Patterico's Pontifications

12/26/2017

New Reports: China’s Tiananmen Square Response Killed 10,000

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:00 am



A depressing leftover from Christmas Eve. I didn’t want to bring you down by mentioning this on Christmas, but now that the presents have been opened and Santa is in the rear view mirror, it’s Back to Reality time. The Independent:

The death toll from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre was at least 10,000 people, killed by a Chinese army unit whose troops were likened to “primitives”, a secret British diplomatic cable alleged.

The newly declassified document, written little more than 24 hours after the massacre, gives a much higher death toll than the most commonly used estimates which only go up to about 3,000.

It also provides horrific detail of the massacre, alleging that wounded female students were bayoneted as they begged for their lives, human remains were “hosed down the drains”, and a mother was shot as she tried to go to the aid of her injured three-year-old daughter.

As a reminder: Donald Trump, in a 1990 Playboy interview, spoke admiringly of the “strength” of China’s crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989:

What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?

I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of east inflatables reviews control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.

You mean firm hand as in China?

When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world–

Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

538 Responses to “New Reports: China’s Tiananmen Square Response Killed 10,000”

  1. Bad link but who wants to read his brain-scrabble in print form? It only serves to exacerbate the contact dermatitis.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  2. Breaking news from 1990, yet the world’s chancellories labor Tory Republican Democrat gaullist socialist have been fine working with these gerontocratd whole they condemn somecseeb

    narciso (29665c)

  3. https://www.google.com/amp/www.rfa.org/english/news/china/tianmen-revelations-12212017131357.html/ampRFA

    APCs then ran over bodies time and time again to make “pie” and remains collected by bulldozer. Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains,” it said.

    The cable, which described the 27th Army as illiterate “primitives” from the northern province of Shanxi, commanded by the nephew of then Chinese President Yang Shangkun, said the heavily armed troops were kept without news for 10 days and told they were to take part in a military exercise.

    An earlier cable dated May described Beijing as encircled by at least 10 different armies from elsewhere in China, at an estimated strength of 100,000.

    “The leadership keeps 27th Army on the move so that it can attack from a different direction each time,” the June cable said.

    The documents also describe pitched battles between “enraged” crowds and troops in the western suburb of Muxidi, and Shilipu, to the east of the diplomatic quarter in Jianguomenwai.

    “The first three waves were held by the demonstrators and [Shenyang] troops tried to push back the crowds to let 27 Army through,” the cable says. “They failed and 27 Army opened fire on the crowd (both civilians and soldiers) before running over them in their APCs.”

    ‘Enraged masses’

    At Muxidi, “the enraged masses followed ignoring machine-gun fire to next battle at Liubukou,” the description reads, in a reference to a district of Beijing just west of Tiananmen Square.

    “APCs ran over troops and civilians at 65 kilometers/hour in same manner,” it said. “One APC crashed and driver (a captain) got out and was taken by crowd to hospital. He is now deranged and demands death for his atrocities.”

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  4. The People’s Army of the former Democratic republic Americus Vespucci.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  5. i wonder how the sleazy corrupt and cowardly FBI would handle such a situation here it’s hard to know but they sure had a fun time slaughtering children in Waco

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. Didn’t Trump say the Chinese were horrible?

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  7. Serbs perhaps because they don’t have nuclear weapons or 1.5 million under arms,That’s out excuse for not doing anything about North Korea either or in the mid 80s when Mugabe got away with a similar deed in matabele province.

    narciso (29665c)

  8. Didn’t Trump say the Chinese were horrible?

    Mr. Trump characterized the Chinese government’s response to the Tiananmen protest as both “vicious” and “horrible” Mr. Bob.

    Perhaps the closest modern analog to Tiananmen would be the ongoing protests in Venezuela, where they’re having difficulty sourcing and procuring many consumer goods such as ketchup.

    President Trump’s hinted that if Venezuela should escalate the conflict and treat the Venezualan people with the same kind of viciousness and brutality the world saw in China, that the US was ” “not going to rule out a military option.”

    President Trump’s emphatic opposition to any move by the Venezuelan government towards a violent and authoritarian response to peaceful protests was strongly criticized by Mr. Patterico here.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. oops there’s extra quoter markers

    sorry

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. Trump caused 1989 Tiannamen massacre. Breaking news.

    Clinton sells rocket and defense tech to China, and Trump is the authoritarian.

    Obama gives Iran billions, and blocks investigation of hezbollah crime ring, but Trump is an authoritarian.

    The deep state invents “Russian collusion” to hide Hillary/Obama malfeasance, but Trump is an authoritarian.

    How many unrelated event can we dredge up to throw against the wall of Trump the authoritarian?

    Steve Malynn (296daf)

  11. look at that smile

    she really lights up a room huh

    this is the sort of stalwart anti-authoritarian leadership we’d have right now if not for president Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. But trump is actually sanctioning the general responsible for the rakhine crisis, something doesn’t compute

    narciso (29665c)

  13. If you could trick her into flying down that way now, she wouldn’t make it back, between the hospitals having no supplies and her in bad health. Ahh, but that idiot Kaine….at least Palin for some was worth suffering an old fool.

    urbanleftbehind (c29133)

  14. The rakhine crisis is about resources promised to China, who is on the security counsel, this keeps attention off Sudan and Iran, they had two concession in Iraq, this is what ‘reality based’ Ron susskind inadvertently revealed in his ghosted o’neil memoir.

    narciso (29665c)

  15. It occurs to me that an actual #nasty and dishonest authoritarian just might be the sort of sneaky crook politician who would subvert the taxing agency of the federal government in order to illegally deny grassroots Americans their constitutional right to oppose excessively burdensome taxes.

    Now, compare that #nasty authoritarian crook usurper to the man who just passed tax cuts – and tell me again just who has earned the title of dishonest authoritarian.

    ropelight (666999)

  16. It’s much the same reason we didnt prosecute the real culprits behind nankimg, they were princes high up in the royal family. Rehabilitated class a war criminals Kodama sasagawa and kish, the first two the founders of the ldp, the last the scourge of Korea, a premier in his own right and the grandfather of current pm abe

    narciso (29665c)

  17. I might pass this off as being from 27 years ago, if Mr. President the Trump had not this year advised cops to slam the heads of people they had arrested into car doors.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. A touch of the hard hats riot, I have to admit.

    narciso (29665c)

  19. “We came, we saw, he died.”

    How did that turn out?

    AZ Bob (f60c80)


  20. Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.

    Quit wimping around and say it like the real lefties do: “Trump is literally Hitler!”

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  21. Heck he’s not even suharto he killed 500, 000 Chinese mostly communists but not exclusively, it’s referred on the ‘year of living dangerously’

    narciso (29665c)

  22. Realpolitik is a,nasty business, clarice would tell you of having many nasty buggers were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths but were lnoeonh admitted under the lodge act.

    narciso (29665c)

  23. One of the reasons democracy is nit viewed positively in Russia is because the west supported regime of Yeltsin enabled the oligarchs and the siloviki loot the country dry, through the efforts of summers and his associates.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. she’s just beautiful

    Mr. Trump and Melania helped make Christmas so special this year

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  25. Look, you don’t like Trump. We get it. Now, fucking LET IT GO. You don’t want Trump to be President? Do something so that his opponent in 2020 isn’t WORSE.

    Let’s face it; Her Shrillness would, after a year in the White House, be happily clubbing the economy to death, while cutting all manner of back room deals and probably selling the Presdential silverware.

    Is Trump a good person? No. FIND US SOMEBODY BETTER TO PUSH, DAMNIT. Complaining about Trump while the Antifa idiots recreate the less pleasant aspects of Fascist Italy and the Republican landscape remains littered with moral and mental migets accomplishes nothing.

    C. S. P. Schofield (33f56e)

  26. What was the number we thought before? 3,000?

    Most recently the highest death toll is in Burma, and it should run well over 10,000. And the only thing the world community can bring itself to do iis to try too return the refugees (who are probably about 2/3 of the original exiled population. They are only startinbg to call it genocide rather than ethnic cleansing, which is a euphemism anyway..

    Some Rohingya remain in locked up camps in Burma, but may not be getting enough food. They are very poorly educated and mostly illiterate, even in their own (rather recently composed) alphabet. The way they make a living has been destroeyed (burned villages etc.)

    Meanwhile some terrorist groups are starting to work on the Rohingya in Bangladesh, or at least using their plight as a recruitment tool. (right now the refugees aren’t going anywhere – they are being encouraged by terrorist groups, who may not have too much access to them, to fight the Burmese army, and maybe more than the army, suicidally though.)

    The man from Bangadesh who tried to set up a bomb in the subway in New York visited a refugee camp in Bangladesh before doing what ISIS recommends – which is basically stupid – delivering Tylonol and other nedicine.

    The stories coming out of these refugee camps are absiolutely horrendous. They kill babies, too. Ones the mothers don’t want dead, I mean. Rapes and murders. Separation from family and tehy don’t know if they are alive or dead.

    They can’t go back except under the protection of a foreign army that’s prepared to be attacked by terrorists, who will surely go there if that happens – and that’s assuming Burma allows foreogn occupation of its own territory.

    There’s a complete coverup by the Burmese government, aided by China and Russia. The fallback position is they stopped in early September. Trump isn’t paying any attention, so the State Department is on the case a little bit, divided between those who want to support democracy in Burma (and don’t want to throw Burma into the arms of China) and others who care more about the humanitarian aspect.

    I need to find links.

    Burma did bad things to other minorities as well. Years ago, they chased out Indians (people from India) And I don’t know what may have happened to ethnic groups who were not near a border in years past. Nothing like this probably though.

    There are also some places in Africa with mass killings that get even less news coverage..

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  27. 22. narciso (29665c) — 12/26/2017 @ 8:50 am

    Heck he’s not even suharto he killed 500, 000 Chinese mostly communists but not exclusively, it’s referred on the ‘year of living dangerously’

    And how could Obama not know about that – he lived in Indonesia right after that for several years, (from about age 6 to 9) and his mother longer.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  28. Yes the Congo, where another magnitsky sanctioned person, gentler mines koltan which funds dpsome nasty warlords is up around that number.

    narciso (d1f714)

  29. His stepfather lolo soetoro was in the army at the time, so he likely had to know, then there wthevoinvasion of east timor, which kissinger looked the other way on.

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. Poot

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. she’s just beautiful

    Mr. Trump and Melania helped make Christmas so special this year

    I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger
    But she ain’t messin’ with no broke Donald

    Patterico (266a25)

  32. 16. narciso (29665c) — 12/26/2017 @ 8:27 am

    It’s much the same reason we didnt prosecute the real culprits behind nankimg, they were princes high up in the royal family. Rehabilitated class a war criminals Kodama sasagawa and kish, the first two the founders of the ldp, the last the scourge of Korea, a premier in his own right and the grandfather of current pm abe

    And then here was Ryochi Sasakawa, the second biiggest contributorto the Carter Presidential Cneter. Also once considered a Class A war crimial, and perhaps instrumenbtal in arranging for Pearl Harbor. (He personally flew to Italy to urge Mussolini to join the Axis,)

    He hsd business interests in China. So he was one o those who didn’t want Japan to cave into U.S. sanctions and instead attack the United States to destroy the possibility of the U.S. intervening in China and elsewhere. (even though Roosevelt wss not interested in having a major war with Japan -just choking off oil for their war machine. But they figured he might after they attacked the Dutch East Indies, and the Phillipines, which they also planned to attack in that case.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  33. It’s only fitting that after splendid Christmas dinners, we are served crap cookies with our cocoa, fresh from the kitchen.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  34. Look, you don’t like Trump. We get it. Now, fucking LET IT GO.

    I’m a political blogger. Criticizing the President of the United States when merited goes with the territory.

    Look, you don’t like criticism of Donald Trump. I get it. Now, let it go.

    Patterico (266a25)

  35. So the atrocity exhibit@jg ballard, is so immense it scarcely can be grasped all at one, our squatter Ben was probably all hopped up on the cultural revolution that claimed millions of lives

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. at this point though

    given the established and burgeoning failmerican and global elite predilection for trophy hos

    it’s nice to have one that sets the bar really high

    so many sleazy ones can learn so much by her example

    the Bush girls for example both became professional trophy hos

    and of course all eyes are on Leggy Meggy as she begins her journey as not just a trophy ho but a royal trophy ho

    and I’m sure they’re all learning so much from Melania

    Melania’s ascendance is the sort of cultural watershed what has the potential to be transformative, and I’m rooting for her

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  37. What’s a post by Patterico without it turning into an attack on Trump. And he says WE’RE tribal!

    The point of Trump — that Patterico apparently still misses — is that yes, Trump’s a boor and a fool and an ignoramus AND THE PEOPLE STILL PREFERRED HIM to the best and the brightest of both major parties.

    Reflect on that a while.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  38. Facts not in evidence, for the most part, his subsequent behavior belies that, the fact that presidents and prime ministers held essentially the same view in practice but where sottp vice in public is also determinative.

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. How cool it is to have a guy around to tell us how and what the far-Left thinks… and he does it nearly every day. Bones!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. Authoritarians don’t allow federal judges to run immigration.

    Authoritarians don’t allow their AG’s to recuse themselves from ginned up investigations.

    Authoritarians don’t allow corrupt federal police to retire quietly.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  41. Are you talking about the same Melania who posed naked in the arms of another naked woman?

    Oh, well, to each his own, I suppose. For all I know, Melania may very well be the best woman that you know.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. What’s a post by Patterico without it turning into an attack on Trump. And he says WE’RE tribal!

    The point of Trump — that Patterico apparently still misses — is that yes, Trump’s a boor and a fool and an ignoramus AND THE PEOPLE STILL PREFERRED HIM to the best and the brightest of both major parties.

    Reflect on that a while.

    Yes. The People preferred him to candidates who did not praise mass murder.

    What lesson do you think I am supposed to draw from that? I bet it’s different from the one I actually draw.

    Patterico (266a25)

  43. I’ll grant you the “binary choice” argument on this one, though. It was either Melania or Bill Clinton.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. Apparently for today I am supposed to draw the conclusion that only the “far left” finds this comment distressing.

    Patterico (266a25)


  45. I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger
    But she ain’t messin’ with no broke Donald
    Patterico (266a25) — 12/26/2017 @ 10:09 am

    Personally, I’ve found it just as easy to fall in love with an heiress as a waitress.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  46. Melania’s a superstar

    yes that’s what she are you know it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  47. I’m a political blogger. Criticizing the President of the United States when merited goes with the territory.

    And also when not merited, apparently.

    Look what you did. You took a fine post on new revelations about Tiananmen and turned it into a fairly gratuitous attack on Trump. Yes, Trump HAD said that idiotic thing in the past, but that was NOT the story here. You might as well be attacking Nixon for going to China for all the relevancy the Trump comment has.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  48. I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger
    But she ain’t messin’ with no broke Donald

    Patterico (266a25) — 12/26/2017 @ 10:09 am

    I talked to this girl the other day about her fiance. I know it’s true love because his last name is Dong.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  49. “Hey here’s some newly-revealed info about an event 28 years ago. Things were even worse than most suspected! And that’s really all that’s news about it.”

    “But hey, before I end the post, here’s some really stupid thing Donald Trump said 27 years about the same event (but without having had the benefit of the just-revealed memo). Because I hate Trump!”

    Mitch (57a593)

  50. How can I put this?

    The path from “Tiananmen was worse than we thought” to “Trump said ______” is not the direct and obvious one you seem to think it is. Only if you wake up each morning thinking “By God, I hate Trump” does the one thing follow from the other.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  51. Not once have I thought sasquatch with the Trumps in office.

    mg (8cbc69)

  52. Good luck, Kevin.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. People with trophy wives should not throw stones.

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  54. Reports are in that 33 years ago Donald Trump glanced at another mans pecker at the urinal of Delmonico’s Steak House in NYC. Witnesses are not sure how long the glance was or if it was deliberate. We report…you decide.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  55. Guilty

    mg (8cbc69)

  56. When Sen. McCain dies, Patterico will remind us in the very first post about it that Trump stupidly said Trump prefers people who “don’t get captured.”

    Mitch (57a593)

  57. The policy point, is this who free trade has come to revolve around these gentlemen who poison our food , who steal 20 million federal records who have armed north Korea and enabled Iran.

    narciso (d1f714)

  58. In 1978 it is reported that Donald Trump used the “N” word in a dispute with a person of color. It is unknown who first used the disparaging word but Trump definitely did. This makes him demonstrably unfit to be president, proves he is and always has been a racist and most likely owned slaves.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  59. when Senator McCain dies most of the blog posts will probably have to close their comments

    for he is a vile noxious and cowardly man what’s perpetrated great pettiness and no small evil in his life

    and when people die even if they’re terrible people you’re supposed to pretend otherwise

    it’s a cultural norm to some extent I suppose

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. I suggest that, just as Cato the Elder at one point was ending all of his Roman Senate speeches with “Ceterum censeo delendam esse Carthaginem” (or some close variant),”

    Cato-rico here should just add a “signature” to every post, ending each one identically with “Ceterum censeo delendam esse Trumpinem,” or whatever the correct Latin is.

    Mitch (57a593)

  61. Ceterum censeo, Trump demens est.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. Tim powrre declare suggests an extra terrestrial source for the evil that was soviet communism, a meteor from the empty quarter that ended up in the anchor insurance companyninnmoskva, that is thecsite where they built the lubyanka

    narciso (d1f714)

  63. The original is a dead link–Not that there appears to be more context about the original quotes (full article link at end of my post).

    Tianiman (vary rare Tiananmen Square comments from our previous presidents:
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/obama-tiananmen_n_5441227.html

    His Wednesday speech was noteworthy as a whole, especially for Europeans. But in China, President Xi Jinping and his Politburo will focus on just one paragraph, added to the speech in final drafts.

    Poland is a “wonderful story,” Obama said, “but the story of this nation reminds us that freedom is not guaranteed. On the same day 25 years ago that Poles were voting here, tanks were crushing peaceful democracy protests in Tiananmen Square on the other side of the world. The blessings of liberty must be earned and renewed by every generation — including our own.”

    American critics don’t often note that, for the most part, our own presidents don’t mention Tiananmen either. The very word, so fraught in China and elsewhere, rarely passes their lips.

    Recent presidents, especially Obama, have complained about Chinese hackers, Chinese “aggression” in the South China Sea, China’s voracious trade practices and sundry other matters. But he and his predecessor, George W. Bush, rarely if ever mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, according to a Huffington Post survey of official statements. Obama’s national security staff could not furnish any example of his having brought it up before as president.

    On Wednesday, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to have marked the anniversary in at least 14 years.

    Twenty-five years ago this week, a genuinely anguished President George H.W. Bush denounced China for “brutally suppressing popular and peaceful” human rights demonstrations.

    A student of China and the first U.S. representative to the People’s Republic, Bush had predicted the rise of democracy as the Chinese became more prosperous and market-oriented. Instead, economic reformer Deng, who had once been Mao Zedong’s political enforcer, ordered the crackdown.

    “The United States cannot condone the violent attacks and cannot ignore the consequences for our relationship with China, which has been built on a broad foundation of support by the American people,” a chagrined Bush told reporters in 1989.

    The full original Playboy interview (I guess) is below (note: this link is definitely not work safe–after end of article):

    https://filthy.media/donald-trump-playboy-interview

    BfC (5517e8)

  64. Expressway (To Trump’s Brain) by Kid Patterico

    I’ve been tryin’ to unnerstand Trump for a long time
    Because constantly he been on my mind
    I was thinkin’ ’bout a shortcut I could build
    That would help me get this void filled
    I was wrong, mmm, I took too long
    I never listened to teh Rush hour
    And a fellow started to shower
    Me teh drain it ain’t draining
    Don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s raining
    On the expressway to Trump’s brain
    The expressway is not the best way
    At 6AM I’m much too clouded
    Much too clouded, much too clouded
    Not clear to me (too clouded)
    Oh, too clouded

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. #36, Patterico, you aren’t a real political blogger anymore, you were one for over a decade – and one of the best – but since Trump ran your preferred candidate out of the GOP Primaries, you’ve increasingly morphed into somewhat of a fault-finding, bitter #NeverTrumper unfortunately afflicted with the sort of political tunnel vision which predictably makes mountains out of molehills.

    Patterico, best wishes for a speedy recovery, your oldest and most reliable admirers wait patiently for the welcome return of your insightful and well balanced observations.

    ropelight (666999)

  66. Now kornilov whom putin somewhat resembles might have made an omelet of the Bolsheviks, if not for
    Kerenskys hesitancy and the last 80 years would have been remarkably different.

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. I would like to submit into evidence a cover photo from the magazine containing the allegedly offensive interview.

    https://cbskool2.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/donald-trump-playboy.jpg

    As you can plainly see this is from March 1990, a scant 9 months after the incident.
    How much earlier would the Trump interview have actually taken place as opposed to appearing in print?

    According to G. Barry Colson, the magazine’s executive editor, who edited the 1981 anthology The Playboy Interview, writers often came back with at least six hours of taped conversations; it wasn’t unusual for a writer to submit twenty hours of recordings for transcription. The hours-long chats revolutionized the idea of the magazine interview.

    The series began with Miles Davis, who spoke with Alex Haley only after the writer spent hours tailing Davis, eventually boxing with him at a gym in Harlem.

    In a news adverse China state owned newspaper’s job number one is defending the party. ]\

    The official account that Donald Trump circa 1990 Playboy would have been privy to would have between zero and 300 casualties in a country with riots and or sympathetic protests occuring in 800 cities.

    Context.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  68. There is the time that Obama hung a Mao ortiment on a Whitehouse Christmas tree:

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Chairman+Mao+on+a+Christmas+tree&t=ffcm&iax=images&ia=images

    http://obamatimetravel.com/2017/12/22/obama-mao-christmas-tree/

    Oh. Well that’s Chairman Mao alright. Specifically, that’s Andy Warhol’s Mao, a satirical work lampooning the communist leader as just another venal celebrity. How did he get on the White House tree? Was it a czar? The Black Panthers? Did Obama personally sneak him onto a branch to give a shout out to all his communist buddies passing through the White House?

    The First Lady was in charge of decorations. What’s her excuse?

    We took about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations. We sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and asked them to decorate them to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.

    Can find just about anyquote you want with modern search tools.

    Yes. The People preferred him to candidates who did not praise mass murder.

    What lesson do you think I am supposed to draw from that? I bet it’s different from the one I actually draw.
    Patterico (266a25) — 12/26/2017 @ 10:27 am

    “Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.” –Patterico

    True enough.

    BfC (5517e8)

  69. People with trophy wives should not throw stones.

    Touche

    Patterico (266a25)

  70. And also when not merited, apparently.

    I was under the impression that Trump praised the Chinese response at Tiananmen Square. That is an extraordinary enough position that I often find occasion to remind people about it. I’m sorry it makes you feel bad to have to witness this criticism.

    Patterico (266a25)

  71. I wonder what Patterico thinks of FBI head of counter intelligence Bill Priestap and his role in the Trump smear?

    mg (8cbc69)

  72. Cato-rico here should just add a “signature” to every post, ending each one identically with “Ceterum censeo delendam esse Trumpinem,” or whatever the correct Latin is.

    Bach used to place the letters SDG at the bottom of his compoitions, standing for Soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God alone). I think some commenters here should sign their comments STG — Soli Trumpo gloria.

    This post notes that Donald J. Trump praised a brutal mass murder of peaceful protestors. The post has stirred up a lot of emotion, as you would expect from such a post. Oddly, however, the emotion is stirred up, not against the man who praised mass murder, but the man who pointed it out.

    Countries have gone insane before. Witness the Cultural Revolution under Mao. The insane reaction to this post concerns me. That people would be upset at the man who notes the praise for mass murder, rather than at the man who praises mass murder, is close enough to the definition of insanity to make rational people pause and shake their heads.

    Patterico (266a25)

  73. President Trump towers above this criticism

    he’s a titan and a colossus

    and his China policy is bearing fruit

    (metaphorical fruit)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  74. How about a post on corrupt California Prosecutors that necessitated a new California law to make their practices “more illegal”:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-law-prosecutorial-misconduct_us_5615a45fe4b021e856d386a7

    California prosecutors who deliberately withhold evidence from defense attorneys may face harsher punishment under a new law passed after a wave of misconduct scandals.

    The law, authored by state Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D) and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) over the weekend, bolsters a judge’s ability to boot a prosecutor who withholds evidence from a case. Additionally, if other employees of the prosecuting attorney’s office participated or sanctioned the suppression of evidence, the court is authorized to eject the entire office. The law requires the court to report violations to the state bar, which licenses attorneys.

    “The bill seems like a step in the right direction,” Alex Kozinski, former chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, told The Huffington Post. “It seems to give a great deal of discretion to trial judges, so its effectiveness will depend on the degree to which those judges are willing to exercise that authority.”

    It already was against the law for prosecutors to willfully withhold evidence. Nevertheless, there has been a wave of highly publicized cases in which prosecutors have been accused of violating the rights of defendants, including in Riverside, Kern and Orange counties.

