may be allied with one of the parties but much narrower and conceptually separate; one could be an anti-abortion Democrat or even socialist, like one could be against police abuses of power, particularly racially biased ones, and a Republican--even if those position seem weirdly rare. It's important that these violent actors are rejected by the larger position, and in both cases, the Black Lives Matter and overall anti-abortion movements have done so.
The Unite the Right attacks are different. They explicitly are about the political Right, not any specific cause, and Trump's "some very fine people on both sides" demonstrated the unwillingness of the de facto leader of the Right in the US to condemn them. Those with political power should separate themselves from those willing to use violence to gain power.
I wonder what conclusions can be drawn about people who run to administrators with complaints. The ones who snitch and rat on other people. The ones who point fingers. These were the pimply little losers in school who were always running to the teacher. The ones who couldn't catch a ball or dribble a basketball. Budding little fascists.
You remember Billy Boy Clinton waving that finger at us all while getting his dick sucked? You remember Lady Macbeth killing all those people at Benghazi, then when it was investigated she said, "What difference does it make?" You remember how she told all those coal miners she was going to get rid of their jobs? And she smiled and laughed and you could see the blood dripping from her teeth.
You voted for those people. You defended them. You will probably defend them in your next post.
Teach me that trick, will you? I mean the trick where you get to be a good person while voting for bad people. The trick where you square a circle. Neat. Like some quantum thing. Dang.
Me, I was never that kid. I was raised to handle things on my own by parents who handled things on their own. Both my parents grew up poor. It forced them to be self-reliant. They didn't even think of themselves as poor until later. They didn't blame anyone for it. They didn't blame the other kids. They didn't blame their parents. Or black people or white people or Japs or Jews or fundeementalists or women or men or The Man or The Establishment or The System. They didn't blame the government. They didn't look for substitute parents. If there was a problem to be solved, they solved it. If they couldn't solve it, they lived with it. They didn't do much complaining, relatively speaking. Most of my relatives would be appalled by people today, all countries, all parties, and the nonsense on this forum. I'm embarrassed by it, too.
Ben Sasse has some recent books about this, but he's by no means the first to write about these subjects.
>42 barney67: Are you pointing a finger here, Barney? 'The ones who point fingers. These were the pimply little losers in school who were always running to the teacher. The ones who couldn't catch a ball or dribble a basketball. Budding little fascists.'
Are you pointing a finger at people who point fingers? Are you equating pimples with difficulties in sports? Or just baseball (catch a ball? must be baseball) and basketball (dribbling). And you're equating fascism with deficiency in sport? That would have come as a grave disappointment to German and Italian fascists, who put a premium on athleticism.
Anyway, as you are pointing a finger, Barney, are we to conclude that you were a pimply little loser in school who was always running to the teacher? How were you in baseball and basketball? How did the budding turn out? How good a fascist did you become?
Barney, as is often the case, I'm not sure what your point is, although as a bloody foreigner I suppose you wouldn't expect me to understand the intricacies of your sopisticated arguments about the USA, an exceptional nation like no other in the world.
Like Rick I don't really see the relevance of your schoolboy examples, but it does seem to me that you use them quite frequently in your posts. Is your worldview stuck in childhood? Anyway, far from being weak, whistle-blowers often have to be pretty courageous, and often pay a heavy personal price in terms of their careers, their lifestyles and indeed at times their very lives.
As in previous conversations elsewhere, I remain confused about your penchant for handling everything on your own (as you and your parents apparently did, at least through the rose-tinted spectacles of nostalgia) when you were a child. It's a nice slogan, but what does it actually mean in practice? Are you suggesting that we do not live in a society which impinges on us whether we like it or not? If your house catches fire, do you run about with buckets of water or do you call the fire brigade? If you're in an automobile accident and you are badly injured and bleeding to death, do you patch yourself up with band aids and then try to crawl home and die quietly but independently, or do you call for an ambulance? Do you reject the advances of a trained first aider who tries to save your life - "No thanks, I'll solve this problem myself"? If your house is taken over by a bunch of heavily armed left wing terrorists do you storm in single handed with your open carry pistol (you had thoughtlessly left your M16 at home that day) or do you back off and call the police to come with a SWAT team? Extreme examples, maybe, but the same can be said for most problems in the increasingly complex and interconnected societies in which we live.