    The Orange County District Attorney’s office continues to face fallout from an ongoing scandal linked to a tainted jailhouse informant program. Deputy Public Defender Scott Sanders has argued that county prosecutors have routinely violated the law for at least 30 years by selectively presenting evidence obtained from a jailhouse informant network. Sanders’s revelations have caused multiple murder cases to fall apart, and some accused murderers have gone free.

    The allegations of misconduct culminated earlier this year, when Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals ejected the entire county prosecutor’s office ― all 250 prosecutors ― from a high-profile mass murder case. Goethals said at the time that the government had committed “significant” violations of due process and called aspects of the office’s behavior a “comedy of errors.”

    Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has maintained that no one in his office intentionally behaved inappropriately. His office has assembled its own commission to investigate misconduct. But some legal experts continue to call for a sweeping federal investigation.

    BfC (5517e8)

  75. #36, Patterico, you aren’t a real political blogger anymore, you were one for over a decade – and one of the best – but since Trump ran your preferred candidate out of the GOP Primaries, you’ve increasingly morphed into somewhat of a fault-finding, bitter #NeverTrumper unfortunately afflicted with the sort of political tunnel vision which predictably makes mountains out of molehills.

    Praise for mass murder is not a molehill. Trump has said many crazy things over time, and told many lies. I keep coming back to this example because it is so insane.

    Patterico (266a25)

  76. How about a post on corrupt California Prosecutors that necessitated a new California law to make their practices “more illegal”:

    For $100 I will write the post you want me to write, rather than the ones I want to write.

    Patterico (266a25)

  77. From 28 years ago, at roughly the same interval some yutz in the Columbia sundial was denouncing Reagan and extolling soviet peacemaking efforts, that didn’t count nearly as negative in his subsequent appraisal.

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. Roughly, this is what was known around the time that Trump was probably interviewed:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/21/world/a-reassessment-of-how-many-died-in-the-military-crackdown-in-beijing.html

    ”We’ll never know for sure how many were killed, unless the Chinese Government gives out more information,” said a Western diplomat who has been compiling estimates. This diplomat, who has been following the matter as closely as any diplomat in China, said his estimate is from 300 to 1,000 civilians killed, much lower than that of his home Government.

    Vs 2014 release of information:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989#Official_figures

    Declassified files

    US Government files declassified in 2014 estimated there had been 10,454 deaths and 40,000 injured. This figure was from internal Chinese government files obtained from the Chinese government headquarters in Zhongnanhai. In British government files declassified and made public in December 2017, it was revealed that Alan Ewen Donald, who served as the UK’s ambassador to China from 1988 to 1991, had reported in 1989 that a member of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China had estimated the civilian death toll at 10,000.[1][158][159]

    BfC (5517e8)

  79. China still claiming between zero and 300 revised to less than 200 as the casualty figure, including soldiers and students, according to my google.

    West Hypes False Tiananmin Death Toll – Global Times .

    papertiger (c8116c)

  80. We tell Israel they are supposed to make a deal with mahmud abbas who is that well he wrote his holocaust denialish thesis at Moscow u, where he was likely recruited as an asset, subsequently he was part of the fundraising committee according to Abe doud which funded black September including the Munich massacre

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. Patterico,

    This link work for $100 (I don’t do Paypal)?

    Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite):

    Very tempted if you will follow through.

    I am not against prosecutors in general–I believe that many of the procedures that have been implemented by law and courts have made things very difficult for them. But there does appear to be a “push back” by everyone involved to “get around” the issues… And it is not pretty.

    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  82. Please tell me that you went from the Independent Article to the news website HK01, pulled up the Chinese language article, had it translated, and then read the actual cabals of Ambassador Donald.

    I don’t have any real issue with the Independent’s reporting, but the actual cable provides some very interesting context on the entire matter.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  83. I am not against prosecutors in general–I believe that many of the procedures that have been implemented by law and courts have made things very difficult for them. But there does appear to be a “push back” by everyone involved to “get around” the issues… And it is not pretty.

    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8) — 12/26/2017 @ 11:53 am

    It should work. I will follow through. You may have to be patient because I am on vacation but if you can wait a few days I will keep my word.

    Patterico (7a5a02)

  84. The current versdion of the Wikipedia article

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

    says:

    US Government files declassified in 2014 estimated there had been 10,454 deaths and 40,000 injured. This figure was from internal Chinese government files obtained from the Chinese government headquarters in Zhongnanhai.

    In British government files declassified and made public in December 2017, it was revealed that Alan Ewen Donald, who served as the UK’s ambassador to China from 1988 to 1991, had reported in 1989 that a member of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China had estimated the civilian death toll at 10,000.[1][158][159]

    So that’s probably what some insiders were saying. Now that may not be true, and it is very round number, and it may include people arrested and executed in the aftermath.

    The Wikipedia article in fact says, further down, that “Many workers were summarily tried and executed.”

    So I think that 10,000 number is a Chinese government statistic, compiled or circulated for internal use, of the number people dead because of events related to the demonstrations and the true total number may be anything from 6,000 to 15,000.

    Or it may even be much higher, even 40,000, if they executed more people than average in the subsequent months, but they told everyone 10,000 to quiet internal speculation. Few people would be in position to discover that that is wrong, if it is wrong.

    Wikipedia also says that the Tiananmen Mothers, “a victims’ advocacy group co-founded by Ding Zilin and Zhang Xianling, whose children were killed during the crackdown” identified 202 by name. The tally was 155 in 1999 but it was 202 in 2011 and includes 4 people who committed suicide.

    In addition there seem to be 7 to 15 military deaths (7 related just to the demonstrators)

    The Chinese government officially claims nobody died in the Square itself in the early morning hours of June 4 and journalists say (says Wikipedia) most of the deaths occurred outside of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  85. the important thing is President Trump always puts his best foot forward representing America and has proved himself a dab hand at navigating the byzantine politics of the Far East

    this is why he has captured the hearts of the people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  86. We’re just tired of anti-Trump drumbeat, much of which is utter nonsense. The mainstream media haven’t passed an entire coherant day since the election.

    As for “Only tje left s disturbed bythos comment”; the Left,mwhich played cheerleader to Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot is in no position to criticize ANYBODY over applauding mass murder. Show me an initiative to remove Che’s revolting visage from college campuses, and MAYBE I’ll be ready to accept finger wagging on the left over something like this.

    Is Trump and Authoritarian? Certainly. So is 99.99% of the political establishment of both parties, plus all splinter groups to the Left.

    Find. Us. Someone. Better.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  87. Something is stink-rotten in Denmark…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  88. papertoiger @69.

    The official account that Donald Trump circa 1990 Playboy would have been privy to would have between zero and 300 casualties in a country with riots and or sympathetic protests occuring in 800 cities.

    I don’t know hwo carefully he followed the news, but acasual reader would have heard 3,000, and a more careful estimate – just of demonstrators – would probably not reach 750, or maybe even 600. Now that’s just people who were still in the Square.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/21/world/a-reassessment-of-how-many-died-in-the-military-crackdown-in-beijing.html

    Boldfacing mine.

    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF,

    Special to The New York Times

    Published: June 21, 1989

    BEIJING, June 20 — More than two weeks after the Chinese Army gunned down demonstrators and onlookers in the center of Beijing, there is still no evidence to support some of the higher estimates of casualties, like an early American estimate that 3,000 died.

    Nor is there any evidence to support the Government’s assertion that as many as 100 or more soldiers were killed by ”ruffians” in what it describes as the suppression of the ”counterrevolutionary rebellion.”

    The true number of deaths will probably never be known, and it is possible that thousands of people were killed without leaving evidence behind. But based on the evidence that is now available, it seems plausible that about a dozen soldiers and policemen were killed, along with 400 to 800 civilians.

    Some of the early estimates of thousands of deaths, including the American estimate, were based on reports that the Chinese Red Cross had counted 2,600 deaths. But the Chinese Red Cross has denied saying any such thing, and this seems to have been an offshoot of two other rumors that variously used the figure of 2,600 to describe the number of students who were missing and the number of students who were killed.

    ‘We’ll Never Know for Sure’

    ”We’ll never know for sure how many were killed, unless the Chinese Government gives out more information,” said a Western diplomat who has been compiling estimates. This diplomat, who has been following the matter as closely as any diplomat in China, said his estimate is from 300 to 1,000 civilians killed, much lower than that of his home Government.

    The Chinese Government has hampered investigations by instructing all hospitals and crematoriums not to issue any figures. Still, some reliable information can be pieced together at a number of hospitals, by accounts from friendly doctors or staff members.

    Figures were obtained for eight hospitals, mostly in the area closest to the shooting, and they total 184 dead. But the numbers at two hospitals were obtained only hours after the shootings, and so the total almost certainly rose to 200 or more as those who were wounded died over the next few days.

    In addition to these approximately 200 deaths, there were significant but somewhat lower casualties at 12 other hospitals, said a medical official with links to most hospitals. If these averaged 10 deaths each, that would add about 120 deaths to the total.

    Then there were scattered deaths at an additional 20 hospitals, the official said. If these averaged two fatalities per hospital, that would be an additional 40 deaths, for a rudimentary total of somewhere around 360 deaths in the hospitals.

    Some May Have Been Cremated

    In addition to the deaths reported to the hospitals, there were some bodies that were taken away by students or by friends of the dead and never taken to a hospital. These may bring the total number of dead to 400 or 500.

    Finally, many people suspect that troops burned the bodies of many citizens to destroy the evidence of the killings. After soldiers sealed Tiananmen Square about dawn that day, a large bonfire could be seen coming from the square. While it may have been the tents and other remnants of the students’ encampment on the square, some fear it was also used to cremate the students’ bodies.

    There are many witness accounts of a mass killing around the Monument to the People’s Heroes at the center of the square. But most of these accounts began to appear after several days had passed, rather than immediately, and they directly contradict the accounts of other Chinese and foreigners who were on the square all night.

    Among them were several European journalists, and both they and Chinese students who were interviewed shortly afterward say that the people clustered around the monument were allowed to leave peacefully about 5:30 A.M. There is also Chinese television footage of this group of students leaving peacefully.

    A French journalist who says he left the square with the students in the early morning reports that several dozen workers appeared to remain behind, and that in addition a small number of students may have been inside tents on the square. If these people were all killed and their bodies burned that would add dozens to the death toll, but not hundreds or thousands. …..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  89. This post notes that Donald J. Trump praised a brutal mass murder of peaceful protestors.

    The history section in any library is filled with glowing accounts of the Soviet Red Army in WWII. As many of these are written by left-leaning historians, I could easily attribute such accounts as praise for mass murder, rapes, gulags, and the trampling of basic human rights — but that would be dishonest and self-indulgent. (And no, I’m not referring to any Red Army brutality against the Nazis.)

    Trump’s was a comment on the power of military strength. Nothing more. He called the government response “vicious” and “horrible”. That you find fault with that strikes me as alarming and insane.

    random viking (6f9d28)

  90. The McLaughlin Group is being revived with Tom Rogan of National Review as the host, and many of the same people.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  91. random viking (6f9d28) — 12/26/2017 @ 12:42 pm

    Trump’s was a comment on the power of military strength.

    No it wasn’t. That wasn’t military strength. He was talking about the governments determination to stay in power. On the other hand it wasn’t really praise.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  92. Patrick,

    I have sent the ~$100 to your account.

    Regarding what your write–Your choice. I was trying to get your attention and your ideas about the present legal system–The major problems and what you see as possible solutions to move forward.

    I understand that you see a very flawed Trump as president. He was my number 4-6 or so choice. But, based on what he has done–A 29 year old quote where Trump said being weak is dangerous–You can see that he has taken those thoughts to heart. Just implementing the law as written for immigration has dramatically reduced illegal immigration. Being “compassionate” for the children has created a huge problem both here and back in their home countries.

    Angela Merkel’s compassion for immigrants has ended the lives of roughly 3,770 people (just in 2015 Mediterranean crossings). Different “reasons”, but the same results as Tiananmen Square (mass deaths).

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Most of these trips across The Med to Italy probably originated in Libya. The same country that Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State to Obama, “We came, We Saw, He Died”. A real thigh slapper.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

    If the “system” is broken (which I believe it is–Qualified Immunity, Overcharging and Plea Bargaining, Taking years to make a decision on something that happened in a few seconds such as shootings; both civilian and Law Enforcement, Little in the way of responsibility–How about if a judge is overturned by a higher court [on the evidence], they lose their job).

    If anyone else here (or you, Patric) has better ideas for this article, please feel free. I am just one person.

    Take your time and enjoy your family vacation.

    Warmest Regards,
    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  93. China’s Tiananmen Square Response Killed 10,000

    Meh. They can lose that many in an earthquake. And w/a population of 1.4 billion they likely aren’t missed.

    You simply won’t understand Trump. Or are horrified so many in the country rally to his every gesture or tweet. To win a conversation, interview or argument has been Trump 101 since the days of Dead Fred. Say ‘chocolate’ to our Captain and he will respond with ‘vanilla’ and immediately add, ‘here’s why…’ If you dare attempt a counter response he will interrupt with ‘excuse me,’ continue then end with a pirouetted topic change and take a breath.

    Trump wins from the start– simply by the mere fact he is being interviewed; as if his opinions should matter more than yours or mine or anybody elses. And why– because Americans celebrate the ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous’ their wealth, success and he’s been a media fixture in that orbit for decades.

    It’s a joy to watch entrenched conservatives flail against a fictional character invented by and for media who grew large out of the image-over-substance-era of Ronald and Nancy Reagan; a pair who celebrated wealth and were creatures of the media as well. Your own kind created the monster that got loose; he is you. A viable alternative would be a wiser investment of time and energies.

    Trump says anything he can get away with to keep the spotlight on him. He believes in only one thing: Trump. Enhancing and protecting the brand is everything. And it makes for quite a fascinating show. Just like half a century of Manson, two decades of O.J. and a decade of J.R. Ewing. Because in this era, Americans want to be entertained on every Chinese-made gadget they can buy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. 94.The McLaughlin Group is being revived with Tom Rogan of National Review as the host, and many of the same people.

    The Eighties Redux.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. Can we get back on topic: Trump: piano-man of Tieaneman..?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  96. No it wasn’t. That wasn’t military strength.

    My bad. That wasn’t a military response at all. Ever hear of Tank Man?

    Trump’s exact words: That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world–

    A reference to the rest of the world has nothing to do with a determination to stay in power.

    random viking (6f9d28)

  97. The point of this post is the illusion of People’s Army as it compares to Trumps faux populism. Plus Trumps a douche..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  98. 96.

    Angela Merkel’s compassion for immigrants has ended the lives of roughly 3,770 people (just in 2015 Mediterranean crossings)

    Nom tghe lack of compassion did that.

    You don’t think they started crossing just because of her? And she was talking about Syrians, too.

    Now, it’s true, if instead of rescuing drowning people, they gave orders to shoot them, and carried them out, after a while there’d be fewer dead Africans in the Mediterranean than the toota now, because they wouldn’t try.

    Now that’s similar to what Obama did.

    He used a de facto death penalty to deter illegal immigration to the United states.

    He advertised to people in Central America that they could be killed in Mexico, and made diplomatic efforts to make it more likely. He pressured Mexico to keep people away from the U.S. border and stop them in Mexico. No similar pressure probably to prevent people from being killed – on the contrary that was used and taken advantage of.

    The same thing would go for planting land mines. Not too many people get killed after a while, as long as nobody is forced to go onto a mine field.

    Now Europe didn’t plant land mines, but by cracking down, they just as surely resulted in deaths. And now instead some are being sold into slavery in Libya.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  99. The drug war has also killed many opioid addicts. That’s what facking down on Oxycidine and on heroin smuggling did.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  100. Sammy, I do not disagree that things are messed up… What are your suggested solutions?

    For drugs:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on-drugs-how-president-nixon-tied-addiction-to-crime/254319/

    Nixon’s was one of the last administrations to spend more on prevention and treatment than law enforcement and nearly every administration since (with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s) worked to increase the division between prevention and enforcement spending.

    I am hard pressed to say to somebody that I want my government to shoot you if you take illegal drugs (and the only way to get/make recreational drugs is “illegal”).

    At the same time, I have told my kids if they do drugs, they will be on their own.

    Took constitutional amendments to outlaw alcohol and make it legal again. There has been a lot of stuff made illegal these days without (constitutional?) foundations (it seems to me).

    I do not have the answers. Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t (in terms of enforcement, treatment, laissez faire).

    BfC (5517e8)

  101. $100.00 dollar bills and a trailer court

    mg (8cbc69)

  102. old lady obama is one unappealing beast

    mg (8cbc69)

  103. 5. happyfeet (28a91b) — 12/26/2017 @ 7:23 am

    i wonder how the sleazy corrupt and cowardly FBI would handle such a situation here it’s hard to know but they sure had a fun time slaughtering children in Waco

    They never would have done it unless it had all been organized from the start by President Clinton, and if he hadn’t provided them all with outs by which they could say they are not responsible.

    He was in league with a group of people in the FBI who wanted to remove the director, William Sessions. They had created some trumped up ethics charges which were reported right at the end of the Bush I administration.

    The FBI’s “Hostage Rescue Team” did it. The fire was started with CS tear gas, (not the more usual CN tear gas) which has the not well known property of being inflammable, but not at the highest, nor at the lowest concentrations, but at concentrations in between, so that the fire broke out nearly simultaneously in multiple spots not right next to where it had been injected.

    It was also set on fire by the kerosense lanterns.

    They shot at them to prevent anyone from coming out, and maybe they did want to kill their children, so the allegation of sexual abuse could not be disproven, but in any case none of them escaped. About 8 adults escaped, and they were all prosecuted.

    Officially the FBI didn’t fire any shots on April 19, and they blocked all the exits (the only people who escaped through holes in the walls) Clinton destroyed the compound before anybody could look at it so that you couldn’t prove that nobody from inside had fired any shots that day.

    The official instructions were to restrict the perimeter, although all day they kept on calling fro a surrender, which they also made impossible. But next day Janet Reno said “This was not supposed to be D-Day: (and on paper, it wasn’t)

    The FBI spoksesman at Waco immediately said the Davidians set it on fire, and claimed “That’s why they called it Ranch Apocalypse” except that the Davidians didn’t call it Ranch Apocalypse – they called it Mount Carmel. The claim that it was called Ranch Apocalypse (the Davidians didn’t call a book of the Christian Bible with the name Apocalypse) was planted in the March 17, 1993 issues of both TIME and Newsweek – in Newsweek only as a picture caption. It was a false claim.

    They had predicted the Davidians would commit suicide, although no impartial observer thought there was any reason to suppose that, and they had said David Koresh was not writing a Bible commentary in which he was going to explain the Seven Seals – he was, and not only that but it escaped the fire on a floppy disk.

    They had claimed they would commit suicide, and they instantly claimed the Davidians started the fire, and they could that with confidence only if they knew in advance that there was going to be a fire, and they know that only if they had planned it themselves, or rathwer President Clinton did.

    Bill Clinton planned that, above all, to save his “friend,” J. William Buford, head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in Little Rock, from a probable death sentence, for killing three of his own men on February 28 1993. He had to kill most of the Davidians and destroy the compound in order to do that. (Buford was one of the leaders of the raid and heavily involved at the end – in January, 1993 – in improving the search warrant)

    Their orders said that if they were fired on they could return fire <i< or inject tear gas. The FBI clalaimed that the Davidianshad fired at thenm which they had not, and that they ahd NOT returned fire but had been more peacefully inclined and on;y injected tear gas. Janet reno signed these orders on the weekend when a lot ofpeople at DOJ were not there to see it.

    Everyone had some protection.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  104. I could put more here, cuting sources. What I write on Waco is quite long.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  105. The REAL McGlaughlin Group…

    https://youtu.be/10a45mgMGcY

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  106. If it were anything close to the 47th Army mobile division, APC’s taking passes through the crowd, turning them into road pizza, then tank man [YouTube] was the most brilliant single example of government propaganda ever prepetraited by a communist.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  107. SHAT! Fooled me. I was thinking China was some kind of decent just on account of that one government stooge standing in front of a tank.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  108. 105. BfC (5517e8) — 12/26/2017 @ 1:27 pm

    Sammy, I do not disagree that things are messed up… What are your suggested solutions?

    First do not harm. Prescribe opiods to addicts. WHile tying to prvent new people from getting addicted and trying to wean people off of them. The nteresteding thing about heroin, it is the one illegal drug that does little harm if the addict can get asecure and reliable and cheap supply. You couldn’t do that with cocaine.

    For drugs:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on-drugs-how-president-nixon-tied-addiction-to-crime/254319/

    No, addiction was tied to crime back in the 1930s. That’s when the mob began selling heroin to people who had no money – mostly blacks in segregated communities. They made money by stealing it – then they needed corrupt or sympathetic judges to not put their customers in jail.

    Took constitutional amendments to outlaw alcohol and make it legal again.

    Things didn’t go back to the way they were before. Some of the bootleggers went into heroin.

    There has been a lot of stuff made illegal these days without (constitutional?) foundations (it seems to me).

    I think it’s based on Interstate commerce, In the beginning it was based on the power to tax, which comes with the power to destroy. In 1934 I think heer was a majijuana tax act. Then the Supreme Court allowed practically anything having to do with commerce to be done under the interstate commerce clause.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  109. Unfortunately, drugs will be found alluring by too many people until they can be convinced that life is a trip in and of itself, it is readily available and can’t be smoked, snorted, injected, or rubbed into one’s belly button.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. You’re Trip haikoo-ka-choob you Glass Onion .

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  111. That was the piece which had a quote, attributed to ehrlichman. Suggesting racist motives of the war on srugs

    narciso (d1f714)

  112. The War on shrugs

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  113. Any Fox Newspoodle: “Mr. President, why do you lie over and over to the American people?”

    Mr. Trump: “Excuse me, I don’t lie. You lie. You’re fake news.”

    Have we seen this yet? It would be so entertaining.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  114. The War on shrugs

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner

    You will be made to care!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  115. @119. An along those lines surprised Young Master Will has not opined on what happened the last time bad guys in a Far Eastern country of oriental extraction had their oil supply embargoed by round-eyed westerners. Perhaps he doesn’t have vacation property on Oahu.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. #27 exactly.

    I don’t like Trump. Never will. He is a bombastic New York real estate developer. He is crude and rude.

    So?

    When I agree with Trump on an issue, I agree with Trump. When I oppose Trump on an issue, I oppose Trump. Can we get past this petty sniping and snarking, these implications about what Trump might be about to do (something awful). It is not just irritating – it is boring and childish.

    When dealing with a professional flim flam man, a con artist, stop giving any weight whatsoever to what he says, only pay attention to what he does or does not do. Watch the hands, ignore the patter. Anyone giving weight to anything Trump said, especially 27 years ago, is a complete fool.

    As to what he is actually doing? I agree with most of it. A large percent. In fact I am quite pleased by a lot of his decisions so far. But tomorrow is another day. And I still don’t like him.

    Watch the hands.

    Geoman (a815b9)

  117. As to what he is actually doing? I agree with most of it. A large percent.

    Apparently so does a significant percentage of the Republican Party.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. So?

    whattabout Hillary?

    But…Gorsuch

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  119. 115… “you need a fix cuz yer goin’ down, Rear Admiral. On what, I don’t know.”

    —- John Lennon channels Rodney Dangerfield

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  120. He crushed the shining path for at leastca decade:

    http://.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42481281

    narciso (d1f714)

  121. Figure I’d give the host a leg up on tomorrow’s story… NEWSWEEK headline: Melania Trump Orders Removal of Near-200-Year-Old Tree From White House.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  122. So consequently he must be puniahed

    narciso (d1f714)

  123. Kernel hates trees..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  124. =Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    Oh those fun-loving, entrepreneurial Trumps.

    Which will it be:

    [ ] Trump Firewood

    [X] Trump Toothpicks

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  125. Each toothpick branded with a teenie- weanie Trump hand.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  126. https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-mueller-may-indict-paul-manafort-again

    And no one may feel more heat than Paul Manafort. In Washington legal circles, there’s a broad expectation that Mueller will file what’s called a superseding indictment of Manafort and Rick Gates, his erstwhile business partner—and alleged partner in crime. Gates and Manafort both pleaded not guilty when Mueller’s team filed their indictment on Oct. 30. Legal experts say there may be more charges to come.

    “I would expect a superseding indictment to come down relatively soon,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s law school.

    “There was much in the narrative of the indictment that referenced crimes not charged,” he added. “Prosecutors will often issue a superseding indictment as the grand jury continues its work. There’s also a tactical reason for this, that superseding indictments tend to grind defendants a bit more over time.”

    A superseding indictment would essentially replace the current indictment of Manafort. And in that current indictment, Mueller’s team hinted there was more to come. In particular, they hinted at potential tax charges for Manafort’s foreign financial transactions. Federal prosecutors can bring charges against any American who has money in a foreign bank account and doesn’t check a box on their tax forms disclosing it. The Manafort/Gates indictment describes financial behavior that may be liable for that kind of prosecution. And that’s an indicator that Mueller’s team may be preparing to formally charge both men with violating tax laws.

    A former prosecutor from the Justice Department’s tax division said Mueller handed down what’s known as a “speaking indictment”—in other words, an indictment that contains more information than necessary.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  127. lovely pic of a coal barge in borneo

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. Sorry to ruin it for you two leftwing, butt-buddy maggots… actual story… “CNN obtained documents from specialists at the United States National Arboretum, which determined the magnolia tree must be removed.“

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  129. Yes narciso and Geoman…listen to kernel popcorn and his fellow bible-bangers.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  130. As opposed to worshipers of old ones, Ronnie earl tried three different judges before he succeeded in indicting delay

    narciso (d1f714)

  131. Melania Trump’s favorite TV show is ‘How to Get Away With Murder’

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  132. Patterico,

    What you continue to miss is this:

    What Deng et al did at Tiananmen Square was monsterous. Now, we know how deeply terrible it was.
    Trump praising their response is, at the least, ignorant, especially when repeated in the recent past with more facts.

    But the segue from the one to the next, when the story is only about the former, displays a monumental obsession with the latter.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  133. # 95

    random viking (6f9d28) — 12/26/2017 @ 12:42 pm
    Trump’s was a comment on the power of military strength.

    No it wasn’t. That wasn’t military strength. He was talking about the government’s determination to stay in power. On the other hand it wasn’t really praise.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

    THIS ^^^^ X 100

    papertiger (c8116c)

  134. President Trump was just using the Chineser brutality as a foil to illustrate how failmerica is perceived as being weak

    cause of our shoddy crappy joke military

    our feckless congress

    our quisling media sluts

    our laughingstock justice sytsem

    and an educational system where the horny union teachers want to make sex on the students rather than teach them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  135. The only monumental obsession here is by people who think they get to tell Patterico what to think and blog about.

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. oopers *system* i mean

    i did the letters in the wrong order on accident

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. it’s good to mix up the protocol every now and again DRJ it keeps things lively

    can you believe it’s almost 2018 it’s like this whole wonderful year went by in a blink

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  138. Matthew Perry has exactly one (1) director credit to his name

    a 2004 episode of Scrubs

    one and done

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. No, but that isn’t the only allowable opinion on a subject. Is it?

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. The diplomatic situation back in 1989-90 (when Trump spoke) was confused at best.

    [Stephen Solarz (D-NY):]
    Essentially, there were three schools of thought.

    One expressed by the [Bush] administration was that cutting off, or conditioning, MFN would be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, and that we would in any case be shooting ourselves in the foot by depriving American consumers of opportunities to purchase lower-priced Chinese goods or handicapping the efforts of American investors to invest in China since China could be expected to retaliate if we cut off MFN.

    Then there were those who argued that what happened at Tiananmen Square was so egregious that we had no moral alternative but to terminate MFN and it was inappropriate to provide this preferential tariff status to China even though MFN in effect was the tariff status we gave to just about every country in the world.

    Finally, there were those who tried to strike a middle ground (I was among them) who said that we ought to try to use China’s desire for MFN to enable us to leverage changes in China in terms of human rights by establishing some conditions for the renewal of MFN, which would give China an incentive to move in the direction that we wanted it to move in order to preserve the benefits of this tariff status.

    http://adst.org/2014/05/managing-a-massacre-the-ramifications-of-tiananmen-square/

    It’s interesting to note than a number of US conservatives were trying to downplay the situation as the strategic relationship with China was a central pillar in US foreign policy. It wasn’t just Trump. And it was firebrands on the Left (e.g. Pelosi) who were all hot to blow it all up, without an ounce of irony.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  141. Luke the old navigation charts used to say ‘there be monsters’ communist china which a butchers bill of 50 million want certainly one, so was soviet Russia, with about roughly half that body count. Kampuchea had a death toll about 1/3 its population and one of its apologists Chomsky is still taken seriously

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. The only monumental obsession here is by people who think they get to tell Patterico what to think and blog about.

    Hardly. It’s his blog and if he wants to go full LGF, there’s not a lot to stop him. But it’s just getting unseemly. If the stock market were to crash, and someone made the story into how Trump once told people to invest in the stock market, you’d wonder at their logic path. That may be different in degree than what we have here, but not by much.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  143. DRJ, are we having a conversation or sitting through a lecture?

    Anyway, I took our host up on his offer. I know the $100 is not paying Patterico for an on demand post on my subject. It was an expression of interest on my part to read a post from somebody with detailed subject knowledge & experience, and (probably) a test of my intentions on our host’s part.

    Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  144. And in our frontward we have the Castro brothers which planted in favorable ground like Nicaragua in the lAst generation and Venezuela in this one.

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. Trump said this in 1990, right as the Soviet Union was teetering. The Deng government saw the collapsing Soviet state and did NOT want it to happen there. Tiananmen’s Democracy movement pretty much DID want that to happen there. Push came to shove, and the Chinese decided to drop the hammer.

    Yes, it was terrible. But this is what States do. To say that this is unique, or even remarkable in the history of mankind is silly. Governments kill. They usually try to do it behind closed doors, but they all do it. Even ours (Sherman’s March, the Indian Wars, Hiroshima). They claim necessity and the right of self-defense, and they do it when they feel forced.

    Trump said that he thought they had acted forcefully to head off a worse situation (e.g. civil war). This was also the Nixon-Kissinger-Bush Sr position. And he might even have been right. A Chinese civil war would have killed tens of millions.

    If the Shah of Iran could have stopped Khomeini with a harsh crackdown killing a proportionate number of crazy whackjob revolutionary guardsmen-to-be would that have been wrong?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  146. In fact Andrew Scots fall of heaven, perhaps the best history of modern Iran, besides taheris nest of spies, shows it wee possible to head off the revolution until the summer of 1978

    narciso (d1f714)

  147. So I watched La La Land yesterday with my wife before opening presents. I may be a sap but I rather liked it.

    Here’s how I think they should set up the sequel:

    The Husband with no name Tom Everett Scott gets run down by a drunk criminal alien. That sets up Sebastian and Mia to get back together without all the divorce drama.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  148. Iran was done in by Jimmy Carter dissing the Shah in his own country. Carter might as well have said “Have at him!” All in the name of human rights, such as now exist in Iran.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  149. it’s just getting unseemly

    i don’t know about unseemly but when i read posts like this one i find comments like this one sort of difficult to interpret:

    Haiku is unmoderated but is encouraged to try not to be a consistently negative presence. There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.

    I think I get it but I’m not quite sure.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  150. Now we’re excusing it. I’m out.

    Patterico (7a5a02)

  151. it’s no more excusable than what the FBI did in Waco

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  152. Hardly. It’s his blog and if he wants to go full LGF, there’s not a lot to stop him

    What a stupid thing to say. Rejecting Donald Trump is going full LGF? Which means changing one’s entire political philosophy and banning anyone who agrees with what you argued for years? How utterly absurd.

    Patterico (7a5a02)

  153. oh and thank you Mr. Finkelman for sharing your learnings

    this was a good read

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  154. Wellits an unlikely scenario first the shah would have to have been in better health had better advisers and willing to challenge Washington but hypothetically it could have happened

    narciso (d1f714)

  155. It’s an utterly insane situation to be saying the same things you have always said and have your commentariat decide you have changed.

    Maybe I’ll just shut down comments. I still like blogging — I am a compulsive writer — but reading these comments is not a net positive in my life.

    Patterico (7a5a02)

  156. Now we’re excusing it. I’m out.

    So, there is no reason for a state to do what the Chinese did? Ever? Let’s say that Weimar Germany had shot all the Nazis in 1923 for treason. Wrong? Or that Lincoln had picked someone other than McClellan who decided that razing Richmond might prevent a long war?

    This is just as silly as the “violence never solved anything” brigade. You attack Trump for saying something that much of the US government was saying at the time, yet you do not explain WHY it was wrong, other than a lot of people got killed.

    It was brutal and harsh. And quickly over. It DID prevent a civil war. Was one likely? Hard to say from 10,000 miles and 30 years away, but then I’m not the one who says that there was NO POSSIBLE REASON to fail to condemn what Deng did and that any position other than forthright condemnation is monstrous.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  157. maybe sometimes it’s not all about you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  158. the Chineser peoples are very much accustomed to being slaughtered by their government

    Tiananmen was actually a very mild incidence of this (historically)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  159. Maybe I should just comment out of my ass, with babytalk potshots at people and loads of non-sequiturs. Because about half this blog is full of that from two or three people.

    But I thought that you blogged for a discussion, with people willing to take on the issues you bring up. This MAY include folks who say “How did you get from A to J?”

    And no, you are not going LGF, but you would have every right to do that or anything in between (which is all I was saying, listing an extreme). It’s your blog. You could also close down comments, but I think the traffic would drop. You could also start banning folks like me who feel that sometimes I disagree with you.

    Yes, I dislike Trump. I will work for someone else in 2020, assuming it isn’t Kasich. And if Trump gets the nomination anyway, I’ll maybe vote for him since the Dem alternative will probably be terrible-er. I learned from my 10 years in the LP that there are only two games in town. Crappy system, but it’s what we have.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  160. You might very well say that:

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Taiping-Rebellion

    It does nit fellow that a remark made nearly 30 years ago, which has no current echo in policy is actually relevant. Compare that with fdr who was politically active since the 20s and had a public animus against Japanese immigration, that was actually expressed in 1941

    narciso (d1f714)

  161. What a petulant child.

    Clown Car (c587a1)

  162. look the whole point is how

    irrespective of the merits of this post

    you had Mr. M engaging it with intelligence and erudition

    and you were very dismissive of his efforts

    going so far to say maybe comments should just go away and that is very startling to me

    i think these discussions are valuable records of this era of America

    your commenters – even the super-pompous ones

    they have a lot of integrity, and they bring their singular perspectives here to be recorded and subsumed into a context

    LET THE RIVER RUN LET ALL THE DREAMERS WAKE THE NATION

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  163. #122. Bingo. The rest is boring rehash from Mean Girls.

    Clown Car (c587a1)

  164. Patterico,

    GO back and read what the push-back is saying. It isn’t that you are necessarily wrong for saying Trump is an idiot, fool, assh0le or worse for saying what he said about Tiananmen. There ARE arguments in favor for understanding what Deng did — States act differently than people — but Trump hasn’t the wit to make them.

    No, the pushback is going from “Tiananmen was more horrible than we thought” to “therefore Trump is a monster” without any further ado. Some of us probably thought the first part was worth talking about. At least a little bit.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  165. And that is a policy question going forward, what does xipping in the event of a major ayatemic crisis, they were able to avert the last one two years ago.

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. I also think we should all reflect on the limited nature of this form of communication. What you read is not necessarily what I typed.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  167. If you didn’t mean to accuse me of going full LGF when you said this:

    Hardly. It’s his blog and if he wants to go full LGF, there’s not a lot to stop him. But it’s just getting unseemly

    Then you need to work on matching your words and your intent better. Because that’s exactly how it reads.

    Patterico (266a25)

  168. 161 — there’s a very interesting article today that the host should read. Its titled “Lesson’s for anti-Trump conservatives from an anti-Bush conservative.”

    Opposing the President of one’s own party – acknowledging that you left the GOP when Trump was nominated — is an odd philisophical place to put oneself, ESPECIALLY when the President turns out to govern in a more conservative manner than imagined.

    Does he do things that irritate you? Sure. But, ON BALANCE, has the first year of the Trump Administration advanced more causes you care about, than it has set back causes you care about?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  169. I will not presume to speak for Patterico, but no.

    Trump is conservative in the sense that he is a social conservative, a nationalist, and authoritarian (aka law and order), and plenty of people think of that as conservative.

    I think of myself as a limited government/free market (as much as possible) “classical liberal” conservative. If I seem to go off the reservation sometimes, it’s because there are areas where the free market does not work. Trump is definitely not that, and many of his actions are statist and authoritarian.

    Kishnevi (5a999e)

  170. And they probably said that of Nixon, who certainly followed a bismarcking even gallist conception in domestic as well as foreign policy, it wee said of Reagan probably more re the deficit, but as well his breaking with aspects of the keynesian and detentist framework it was said of w because of compassionate conservatism and the proactive foreign policy, so taking the long road its not that surprising

    narciso (d1f714)

  171. What is socially conservative about Trump? He is a cop buff, but I would not call him law and order on that basis, not when he encourages lawlessness by cops. He is for predatory capitalism but is that a conservative value?

    nk (dbc370)

  172. That was more your previous police chief McCarthy, if memory served who didn’t hAve a good word for citizen defense. In the regulatory field he is more laissez afaire

    narciso (29665c)

  173. certain varietals of socons embrace the immigration policies President Trump aligns with

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  174. Yeah, all those words have pretty much lost their meaning. Liberal, conservative, Republican, President ….

    nk (dbc370)

  175. Just because something is in a secret diplomatic cable doesn’t make it true. I doubt the writer personally witnessed the events he reports and if it was written 24 hours later he didn’t have time for a careful investigation. After an event like that there are going to be a lot of wild rumors flying around and the cable reads like the writer repeated a bunch of them.

    If the death toll was actually a few hundred this would be comparable to the Tlatelolco massacre which if I recall correctly didn’t cause us to break diplomatic relations with Mexico or anything like that.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  176. Then you need to work on matching your words and your intent better. Because that’s exactly how it reads.

    Only one of us can edit his words to his heart’s content.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  177. And, as I said, this is a very limited means of communication. No body language, no facial expressions, no tone of voice or inflection. If we all read everything as if it was intended to be the most hurtful thing possible, then we might as well all pack it in.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  178. What is socially conservative about Trump?

    Not a lot. This is not a fault, IMHO. On balance I am more pleased with the RESULTS of the administration than I thought I would be. The tantrum-tweets aside (if only!) I would say that I’m more pleased than upset.

    I don’t like what Sessions is doing (and is not doing) at DoJ. I’m not happy about the Transport bill, but roadbuilding is probably corrupt on Alpha Centuri, so at least it’s the normal money pit. The Trump fringe still seems capable of picking the worst candidates possible, and I have no doubt they will manage to lose the Nevada and Indiana Senate seats again.

    But the Supreme Court has not repealed the 2nd Amendment and Obama will not be appointed to any Court any time soon. The tax bill will probably be better for the economy than people think, as it attempts to bring back capital that we have been FORCING offshore for 30 years.

    Yes, Trump is way suboptimum, but infinitely better than Hillary. I would like to see a primary in 2020, as Trump is going to be damaged goods. But right now, things could be worse.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  179. Just got done watching Cenk uygur election night rerun where he says

    “How pathetic are the Democrats that they can’t win against this tragic monumental failure…”

    Then he trailed off in to cussing white people.

    But the nerve of an Uygur, who couldn’t find water if he were sitting in a boat, who wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for the concentrated coordinated focussed charity of and willingness to prostrate himself daily to the DNC, calling a billionaire real estate mogul a failure.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  180. Patterico – Would you indict Mueller for stupidity?

    mg (8cbc69)

  181. 122. Geoman (a815b9) — 12/26/2017 @ 5:10 pm

    Anyone giving weight to anything Trump said, especially 27 years ago, is a complete fool. It matters what he was wiling to say.’

    Trum was trying to look like a pundit. He was askedall he time questions on public matters hat is very bad thing for apundit to say – while the Chinese Communist’s governent ruthlessness in wanting to stay in power may be the most important thing you notice, it’s the way he sad it too. He doesn’t sound like he disapproves

    His “problem” with Gorbachev is that he doesn’t have a firm enough hand. Who else considered that bad? He thinks the Chinese government “almost blew it.” He doesn’t sound like he considers that hopeful. He says “our country is right now perceived as weak” unlike China, so that we’re “being spit on by the rest of the world.”

    So it helps foreign relations to not care abouthuman rights?

    So I suppose for that reason Donald Trump respects the regiome in North Korea. No, he doesn’t?

    He was talking nonsense, of course. But someone who took the question with any kind of seriousness, and who didn’t just want to appear different, would not have talked that way.

    As to what he is actually doing? I agree with most of it. A large percent. In fact I am quite pleased by a lot of his decisions so far. But tomorrow is another day. And I still don’t like him.

    Watch the hands.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  182. News about Twitter:

    Since 2009, or going back to 2009 – they started later I think – the Library of Congress has archived tweets on Twitter (although nobody really is able to gain access to hhem)

    That will stop with January 1, 2018. T

    They claim that from now on they will onlly arhove important tweets whatever that is.

    It’s not 100% clear to me they’ll keep all they have.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  183. They refuse to take Trump seriously but insist we take Trump literally.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  184. Mr. Reverend they’re sad cause sleazy harvardtrash ted blew his one shot and now he’ll never be president ever ever ever (could never raise the money again) and it’s cause people saw too much of the real ted during the campaign and they discovered that he’s a repulsive and nasty person

    compounding harvardtrash Ted’s woes is the nevertrump effort to build Trump alternatives in the mold of plastic pseudo-conservative perverts like Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, and John Kasich

    Ted can’t compete against handsome well-funded perv-trash – he is not handsome or charismatic and most of the time he looks like he’s eaten something that doesn’t agree with him to where he needs to stay close to a bathroom

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  185. They refuse to take Trump seriously but insist we take Trump literally.

    That’s another way of saying: “Trump’s word does not mean anything. We should wait and see what he does.” That’s actually very well known about Trump. His principal characteristic. His word is worthless. In everything he has said and done.

    nk (dbc370)

  186. President Trump’s word’s the gold standard compared to a lying cowardpig like war hero John McCain

    build the dang fence let’s repeal obamacare on day one

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  187. You would have gotten the fence (but only as a quid pro quo and sop to Cindy’s exes in the Arizona contracting scene), but the “cool kids that would grow up to be NT” people got put off by Alaskan Barbie.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  188. he lost when he suspended his campaign like a pompous jackass to go to washington for so his peers would have the advantage of his extraordinary economic acumen

    everyone was so embarrassed for him and he never recovered

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  189. Is Agent Gritz related to the militiaman Bo Gritz? He had a good run as the “Russ Ewing” used to extract those in barricade standoff situations.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  190. Most likely not, I imagine his family is alienated against the govt and after his part re ruby ridge who could blame him

    narciso (d1f714)

  191. his word is worthless..

    But Gorsuch..

    Tuxedo Bill!

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  192. President Trump should declare his birthday a national holiday.

    mg (8cbc69)

  193. President Trump’s word’s the gold standard compared to a lying cowardpig like war hero John McCain

    build the dang fence let’s repeal obamacare on day one

    Sure, but papayas used to be called pawpaws.

    nk (dbc370)

  194. i like papayas with ice cream and creme de cassis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  195. but that’s just a sometimes food

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  196. His world is uselessness…

    but derp… Durbin https://youtu.be/hRiULr2qEJs

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  197. The Presidunce phears the upstaging.

    What a Wanker!

    Prince Harry is close to the Obamas following their collaboration during the Invictus Games, a sporting event for war veterans, in September. The British government is concerned with the potential diplomatic fallout if the former American president meets the royal family before the current president does. “Harry has made it clear he wants the Obamas at the wedding, so it’s causing a lot of nervousness,” the tabloid quotes a “senior government source” saying. “Trump could react very badly if the Obamas get to a royal wedding before he has had a chance to meet the queen.” The report indicated that May could have the final word over inviting the Obamas. “If the PM [Theresa May] lays down the law, Harry will just have to suck it up,” said the government official.

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14500597/royal-wedding-obama-trump/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  198. nobody gives a crap about a silly bastard like Harry and his leggy tart

    they’re dirty tabloid trash people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  199. Steyer is an arse, but you need an arse to fight an arsehole

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/trump-impeachment-digital-army-steyer-316702

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  200. And for the love of Enoch Powell, the queen wants Kate on the Irish Twin/Octomom plan to put enough heirs between Bill and the Harry calico line.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  201. poor kate’s been turned into tleilaxu vat

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  202. ugh poor kate’s been turned into *a* tleilaxu vat i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  203. Great. We only had happyfeet talking about Harry and Megan — literally only happyfeet — but now he’s infected urbanleftbehind, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  204. it’s important to uphold the honor of those brave Americans what fought these scummy royal trash that we might live and breathe free

    but no man is free whilst this toxic royal poop-dogma yet florishes

    there is no such thing as royalty, you see

    no such thing at all

    and that nasty and vapid old biddy queen knows this better than anyone

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  205. So as far as I’m concerned, you know, put a bumper sticker on the beast that says ‘I’d rather be golfing’ and stay there as long as he can.”

    He Flogs a good game of cheat and beat

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  206. I’ll grant you this: The Brit royals (and papayas) are more relevant to this conversation about Trump than Ted Cruz or John McCain. Harry’s hair, peeled papayas, and Trump’s skin tone share the same shade of orange.

    nk (dbc370)

  207. I never passed a Bar or put away bad people, so I was here on the charity of our host. I’ll self moderate for the next 24 hours.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  208. sleazy sloppy pig-violent mccain is very relevant here Mr. nk

    his last real adventure in slaughter and incompetence took the form of what failmerica did on Libya

    that was a fiasco where we spent a crapload of borrowed money to interfere in a civil war (the kind what the Chinesers might have enjoyed had the Tiananmen uprising succeeded)

    Almost no one considers the Libyan war a success today, and for good reason. In addition to leaving Libya in a state of upheaval, the war seriously destabilized neighboring Mali and led to the spread of weapons to conflicts elsewhere in Africa and the Near East. Libya’s chaos has contributed to the migration crisis affecting Europe, and migrants moving through Libya are subjected to the most appalling treatment imaginable. When judged by the standard of the war’s original justification—the protection of civilians—it has to be declared a clear failure. Because this ill-conceived war was so closely linked with the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, it is no accident that the doctrine itself has been almost entirely forgotten.

    Now that many of the same governments that toppled Gaddafi have engaged in equally atrocious or even worse behavior against the civilian population in Yemen, it is hard not to conclude that those who invoked the “responsibility to protect” in 2011 did so cynically and with absolutely no intention of holding others to the same standard. The loss of R2P is a sad one that will take many years to remedy. By wrongly using a perfectly sensible doctrine to justify an unnecessary war, the so-called “humanitarian” interventionists of the West have made it that much harder to protect civilians when they most need it.

    as you can see, failmerica has no demonstrable competence with respect to violently dabbling in the internal affairs of other countries

    I think President Trump understands this much better than bush or obama or mccain or stinkypig, because he’s so much smarter than they are

    so it’s wise to be wary when people start doing virtue signals about the harshness of the foreign regimes

    this too shall pass

    it’s a fallen whirl

    President Trump has his eye on the ball: North Korea. And his concern is not with the endemic oppression and civil rights abuses.

    And this is as it should be.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  209. here is a link for the above

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  210. I’m still kind of moved by the watery tart lobbed a sword at her ancestors story.

    Did the Wapo ever check that one for contemporary sources?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  211. Hmm, you could be right. And then there’s Charles Manson. Manson was convicted of killing six people. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt right there that Trump is a good President.

    nk (dbc370)

  212. ugh Charlie Manson

    what a pooper that guy was

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  213. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-kgb-papers-how-putin-learned-his-spycraft-part-1

    How does one reckon with an intelligence apparatus so vast and powerful that its reach touched every living soul in nearly one-third of the planet and transformed even good men and women—mothers, fathers, and children—into informants or accomplices? Recriminations on this scale could cannibalize a democratic Russia before it even had a chance to take hold. Better to let past stay past and hidden. If granting impunity to all KGB operatives meant that those who otherwise might have been brought to justice were now in excellent positions to seize control of the Russian government, so be it.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  214. that’s even too byzantine for me, is there anything beside rumor being put forward as fact.

    steyer made his money in Indonesian coal when he was at goldman, and funding democrats from carter Mondale to Clinton, like bond villain le chiffre, he wants to deny others opportunity,

    narciso (d1f714)

  215. Meyer is now a pariah. You cannot dis “The One” with impunity. Since we won’t have gulags or firing squads till the next run of leftists they have to settle for ruining his name, income and future.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  216. Why don’t the Israelis build a Trump Wall to keep Z Iranian zombies out of their orthodox locks?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (4b3a7c)

  217. Bill,

    The blog posts are free and no one is forced to read them. The lecturing is by the commenters, who would fit right in with the snowflakes at US college campuses.

    DRJ (15874d)

  218. actually no, drj, they swallow the minitrue tidbits like rabid seals, we try to be a little more discerning,

    narciso (d1f714)

  219. so what is the excuse for these learned officials to deal with china

    narciso (d1f714)

  220. CNN HOST Allyson Camerota Concerned Working Americans “Are Going To Vote For Donald Trump Again” After Getting Bonuses and Pay Raises, expressed her concern about how the tax breaks for Americans will harm the Democrats chances of winning in the mid-term elections.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  221. – um speaking of keeping promises.

    TRUMP’S FIRST Record-Breaking Christmas Season…Retail Sales Of $600 BILLION: “This is literally the best season since before the recession” Retail sales are up a whopping $33 billion from last year. Retailers are reporting $598 billion in holiday season sales as experts claim that “Fewer people are living paycheck to paycheck.”

    “The single biggest drive of retail sales is growth in real disposable income,” he said. “And when real income goes up, people have money in their pocket and they’re able to spend it.”