Ah, of course, the game playing. Maybe this will make it more clear. Someone here who is afraid of words and getting their feelings hurt has been informing the LibraryThing admins. that I broke the TOS. Capece?
By the way, post 43 contains a personal attack and should be flagged. Not that any of you care about fairness or equality.
John, as a matter of fact, lately, despite my many criticisms of the U.S., I have begun to conclude that the U.S. really is the greatest country on the planet. You should move here. Why not? Everyone else does. You don't even have to be legal anymore. You can just walk in. In fact, if you're an illegal, you are actually morally superior to people who obey the law. Or so it goes in our Kafkaesque time.
>45 barney67: You should move here
Why, thank you for the kind invitation. I have lived in the USA in the past, and my last visit there was only four months ago. The USA has been good to me in the times I spent there. But I prefer living in Africa.
In fact, if you're an illegal, you are actually morally superior to people who obey the law.
I don't really think there is much evidence to support that catchy sound bite.
post 43 contains a personal attack and should be flagged
So flag it. Handle the problem yourself.
#45--first you grouse about someone (?) informing on you to Library Thing admins and then you appeal to us to flag someone else's post. To me both those actions are pretty much the same thing. That you're against the one and for the other is kind of pot calling the kettle black and IMO both actions are pretty much meaningless 'game playing' but whatever floats your boat.
Anyway I think John is right. If you think flagging something proves anything go ahead and do it. Handle it on your own. You don't need me to help you. I wouldn't anyway.
>45 barney67: Heck, Barn, I'm always on your side. Tell me what the personal attack is and I'll flag it myself.
>45 barney67: I broke the TOS. ... In fact, if you're an illegal, you are actually morally superior to people who obey the law. Or so it goes in our Kafkaesque time.
Ranting about how bad law breaking is just doesn't go well with bitching about people turning you in for your law breaking. If you should obey laws about immigration at the cost of your family, you should obey rules on forums about appropriate content in posts at no practical costs at all.
>42 barney67: It's funny how when someone more or less repeats what you say back to you you consider it a personal attack.
They didn't blame the other kids.
You broke the rules, and the cops called you on it. And then you blamed the other kids.
If there was a problem to be solved, they solved it.
Why is going to the teacher an unacceptable way to solve a problem? We build societies and governments so we have a way of solving interpersonal problem other then fistfights.
>49 prosfilaes: Law breaking? Are you suggesting I have broken laws? Which law have I broken?
>51 barney67: https://www.librarything.com/privacy says 'LibraryThing prohibits all personal attacks on members. As Wikipedia's policy states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."'. If you're being pedantic, violating Terms of Service like that has been argued by prosecutors to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (United States v. Drew), and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
In any case, "snitches get stitches" combined with "how dare the Mexicans immigrate to the US" doesn't scream respect for the law. It screams willingness to use the rules when they are in your favor and ignore them when they're not.
You accused me of breaking the law. Where do you get off doing that and not even getting flagged? What is this bullshit? You don't talk that way to me. You don't know anything about me. I'm a stranger to you. You don't go on the internet and start attacking people and accusing them of breaking the law. What's the matter with you?
You're a bit obsessed with flagging, aren't you? If you thing something is flaggable, go ahead and take responsibility for flagging it. There's no need to make a big deal out of it. However looking at the context of >49 prosfilaes: which you cite, I very much doubt whether most people would consider that a personal insult against you.
And calling me obsessed is a personal attack which should get a flag. You see, it happens so often you're not even aware of it anymore.
What's the point of saying that something "should get a flag" instead of simply flagging it? You see, you're doing it so often you're probably not even aware of it anymore.
So this is your idea of a thoughtful response? Just repeating back what I say without any analysis. On the internet, no one can see you're a parrot.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.