    Quotes provided by CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holiday-retail-sales-reach-record-598-billion/

    The media, however, refused to give credit to President Trump’s pro-growth and pro-business policies, as well as the economic shot in the arm spurred by the massive GOP tax cut bill.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  222. fmr senate staffer and Reagan administration official, Michael Pillsbury, who was once a booster of engagement with china, has decidedly changed course, in the hundred year mace,

    narciso (d1f714)

  223. the taiping rebellion, which I hadn’t heard of until a few years, is the kind of fate, that china could face in the future,

    narciso (d1f714)

  224. DRJ,

    Bill,

    The blog posts are free and no one is forced to read them. The lecturing is by the commenters, who would fit right in with the snowflakes at US college campuses.
    DRJ (15874d) — 12/27/2017 @ 9:32 am

    Replying back to points brought up in a post is a conversation, not a lecture.

    I replied back with actual placing of Chairman Mao ornament on a Whitehouse Christmas Tree (50 million or so deaths; Obama). Actual mass deaths caused by Pres. Obama, Sec. of State Clinton, Chancellor Merkel with the whole Arab spring through mass emigration into Europe/Slave Markets in Lybia/destroying existing governments, etc… How about Maduro (Venezuela Pres) support for Bernie Sanders–A guy with blood on his hands supporting a (relatively) main stream US presidential candidate.

    Hmmm I prefer a candidate who is about the only one who does not have actual blood on his hands as he has never been in government before.

    The problem is that, in reality, almost anyone that makes it to president these days has been in various levels of government that have had positions of power and policy setting responsibility (congress, courts, executive branch). Elected officials are forced to govern in the world as it is, not as they would want (FDR support of Stalin in WWII, refusing SS St Louis full of German refugees in 1939).

    And, frankly, so are people that work in the private sector–Trump was very good at navigating those seas (getting financing, tax breaks, zoning approval, domestic and foreign government bodies, working deals such that he was protected during bankruptcies in court, etc.).

    The fact that many here disagree with our host on a few of posts does not make him, or us, snowflakes.

    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  225. and I was making a similar point, what is the excuse of those who have seemingly blindly embraced attaching not only our economic but our security posture, to said regimes,

    https://spectator.org/the-insufferable-nostalgia-of-a-lying-press/

    narciso (d1f714)

  226. i think it’s good to see so many people standing up for President Trump

    he’s a good president that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  227. its embarrassing when they are a step ahead of us,

    https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/uk-designates-muslim-brotherhood-terror-wings-hassm-liwa-al-thawra/

    so policy wise, where did he go wrong, I ask seriously,

    narciso (d1f714)

  228. Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall.

    Gallup on Wednesday released the results of its annual poll to determine the most admired man and woman in America — and former President Barack Obama won the title for the tenth straight year.

    Even though Obama has been out of office for nearly a year now, he still bested current President Donald Trump by three percentage points in Gallup’s poll. Additionally, former Trump rival Hillary Clinton was once again named the most admired woman in America for the sixteenth straight year.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  229. I agree with mary o grady, for different reasons, that the deportation of Haitians, in light of what the Clinton foundation did to them, was gratuitous, and signing on to karenga’s category error was ill considered,

    narciso (d1f714)

  230. In Atlanta and Chicago, it will be the coldest New Year’s Eve since welcoming in 2010, when the temperature bottomed out at 29 and 5 F, respectively.

    People will need to bundle up with all their winter gear in order to stay warm,” said Pydynowski.

    this is good advise

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  231. It’s fairly amusing being told one would fit right in as a “snowflake” on a lot of college campuses by the biggest cheerleaders for moderation/censorship. Seriously.

    A lot of folks support Trump if for no other reason than he fights back, which puts him heads and tails above so many others.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  232. Has Trump ever been in a fistfight?

    Pillsbury doughboy talks smack..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  233. considering the virulent t 4 strain of derangement, that kept Ronnie earle in office, then he was replaced by the one who went after delay (name escapes me)

    narciso (d1f714)

  234. CNBC

    In office, Reagan and other Republican leaders resigned themselves to the permanence of Social Security and Medicare, given their strong support among senior citizens, who vote in large numbers. Spending-cut efforts have usually centered elsewhere in the budget, especially on more politically vulnerable programs serving the poor, including Medicaid.
    But Ryan entered politics as a devotee of 20th-century author Ayn Rand, who opposed tax-and-spend benefit programs as immoral confiscation that sapped the power of capitalism. More aggressively than most, he has refused to accept the major entitlement programs in their current forms, insisting on spending curbs rather than tax increases as the path to solvency.
    Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a “premium support” program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, “Increasing the government’s take from the economy hinders growth.”

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  235. Haskell wasn’t serious, or then he would have proposed such a budget this time, we see how western European time and again, encourage the likes of hamas, have they not the foresight that the bell will eventually toll for them, (rhetorical)

    narciso (d1f714)

  236. In honor of Admiral Burns:

    https://faceintheblue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/in-a-mass-knife-fight-to-the-death-between-every-american-president-who-would-win-and-why/

    The link ignored the fact that Trump is one of the few people licensed for concealed carry in New Yoyk City.

    I think Trump wupould follow Obama’s admonition “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    I wonder if Obama would bring help (we).

    BfC (5517e8)

  237. Has Trump ever been in a fistfight?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner

    Always superfluous, bloodshed. The deeper damage is best.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  238. so in latin America, the attempt to enforce Malcolm Reynold’s maxim, ‘someone tries to kill you, kill them right back’ yielded the urban paramilitary, unaffiliated police or military, what the left dubbed ‘death squads’ oddly that never applies to turbas, revolutionary bloc committees or other instruments of so called ‘popular will’

    narciso (d1f714)

  239. another great example of the fun times to be had when failmerica gets involved in a civil war

    The number of suspected cholera cases in Yemen has hit 1 million, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday, as war has left more than 80 percent of the population short of food, fuel, clean water and access to healthcare.

    another civil war

    another failmerican fiasco

    and cowardpig war hero John McCain covers himself in yet more glory

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  240. Only people who were in the government can get no pardon (big controversy in Peru now)But for FALN it is noot only fine, but necessary. According to the way they are doing things.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  241. 251. This isn’t a civil war.

    It’s more a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. and Saudi Arabia has afull blockade almost.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  242. i can see your point but we still shouldn’t be involved

    the Saudi Arabian royal perverts can fight their own battles

    or they can’t

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  243. There’s a big problem in yemen. You;’ve got Original al Qaeda ® ™ and you’ve got the Houthis, conected to Iran, and you’ve got maybe a govenrnment of Yemen that lost control of the capital, if I
    hae it right.

    I should read this article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Yemen

    We are involved, weakly and ineffectively trying to guide the Saudis into a more humanitrian way of waging war. This stuff that he’s doing is not only a crime, it is ablunder. How does it help to bomb the wrong places, to starve and kill innocent people?

    But the Crown Prince (almost regent) is making a lot of blunders. He got the former president of Yemen (a person backed by the Saudis) to break off his connection to the Houthis (also backed by Iran. So the Houthis or Iran killed him.

    He got the Lebanese Prime Minister to resign (temporarily – he got out.

    That’s going to remove Hezbollah control over Lebanon?

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  244. he also flooded the market with crude in 2014 and devastated the kingdom’s finances

    he’s kinda one of your more spectacular dumb-asses

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  245. Brazilian telcos call for “intelligent net neutrality”

    Decision to end rules protecting an open Internet in the US prompts regulation loosening talks in the Latin country; government says the current law will not be changed.

    President Trump you’re doing an incredible job

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  246. Well it is and it isn’t a proxy war, there have been four different iterations of this conflict going back to when Nasser backed the south, and they used chemical weapons against the said backed forces. That was back in the early 60s when the brits held their last stand in Aden, they subsequently relocated to oman across the border.

    narciso (29665c)

  247. Yes they were trying to bankrupt the crackers plus the downturn in the dragon: caused a shortfall in demand,

    narciso (29665c)

  248. He also thinks the regime should diversify from total dependence on this one resource,

    narciso (29665c)

  249. He also thinks the regime should diversify from total dependence on this one resource,

    he’s kind of a liar about diversification Mr. narciso

    a sleazy perverted Saudi royal liar

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  250. sounds like disneyland’s sucking some major ass

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  251. Between 2012 and 2016, the Republican Party invested more than $100 million to construct and refine its data capabilities, and Trump was the beneficiary of this investment. The party’s involvement has now put it in the crosshairs of Mueller’s investigation.
    The new line of inquiry also puts the spotlight on Kushner, who was already being questioned about his financial history and his contacts with Russian officials including Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. As the head of the Trump campaign’s data operations, Kushner brought in data firm Cambridge Analytica to help with micro-targeting strategies.

    https://shareblue.com/mueller-hauls-rnc-staffers-russia-probe-trump-fumes-investigation/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  252. pitiful corrupt fbi slut robert mueller has no proof of collusion even after wasting millions of dollars and thousands of man hours and doing untold damage the image and reputation of the slutty corrupt FBI

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  253. oopers

    doing untold damage *to* the image and reputation of the slutty corrupt FBI

    before mueller only a handful of people knew how skanky and rotten the sleazy FBI had become

    now everybody knows

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  254. Trailer for special on Trump and his Army of Historians.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  255. Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  256. some of your comments are more effective than others Mr. Burner

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  257. Can’t do embed sorry.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  258. Yes if only Walter duranty and Herbert Matthews would vouch.

    narciso (29665c)

  259. If only Mueller was half as concerned with Foreign donations Obama took via credit card networks in 2008.

    Not verifying addresses allows for lots of cash from Rusha.

    But that was then, Mueller would have been waysisis to check that out.

    Or the 100,000 Plouffe took from the IRANIANS.

    ANd this is what we know of, let alone all the crimes then.

    But Trump ….

    Clown Car (c587a1)

  260. It’s fairly amusing being told one would fit right in as a “snowflake” on a lot of college campuses by the biggest cheerleaders for moderation/censorship. Seriously.

    i was puzzled by that too

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  261. Extend mine until this time tomorrow. Methinks that Nehlen guy is a plant, or is Bannon going soft like Farage: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/27/media/paul-nehlen-steve-bannon-breitbart/index.html

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  262. Yes the south African company (wait didn’t translogistics have south african ties)

    narciso (d1f714)

  263. Censorship is about silencing unpopular views. Who here wants Patterico to stop saying what he believes, me or the Trump supporters? That will tell you who the censors are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  264. Censorship is about silencing unpopular views.

    Or jamming them with torrents of trollish comments that are no more than noise.
    #YouKnowWhoYouAre

    nk (dbc370)

  265. Is free, can their trade really fee when it comes to these gerontocrats, can there be meaningful with the ones who crushed this Asian version of the plague spring who enabled the development of the Pakistani nuclear program who provided resources and expertise for yong Byon. Who have provided silkworms and nuclear capable cs 27 missiles to the kingdom

    narciso (d1f714)

  266. Troll is subjective. If semantics is beyond you and.literalism your Totem…you are a troll.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  267. Literalists cannot tolerate metaphors and therefore wish to squelch the sounds.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  268. This is literally inspired by TRUMP WORLD

    http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/posts/omarosa-manigault-newman-melania-trump-tell-all-149931

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)


  269. If semantics is beyond you and.literalism your Totem…you are a troll.

    I’ll bet you don’t see the irony in that statement.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  270. “Shut Up!!!!” he explained.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  271. Did I mention irony escapes y’all?

    By tossing the president*’s obvious contempt for the Constitution’s clear restrictions on cashing in, Daniels gave us an infallible measure of how completely Trumpism has subsumed the Republican Party, particularly its congressional majorities. He has given the nation a plain and obvious window into exactly how much of the political commons—which include the presidency—the Republicans are willing to sell off in order to maintain the loyalty of their donor class. He also has given us a hyper-accurate measurement of the amount of sheer chickenshit contained in the modern conservative brand.

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14504936/trump-emoluments-case-thrown-out/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  272. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14504936/trump-emoluments-case-thrown-out/

    By tossing the president*’s obvious contempt for the Constitution’s clear restrictions on cashing in, Daniels gave us an infallible measure of how completely Trumpism has subsumed the Republican Party, particularly its congressional majorities. He has given the nation a plain and obvious window into exactly how much of the political commons—which include the presidency—the Republicans are willing to sell off in order to maintain the loyalty of their donor class. He also has given us a hyper-accurate measurement of the amount of sheer chickenshit contained in the modern conservative brand.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  273. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14504936/trump-emoluments-case-thrown-out/

    By tossing the president*’s obvious contempt for the Constitution’s clear restrictions on cashing in, Daniels gave us an infallible measure of how completely Trumpism has subsumed the Republican Party, particularly its congressional majorities. He has given the nation a plain and obvious window into exactly how much of the political commons—which include the presidency—the Republicans are willing to sell off in order to maintain the loyalty of their donor class. He also has given us a hyper-accurate measurement of the amount of sheer chickensh*t contained in the modern conservative brand.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  274. Irony is another hard word.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  275. What monstrosity portends as substitute conservatism when the Republican Party has been pronounced officially dead?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  276. Special, ly when the judge is a Clinton appointe..,e

    narciso (d1f714)

  277. 265. happyfeet (28a91b) — 12/27/2017 @ 1:58 pm

    before mueller only a handful of people knew how skanky and rotten the sleazy FBI had become

    now everybody knows

    No, what did it was James Comey’s press conference on Hillary’s emails on July 5, 2016.Maybe the very quick scan through the eails on Anthony Weiner’s laptopalso helped.

    Before that it was really very few people who were aware of it, Peoplein Congress didn’t know. If you really paid attention, you would hear about the FBI crime lab, but most people didn’t.

    Maybe local police departments knew something.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  278. 284. The emoluments claim is real nonsense. Foreign countries aren’t paying extra. The money is not very important to Trump as that is not his only business.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)


  279. the political commons

    Could you expand on that? What is the political commons?

    And I’m telling straight out the gate it sounds like journalistic [link -jpg], so make the definition a good one {with footnotes}, or I’m going to throw my hands up and go [link-jpg].

    papertiger (c8116c)

  280. Would that be anything like Dianne Feinstein’s, life long civil servant that she is, Net Worth of $70 Million?

    No shenanigans there right?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  281. I don’t know. Lady Fi might have hit it rich on a lotto ticket.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  282. The new one is that Ivanka should not wear her own line of clothing in public because that is free advertising.

    nk (dbc370)

  283. Yes this is what they tried to ding the huntress within ethical complaint bingo, because she wore get this the jacket of the sponsor of her husbands snowmobile team, meanwhile a weasel in the state legislator, who owned 200 k in conoco Phillips stock, and did their bidding like a good little elf blocking transcanada’s bid, squirrel

    narciso (d1f714)

  284. I wonder if she dinged Cheney over his divested portio
    This is why I found the whole pressure to sell off trumps assets comicaln of his Halliburton stock,
    http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-28/news/mn-43046_1_china-connections

    narciso (d1f714)

  285. I finally found a shot of comrade Ben! Bernie.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-12/202802_5_.jpg

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  286. 284

    Anyone else remember the days when Esquire was the magazine read by those who couldn’t risk being seen reading Playboy?

    Kishnevi (8f5d8c)

  287. I only started reading in the early 90s, when its extreme slant was staring to note, as with the condemn naste properties who are hemorrhaging cash like yellowstone vents gas

    narciso (d1f714)

  288. 275

    Censorship is about silencing unpopular views. Who here wants Patterico to stop saying what he believes, me or the Trump supporters? That will tell you who the censors are.

    Patterico was the one who suggested he might close comments because he was tired of people disagreeing with him.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  289. Yes, Kishnevi. Esquire was the “gentleman’s” Playboy. A tad less risqué. Frankly I haven’t seen an issue in 30 years and only visited it on line because of comrade Ben! links.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  290. I used to sell it from around 1974 to 1980. Never opened one. I also stocked Cheri, Oui, Hustler, Gent (Home Of The D-Cup), and a couple of dozen even raunchier skin mags. I can honestly say that I read Playboy mainly for the cartoons and short stories.

    nk (dbc370)

  291. huntress

    lol

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  292. Censorship is about silencing unpopular views. Who here wants Patterico to stop saying what he believes, me or the Trump supporters? That will tell you who the censors are.

    Seriously? Who has actually banned people here from saying what they believe? Who has used such bannings to threaten people not to say what they believe? Who runs off like a little girl to report to P what others say, others whom P has already blocked out of his own safe space? No one here except P has the power to actually restrict what is said here. People disagreing with P or anyone else cannot stop him from saying what he believes. I doubt anyone wants to stop him from saying what he believes. This is absolutely absurd to say. This actually IS the kind of logic that leads to the safe space attitudes on college campuses.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  293. No, James Shearer, it’s Patterico’s Blog so he is obviously free to do as he likes. There is one individual who speaks of wishing the host was present so he could moderate so and so, or how moderating someone feels like a Christmas gift. That person totally missed the point for obvious reasons. Some folks may find the host’s OCD with Trump tedious – I know I do – but certainly don’t wish he were silenced, that would be ridiculous.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  294. One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve started reading the RS comments on cross posts is that even over there, there doesn’t appear to be much support for this sort of post.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  295. I wouldn’t want to see anybody silenced. If I find a commenter tedious or if I’m not in the mood to read him I just skip over. It’s not hard. There are a few here that are little more than radical left trolls yet sometimes they actually make a point. The only people I usually skip are the ones who can’t make a point without the name calling.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  296. This is how roger kimball, chronicler of the academic battles going back to the 80s, found they referred to her in Russia, a transliteration of okhanitsa. An argument cane be made that this event makes much of our foreign policy aspirations dubious with regard to china, adjusting for population it resembles the July 1953 protests in east Germany,that were not repeated for another forty years

    narciso (d1f714)

  297. Pope pus is denounced from hochhuth to John Cornwall and worse because he didmt speak out forcefully enough about the holocaust (of course much if this black legend has been countered by peter eisner, Gordon thomas and most recently mark reibling who provided some missing facts to the equation.

    narciso (d1f714)

  298. Pius, pacepa notes how the legend came to crafted by ignoring significant details in hochhuth story.

    narciso (d1f714)

  299. When Comey is in jail will Matha Stewart bake him a cake?
    Just in – Sessions seen having a undressed session with the banjo players in Deliverence.

    mg (8cbc69)

  300. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/12/28/trump-ends-2017-residing-in-his-enemies-heads-n2427402
    I relish in your hate of old deplorable me. Keep it up- it’s all you got, no trumpers.

    mg (8cbc69)

  301. And true to form, the dragon is seen selling fuel to north Korea, some things never change.

    narciso (d1f714)

  302. 308. What?

    The kernel said something fairly important.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  303. To some extent America is facing a version of this—amid what Fareed Zakaria has dubbed “the rise of the rest”—with China’s ascendance the most significant development. But the United States has now introduced a third means by which a major power forfeits international advantage. It is abdication, the voluntary relinquishing of power and responsibility. It is brought about more by choice than by circumstances either at home or abroad.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/12/america-abidcation-trump-foreign-policy/549296/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  304. Who are you going to believe, an admitted liar or the Presidunce of the United States?

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/trump-strategy-flynn-liar.html

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  305. “It’s good to show respect to your community” by giving them business, she said, “but I’m just not sure to what extent he’s welcome in the community.”

    https://apnews.com/e5624f45ab27465a8be24ca4c5834ab3/Trump,-in-Washington,-stays-close-to-home

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  306. James conant sighs as does William dean hiwells,

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/252271/richard-haass-is-an-aass

    narciso (d1f714)

  307. Last March Richard Spencer boasted that “bitcoin is the currency of the alt right.” Since then, bitcoin’s valuation has increased by about 17x. (Or is it 5x? Or 30x? Depends on when you’re reading this.) Whatever the case, a lot of white-nationalist types using bitcoin to buy guns and drugs anonymously suddenly found themselves sitting on the equivalent of big piles of cash.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/10-things-that-are-going-to-be-problematic-in-2018/article/2010968

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  308. LYRICS to CONFOUNDS THE SCIENCE
    (Written by Don Caron – Music by Simon & Garfunkel)

    Hello darkness my old friend.
    It’s time for him to tweet again,
    but first he’ll have to check in with fox news
    ‘cause that’s the only place he gets his clues.
    That’s how things get planted in his brain,
    where they remain,
    and it confounds the science.

    The problem is he’s not alone.
    He tweets to people on his phone
    that global warming is a giant hoax
    perpetuated by the liberal folks,
    and he hires people that all think the same,
    that play his game
    and it confounds the science.

    When he talks to crowds of four
    he sees ten thousand maybe more,
    believing they all think he’s god on earth
    and was the product of a virgin birth
    and if you disagree you’re the victim of fake news
    or feminist shrews
    and it confounds the science.

    “Fools,” says he, “you do not know
    it makes me smart from so much dough.
    I know exactly where the problems are.”
    But his solutions are beyond bizarre
    ‘cause his words never quite a sentence make
    and thus he spake
    and it confounds the science.

    No limits on pollution now.
    There’s not a thing we don’t allow.
    Dump the garbage in the waterway.
    Spray the toxins where your children play.
    All the signs say that life on the planet is headed for a downward fall.
    Go to the mall,
    and continue to confound the science.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  309. The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front, George Soros’ Open Society foundation is one of the premier “regime change” operations, well versed in instigating “color revolutions”.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/washington-post-russia-sham.html#more

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  310. Comrade Ben!, it is time for you to adjust your percentages from 66/35 to the current 53/46. Looks like Trump’s catchin’ up.


    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  311. Hoagie: Two points is all he got from his fake Tax Bill. That’s not a bump, it’s a shrump.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  312. Some things Patterico says about Trump are unpopular, especially with Trump’s supporters and also with Republicans who believe criticism is damaging. But that isn’t a reason to turn on your friend Patterico, and you know that’s how he feels.

    You certainly don’t have to agree with him but I wish everyone would make an effort to understand his points … and then argue with him instead of attacking him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  313. You’re still the Noisy Minority. Squeaky Wheel.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  314. If you want people to treat you as an equal, to respect your ideas, you should not use a power that you have that others do not as a tool to attack those others. Not a hard concept to understand. When you wield power in such a way, it is condescending and insulting even to those whom you have not directly threatened and sets a negative tone for discussion. With greater power comes greater responsibility. A thicker skin. Extreme power should be used very, very judiciously.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  315. Is the Most Admired American going to be welcome at the Royal Wedding?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  316. 331 is good advice for the biggest loser of public respect, or he who must not be mentioned

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  317. Consider how brutal the Chinese civil war, and its antecedent a century ago, somewhat akin to the russuam one at the early part of the last century. And the earlier example didn’t happen with modern technology, but it was the backdrop for colonial expansion in china.

    narciso (d1f714)

  318. Never has a poll been more rigged than the obamas the man b.s. Eight years in a row. GTFOH

    mg (8cbc69)

  319. jesus effing god people made a *lot* of effort to understand this post

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  320. CFarleigh, that could very well be Trump that you are talking about. Not that he has any choice. His strength is not persuasion, it is thuggishness. He managed to gain 13.6 million adherents who admire thuggishness and they gave the Republican nomination. From that, he springboarded to the Presidency. Most people would not trust him farther that they could throw him, and he would go nowhere if he attempted reasoned communication and persuasion. His only option is to use the position and the authority given to him by the Constitution to impose his will.

    nk (dbc370)

  321. 324
    ProRussian site claims there was no Russian interference in our election.

    A second story in the paper today is based on “a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post.” It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation. What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.

    Can you at least find a site that does not wear its Putinismo on its sleeve?

    kishnevi (aaa345)

  322. Moon of Alabama, is a far left site, like emptywheel they occasionally turn up good work, omidyar hired many of the critics of us intelligence and Israel, like Jim Thompson partially responsible for that string of threats against synagogues.

    narciso (d1f714)

  323. President Trump’s bold moves to unshackle businesses from costly and ineffective regulations is the 100% exact opposite of thuggishness and authoritarianism

    every day President Trump is in office America becomes more competitive and better-positioned to tackle the huge challenges left to her by a filthy incontinent Bush and a craven anti-semitic food stamp

    He’s a good man that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  324. So Jeffrey Carr, who is the key debunker of crowdstrike attribution, on which this tableau rests, how about all the publications who were in cahoots with fusion gps

    narciso (d1f714)

  325. Time to take out the mosque on Temple Mount.
    Abbas needs to be taught a lesson.

    mg (8cbc69)

  326. BfC,

    I sat down to take a look at the post you would like me to write, and note that the post you linked is over two years old. There are actually new laws concerning discovery obligations, and I could write about some of that if you like. But I’m not sure you want a post on two-year-old changes to the law. If you do, I’m happy to write it.

    If you want an in-depth critique of the Orange County D.A., I’ll return your money, because I don’t trust the media on such stories and writing a fair and in-depth post would take far too much time. But I’m happy to talk about changes in the law and the need for them. Let me know.

    Patterico (45a4d7)

  327. Time to take out the mosque on Temple Mount.
    Abbas needs to be taught a lesson.

    A bold declaration especially from a guy home, safe in bed.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  328. I can see A.G. Jeff spectator Sessions at his next press conference starting out by saying “Once upon a time”

    mg (8cbc69)

  329. Trump’s advisors portray his public praise for foreign dictators and his willingness to meet with ruthless autocrats, without preconditions in most cases, as a way to shore up shaky alliances and possibly unlock long-frozen conflicts in the Middle East and across Asia.

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-dictators-20170502-story,amp.html

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  330. Also: Peer admiration

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  331. They would have said the same of Reagan re Marcos and pinochet, hag despite knowing better tried a dialigue with Fidel.

    narciso (d1f714)

  332. Obama allowing Hezbola to sell drugs in America
    ………..crickets……….

    mg (8cbc69)

  333. CFarleigh,

    This is his blog. There is no duty to let people comment or even read, since he could make this a private blog. Instead, he opens it for everyone to read and comment, and welcomes people of every viewpoint and always has. And he pays for it. You don’t see the constant hectoring for donations here the way you see at a lot of conservative blogs.

    I do not understand why you believe that hosting a blog gives the host “extreme power” over you and those who comment here, although my guess is you also feel that newspapers and tv media have extreme power over your life. Perhaps you want all of them regulated, so the media can’t say things you don’t like and neither can blog hosts. I understand the temptation but it doesn’t work, as you know. The answer to speech you don’t like is more speech (preferably reasoned speech and not bullying), and Patterico has always said and practiced that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  334. I agree with nk 335.

    DRJ (15874d)

  335. BfC,

    I sat down to take a look at the post you would like me to write, and note that the post you linked is over two years old. There are actually new laws concerning discovery obligations, and I could write about some of that if you like. But I’m not sure you want a post on two-year-old changes to the law. If you do, I’m happy to write it.

    If you want an in-depth critique of the Orange County D.A., I’ll return your money, because I don’t trust the media on such stories and writing a fair and in-depth post would take far too much time. But I’m happy to talk about changes in the law and the need for them. Let me know.
    Patterico (45a4d7) — 12/28/2017 @ 8:02 am

    Patterico,

    I am interested in your take on the justice system–And what interests you would probably interest me. As a “civilian”, I see the system as both being biased against “us” and at the same time, many times, unable to give any real form of justice (tossing evidence that was “illegally” collected and freeing somebody “guilty”, but at the same time no charging of the person(s) that apparently violated state and federal laws about gathering evidence. Over charging, 4 charges out of one police interaction(from misdemeanor to felony–Throwing stuff at wall and see what sticks–my own experience as a juror). And another “favorite” of mine–Qualified Immunity (including Prosecutorial immunity) which does not exist in law (from my little knowledge of “the law”) but created (i.e., legislated) and enforced out of whole cloth by US supreme court judges. And that does get into an interesting issue of legislating from the bench.

    Or, what has always bothered me… Why not require the supreme court (states/federal) require 9-0 decisions. If the “most learned” minds cannot figure out what the “law is”, then how are “the people” to believe any of this is anything more than Kabuki theater (can find abortion rights in Constitution, that discrimination is wrong but reverse discrimination is right, but cannot find the right to free speech or right to keep and bear arms). Should judges have a three strikes rule–Be overturned or on the “losing side” of a multi-court decision lose their position?

    What you start with–You know better than I. Using Mueller as current event (special prosecutor starting without any charges, using what appear to be a 100% staff of Hillary connected investigators, not ending the investigation, not following real leads to Democratic connections to “Russians”, corruption in Obama admin, process crimes, should Trump and/or somebody else in the executive branch put a merciful end to this dog and pony show–or can it even be ended, etc.).

    I too do not trust media stories either (I could also refer back to this Trump Playboy article as another questionable sole source article almost three decades later with no external sourcing with an ambiguous Q&A that resulted in 300+ comments here). I am not a HuffPo follower and, I am sure, it was written with a bias. Still does not mean that we should all articles that we disagree with. The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is strong in all of us:

    Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

    But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

    The Mueller special prosecutor maybe “too close” to Trump (which seems to be causing all sort of grief here with DRJ)… I do not care one way or another as long as we get a good conversation.

    A topic which generates a good discussion–Interested. One that ends up with needing to close comments, not really interested in.

    In the end, a topic that you want to write about, and not a “spec.” article for me. While Trump legal issues are current events, perhaps that is too difficult for us here at this time.

    Sincerely,
    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  336. welcomes people of every viewpoint and always has

    not always sometimes viewpoints are verboten

    where did my comment go

    It was trashed.

    Due to your statement that these witnesses were paid.
    Patterico (115b1f) — 11/12/2017 @ 2:32 pm

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  337. But let’s talk about safe spaces, CFarleigh.

    I think you believe efforts to impose civility are what leads to save spaces, which is why you see my comments as a problem. Asking commenters to turn down the rhetoric, and asking Patterico to moderate people who refuse, are what leads to safe spaces to you:

    CENSORSHIP/SPEECH CONTROL + POWER = SAFE PLACES

    Is that your position? If so, I think I understand your point.

    But as much as we enjoy this blog, it is still a privately run blog and not a public blog, let alone a public or government institution. It is basically Patterico’s online living room. We have no right to be here and he has no duty to provide it. He makes the rules and I think they are generous. All I’m asking for is that his guests remember that they liked him a lot when they agreed with him. I hope they try to remember that feeling when they disagree.

    DRJ (15874d)

  338. Interesting idea to make SCOTUS a unanimous body but it goes with our asinine system where 40% can unload a bomb like Trump . Never happen.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  339. Really, DRJ. Enough with the strawman arguments. It is really quite tiresome. It is YOU who accused others here of censorship for simply disagreeing with P. By any rational observation, on a blog where the host has actually censored people (censored people HERE, note in my post I explicitly put my comments in the context of HERE), to accuse those commenting of “censoring” P is beyond logic. And yes, it falls very much in line with the kind of twisted logic of the academic world’s “safe spaces”. Yes it is P’s blog. No one here, and I note I have seen quite a few of those who disagree with P state this time and time again, no one here disputes the fact that this blog belongs to P. He obviously can do whatever he wants with it. Ban whomever he wants. He can even change the words of what everyone else writes just like he (per other commenters, I could be wrong) re-edits his own posts. What doesn’t belong to P is logic nor other people’s opinions of P. We are all entitled to such. If P wants to take his blog private, perhaps he should just go ahead and do so. Note, my OPINION, I am not telling him what to do…it is his blog…obviously.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  340. Look, you don’t like Trump. We get it. Now, fucking LET IT GO. You don’t want Trump to be President? Do something so that his opponent in 2020 isn’t WORSE.

    Is that comment a reasoned argument asking Patterico to stop talking about Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  341. Look, you don’t like Trump. We get it. Now, fu*cking LET IT GO. You don’t want Trump to be President? Do something so that his opponent in 2020 isn’t WORSE.

    Is that comment a reasoned argument asking Patterico to stop talking about Trump? Doesn’t it want P to lay off Trump?

    Ps: Patterico notes any time he makes changes to a post.

    DRJ (15874d)

  342. Heh. The Church of Henry VIII finds you in Christian.

    A senior Church of England bishop has lambasted conservative evangelical Christians in the US for their “uncritical support” of Donald Trump, urging them to reflect on how their endorsement of the president relates to their faith.

    Paul Bayes, the bishop of Liverpool, said “self-styled evangelicals” risked bringing the word evangelical into disrepute, and added there was no justification for Christians contradicting God’s teaching to protect the poor and the weak.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/28/evangelical-christians-uncritical-in-support-for-donald-trump-says-paul-bayes-bishop-liverpool

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  343. Didn’t see the latter post:

    ” It is basically Patterico’s online living room. ”

    Please. The drama. I have run a blog myself. Never felt anything written there was a threat to me or my “living room”. Such extreme sensitivity is simply childish, silly, and pretty much embarrassing.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  344. I’m trying to discuss this but it’s obviously not welcome, so I give up. I’m sorry so many here feel I’ve become the priggish hall monitor but compared to people like hf, probably I am.

    I hope Trump does a lot of conservative things and makes everyone happy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  345. i think it’s good for everybody to make the comments

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  346. Interesting idea to make SCOTUS a unanimous body but it goes with our asinine system where 40% can unload a bomb like Trump . Never happen.
    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc) — 12/28/2017 @ 9:37 am

    A list of some of the more famous elections and popular votes (total/percent):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_college_results
    George Washington None[31] 43,782 100.0 (69 / 138 electoral votes)
    1860 Abraham Lincoln Hannibal Hamlin 1,865,908 39.8%
    1912 Woodrow Wilson Thomas R. Marshall 6,296,284 41.8%
    1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt John Nance Garner 22,821,277 57.4%
    1964 Lyndon B. Johnson Hubert Humphrey 43,127,041 61.0%
    1980 Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush 43,903,230 50.7% (525/538 Electoral votes)
    1992 Bill Clinton Al Gore 44,909,806 43.0%
    2000 George W. Bush Dick Cheney 50,456,002 47.9%
    2008 Barack Obama Joe Biden 69,498,516 52.9%
    2016 Donald Trump Mike Pence 62,979,636 46.0% 304 / 538
    2016 Hillary Clinton Tim Kaine 65,844,610 48.1% 227 / 538 (lost)

    There are (from what I can see) 4 presidents that have won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote (all Republican).

    I don’t see why making 50%+1 would give us any “better” presidents.

    For better or for worst, the Electoral college eliminates the need for a national (world) wide recount and–Limiting them to a state or two that are “close”. If you want to argue that electoral membership should be “different” (numbers based on US House+Senate count) to something else (massive “house like” national districts that can ignore state boundaries–There is always a constitutional amendment available (current system tends to favor low population states).

    BfC (5517e8)

  347. this particular post though is still a head-scratcher for me

    since President Trump’s comments 27 years ago, there’s about as much consensus that Gorbachev was weak and hapless as there is that the dirty Chinesers were brutal and pig-violent, and I think Mr. Trump’s contrast of the two countries and how they dealt with civil strife is valid

    civil strife in a nuclear-armed state’s always kind of worrisome, and in both these cases the strife was of the sort that the regimes of both authoritarian states were likely facing legitimate existential threats

    that said I think it’s easy to read too much into what Mr. Trump said

    I’d distill his sentiment down to this: what the dirty Chinesers did in Tiananmen indeed served to establish a reputation for the government there – a reputation of being brutal, but also strong and decisive

    He notes that the Russians at the time enjoyed no such reputation, and neither did failmerica.

    Interestingly, and unaddressed I think by anybody in this thread that I’ve seen, is that it was the propaganda slut doing the interview what set up the contrast between Russia and China – not Mr. Trump.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  348. I’m with you, DRJ. It is “Shutupa you facea whya youa saya bada thingsa abouta Mista Trumpa all timea eh?” (click for accompanying hand gesture) expressed in one form or another by some Trump supporters.

    nk (dbc370)

  349. Bfc

    Thanks for those numbers. The Framers seemed yo fear tyranny of the majority but how is minority tyranny better.?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  350. and yet we still trust them, like with Andropov who crushed in Budapest, but he was a big fan of jazz, this was an actual argument in 1981

    narciso (d1f714)

  351. “Shutupa you facea whya youa saya bada thingsa abouta Mista Trumpa all timea eh?”

    Yeah, I think you’re the ones doing the projecting here as numerous commenters have stated repeatedly that while they are not fans of many, many aspects of T they still express opposition/concerns regarding TDS, which then get turned into accusations of “censoring” of P. Concerns regarding TDS are not necessarily endorsements of everything T. Strawman arguments. But that’s just MNSHO. No need to keep crying about it.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  352. that while they are not fans of many, many aspects of T they still express opposition/concerns regarding TDS

    i abjure TDS no question about that, but I’d also submit that *all* of President Trump’s “aspects” are pretty awesome and that they all work together to advance conservative policies – policies that are doing so much to put America back on the path of greatness

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  353. Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner,

    I believe that the framers of the Constitution were a practical bunch… When the Country was founded, there was no telegraph, radio, rail roads, or even pony express… All elections were local, because they had to be. Electing a person as your representative to go to Washington to listen to the candidates and run through (possibly) multiple votes to “get a president” was the only way practical.

    And, with the weighting of states by house+senate votes was a way of limiting the power of the majority (at that time, most countries were mostly rural). They were very aware of human desires and failings.

    Even today, you can see the difference between the rural and urban votes:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/01/upshot/many-ways-to-map-election-results.html

    Today, we have planes, trains (a few), an the Internet. The powers that be have yet to figure out a secure method of online voting. I still prefer paper ballots marked with pencil or pen (machine readable). Punch cars, full electronic ballots, I do not trust (paper ballots have also be forged too–So that is not fool proof either).

    But yet, most (if not all) of our banks today offer online banking. It can be done, but should it be done by the Federal Government (remember the ACA/Obama Care online roll-out–It was both a travesty and a joke).

    BfC (5517e8)

  354. nk,

    I understand it’s hard to hear/read insults about people someone supports but I don’t understand the anger. The anger and the desire to stop Patterico from criticizing Trump (in ways some think are gratuitous), is what reminds me of college safe spaces. Of course, not everyone here does both these things — far from it — but there is enough to make my point.

    DRJ (15874d)

  355. one takes this as a socratic dialogue, respectfully, although how much can we do against a regime with 1.5 million under arms, and a sizable nuclear compliment,

    narciso (d1f714)

  356. 363. yes but Trump said grbachev being weak was a problem. Actually this was good thing. Only Putin thinks that was a problem.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  357. The whole idea of the Federal Constitution was to limit centralized power:

    Article [X] (Amendment 10 – Reserved Powers)

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    If all Trump could do was settle trade disputes between the states and foriegn countries, raise an army in times of war, and run the government from tarrifs–Nobody would really care.

    Now that we have a standing army 16% and 33% SSI+Unemployment, and 27% Welfare+Healthcare, now a huge number of people care vary deeply about how money is spent on them:

    https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png

    Wait until interests rates go backup–6% of budget will go to much higher numbers.

    The 2018 budget is here:

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

    BfC (5517e8)

  358. Actually this was good thing.

    in retrospect yes but at the time one could be forgiven for seeing his weakness as an invitation to chaos and a raft of unfortunate consequences

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  359. yes but the last examples of reform, like krushev, or Kerensky, or stolypin had not ended well, to be charitable, the first was deposed, the second exiled, the third murdered, as it turns out by someone the okrana was monitoring, which is what made soltzhenitsyn curious,

    narciso (d1f714)

  360. DRJ,

    For me, I have tried to respond with arguments and documentation (a president placing 50 million people killer Mao on US gov. xmas tree, policies and actions that have killed tens of thousands implemented by Obama and H. Clinton, etc.).

    I did finally get a reply that an article that I posted was 2 years old and “If you want an in-depth critique of the Orange County D.A., I’ll return your money, because I don’t trust the media on such stories and writing a fair and in-depth post would take far too much time.” from Patterico (I asked the same question two years ago on here).

    And we are doing what here? A ~29 year old quote from Trump on Playboy (with a dead URL to the original full article–That I posted an active link for)–And we are tearing ourselves apart here. I try argue facts (as I see them)–And what “the other side” posts is that we are making excuses and bullying our host and moderator.

    Dead Server Site: https://thecorporateculture.com/2015/playboy-interviewed-donald-trump-25-years-ago/

    Note, I try very little to “defend” and practice “gotcha” quotes myself on posts because I find that can be very poisonous to the discussion.

    A question raised by Admerial Burner, I answered back in a non-snarky/non-judgemental way with some interesting facts (I had forgotten that the Reagan 1980 Electoral College “blowout” was a 50.7% popular vote win). So it can work here.

    I read Patterico to learn. And I learn much from people that I may not agree with.

    I suggest that if you (DRJ, everyone) don’t want to make it personal, then avoid that in your own posts. Model the type of discussions that you desire. “Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.” is not how I would open a new open and free discussion… Sometime tossing a grenade can get a lot of attention and activity. But it can also cause lots of damage too.

    Regarding my $100 to Patterico–Pat, please keep it no matter what. Again, I am looking for interesting and in depth discussion here on the court system. The above in this post is not how I like to move a conversation forward (and not how I would like to “bully” a moderator/owner of this forum to conform to my views of life). If not for the next article, then thanks for the years of interesting, educational, and many times fun, reading (I mostly read here, I do not post a lot, in general).

    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  361. how regimes settle problems, yet justice may yet prevail

    https://faustasblog.com/2017/12/argentina-wsj-editorial-on-nisman/

    narciso (d1f714)

  362. Regarding my $100 to Patterico–Pat, please keep it no matter what.

    I told you I would do a post and I intend to keep my word. You seem interested in one on the justice system and I am happy to do that but would appreciate guidance as to what you would find interesting, specifically. You have given me some guidance and if you don’t want to get more specific than that then I will work with the guidance you have given me.

    Patterico (45a4d7)

  363. I suggest that if you (DRJ, everyone) don’t want to make it personal, then avoid that in your own posts. Model the type of discussions that you desire. “Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.” is not how I would open a new open and free discussion… Sometime tossing a grenade can get a lot of attention and activity. But it can also cause lots of damage too.

    Do you see a difference between using such pejoratives to describe the President, who does not read or comment here, and using them to describe people here?

    I try to be polite to people who are polite to me. I often succumb to being less than polite to those who are not polite to me. But you won’t find many (ideally zeroof almost zero) examples of me personally attacking people here simply for polite and even inpassionated disagreement, if offered in a respectful and honest manner.

    I don’t see why that means I have to be polite to the likes of Donald Trump, whom I would ban if he were a commenter here, for his aggressive dishonesty.

    Patterico (45a4d7)

  364. Bfc:

    How do you regard Publicly Funded Elections?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  365. @ BfC, who wrote above (#351):

    Why not require the supreme court (states/federal) require 9-0 decisions. If the “most learned” minds cannot figure out what the “law is”, then how are “the people” to believe any of this is anything more than Kabuki theater (can find abortion rights in Constitution, that discrimination is wrong but reverse discrimination is right, but cannot find the right to free speech or right to keep and bear arms). Should judges have a three strikes rule–Be overturned or on the “losing side” of a multi-court decision lose their position?

    ….

    BfC (5517e8) — 12/28/2017 @ 9:28 am

    You’re focusing only on the pinnacle and ignoring the pyramids. For context:

    In both the state and federal courts, in matters both criminal and civil, the overwhelming majority of those matters are resolved by compromises among the litigants — in civil cases, by contracts of settlement and release, and in criminal cases, by plea agreements. Some portion of those compromises are affected by pretrial rulings that the trial judge has made in that particular case, but most of them, in fact, are based upon the respective lawyers’ advice to their clients based on past results in similar cases with which the lawyers are familiar, on the assumption that without a compromise, the particular case before them is likely to fall somewhere within a reasonable range of outcomes in similar cases.

    In far less than one in ten civil or criminal cases, a state or federal trial judge — perhaps incorporating the verdict of a trial jury — has to make the final decision on the resolution. Most of those decisions aren’t appealed.

    So by the time you’re talking about the first appellate level, you’re already looking at only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the total number of disputes.

    In the American legal tradition, both state and federal courts assign only one trial judge to each case. (By contrast, many other legal systems, including most in continental Europe, have panels of more than one judge even at the trial court level, which creates a very different set of dynamics indeed.)

    But at the appellate level, the federal courts of appeals, and almost all of the comparable state intermediate appellate courts, sit in panels of at least three judges. The odd number is to prevent tie votes. But in way more than nine out of ten appeals, the three-judge panel, whether state or federal, criminal or appellate, will be unanimous both it its judgment (do we affirm or reverse or modify the judgment of the trial court) and in the written opinion explaining the basis for that judgment. Dissenting votes and dissenting opinions are remarkably rare.

    Some intermediate appellate courts also provide for “en banc” review, meaning that the entire appellate court, and not just three members randomly appointed to particular (and ever-changing) three-judge panels, will agree to re-hear a particular appellate decision. But that too is rare, and indeed, in the federal system, asking for en banc review at the court of appeals level (aka the circuit courts) isn’t even a procedural hoop that must be jumped through en route to seeking SCOTUS review.

    The Supreme Court of the U.S. and most state-court counterparts, at least in larger states, tend to have been given the power of deciding upon their own dockets, meaning they can pick and choose which cases to hear out of a vastly larger number of applications seeking discretionary review. In the SCOTUS, this process is called “applying for a writ of certiori,” and the overwhelming majority of those applications — requests simply to get a hearing in the SCOTUS — are denied by per curiam (unsigned) unanimous orders without any written explanation. The denials have no precedential effect, meaning a circuit court decision that has generated a “cert. denied” decision isn’t any more powerful than another circuit court decision that no one asked the SCOTUS to review. Overall, less than 1% of cert petitions are typically granted in any year, and even if one omits from those statistics the huge numbers of bogus/nonsense criminal appeals and pro se litigation, the chances of getting your cert petition granted are still in the low single digits.

    Even then, some substantial number of SCOTUS cases in which cert has been granted are decided unanimously. Sometimes, after deciding that “Yes, this is an important case in which we should grant certiorari,” the SCOTUS will change its collective mind: My one and only formal appearance as counsel of record in the SCOTUS actually ended up that way, with the writ of certiorari being withdrawn after oral argument as “improvidently granted.” (I was representing the respondent, so this amounted to the SCOTUS deciding that my opponent’s arguments were so silly that they were wasting their time listening to them, and they certainly didn’t need to write about them.) Some cases settle pending appeal, even after certiorari has been granted. Sometimes they become moot (someone dies, for instance, in a case in which their claims didn’t survive their death) and are dismissed by unanimous order.

    And even on cases that generate written opinions, there are a remarkable number of SCOTUS unanimous decisions — even there, at the very pinnacle atop this massive pyramid of cases that have been resolved without any differences being expressed among the co-equal judges reviewing them.

    So it’s only the remaining cases — which tend also to be the most difficult cases, for a variety of reasons — that you ever have competing opinions among SCOTUS Justices. Some considerable number of those aren’t dissents, but separate concurring opinions: “I think Judge Doe reached the right result and I therefore join in the judgment of the panel/court, but I’d have gotten there by a different path than the one he took in his opinion, as follows.”

    And while the losing side may take some small comfort in those dissenting and concurring opinions, their main function is to speak to future litigants and future trial and appellate courts.

    The most famous example in American history is, perhaps, Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which he condemned his brethren for adopting what became the constitutional basis for “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws. That dissent eventually ended up being extremely influential in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ultimately vindicated Justice Harlan’s reading of the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    If the SCOTUS somehow were obliged to reach a unanimous decision in every case, you’d nevertheless end up with “hung Courts” instead of “hung juries,” an intolerable situation. That is to say, on some issues at some times and before some Courts, you simply can’t get unanimity from nine judges. Even if you locked them together in a room, some of them would starve to death before concurring in an opinion with which they fundamentally disagreed on an important topic. The only way to guarantee a unanimous SCOTUS would be to reduce its size to one member (the Chief Justice, whose position is the only federal bench guaranteed by the Constitution).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  366. i bet if you met President Trump in person you’d really like him and then y’all could work together on behalf of our struggling and beleaguered little country

    we few we happy few

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  367. When I agree with Trump on an issue, I agree with Trump. When I oppose Trump on an issue, I oppose Trump. Can we get past this petty sniping and snarking, these implications about what Trump might be about to do (something awful). It is not just irritating – it is boring and childish.

    When dealing with a professional flim flam man, a con artist, stop giving any weight whatsoever to what he says, only pay attention to what he does or does not do. Watch the hands, ignore the patter. Anyone giving weight to anything Trump said, especially 27 years ago, is a complete fool.

    As to what he is actually doing? I agree with most of it. A large percent. In fact I am quite pleased by a lot of his decisions so far. But tomorrow is another day. And I still don’t like him.

    Watch the hands.

    I realize that “Geoman” may be a drive-by commenter, but I have a question or him or anyone who has expressed agreement with this sentiment.

    Why do you judge MY words?

    Why not just judge me by what I do?

    I realize drive-bys can flippantly respond by saying they don’t know anything about me, but there is enough in the public record about me that you could apply to me the standard you claim I should apply to Trump: judge me by my actions and not my words.

    If you can bypass the slander that is out there about me in spades, I am happy to be judged on my professional life and public controversies in which I have been engaged in real life (defending lawsuits e.g.).

    If you try to claim that communication is a big part of my role as a blogger, you’ll have to make the case that communication is not a big part of being President.

    If you try to claim that you said Trump should be judged on his actions because he is a con artist and you don’t say that about me, then your argument is that proven serial liars should be given the benefit of not being judged by their words. Does that really make sense?

    Admit that you are applying a different standard to Trump than you apply to me, and then attempt to rationally justify it.

    Take that as a challenge. Anyone is free to accept it.

    Patterico (45a4d7)

  368. Trump puts up a no-holds-barred fight against the leftwing dismal tide, the Media, and against fundamentalist Islam. Which is more than I can say of any of those who ran against him in the primaries. Furthermore, he’s gotten more done in less time than any president in my lifetime.

    My $.02…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  369. @384. Oh my yes, Mr. Feet. The Donald was a pleasant, exciting and easy meet-and-greet for escalator riders through the public lobby back in his Manhattan/Trump Tower days. A must- like visiting Macy’s, the Empire State Building or waving to fellow groper Matt Lauer on air in Rock Center. Our Captain loves his people and the attention they shine on him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  370. yes yes Mr. Colonel and beyond his political and economic achievements President Trump deserves great credit for the rot and corruption he’s exposed: in the propaganda slut media, at the FBI and in our execrably corrupt intelligence agencies, across wide swathes of the increasingly openly-fascist federal judiciary, in our sleazy incompetent trannied-up military, in academia, and in our cities

    there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube

    where does the sleazy FBI go to get its reputation back after pissing it away so recklessly and so blatantly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  371. Anyone giving weight to anything Trump said, especially 27 years ago, is a complete fool.

    Trump was born in 1944, and thus was in his mid-forties when he gave the Playboy interview in 1990. He was a full-grown man speaking for attribution, on the record (and being tape-recorded), for a national publication.

    Yes, it’s twenty-seven years ago, and it would be very misleading and deceptive to falsely claim that Trump said those same things in 2017. Some people may think that Trump’s changed, or the world has changed, in fundamental ways since 1990. But I don’t think that, and I think it’s absolutely fair to use that interview as one data-point in a more comprehensive argument, whether it’s about Trump’s history or about trying to divine Trump’s current true beliefs.

    “Complete fool” is an ill-considered description.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  372. Playboy has always been the go-to pub for thoughtful discourse on international issues. Second, of course, only to Howard Stern. Lesser eggheads peruse pedestrian, under-the-counter-pubs like Foreign Affairs and chiefly for the fold-out maps; 1990’s Iraq was soooo hot!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  373. ““Complete fool” is an ill-considered description.”

    Perhaps an incomplete fool then? I see where you’re coming from however I don’t prescribe to holding every word uttered by a person against him regardless of how long ago or in what context or in what frame of mind he was in at the time. I also don’t take blow-hards literally, why would you?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  374. Patterico,

    I have listed my (and a few of my friends) hot button. The Orange County issue, I saw as an issue (based on the articles I have read)–And being that they are local to you–I had hoped that you could add missing and correct fault information. For many reasons, that may not work for you.

    The polethera of issues I have listed are all of concern to me (and I think to many others)–But, I am perfectly OK with your choice of topic–Hopefully a #1 or #2 problem (as you see it).

    Regarding: “Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.” And “Do you see a difference between using such pejoratives to describe the President, who does not read or comment here, and using them to describe people here?”

    I don’t really care what you call the president–He is a very flawed man and trying to compare flaws (Hillary vs Donald) was taken care of in the election. And, if that is all you said, it is probably that this thread would have gone differently (and possibly fewer posts).

    The “Your President…” made it personal (in my humble opinion). Now people are left with A: I agree with data; B: I disagree with data; C: Your President was as bad/worst of person with data; D: No, you suck…

    Your blog and you set the tone–Are you more “aggressive” than I would be (or am in the forum I moderate)–Yea, but it does not bother me. I did say I enjoy reading here. I do get a bit confused at times when people (at times) attempt to give as good as they get and you get (and DRJ) get frustrated (and there are the people out there with anti-personal mines).

    Most people’s best writing is on subjects that they are very passionate about. That is all I ask from you (parking meter enforcement is probably not a hot button–But more people are affected by that subject than most legal stuff).

    Do I have a motive for my donation–Yes. I understand you dislike Trump with a white hot passion (at least from what I read here). It is just not working out well for you, DRJ, or many of your readers. I am not God, I do not know what is in your, or DRJ’s, or Happy Feet’s, or Admiral Burner’s heart. I am hoping for more.

    My own life was as a design engineer. And like all engineers, we said that “boy the administrative procedures for documents and changes is horrible”. If “I” every got in charge of the process, I could make it much easier. I eventually did, and I hope, I did make for a set of procedures that made life easier for everyone–And ended up with processes that saved time and give more accurate results.

    The legal system today, it appears to be head bangingly bad. Long process times, high costs, inaccurate results, process is king. In a company, people lose their jobs, people leave, and companies fail. With government entities–I have very little ability to use alternatives (different police, different judges, different laws, different constitution). We do have in civil matters such thing as arbitration… But that has its own issues.

    And I am serious about keeping the (small) donation no matter what. Your family and sanity are most important to you. What some random person “wants” on the Internet comes in a distance (near last?) place. I am serious, write what is in your heart about the top one or two big issues as you see them, and possible solutions.

    Warmest Regards,
    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  375. … a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.

    A businessman; a capitalist.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  376. Bfc:

    How do you regard Publicly Funded Elections?
    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc) — 12/28/2017 @ 11:47 am

    Today–I could see organized “San Francisco” type open debates all across the country (by seat). 1-4pm candidates for Mayors debate post your questions on web, or come to room.

    News papers, radio, TV and such–Are almost useless today (newspapers and radio stations are going out of business, TV is there to make money).

    Lacking using the Internet “government funded facilities+data costs” would be very possible and practical. People debate until they fall over. Get up and come back tomorrow.

    Otherwise, “free speech” is based on money. Let them spend.

    Recent history shows that amount of spending on Presidential Elections did not seem to affect the outcome that much (I could argue that the Press had a larger effect):

    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spent-about-half-of-what-clinton-did-on-his-way-to-the-presidency.html

    Donald Trump threw out campaign spending conventions as he stormed his way to the American presidency.
    The businessman racked up 278 electoral votes as of Wednesday morning, versus 228 for Clinton, with three states still not called by NBC News.

    Trump did so with thin traditional campaign spending. His chaotic and often divisive campaign drew constant eyeballs, earning him billions of dollars in free media and allowing him to spend comparatively little on television ads and ground operations.

    His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton’s. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.

    Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day.

    While Trump’s campaign increased its spending on television ads in its final election push, it still used the traditional outreach tool much less than Clinton’s did. As of late October, Clinton spent’s campaign spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for Trump’s campaign, according to NBC News.

    That disparity extended to campaign payrolls. For example, Clinton’s campaign had about 800 people on payroll at the end of August, versus about 130 for Trump’s. Democrats often have larger ground operations than Republicans.

    Still, it wasn’t just Clinton who heavily outspent Trump. He shelled out much less money than other recent nominees, as well.

    Through mid-October 2012, the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent $630.8 million and $360.7 million, respectively.

    Obama’s campaign also spent about $593.9 million through mid-October 2008. Sen. John McCain’s 2008 campaign actually spent less than Trump, about $216.8 million through mid-October.

    For recent elections, the Democratic Candidate spent much more than the Republican. 25% to 100% more.

    Regarding the Press, wasn’t there some person, years ago, that said the press gave Democratic candidates an X% boost in the polls?

    As I see it right now, if there was a “leveling” of campaign finances–It would impact the Democratic party the most.

    BfC (5517e8)

  377. Some people may think that Trump’s changed, or the world has changed, in fundamental ways since 1990. But I don’t think that…

    The dissolution of the Soviet Union as a superpower; the rise of China as an economic power; the internet explosion; Google, Facebook, Netflix… and Trump went from wife one, Ivana, through wife two, Marla, on to wife three, Melania. ‘Most people’ would agree those are ‘a few’ of many ‘fundamental changes’ since 1990. But do fossil on.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  378. if there was a “leveling” of campaign finances–It would impact the Democratic party the most.

    In a symbolic pyrrhic victory Obama could have gone it alone since McCain refused to comply with the terms but who knows if the Voter would have recognized a sincere attempt to level the playing field.

    How candidates would qualify for funds is another carbuncle. But I think if it was structured like our jury system $20 million would not allow a confusing field of one-sided candidates.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  379. Sorry about the emphasis.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  380. One-ISSUE candidates.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  381. Admiral,

    I remembered it differently:

    if there was a “leveling” of campaign finances–It would impact the Democratic party the most.

    In a symbolic pyrrhic victory Obama could have gone it alone since McCain refused to comply with the terms but who knows if the Voter would have recognized a sincere attempt to level the playing field.

    How candidates would qualify for funds is another carbuncle. But I think if it was structured like our jury system $20 million would not allow a confusing field of one-sided candidates.
    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc) — 12/28/2017 @ 12:54 pm

    https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html

    Obama told supporters in an e-mail message Thursday that he would not accept about $85 million in public funds when he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

    In the e-mail, Obama said the public campaign financing system allowed “special interests [to] drown out the voices of the American people” and asked his supporters to “declare our independence from a broken system.”

    McCain said that Obama’s move to drop out of the system “should be disturbing to all Americans” and that he may decide to opt out, too.

    “Sen. Obama’s reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals … that he has taken,” McCain said while touring flood-damaged parts of Iowa.

    And, Obama did win (as we recall) by spending huge amounts more than McCain:
    https://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/

    Q: Who spent more money on advertising, McCain or Obama?

    A: Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it’s been closer to 5-to-1.

    FULL ANSWER

    According to figures supplied by the campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence, Obama has spent an estimated $280 million on TV advertising since Jan. 1 of last year through Nov. 1.

    McCain has spent less than half as much, just under $134 million, according to CMAG, which tracks advertising in the top TV markets.

    Those figures include amounts spent in both the primary and the general election campaigns. Since the two candidates clinched the nominations of their respective parties, the spending disparity has been greater, reflecting Obama’s greater ability to attract private donations, and his decision to do without public funds or the spending limits that go with them.

    During the 60 days ending Nov. 1, Obama has outspent McCain on television by better than 2.5-to-1. And in the most recent week, Obama has spent $23.6 million to McCain’s $4.8 million, a spending advantage of nearly 5-to-1.

    That’s a Big Difference. What Gives?

    There’s no question that Sen. Barack Obama, who opted out of the public financing system, has raised more money than anyone in the history of U.S. politics. As a result, Sen. John McCain, who opted to receive public financing, was at a stark financial disadvantage to his Democratic rival.

    Admiral, unless I miss understood your point (that Obama had a pyrrhic victory). Generally, that would mean that Obama won but at such a cost that eventually he would fail (which I agree with, but for vastly differing reasons):

    Pyrrhic victory – Wikipedia
    A Pyrrhic victory (/ ˈ p ɪr ɪ k / ( listen) PIRR-ik) is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.

    Remember, I don’t trust the media either–If somebody has different sources, please feel free.

    BfC (5517e8)

  382. Trump has been president for almost a year. What has he done while in office that lends credence to the argument that he is an authoritarian?

    kaf (70c17d)

  383. Admiral, what do you mean by:

    Asian Trump admirers.

    DENY, DENY, DENY

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china/china-says-no-sanction-breaking-oil-sales-to-north-korea-idUSKBN1EM0TK
    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc) — 12/28/2017 @ 1:15 pm

    Obviously, there are some big issues out there on the peninsula:

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/284419/

    CHANGE: China halts oil product exports to North Korea in November as sanctions bite.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/26/china-halts-oil-product-exports-to-north-korea-in-november-as-sanctions-bite.html

    Beijing also imported no iron ore, coal or lead from North Korea in November, the second full month of the latest trade sanctions imposed by U.N. China, the main source of North Korea’s fuel, did not export any gasoline, jet fuel, diesel or fuel oil to its isolated neighbor last month, data from the General Administration of Customs showed on Tuesday.

    November was the second straight month China exported no diesel or gasoline to North Korea. The last time China’s jet fuel shipments to Pyongyang were at zero was in February 2015.

    “This is a natural outcome of the tightening of the various sanctions against North Korea,” said Cai Jian, an expert on North Korea at Fudan University in Shanghai. The tightening “reflects China’s stance,” he said.

    OR IS IT? Chinese ships accused of breaking sanctions on North Korea.
    https://www.ft.com/content/21a0407e-eadd-11e7-bd17-521324c81e23

    Chinese vessels are secretly trading oil products with North Korea in violation of UN sanctions, diplomats have confirmed.

    The news is likely to embarrass China and raise questions about its record of enforcing sanctions against Pyongyang over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes.

    Diplomats from an Asian country confirmed information published this week in the South Korean press that such trade persists despite sanctions.

    Last month the US Treasury published satellite photos of ships linked to each other at sea, apparently trading oil. Chosun, the prominent South Korean newspaper, on Tuesday cited people within South Korea’s government saying 30 such hookups had been spotted by spy satellites since October.

    The clandestine oil trade apparently started soon after new sanctions capped the amount of oil products North Korea was allowed to import.

    It’s complicated.

    Do world leaders lie? What are Asian Trump Admirers Denying? A “true Trumper” would call anything from Reuters “fake news”).

    BfC (5517e8)

  384. Yes, I recall now. You are correct. Obama was disappointing in a number of ways in that time period. In particular his Senate vote on TelComs was in direct conflict with his campaign rhetoric. I trust the media insofar as I can corroborate through 2 or more sources.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  385. It’s just Trump drive- by. The point is there is satellite images of ship- to- ship transfer, yet the denial….so Trump-like

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  386. :
    Admrial,

    You do know that “Trump” released this evidence “last month” (not sure of date–article is paywalled):

    Last month the US Treasury published satellite photos of ships linked to each other at sea, apparently trading oil.

    Or was releasing the photos the “Trump drive-by”? So, yes, this was “so Trump-like” because “he” did it… I am a bit confused.

    BfC (5517e8)

  387. Admiral Be Bunsen Burner,

    A sincere question, not trying to be snarky.

    When you found out that a Republican McCain was OK with public financing and a Democratic Obama bailed out 9 years after the fact–What did that mean to you?

    Obviously, asking the question (more or less) off topic of me, it is (probably) very important to you.

    Does this change your attitude on public financing? Does it change your belief/understanding of Obama and McCain?

    I realize that there is much more to a candidate/party than a single issue and this is not going to affect your belief system.

    BfC (5517e8)

  388. The legal system today, it appears to be head bangingly bad. Long process times, high costs, inaccurate results, process is king.

    Bill, process is king because that is the basis of our legal system. James Madison in Federalist 51 explained a government of men would be easy if men were angels. Since government is but a group of men then we must find ways to control government. The Rule of Law — the process — is how we keep government from infringing our life, liberty and property.

    Is it imperfect? Absolutely, as all human things are, and like your efforts to improve your profession it can be improved. But due process and equal protection are not obstacles. They are safeguards, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  389. I felt like the other schmucks who get taken by rhetoric. No, it doesn’t change my view of PF. We need it.

    Otherwise, thanks to Citizens United we are locked into oligarchy.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  390. Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner,

    Citizens United was “against” Hillary Clinton in 2008. Since its funding would still have left a net positive in funding for Democratic Candidates (at least for president)–As seen in my previous post, Obama outspent McCain by 3-5:1 (depending on phase of campaign). Was true before McCain-Feingold, still true afterword.

    Assuming that you are not a fan of McCain (and McCain-Feingold is the one that unconstitutionally limited Citizens United), it would seem to have little effect on election outcomes.

    Most elections seem to fall into the 2 terms Democratic followed by 2 terms of Republican. In office events (died in office:FDR, assassination:JFK, unpopular war:LBJ, coverups:Nixon, poor politics:GW Bush, poor executive:Carter) seem to be a better indicator of next president: Democratic vs Republican.

    BfC (5517e8)

  391. Maybe it’s me BfC but it seems like you’re not interested in discussing conceptual election reform. Your info specific thoughts remind me of Sammy Finkleman

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  392. The legal system today, it appears to be head bangingly bad. Long process times, high costs, inaccurate results, process is king.

    Bill, process is king because that is the basis of our legal system. James Madison in Federalist 51 explained a government of men would be easy if men were angels. Since government is but a group of men then we must find ways to control government. The Rule of Law — the process — is how we keep government from infringing our life, liberty and property.

    Is it imperfect? Absolutely, as all human things are, and like your efforts to improve your profession it can be improved. But due process and equal protection are not obstacles. They are safeguards, too.
    DRJ (15874d) — 12/28/2017 @ 2:22 pm

    From a business point of view, you will go out of business if process is king.

    There are many processes used that have essentially twisted laws and Constitution into saying the opposite of what is written.

    If the end result of the the process is not justice–Then way not start over.

    I have worked in Process is King situations. They become highly bureaucratic, frustrating, and ineffectual. Everyone is afraid to do anything, and if anything goes wrong, it is nobody’s fault because “we followed the process”.

    The process itself, is not rule of law. It a a process that, in theory, is there to implement laws and settle disputes–To process disputes and people through the system.

    In engineering, we had processes that had to follow rules, regulations (like UL, Telecom, etc.) and laws (multiple countries regulations and laws). The process was common and applied to many different “laws”.

    If the process applied laws to the data (people, evidence, etc.) incorrectly, then the system is wrong.

    https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/#exonerated-by-dna (~335 cases to date?)

    Now that we have “high tech” lab processes, we can see how many people the existing system has messed up.

    We have seen “captive laboratories” that have done little better than divining rods and chants for over decades:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html?utm_term=.a2a4b5234c09

    The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

    Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

    The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

    Forensic Odontology & Bite Mark Comparison
    https://locardslab.com/2016/09/28/forensic-failures-ray-krone-bite-mark-blunders/

    As DNA analysis was not carried out during this investigation, Krone’s conviction was almost entirely based on the ‘expert’ opinion that his teeth matched the bite marks on the victim’s body.

    Dental identification is based on the theory that every individual’s dentition is unique, and thus bite marks made by a person will be distinguishable. In theory, this is true – we all have different combinations of jaw sizes, varying dental work and unique wear patterns to our teeth. Bite mark comparison may involve a variety of methods, including overlaying appropriately-sized photographs of teeth and bite marks and fitting together physical moulds.

    At the time, there was little reason to doubt the testimony of the forensic odontologist hired by the prosecution. Raymond Rawson was a well-established expert who was certified by the American Board of Forensic Odontology, his findings in this case were supported by another expert, and the discipline of bite mark comparison had been practiced for almost 20 years. Furthermore, a 1984 study had provided “statistical evidence for the individuality of human dentition”. The expert witness testimony seemed perfectly reputable.

    Well, that is until we look a little closer.

    The seemingly convincing 1984 study was actually research conducted by Rawson himself, and has since been widely criticised as being a flawed study, largely because he used hand-traced dental impressions for his comparisons, a non-randomised subject selection process, and statistical tests not relevant to his type of data. Other experts had quite rightfully stated that the results of the study should absolutely not be used in a legal case.

    A study conducted ten years previously comparing bite marks in wax and pig skin to the teeth of subjects stated that, although bite marks in wax were easily assessed, those made in pig skin were difficult to examine and the results unreliable. The research concluded that incorrect identification of bite marks on pig skin were made 24% of the time under laboratory conditions, and even as high as 91% of the time when based on photographs taken 24 hours after the bite marks were initially made. The study highlights the clear difficulties in subjective fields of work such as forensic odontology. Experts will often be required to examine bite marks that are hours or even days old, obscured by bruising and abrasions and typically not entirely representative of the biter’s teeth. At times it is challenging enough to merely identify an injury as a bite mark, let alone successfully compare it to a set of teeth.

    Despite these apparent shortcomings, Ray Krone was to spend a decade of his life behind bars.

    It just goes on and on:
    http://www.ncstl.org/evident/april-2011-californias-crime-lab-problems-chesen

    The Task Force’s report was disseminated just months after the National Academy of Sciences issued a scathing report called “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.”6 The NAS Report documented numerous concerns and made several recommendations, including:

    No forensic science method except DNA analysis had been rigorously tested and shown to consistently and with certainty indicate a connection between evidence and a specific individual;
    State and local crime laboratories consistently lack the necessary resources to maintain forensic labs. These resources include money, staff, training and equipment;
    An independent federal entity should be created with the goal of creating unified practices and standards in the forensic field.

    While not every lab “failure” resulted in an “unsupported” conviction, they have been pressed for conclutions that they are simply unable to support in any certified manner (double blind studies, ongoing qualifications, etc.).
    Plea bargains–Another “corruption” of the system?
    https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=jclc

    II. THE HISTORICAL RISE OF PLEA BARGAINING AND ITS
    INNOCENCE PROBLEM
    On December 23, 1990, a twenty-one-year-old woman was robbed and
    sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant in New Jersey.27 Three days
    after the attack, and again a month later, the victim identified John Dixon as
    the perpetrator from a photo array.28 Dixon was arrested on January 18,
    1991, and ventured down a road familiar to criminal defendants in the
    United States.29 Threatened by prosecutors with a higher prison sentence if
    he failed to cooperate and confess to his alleged crimes, Dixon pleaded
    guilty to sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, and unlawful possession of a
    weapon.30 He received a sentence of forty-five years in prison.31 Ten years
    later, however, Dixon was released from prison after DNA evidence
    established that he could not have been the perpetrator of the crime.32
    While the story of an innocent man pleading guilty and serving a decade in
    prison before exoneration is a tragedy, perhaps it should not be surprising
    given the prominence and power of plea bargaining in today’s criminal
    justice system.33
    Plea bargaining, however, was not always such a dominant force in the
    United States.34 In fact, when appellate courts first began to see an influx of
    such bargains around the time of the American Civil War, most struck
    down the deals as unconstitutional.35 Despite these early judicial rebukes,
    plea bargaining continued to linger in the shadows as a tool of corruption.36
    Then, in response to growing pressures on American courts due to
    overcriminalization in the early twentieth century, plea bargaining began a
    spectacular rise to power.37 That today almost 97% of convictions in the
    federal system result from pleas of guilt, such as John Dixon’s in New
    Jersey in 1991, is both a testament to the institution’s resilience and a
    caveat about its power of persuasion.38
    Then, in response to growing pressures on American courts due to
    overcriminalization in the early twentieth century, plea bargaining began a
    spectacular rise to power.37 That today almost 97% of convictions in the
    federal system result from pleas of guilt, such as John Dixon’s in New
    Jersey in 1991, is both a testament to the institution’s resilience and a
    caveat about its power of persuasion.38
    A. THE RISE OF PLEA BARGAINING
    While most discussions regarding the rise of plea bargaining begin in
    the late nineteenth century, the full history of plea bargaining dates back
    hundreds of years to the advent of confession law.39 As Professor Albert
    Alschuler noted, “[T]he legal phenomenon that we call a guilty plea has
    existed for more than eight centuries . . . [as] a ‘confession.’”40
    Interestingly, early legal precedent regarding confessions prohibited the
    offering of any inducement to prompt the admission.41 As an example, in
    the 1783 case of Rex v. Warickshall, an English court stated, “[A]
    confession forced from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of
    fear, comes in so questionable a shape . . . that no credit ought to be given
    to it.”42 While plea bargaining as it exists today relies upon the use of
    incentives, common law prohibitions on such inducements persisted until
    well into the twentieth century.43
    The first influx of plea-bargaining cases at the appellate level in the
    United States occurred shortly after the Civil War.44 Relying on past
    confession precedent prohibiting the offering of incentives in return for
    admissions of guilt, various courts summarily rejected these bargains and
    permitted the defendants to withdraw their statements.45 These early
    American appellate decisions, however, did not prevent plea bargaining
    from continuing to operate in the shadows.46 Plea bargains continued to be
    used during this period, despite strong precedential condemnation, at least
    in part as a tool of corruption.47 As an example, and as Professor Alschuler
    has previously noted, there are documented accounts that by 1914 a defense
    attorney in New York would “stand out on the street in front of the Night
    Court and dicker away sentences in this form: $300 for ten days, $200 for
    twenty days, $150 for thirty days.”48 Such bargains were not limited to
    New York.49 One commentator in 1928 discussed the use of “fixers,” who
    negotiated bargains between the government and the defense in Chicago,
    Illinois:

    Plea bargaining has been both a corruption of the system and a source of corruption. And has little to do with justice any more.

    Probably enough for now…

    BfC (5517e8)

  393. Maverick wee a sucker to have taken that deal, and he wee a knave to throw that electuon

    narciso (d1f714)

  394. Admiral,

    I have brought up a few things regarding elections and reforms (processes, why things are the way they are now at the presidential level)… Could even add term limits to all elective offices at the state level (California did that quite awhile ago, and I would be hard pressed to find any “improvements” even though I voted for it in 1996).

    I was just interested in your thinking and how you got there. It means so much to you. What do you want the reforms to “fix”?

    Many election “reforms” are just there to give an advantage to one candidate or another (typically incumbents).

    But probably should not be in this thread. It is getting quite a bit off topic.

    BfC (5517e8)

  395. 327

    You certainly don’t have to agree with him but I wish everyone would make an effort to understand his points … and then argue with him instead of attacking him.

    The problem isn’t understanding his points. I think most of us realize he thinks the Republicans should have nominated someone else in 2016. The problem is he is just repeating the same arguments over and over again. And in any case the decision is made, the Republicans can’t go back in time and nominate someone else. If one of your children marries someone you don’t like is it productive to keep telling them they made a mistake?

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  396. 351

    … Why not require the supreme court (states/federal) require 9-0 decisions. …

    Because it is important for people to know what the law is going forward. Unless you are only going have single judge panels in some cases the judges will disagree as some cases are genuinely hard with reasonable arguments for both sides. So some trial court judges will rule one way and some the other way. So if there is no way of imposing uniformity because appeals panels are also split the law will vary depending on which trial court judge is initially assigned to your case which is undesirable.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  397. Your President …

    BTW this is wording appropriate for someone who is not an US citizen. For a US citizen it should be “My President … ” or “Our President …” or perhaps “The President …”.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  398. I mentioned this novel on the other thread:
    http://www.sfreviews.net/fitzpatrickswar.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  399. The virtue signaling will never cease…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  400. Thank you very much for the detailed reply Beldar–I really missed reading you when you took some time off a couple years ago (and a bit concerned). I will try to keep my replies short as I am already taking up too much bandwidth on our host’s forum.

    Try some cut and pastes, and avoid links/quotes for now:

    @ BfC, who wrote above (#351):

    Why not require the supreme court (states/federal) require 9-0 decisions….

    You’re focusing only on the pinnacle and ignoring the pyramids. For context:
    BfC: In business, requirements and attitudes “roll down hill”–For better or worse. If not, then we have a bunch of people doing their own thing.
    In both the state and federal courts, in matters both criminal and civil, the overwhelming majority of those matters are resolved by compromises among the litigants — in civil cases, by contracts of settlement and release, and in criminal cases, by plea agreements. Some portion of those compromises are affected by pretrial rulings that the trial judge has made in that particular case, but most of them, in fact, are based upon the respective lawyers’ advice to their clients based on past results in similar cases with which the lawyers are familiar, on the assumption that without a compromise, the particular case before them is likely to fall somewhere within a reasonable range of outcomes in similar cases.
    In civil cases, people are free to negotiate their optimum results–Take a chance with a judge–In my humble opinion
    In far less than one in ten civil or criminal cases, a state or federal trial judge — perhaps incorporating the verdict of a trial jury — has to make the final decision on the resolution. Most of those decisions aren’t appealed.
    In my previous post to DRJ, I have stated that I believe that over charging and plea bargaining is a corruption of the system. There are guilty people that take the bargain because the risk of trusting the system is too high. We could not plea bargain the design of a computer or building–It will fail if the results of the process are wrong–Whether the process was followed correctly or not.
    So by the time you’re talking about the first appellate level, you’re already looking at only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the total number of disputes.
    I understand, but if the process is so cumbersome that we have to accept a small travesty (plea bargain of the innocent, tweaking lab results to grease the skids of justice, using Ouija board science to grease more skids) of justice because it was better than a bigger travisty of justice? Don’t buy it.
    In the American legal tradition, both state and federal courts assign only one trial judge to each case. (By contrast, many other legal systems, including most in continental Europe, have panels of more than one judge even at the trial court level, which creates a very different set of dynamics indeed.)
    At some point, either the courts will have to take a pass on trials that are out of their area of expertise, or have panels/process points (and people) that do have area of expertise. The whole “expert witness” process would not pass outside of the legal system.
    But at the appellate level, the federal courts of appeals, and almost all of the comparable state intermediate appellate courts, sit in panels of at least three judges. The odd number is to prevent tie votes. But in way more than nine out of ten appeals, the three-judge panel, whether state or federal, criminal or appellate, will be unanimous both it its judgment (do we affirm or reverse or modify the judgment of the trial court) and in the written opinion explaining the basis for that judgment. Dissenting votes and dissenting opinions are remarkably rare.
    If we had processes in business/engineering/etc. where we had to have an odd number of participants to get “correct or any” results–We would laugh at it. By “voting” on justice, then we are accepting that personal opinions and biases are part of justice. For juries, generally we have to have a 10-2 or 12-0 result for (criminal?) convictions (as I understand–There are wide variations across the USA).
    Some intermediate appellate courts also provide for “en banc” review, meaning that the entire appellate court, and not just three members randomly appointed to particular (and ever-changing) three-judge panels, will agree to re-hear a particular appellate decision. But that too is rare, and indeed, in the federal system, asking for en banc review at the court of appeals level (aka the circuit courts) isn’t even a procedural hoop that must be jumped through en route to seeking SCOTUS review.
    I understand the process (in general)…. I have just seen to many “court/judge” shopping–It appears to be “unseemly” for a system of justice. I live in the 9th circuit–one of the more overturned courts (~3 on the list?) by SCOTUS. I understand that appeals take difficult cases and difficult cases generally make for poor law (adage).
    The Supreme Court of the U.S. and most state-court counterparts, at least in larger states, tend to have been given the power of deciding upon their own dockets, meaning they can pick and choose which cases to hear out of a vastly larger number of applications seeking discretionary review. In the SCOTUS, this process is called “applying for a writ of certiori,” and the overwhelming majority of those applications — requests simply to get a hearing in the SCOTUS — are denied by per curiam (unsigned) unanimous orders without any written explanation. The denials have no precedential effect, meaning a circuit court decision that has generated a “cert. denied” decision isn’t any more powerful than another circuit court decision that no one asked the SCOTUS to review. Overall, less than 1% of cert petitions are typically granted in any year, and even if one omits from those statistics the huge numbers of bogus/nonsense criminal appeals and pro se litigation, the chances of getting your cert petition granted are still in the low single digits.
    Understand
    Even then, some substantial number of SCOTUS cases in which cert has been granted are decided unanimously. Sometimes, after deciding that “Yes, this is an important case in which we should grant certiorari,” the SCOTUS will change its collective mind: My one and only formal appearance as counsel of record in the SCOTUS actually ended up that way, with the writ of certiorari being withdrawn after oral argument as “improvidently granted.” (I was representing the respondent, so this amounted to the SCOTUS deciding that my opponent’s arguments were so silly that they were wasting their time listening to them, and they certainly didn’t need to write about them.) Some cases settle pending appeal, even after certiorari has been granted. Sometimes they become moot (someone dies, for instance, in a case in which their claims didn’t survive their death) and are dismissed by unanimous order.

    And even on cases that generate written opinions, there are a remarkable number of SCOTUS unanimous decisions — even there, at the very pinnacle atop this massive pyramid of cases that have been resolved without any differences being expressed among the co-equal judges reviewing them.

    So it’s only the remaining cases — which tend also to be the most difficult cases, for a variety of reasons — that you ever have competing opinions among SCOTUS Justices. Some considerable number of those aren’t dissents, but separate concurring opinions: “I think Judge Doe reached the right result and I therefore join in the judgment of the panel/court, but I’d have gotten there by a different path than the one he took in his opinion, as follows.”
    Not a huge fan of multiple concurring opinions. When you get 5-4 decisions (based on political leanings of justices)–Not a good outcome (IMHO). Now you are down to the decision of one judge “for the law of the land”. We got Obama Care (really, a constitutionally allowed function of the Federal Government?). Does not really demand much respect (and it appears Roberts changed sides during deliberation).
    And while the losing side may take some small comfort in those dissenting and concurring opinions, their main function is to speak to future litigants and future trial and appellate courts.

    The most famous example in American history is, perhaps, Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which he condemned his brethren for adopting what became the constitutional basis for “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws. That dissent eventually ended up being extremely influential in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ultimately vindicated Justice Harlan’s reading of the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    So, if we required 100% agreement on the SCOTUS Plessy v. Ferguson, then we could have had gotten rid of institutional segregation 60 years earlier because they would have had to agreed 100% or have the case “fail” and not become law–Cannot be decided?–Yes, I am being a bit “flip” here.
    If the SCOTUS somehow were obliged to reach a unanimous decision in every case, you’d nevertheless end up with “hung Courts” instead of “hung juries,” an intolerable situation. That is to say, on some issues at some times and before some Courts, you simply can’t get unanimity from nine judges. Even if you locked them together in a room, some of them would starve to death before concurring in an opinion with which they fundamentally disagreed on an important topic. The only way to guarantee a unanimous SCOTUS would be to reduce its size to one member (the Chief Justice, whose position is the only federal bench guaranteed by the Constitution).
    Beldar (fa637a) — 12/28/2017 @ 11:48 am

    Or, you (the system, legislatures, executive branch) remove justices that are not able to do their job (reach agreement). We have very complex systems and people have to come to consensus. People that do not “bring value” to the process are retrained or eventually let go.

    How can anyone be part of a process that “one” thinks is fundamentally flawed (convicting innocent, using plea bargains to save work, etc.).

    If we have a consistent (or a fair number of) 5-4 or 6-3 decisions, then those 3-4 people are not adding value to the process. It it takes 60 years for their opinions to become “law”–Then they should be part of the legislative process instead/write papers/get the “right people” elected.

    Again thank you very much Beldar. I enjoy your posts. And I am sorry for my poor attempts to reply (trying to make bold statements to be clear–Not saying that these are my “final” positions). Between trying to keep it short and that I am not a lawyer–Just geting opinions aired and figure out where I am weak/wrong in my reasoning.

    Warmest Regards,
    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  401. One funny thing is that the Democratic folks were planning, for a time, on how to make Trump (aka not Bush) the Republican presidential candidate:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10348

    Agenda for Weekly Long-Term Message Planning Meeting

    How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?

    Just too funny.

    BfC (5517e8)

  402. @ BfC, re #230: Thanks for the special care you took to ensure that your points of divergence or disagreement were not any kind of personal attack on me. I’m unsurprised to read that you have an engineering background. It’s a perspective that I appreciate and admire, having represented engineers on occasion and having worked with them as expert witnesses quite often. Sometimes at the end of those engagements, we’ve come away with a slightly better understanding of each other’s professional domains — but at a distance, through a dark veil, dimly. I’m reminded of an old lawyer joke, one I think I’ve told here before:

    A university’s board of regents is interviewing for a new president. They are down to the final three interviews — an engineer, a political scientist, and a lawyer. They bring in the engineer and ask him: “How much is two plus two?”

    The engineer takes out his slide rule (yes, it’s that old a joke), manipulates it briefly, jots a couple of notes, triple-checks them, and replies: “It’s four point zero zero as measured to three significant figures.” The regents thank and excuse him, then bring in the political scientist, to whom they put the same question.

    The political scientist chews on the end of his finger for a second, scratches his chin, and mutters arguments to himself briefly. Then, after visibly composing himself, he replies: “It’s four, plus or minus 1.75, unless it snows, in which case all bets are off.” The regents thank and excuse him, and then bring in the lawyer, to whom they put the same question.

    The lawyer immediately walks to the door and locks it. He dims the lights, then strides to the speakerphone on the conference table and unplugs it. He walks to the windows, shuts them all, and pulls the blinds. Then he beckons the regents to one end of the conference table, where he motions for them to lean in close. He looks right, looks left, and then looks at them and asks, “How much do you want it to be?”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  403. Hey, remember this guy? http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/us/drexel-university-professor-resigns/index.html He wished for white genocide and, apparently, the alt.wienerschnitzel-und-grits said “Ok, we’ll start with you”.

    nk (dbc370)

  404. 419

    If we had processes in business/engineering/etc. where we had to have an odd number of participants to get “correct or any” results–We would laugh at it. …

    Engineering standards are often determined by committees that take votes.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  405. James,

    The votes on committees is probably more akin to a legislature writing the laws. Not a justice system figuring out if engineers and companies are implementing properly.

    When things go really south, the justice system may be involved.

    BfC (5517e8)

  406. Engineers don’t argue whether titanium should be used or that aluminum is strong enough with a third one chiming in that the weight difference is not that significant so let’s go with steel?

    nk (dbc370)

  407. 424

    The votes on committees is probably more akin to a legislature writing the laws. Not a justice system figuring out if engineers and companies are implementing properly.

    Judges write laws too. Maybe you think they shouldn’t but in practice it seems unavoidable.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  408. They agree on the basic properties of the laws. They disagree on the application. Rarely, they alloy a new one.

    nk (dbc370)

  409. Judges should never write laws.

    If they do, run for for office and re-election every 2-4 years.

    And all new judge laws need to be confirmed by legislator and executive branches.

    We have three co-equal branches of government.

    Otherwise we could just get Obama back in office and let him do it all. That seemed to be how he rolled.

    BfC (5517e8)

  410. 428

    Judges should never write laws.

    As I said it seems unavoidable. Laws are written in general terms and it is up to judges to fill in the details.

    And all new judge laws need to be confirmed by legislator and executive branches.

    If the legislature doesn’t agree with how judges are interpreting their laws they can pass a new law that explicitly covers the cases in question.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  411. Well, the evolution of stare decisis in Anglo-Saxon law has a much longer and more complicated history than the evolution of titanium alloys, but the rationale for its existence is the same: The judges/engineers, faced with a new application in a changing society and unable to find an existing suitable material, of necessity invented a new one. I will grant you, that was more true in the early days when local judges and juries had to cobble together some kind of law for the case before them because people learned in the law were few and the King far away. But there are still cases for which the legislatures have made no provision, today.

    nk (dbc370)

  412. If they do, run for for office and re-election every 2-4 years.

    In Illinois, it’s two years for Associate Judges, six years for Circuit Judges, and ten years for Appellate and Supreme Court Justices. I’d like to see that in the federal system, too, even if it is still by appointment. Right now, we have too many District Judges who are the alter egos of the Senators who blue-slipped them, and too many Court of Appeals Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are the alter egos of the Presidents who appointed them, all from decades ago. We had FDR appointees from the 1930s in the 1970s, for crying out loud.

    nk (dbc370)

  413. Judges can always strike down a “bad” law as unenforceable…

    BfC (5517e8)

  414. In Illinois,

    It’s the Chicago way.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  415. In Illinois, they keep a ledger of judges. [YouTube]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  416. Ok, ok, papertiger, you can contribute to the conversation, too. Are Gruncle Stan’s teeth in “Gravity Falls” supposed to be gold or just yellow?

    nk (dbc370)

  417. 432

    Judges can always strike down a “bad” law as unenforceable…

    They are properly reluctant to do this. If the legislature passes a bad rape law (for example) do you really want the courts to throw the whole law out rather than try to fix it if at all possible.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  418. If the legislature passes a bad rape law (for example) do you really want the courts to throw the whole law out rather than try to fix it if at all possible.

    Yes.

    We’re talking about a state legislature. All the heavy lifting, the ten commandments and such, has been done long ago. New legislation especially on such a well plowed field will necessarily be slip shod haphazard pander to a narrow demographic, and an oppressive finger in the eye to the rest of us.

    Besides the more the legislature is forced to stretch and extend itself on fluffy evening news sound bite fodder the less time it will have to screw the world up for the rest of us, banning grocery bags (for instance).

    papertiger (c8116c)

  419. How about fines and fees charged to the sponsors who bring forward bills that are eventually declared unenforcible?

    Wouldn’t that grab em by the lapel?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  420. … papertiger, you can contribute to the conversation, too. Are Gruncle Stan’s teeth in “Gravity Falls” supposed to be gold or just yellow?

    nk (dbc370)

    Sorry. You trying to belittle me with some crack about a television show? Not familiar with that one.

    And if you want a private conversation with your buddy you should send him an email.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  421. Illinois. Is only good as an example of how not to do it.

    Instead of holding Illinois up as an exemplar you should be begging the rest of the country’s forgiveness.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  422. As an engineer I feel compelled to point out that two plus two cannot be 4.00 to three significant digits (stated redundantly). It can only be four. Though that itself is a mathematical answer. A proper engineer would ask, “Two of what?”.

    DSCAASPCA would point out that he saw the movie A Beautiful Mind and thus he is an expert on mathematics, therefore any answer he were to give (heaven only knows what that might be) is the correct one, thus the engineer is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  423. Two traits one must have in running for president as a democrat.
    obnoxious and black.

    mg (8cbc69)

  424. Obnoxious isn’t a must.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  425. Engineering makes mistakes, just like in law. Hopefully we learn from them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  426. “This time one year ago, the assumption dominating political coverage was that the only people more stupid than Donald Trump were the deplorables who elected him.

    Since then, of course, President-elect Trump has become President Trump. Over his 11 months in office, he has put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and four times as many judges on the appellate courts as Barack Obama did his first year; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; withdrawn from the Paris climate accord; adopted a more resolute policy on Afghanistan than the one he’d campaigned on; rolled back the mandate forcing Catholic nuns, among others, to provide employees with contraception and abortifacients; signed legislation to open up drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; initiated a bold, deregulatory assault on the administrative state—and topped it all off with the first major overhaul of the tax code in more than 30 years.

    And yet that Mr. Trump is a very stupid man remains the assumption dominating his press coverage.

    Let this columnist confess: He did not see Mr. Trump’s achievements coming, at least at first.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stupidity-of-donald-trump-1514233232?shareToken=stcf24d54ff04b430485c60cf7e7873650&reflink=article_email_share

    Colonel Haiku (455bcf)

  427. When engineers make mistakes, bad things happen. People can die. Engineers are held accountable, if not by law by a higher authority called reality. When lawyers make mistakes, they can pass another law, generally making things worse, wink-nod to a judge, etc. etc. etc. Don’t play legal beagle games with me. I am well aware, far more aware than you can possibly understand, of what a miserable, evil, rotten profession the law has become in this country. Though I must admit it is even worse elsewhere…looking at you, Italy. The fact that lawyers would rather bury their heads in the sand than listen to any criticisms of what great thinkers they are is what is at the root of this mess. Engineers can’t do such things. Attempts to do so, as I state above, have real-world consequences. Thus two plus two equals four. Not 4.00 to three significant digits. You can tell a lawyer wrote that joke. Pretending to be self-deprecating. Really just bragging. Some of us are on to you scum. And that is why you want to hide from us.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  428. Engineers are my favorite people. Great people. Tremendous people. The best people.

    They made switchblade knife laws obsolete by designing folding knife blade pivots that incorporate a pair of dime-sized axial bearings that allow the knife to be opened with the flick of a fingertip on a protrusion on the blade. Like this. No springs, no buttons. Yay!

    nk (dbc370)

  429. And that is why you want to hide from us.

    Ha, ha, ha! Just admit that you’re scared sh!tless of lawyers and the legal system, CFarleigh.

    nk (dbc370)

  430. “2017 was the year that the United States of America got up off its knees. It was the year that we stopped following the world and started leading it. It was the year that our booming economy accomplished the impossible. It was the year that we became a great nation again.

    And one man is responsible for that.

    President Trump promised to make America great again. And every day, it’s happening. Factory workers and small businessmen, farmers and ranchers, soldiers and police officers are waking up to a renewed America. Time chose a social justice hashtag as its ‘Thing of the Year’. We’re choosing the man who turned the country around as our “Man of the Year”.

    When President Trump promised 4% economic growth, the media herded together economists to prove it couldn’t happen. CNN surveyed 11 economists and Bloomberg asked 80 economists. They agreed it was impossible. 2% growth was the best that we could hope for. And we would have to get used to that.

    And then the GDP growth estimate for the fourth quarter of 2017 approached 4%.

    Americans are realizing that maybe we don’t have to just get used to dividing up the last torn shreds of a failing economy between leftist crony billionaires and their officially entitled victim groups.

    Maybe we can do better.

    The S&P 500 Index has gone up 20% this year and the Dow is up 25%. Holiday shopping season sales are up almost 5% over last year. Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. The unemployment rate is at a 17-year low. The manufacturing industry just had its best month of job gains for the year.

    All of this isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s the knowledge that things are getting better. You can’t fake it. The media spent eight years promising a recovery that no one believed in. Obama announced that the recovery had happened more times than he ended the Iraq War. And just like the end of the war, it never happened. It’s happening now because people are living a better future.

    Call it… making America great again. Not for government officials, but for ordinary Americans.

    Obama made life great for government bureaucrats. In the era of hope and steal, the bedroom communities of Washington D.C. became the wealthiest counties in the country. Americans lost their jobs, veterans lost their lives and the government bureaucracy grew fat on their misery.

    While the VA was killing veterans by putting them on waiting lists to save money, it paid out $142 million in bonuses. The EPA did its best to kill the economy while profiting from its misdeeds. It paid 8 employees $1 million to do nothing. One EPA employee managed to rip off the government to the tune of almost $1 million while pretending to be a CIA agent. Now the free ride for the swamp is finally over.

    Under Obama, the IRS handed out $100 million in bonuses to its employees. Tens of thousands of dollars went to Lois Lerner who had targeted conservative groups. Under Trump, the former IRS commish, on whose watch the targeting happened, is warning that tax reform will be a disaster for the IRS. Meanwhile after tax reform, millions of people across the country are getting $1,000 bonuses.

    That’s what the Trump economy looks like.”

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268864/frontpage-magazines-man-year-president-trump-daniel-greenfield

    Colonel Haiku (455bcf)

  431. Ha, ha, ha! Just admit that you’re scared sh!tless of lawyers and the legal system, CFarleigh.

    As I said, scum of the earth. You know nothing of what I have seen and come to understand. May every last one of you rot in hell.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  432. If one of your children marries someone you don’t like is it productive to keep telling them they made a mistake?

    James B. Shearer (951d11) — 12/28/2017 @ 4:27 pm

    It’s productive to point out new mistakes as they make them. It’s not helpful to act like everything they do is perfect just because you want to avoid conflict. That’s the path to disaster.

    DRJ (15874d)

  433. NJ does a good impression of Luigi vecotti, even though hes not Italian.

    narciso (d1f714)

  434. What happened, CFarleigh?

    DRJ (15874d)

  435. It makes me wonder what skeletons you have in your closet, CFarleigh. You may be worried about nothing, you know. Just go to to Google and type in [Your state] + statutes of limitations. Then do it with federal. Then once more with statutes of repose.

    nk (dbc370)

  436. On second thought, you probably don’t want to talk about it here, CFarleigh. I’m sorry you had a bad experience.

    DRJ (15874d)

  437. It makes me wonder what skeletons you have in your closet, CFarleigh

    What specifically at this time has me miffed about you scumbags has ZERO to do with me. Or at least in regard to its origination. Yet I’m not even allowed to discuss it with my wife, let alone you dirtbag lawyers. It has to do with a community organization that I do volunteer work for. It is a case (or originates with a case) that has dragged on for over a decade now. I had nothing to do with this organization at that time. Didn’t even know it existed. But now that I am RESPONSIBLE for the organization, I have been dragged into it. So F-U about skeletons, you scum. You prolly got more skeletons in your closet than I do.

    Look, you law scum have basically legislated us into a state of anarchy where words have little to no meaning until each and every interaction between two people/entities/whatevs can potentially be pulled into a court room where what happens is open to interpretation. We are moving beyond Kafka’s worst nightmares in many regards.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  438. Common sense is not allowed or common:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/lebanon-fm-slammed-for-saying-we-are-not-against-israel-living-in-security/

    He is a rare maronite, the ones freedman wrongly blamed for shatila massacre, but he didn’t make the same mistake in his book

    narciso (d1f714)

  439. Plenty of weirdos in every profession. Obviously.

    Leviticus (3424cd)

  440. I was right. See how I teased him into confessing, Leviticus? Renee Zellweger couldn’t have done it better.

    nk (dbc370)

  441. I was involved on two altercations with vehicles where the drivers didn’t have insurance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  442. Any sockpuppets here?

    I know some use alter egos for nefarious purpose, but others might want to see responses untouched by previous impressions. It’s not hard to discover as one’s style always rises.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (fed2dc)

  443. And see how I got nk to expose himself for the unrepentant scumbag that he is? Damn, I’m good (* spikes football here *). Some professions have more weirdos than others. Most never learn the damage that they do.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  444. Some people never learn, CFarleigh, but maybe it’s not as clear cut as you think.

    I know a pediatrician who stupidly maimed and almost killed two children. He still thinks he is a great doctor, and I guess he is to the children that he helped instead of hurt.

    DRJ (15874d)

  445. I imagine the victims/survivors of engineering disasters are not very forgiving or understanding about those mistakes, either.

    DRJ (15874d)

  446. Judges used to invalidate whole laws/sections. New laws are (rarely, sometimes, most of the time–I don’t know) now written with a boilerplate that the rest of the law shall remain in force if any particular section has been invalidated by the courts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

    In law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. Sometimes, severability clauses will state that some provisions to the contract are so essential to the contract’s purpose that if they are illegal or unenforceable, the contract as a whole will be voided. However, in many legal jurisdictions, a severability clause will not be applied if it changes the fundamental nature of the contract, and that instead the contract will be void; thus, often this is not explicitly stated in the severability clause.

    Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.[1]

    So, obviously, judges do invalidate laws.

    One of the problems I have with “Judicial Law”–You cannot find them in the law. You have to dig through court cases to figure out how one judge may have “written” such a law, then figure out if it only applies to one case or to the general public, and then figure out if it only applies in that court/region, or if it now, somehow, applies to the entire US.

    Makes it impossible to read legislative law by itself to figure out what is “the law”.

    Yes, engineers do make mistakes–And we try to fix them as soon as possible (so that the product does not cause more issues). And add the wonderfully bureaucratic Engineering Change Process. The owners of the process were taking over 1 year to allow the documented and needed changes through to manufacturing–They literately told me that delaying the process was preventing further mistakes from being made. Me “WE ALREADY HAVE A MISTAKE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED”.

    So what happens, new processes are created that “go around” the ECP roadblocks so that we make good product and can fix what is wrong. And we now have two or more sets of competing documents on how to manufacture. Of course, it was nobody’s fault that the process became this way.

    As an engineer it was killing us as we did not know what was being manufactured. And we ended up with layers of mistakes trying to correct other mistakes.

    Sound like the legal system today?

    BfC (5517e8)

  447. @441. It’s ‘farleigh’ obvious: deadwood.

    Culled and bitter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  448. Feel free to blame the law and lawyers for every problem. You’ve clearly made up your mind, as has CFarleigh.

    By the way, remember the Ford Pinto? Ford’s engineers knew they designed a dangerous car but management either was not told or decided to sell it anyway. Some say the engineers were too afraid to tell management. Either way, maybe having someone willing to stand up to a strong-willed boss — even when it is unpopular — is a good thing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  449. Meh! When lawyers were drafting the Constitution, engineers were still wondering why pot lids rattle when the water boils.

    nk (dbc370)

  450. Oh God, really? You do know about the Title IX “Dear Colleague Letter” from Dept of Education under President Obama?

    432

    Judges can always strike down a “bad” law as unenforceable…

    They are properly reluctant to do this. If the legislature passes a bad rape law (for example) do you really want the courts to throw the whole law out rather than try to fix it if at all possible.
    James B. Shearer (951d11) — 12/28/2017 @ 10:48 pm

    https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

    And how, with another stroke of the pen, it became “non-operative”:

    https://www.bustle.com/p/betsy-devoss-title-ix-sexual-assault-announcement-kills-obamas-dear-colleague-letter-2356036

    Just one of many instances where, somehow, “what appear to be something “law like” and “justice like” are created out of whole cloth by some guy with a pen and a phone. Created all sorts of havoc.

    So, yes, I do want a bad rape law to be thrown out. How in the heck do you “fix this”?

    I always liked the photo shop of a news photo. Leftist UC Berkeley protests being pepper sprayed by a phalanx of police. “We Want More Government” on one side. “More Government” on the other…

    BfC (5517e8)

  451. The misguided, disastrous Dead Colleague letter was a product of Obama’s executive branch, not Congress.

    DRJ (15874d)

  452. Feel free to blame the law and lawyers for every problem. You’ve clearly made up your mind, as has CFarleigh.

    By the way, remember the Ford Pinto? Ford’s engineers knew they designed a dangerous car but management either was not told or decided to sell it anyway. Some say the engineers were too afraid to tell management. Either way, maybe having someone willing to stand up to a strong-willed boss — even when it is unpopular — is a good thing.
    DRJ (15874d) — 12/29/2017 @ 9:14 am

    So, all of the talk about “blame the law and lawyers for every problem”. Go to the effort to document a few problems, and now I have made up my mind as some other poster.

    Can you actually provide a rebuttal that educates me where I am wrong? FBI Lab was not corrupt? Bite Mark analysis was not Ouija board science? Innocents Project did not find innocent people found guilty by the system? Innocent people do not plead guilty because they fear the power “of the state”?

    By the way, the engineers knew and told the bosses that there were safety issues. The engineers were ignored:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/

    Same as space shuttle failures–Known problems, limitations listed by engineers, but “the management” convinced themselves that all was fine (launching in freezing weather, changing the foam to an “environmentally friendly green material” that fell off tanks during launch were all known problems before the catastrophic failures occurred.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/the-space-shuttle-a-case-of-subjective-engineering

    Engineers work for management, politicians, whatever. Just like everyone else. But we do not have Qualified Immunity. We get prosecuted for our mistakes if we do not have the shield of government.

    Meh! When lawyers were drafting the Constitution, engineers were still wondering why pot lids rattle when the water boils.
    nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2017 @ 9:23 am

    Look at the “modern” EU Constitution vs US Constitution… ~400 pages vs 15. The summary is 40 pages.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/inddem/docs/papers/14%20point%20summary.pdf

    The world was, mostly, agrarian at that time. Now, a modern micro processor has ~100 million to ~781 million transistors in about 0.4 square inches:

    https://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_transistors_does_a_modern_CPU_processor_have

    “We” learned from our mistakes…

    BfC (5517e8)

  453. Keep it up, legal beagles. Just further proving my point of what worthless scum y’all are. No responsibility in the profession. Hence the arrogance. Nearly impossible for unscrupulous lawyers to get disbarred.

    Two down, 48 to go. Attorney Douglas E. Mackenzie recently got suspended from practicing law in his second state in two years. The latest was Minnesota. Previously, California suspended, and then disbarred him. If he keeps this up, this may turn into a real-life 50 state bar arcade game, “Whack a Mac.”

    Actually, California suspended Mackenzie three times, in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and apparently a fourth time, too, before disbarring him. The first two were over his failure to comply with state child and/or family support orders. The third time, the State Bar suspended him over the far more egregious offense of not paying his bar fees. (That’s a “state bar” joke.) He was similarly suspended in Minnesota for non-payment of bar fees. Unlike some bars, state bars apparently don’t let you run a tab. They take their fees very, very seriously.

    Actually, maybe it’s not a joke, at that. A judge of some 20 years writes on sttpml.org, “There are only two things a lawyer can be absolutely certain will get him/her disbarred: Steal from your clients or, even worse, fail to pay your bar dues. The latter is the most serious conceivable offense…”

    It’s a little unclear in Minnesota Law blog, but it sounds like Mackenzie got suspended a fourth time while still in the middle of his third suspension, because he continued to represent clients in front of the Patent and Trademark Office. That’s apparently what got him disbarred.

    While suspension is more common than disbarment, the former is still uncommon, and the latter almost unheard of. (Unless you’re a U.S. President or Vice-President. Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were disbarred from practicing in Maryland, New York, and in front of the Supreme Court, respectively.) According to the ABA, in 2011 just 1,046 unjust lawyers were disbarred nationally, out of approximately 1.27 million practicing lawyers, a less-than robust 0.08 percent. Less than a rounding error.

    Sorry there’s some math in that. If y’all could do math you’d be accountants, a marginally more respected profession but since Madoff, well….

    So who is going to punish them? Other lawyers? Hahahahaha. Scum. Nothing y’all can say to defend yourselves. When I was a youngster the law was to some degree a respected profession. Sure there were inklings and such. The occasional joke or two. But as the abuses piled up and more and more people are sucked into the legal system thanks to more and more laws getting written by more and more lawyers (hence the anarchy), the cat is out of the bag on you people. And nothing has solidified my understanding of this than the way discussions are handled here. The arrogance, the ignorance, the near complete lack of self awareness. But ya’ll keep paying your bar fees. Your fellow scum have your backs.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  454. The misguided, disastrous Dead Colleague letter was a product of Obama’s executive branch, not Congress.
    DRJ (15874d) — 12/29/2017 @ 9:35 am

    Title IX was written by Congress:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

    Title IX, as a federal law enforced in the United States of America is considered a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688. It was co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh in the U.S. Senate while being renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002 after Patsy Mink, its late U.S. House co-author and sponsor. The following below is the original text as made signed into law by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1972:[1]

    It is either everyone’s fault. Or it is nobody’s fault. I have a problem if it is “nobody’s fault”.

    I have not researched all the good and bad of Title IX, but “We” did get through almost 200 years as a country without it.

    By the way, DRJ, I am LOL over your typo (I think it is a typo Dead vs Dear). 😉

    BfC (5517e8)

  455. Same as space shuttle failures–Known problems, limitations listed by engineers, but “the management” convinced themselves that all was fine (launching in freezing weather, changing the foam to an “environmentally friendly green material” that fell off tanks during launch were all known problems before the catastrophic failures occurred.

    Bingo. But don’t tell DSCASPCA that. He saw a movie once. Knows all he needs to know. Scum.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  456. You should have kept your hand out of the cookie jar, CFarleigh. “I din’ do nothin’, it was some other guy” just doesn’t fly. Any scumbag lawyer could have told you that if you had bothered to ask.

    nk (dbc370)

  457. DRJ,

    The misguided, disastrous Dead Colleague letter was a product of Obama’s executive branch, not Congress.
    DRJ (15874d) — 12/29/2017 @ 9:35 am

    What do you mean by this? That lawyers were not responsible? Obama was a lawyer. I am sure that the Dept of Ed is crawling with lawyers. The letter was probably written/approved by lawyers.

    That because it was promulgated the federal government executive branch, it was not “the government’s” fault? Not Congress’ fault? If only Obama knew, he would not have let it happen (an homage to “if only Stalin knew…”).

    IF ONLY STALIN KNEW: VAIN HOPES IN THE TERROR
    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/14/world/if-only-stalin-knew-vain-hopes-in-the-terror.html

    But because I actually pointed to the letter (sourced from a .gov address) that I do not “understand” something? That I am a terrible person because I think that this is an example of terrible government? It is “my fault” for the letter because I voted against Obama, but because I live in California that Obama won?

    BfC (5517e8)

  458. You should have kept your hand out of the cookie jar, CFarleigh. “I din’ do nothin’, it was some other guy” just doesn’t fly. Any scumbag lawyer could have told you that if you had bothered to ask.

    Heh. This is comical. You have no idea wtf you are talking about and are apparently completely lack reading comprehension skills as I indicated the genesis of this predates my involvement with the organization. An organization that did nothing wrong. I just happen to be in charge of it, due to failing health of the former leader (who herself had nothing to do with it either and whose failing health I believe has something to do with the stress involved here), at the time it is finally coming to trail. What is amusing to me, me being the one who knows the details, is that you scumbag law scum can only understand things in the context of your own moral failings. Thus the projection. The case that I am involved in involves a lunatic plaintiff who sues because s/he/it is a very miserable, paranoid, sick person. All involved understand this, lawyers, judges, etc. yet have allowed this BS to go on for ten years. A pox on all your houses.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  459. BfC,

    You linked the same Popular Mechanics’ article that I linked, above, to say the engineers knew about the design flaw. The original report (that was not included in the Popular Mechanics’ article) said the engineers were afraid to tell management. I linked that, too. I believe some engineer would have acted differently had they known the outcome, but not all. It’s human nature to avoid making hard decisions if you can.

    I noticed the Dead Colleague typo after I posted that comment. It was an unintentional typo but I thought it was funny, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  460. CFarleigh, putting the best light, in your favor, on everything you have said, you seem to me to be a stodgy and timid person who cannot deal with things outside his routine. Whom else, besides lawyers, do you blame for disturbing your nine-to-five couch potato existence?

    nk (dbc370)

  461. BfF and CFarleigh,

    There are legal abuses and problems, including some you highlight. I did not practice criminal law so my knowledge of that is limited to what I read, probably like you, but I’m sure there are problems there and in all areas of the law.

    I am especially concerned with regulatory laws because it is harder for everyday Americans to fight the administrative regulatory system. The executive is responsible for the administrative system. I cared about it when Reagan, Carter, the Bushes, and Obama were President and now that Trump is President. It is too much power, and everyday lawyers (like I used to be) are just as unhappy as you are.

    No profession is exempt from abuse. In my daily life, I have been far more impacted by doctors than by engineers, accountants or lawyers. Some of my experiences have been good and some haven’t. That doesn’t mean all doctors are bad. In fact, most have been very good. My guess is most people have similar good and bad experiences if they deal with many professionals, including with lawyers.

    DRJ (15874d)

  462. nk, you seem to me just another simple scumbag prolly whiling away the hours in mommy’s basement. Which is why you and numerous other fellow travelers, can be found here every time I drop in every few weeks or so. I’d encourage you to go out and get a real job but God only knows what damage you would do. Just stay put you shameless little troll. But I’m done feeding you.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  463. DRJ,

    I am sure you are a very compassionate person. Perhaps even involved in the “caring” arena (I seem to recall that you were involved in nursing, but I am probably wrong/got it mixed up with another poster here).

    I do not like to get confrontational, I prefer to let the facts stand for themselves.

    In Engineering, we had design reviews that were very taxing. I still remember my first when my coworkers and senior folks would ask me a 1,001 questions about my design. There was no avoiding… If you did not have a correct answer, everyone knew it.

    I more complex projects, could you bury stuff that was “close”? Yep. But it was usually not a good idea because, many times, those came back to byte you (a little computer joke).

    Being completely open about everything works well. Avoiding issues and facts–Usually fails in engineering.

    If we cannot even acknowledge or examine the obvious failures of the Justice system (and government in total), we cannot even begin to fix the problems. Lack of ownership and responsibility–Does not fly in engineering and most businesses.

    And somebody does not think that there are engineering arguments about Titanium et. al. You do not know engineers. There are people (like me) that collect Titanium, stainless steel, copper, brass, aluminum variants of flashlights (frequently the same mechanical design). Each has its unique draw.

    BfC (5517e8)

  464. BfC 475,

    My point was that Congress was not responsible for the Dear Colleague letter. Obama was. Lawyers were certainly involved but I think that was using law for a political goal. I do not approve of that but both sides do it. I would much rather see lawyers, judges, and government be ethical and even-handed in applying the law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  465. No profession is exempt from abuse.

    Yes, this is true DRJ. And I certainly don’t mean to imply otherwise. However we do have choices in who or what we involve ourselves with. Buy good quality cars, choose a trustworthy accountant. But the law will suck you in and abuse you even for trying to help your community. This is the problem with the law. I think we (you and even P and T supporters) that this is the main reason to have limited government. But the law has gotten so onerous and seeped into every nook and cranny of life that it is damn near impossible anymore to avoid it. Laws contradict other laws, etc. such that anyone is vulnerable to the whims of the lunatic fringe.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  466. I favor transparency, too, BfC. And I am not a nurse.

    DRJ (15874d)

  467. I definitely favor limited government, CFarleigh, for the same reason you do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  468. I think one reason (among many) that Patterico blogs is to bring transparency to legal issues. I know I try to bring whatever knowledge i have to the discussions for the same reason, and I like to learn from others about their work/professions. I do that because I want to make things better, not to excuse them or cover them up.

    DRJ (15874d)

  469. nk has a job.

    DRJ (15874d)

  470. In my industry (US computers and telecommunications) most(?) of the regulations I work with were “private” not governmental (UL, ETL, TUV, Ma Bell, etc.). So there was a lot less “social engineering” in them (thank god).

    For the most part, the regulations were enforced by our customers and internationally, customs.

    And, the end result was insurance–We needed to insure “best practices” to have working insurance (not to say that we did not think of people/end users–Just one of many “customers” in our thought processes).

    Europe as turned into the bureaucratic state (so have other countries like Japan). Where no matter who is elected, the bureaucratic state plows straight ahead with their own policies.

    Something that Trump is working against now (Deep State), and frankly why many of us voted for him.

    -Bill

    BfC (5517e8)

  471. I want reform, too, BfC. I believe Trump can bring change in the media, which is a good thing, but I think he will delegate governing to the GOP establishment and other government institutions. (Jonah Goldberg thinks so, too). So far I’m glad that many decisions have been conservative, e.g., Trump has delegated most of his judicial nominations to The Federalist. But his instincts aren’t conservative so I worry that won’t last, or that the GOP establishment will return to being moderate.

    DRJ (15874d)


  472. But his instincts aren’t conservative so I worry that won’t last,

    Had you commented that statement a year ago I would have agreed, but today I think his instincts may just be conservative. I can’t name a thing he’s done that I would call liberal or worse, leftist. I’m thinking he nay have been a conservative doing the best he could in a leftist state, a leftist city and all run by leftist politicians. NYC has a communist mayor for crap sake. Maybe he ain’t as lib as I(we) thought.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  473. A third instance would make it a pattern:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/opinion/canada-trump-taxes-1.4463400

    I think if attention would be paid to what he is doing, which lowry wasnt doing or Goldberg to the end of the year.

    narciso (d1f714)

  474. Dang it, narciso, in your 493, you missed what’s between the lines. How can we expect George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and the other rich Hollyweirdos to move to Canada now when it will mean that they’ll be subject to a much higher tax rate?

    nk (dbc370)

  475. AI hadn’t considered that as a motive, that just the cherry on top.

    narciso (d1f714)

  476. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/us/politics/pakistan-american-aid-255-million.html

    The problem Pakistan may stand to lose agreat deasl more if tehy co-operate than if they don’t. It would be hard to hide their guilt for many things – although they could shut down the terrorism anyway without coming clean.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  477. I think he’s trying to please his base, Hoagie, so it’s very important that Trump understand that is what is expected. He wants approval and if he thinks he can get more of it doing moderate things, he will. Fortunately the liberals will never give him approval so I don’t think he will do too many liberal things. Except DACA. He is clearly going to let the DACA kids stay.

    DRJ (15874d)

  478. Yes laiskar, Indian mujahadeen harakat muslimiyah are appebtages of isi, the head of the first even fielded a candidate in thus current round.

    narciso (d1f714)

  479. A liberal, if that’s the word, New York Times columnist, without using thse words, complains about Trump Derangement syndrome:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/opinion/trump-liberals-armageddon.html

    To travel the liberal byways of social media over recent weeks was to learn that Donald Trump was on the precipice of axing Robert Mueller and was likely to use the days just before Christmas, when we were distracted by eggnog and mistletoe, to lower the blade.

    Christmas has come. Christmas has gone. Mueller has not.

    To listen to Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, the tax overhaul that Trump just signed into law is no mere plutocratic folly. It’s “Armageddon” (Pelosi’s actual word). Their opposition is righteous, but how will millions of voters who notice smaller withholdings from their paychecks and more money in their pockets square that seemingly good fortune with such prophecies of doom on a biblical scale?

    Some of these Americans may decide that the prophets aren’t to be trusted — and that the president isn’t quite the pestilence they make him out to be….

    He seems to be afraid it might cost the Democrats votes, or so he argues.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  480. Sorry about the bad code.

    DRJ (15874d)

  481. Appendages, isi also had a small but significant role in building up the Chechen islamists, according to bodansky.

    narciso (d1f714)

  482. Terrorist puppets are in danger of taking over the government of Pakistan.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  483. One news report I heard claimed that “a law” tghat allowed them to stay expires in March.

    Actually Trump set taht deadline, and theer never was a law. People don’t understand thsi, because the situation is so irrational.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


  484. 501.Most people want DACA so that’s fine, but it’s not what he promised

    If “most people want DACA” which I find hard to believe, they do only because they have been sold a bill of goods on what it’s about by the fake media. I fail to understand how any conservative let alone Americans could “want” any form of chain immigration. The left has brainwashed the people into thinking immigration is good when it is neither good for America nor bad for America and can be either. Immigration for the sake of immigration succeeds only in strengthening the democrat party and adding millions to the welfare rolls and if it continues we will have a one party country. It’s a scam and you all better know it.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  485. No because Obama wanted to be unaccountable, and daca wee the first part of amnesty

    narciso (d1f714)

  486. CFarleigh,

    Patterico has more insight/sympathy for your legal concerns than you may realize.

    DRJ (15874d)

  487. Google DACA Polls and DACA has large support among every demographic. Polls can certainly be wrong but these seem overwhelming.

    DRJ (15874d)

  488. Then he is taking a risk, but they keep speaking of third rails

    https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfrum/status/946576246590320640?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  489. Immigration strengthens the Democratic Party on;y because republicans have been so opposed.. What actually benefits the Democratc Party, is not succeeding.

    They want to run – everywhere – on the basis of irrelevant issues that are either noincontroversial or are talked about as if they are; they hide anything controversial they are doing.

    They also are acting as protectors against dangers that aren’t real – except that when it comes to immigration, it is real.

    Republicans aren;t trying to take away Social Security or Medicare, but they are trying to take away legal immigration (although the news may not quite have penetrated) and to deport people who have been mostly left alone for a long time. Obama did that too, but he also exempted people, and tried to exempt more.

    Donald Trump attributed Romney’s loss in 2012 to this factor.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/donald-trump-mitt-romney-immigration_n_2193252.html

    Real estate mogul Donald Trump recently reflected on former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s loss, telling Newsmax that the candidate failed to resonate among certain demographics in part because of his “maniacal” immigration policy.

    “He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal,” Trump said. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote … He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  490. Everybody supports DACA but the problem is, they can’t justify it intellectually.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  491. It awaits an argument, like we awaited an argument against socialism.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  492. 501. DRJ (15874d) — 12/29/2017 @ 11:57 am

    .Most people want DACA so that’s fine, but it’s not what he promised.

    Yes, Donald Trump has a problem here. he made a fasutian bargain. That’s why he wants to get other things related to immigration.

    </a. I worry that it signals all his immigration promises are negotiable, which is not find with me. I want a WALL

    The Democrats actually could give him a wall, or a plan for one or part of one.

    Except that didn’t Trump say Mexico would pay for it?

    Now a wall doesn’t stop airplanes. The’re not flying cocaine into the country any more on airplanes. They’ve been stopped other ways.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  493. @447 nk

    And lawyers in NYC will get you thrown in jail for a so called gravity knife. Plumbers, electricians and gaffers are getting swept up by cops for their work tools essentially. You may not fear lawyers but I know you don’t think too highly of their average police minion.

    Pinandpuller (325c34)

  494. I agree we need to limit or stop chain migration, Hoagie. Trump says that will be part of the DACA deal. I hope so.

    DRJ (15874d)

  495. If it wasn’t for bad rape laws

    We wouldn’t have no rape laws at all

    Pinandpuller (325c34)

  496. A Wall is in many ways a circle jerk (in part for reasons elucidated by Sammy F. above) which, for the life of me, i dont know why it would not be agreed upon by the dreamer/daca advocates if for nothing else to grease the skids for an eventual deal. The R’s need a squad of legitimate real cred-having Tio Tomases (the Astronaut dude in the Modelo commercial, Nomar or Oscar DLH, somebody) that could make the case for DACA in exchange for a wall and legislative movements curtailing chain-migration.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  497. There’s an old joke about a new immigrant. Guy tells him he only needs to know two English phrases.

    It’s not my job.

    He my cousin.

    Pinandpuller (325c34)

  498. There’s very little about New York that doesn’t suck, Pinandpuller.

    nk (dbc370)

  499. The lawyers that inhabit this blog are the sort that Satan would theoretically cast out of hell.

    Pinandpuller (325c34)

  500. Just to be fair I have to allow for the possibility that some of the lawyers here are Dreamers who don’t want to be cast out of Hell

    Pinandpuller (325c34)


  501. 512.Immigration strengthens the Democratic Party on;y because republicans have been so opposed..

    N, Sammy. Immigration helps the democrat party because the vast majority of todays immigrants are not brought to America to add to our country or culture they are brought here to be democrats. This is achieved by things like allowing them free housing, EBT cards, and many, many other premiums which should be only for needy Americans not bribes for second and third world peasants to immigrate here. Just like the democrats own the blacks in the ghetto they own immigrants because they are seen as the ones who “give” them stuff. Never mind it’s our stuff they’re giving after stealing it from our families.

    None of the mass immigrants from Mexico and South America, Africa or the Middle East come here to build America. They come here to escape the sh!thole they built and suck the benefits out of American families. I work with immigrants all the time. Not third worlders but people who bring with them skills, education and a desire to become Americans like our ancestors brought. And these folks aren’t Dreamers, or refugees or ignorant third world disease ridden criminals. They want a chance at the American Dream not a slice of your American pie.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  502. God help you if you ever need assistance along your journey from the descendants of what you define as unwashed or the unwashed themselves. You actually went a long way toward proving Sammy’s initial point.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  503. God help you if you actually believe you’ll get any assistance along your journey from the descendants of people who care not a sh!t about you nor our country. They don’t come to “assist” us in any way. I know. I’ve been helping immigrants become Americans for over twenty years and I can spot a phony a mile away.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  504. @475. Again, ‘farleigh’ obvious: deadwood.

    Culled and bitter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  505. this post seems even less compelling today after President Trump’s State Department released this unequivocal statement about the peaceful protests in Iran

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  506. Well not exactly pikachi, as china is a consumer of Iranian crude.

    narciso (d1f714)

  507. Your President is a nasty and dishonest authoritarian.

    Maybe. He does a decent impression of one at times.

    As a reminder: a year before Tiananmen, the Iranian government executed or disappeared anywhere from 4,000 to over 30,000 political prisoners and suspected militants. Like Tiananmen, a definitive body count has never been established.

    At time of writing, Iranians are taking to the streets of several major cities. The response of the government and pro-government militia has been predictably heavy-handed.

    Unlike the 2009 protests, many of the demonstrators are calling for an end to clerical oversight.

    Also unlike the 2009 protests, the US government has been quick to condemn the Iranian regime’s treatment of its people and indicated American support for those elements in Iran who would further a peaceful transition of government.

    Perhaps some authoritarians are more equal than others.

    JP (aa4555)

  508. 451

    It’s productive to point out new mistakes as they make them. …

    This post was not pointing out any new mistake.

    James B. Shearer (951d11)

  509. oil’s pretty fungible as long as the dirty chinesers are supporting the market by doing purchases anywhere they’re supporting Iran

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  510. In the event that people here are interested in hearing more about these latest Iranian protests from a somewhat better informed source than foreign media outlets, this brief commentary might be worth a look at.

    JP (aa4555)

  511. @532. It’s a crude and slippery business, Mr. Feet! Picture this possible scenario for our Captain: U.S. exports oil to SK; SK exports same to China; China offloads same to NK tankers at sea.

    DCSCA (797bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.5912 secs.