The agents of intolerance have won

screen-shot-2016-09-10-at-10-48-15-amThe day after McCain’s “Agents of Intolerance” speech I was online exploring ways to volunteer for his campaign. Good thing I was quick, because it didn’t last much longer.

That speech in February of 2000, posted here in its entirety, was the last gasp of the Party of Lincoln. For a few weeks that spring it looked as if sane, thinking Republicans might stage a coup against the Neo-Confederate coalition gradually seizing control from the South. That coup failed.

When he took the nomination in 2008, he did it with apologies to his previous positions and a running mate chosen from a ‘basket of deplorables.’ Though he still had the temerity to acknowledge that climate change was real and Obama was a decent human being, he had been forced to abandon almost any other reality-based position. When he lost, the last flicker of Republican sanity had effectively been extinguished.

Human beings struggle to recognize environmental changes that occur gradually, even when those changes are enormous. As an exercise in alternative history, pull up a transcript of one of Donald Trump’s bizarre, stream of consciousness rants and place it next to McCain’s February 28, 2000 speech. That juxtaposition between war-hero statesman and reality TV idiocrat is a capsule of the party’s decline. The man who gave that speech 16 years ago very nearly became President. Now, Republicans will never see anything like that again.

Elections have consequences. McCain’s defeat in 2008 destroyed a rational, pragmatic wing of the Republican Party that will never be revived under that banner. By destroying their influence, Republicans lost the guardrail that could have pulled the party back from its white nationalist death-spiral. Trump is not an anomaly, he is a straight-line descendent of the forces McCain described sixteen years ago.

When he limps back to his bankrupt tower, there will still be no force in the Republican universe capable of stopping his ideological successor. The former Party of Lincoln is now the Party of Trump. There is no going back.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Religious Right, Republican Party, Uncategorized
237 comments on “The agents of intolerance have won
  1. don says:

    This is true but whats left unsaid is why voters turned to trump. trump is the symptom and not cause. voters only see candidates begging for money from powerful special interests and rewarding them in turn with resources that would prevoiusly be used to invest in future generations. right wing media has effectively used fear and sometimes hate to mobilize voters to vote against the public interest. democrats are caught between accepting corporate contributions and losing their base or unilaterally disarming by refusing corporate contributions and hoping not to alienate swing voters. either way so far they cant seem to find a winning formula.

  2. RobA says:

    Trump supporter sucker punches 69 y/o female protestor.

    I know some will say “he can’t help who goes to his rallies. That could’ve happened anywhere”.

    But it doesn’t. No other campaign consistently has this sort of thing that happens at their events.

    If I didn’t know better, I might say it’s almost as if Trump is attracting a larger crowd of pieces of shit then any other candidate. Weird.

  3. Bobo Amerigo says:

    An infuriating story within the last year has been the degradation of workers’ comp, with Oklahoma and Texas leading the way.

    OK legislated ways for companies to opt out of a state-wide workers’ comp system so each company can define it any ol’ way they want. And pay any kind of benefits they want, no matter how severely a worker may be injured.

    Predictably, injured workers lost their homes and weren’t always able to get the medical care they need.

    Their stories are heart-breaking and unAmerican.

    Now the Oklahoma supreme court has ruled that Oklahoma’s version of the law is unconstitutional.


    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Here’s a link to a investigation by ProPublica and NPR.

      Other states continue to try the same thing, but perhaps the Oklahoma ruling will slow them down.

      I smell ALEC.

      • 1mime says:

        ALEC is simply the drafting arm. This smells Republican through and through to me….Do not forget – ALEC works “for” the GOP, not the other way around.

    • 1mime says:

      Bobo, you can chalk this directly up to the decline of unions and creation by Republicans of Right to Work states. This is horrible and it’s been going on a long time. When are working people going to wake up and realize that Republicans don’t give a rat’s *ss for their needs (I started to state “welfare” but realized that term has been compromised….by conservatives).

      As I linked earlier, Republicans are starting to think they might just win this….the Senate is looking more like a lock for them and the presidency with it… is heart-breaking.

  4. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    Lately I have been taking time off from the political news of this election … seems it has helped my digestion after meals. So please forgive me for being a little late to the game on recent developments.

    Where should I begin? I got it…

    Mike Pence.
    Yes, lets start with that piece of s**t.

    Can’t call David Duke deplorable because that would legitimize the language of Democrat Hillary Clinton (can’t have that!) and also because he claims he is not in the name calling business.

    Let’s explore this a little further:

    Mutha****er… your running mate is Donald Trump. If you need examples of what naming calling is, google the history of your a**hole comrade in arms.

    Also, if Mike Pence can’t find it within his heart to call an unrepentant ex-Klansmen, ex-Neo Nazi and currently active white nationalist deplorable he shouldn’t talk to black people, hispanic people, jews, etc. about the threat of sharia law, muslims and ISIS.

    Terrorism comes in all stripes. Just ask the church goers who recently met Dylann Roof for the first time during Bible study.

    Plus… doesn’t this imbecile know of the glorious history of the Klu Klux Klan and their association with Indiana Republicans in the 1920’s?

    Excerpts from an article published by the Courier Press:

    “During the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan took Indiana by storm. Ninety years later Hoosiers still struggle to grasp why.”

    “The secretive brotherhood launched its Indiana recruitment efforts in Evansville in 1920. Within four years, Hoosier Klansmen numbered 250,000 and represented every corner of the state.”

    “Members included ministers, mayors, shopkeepers and factory workers, mostly ordinary people from the wide middle of society,” says historian James H. Madison in “Hoosiers – A New History of Indiana.” “These were mainstream Hoosiers, not a fringe group.”

    “Another factor in Indiana was the charismatic, intimidating leadership of a man named D.C. Stephenson.”

    “Stephenson moved to Indiana around 1920 to take a job with a coal company, according to historical accounts. He unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination for Congress in 1922 and then became heavily involved in Klan recruitment.”

    “Rising quickly in the ranks, Stephenson moved to Indianapolis to assume the duties of Grand Dragon, a position he accepted publicly on July 4, 1923, at a Kokomo rally attended by 100,000 Klansmen and their families. A few months later, he broke away from the national organization to create a rival Klan group.”

    “In the capital city, Stephenson sought to exert his influence on the affairs of state. Politicians of both parties joined the Klan, but the majority were Republicans looking to curry favor with a large voting bloc. In the 1924 elections, the Klan published lists of preferred candidates, noting their religious affiliations and positions on key issues.”

    “Stephenson backed Republican Edward L. Jackson’s successful candidacy for governor and attended Jackson’s inaugural gala”

    My suggestion to Mike Pence is he should smarten up and tread ***king carefully when talking about members (or former members) of the Klu Klux Klan like David Duke.

    Otherwise he might find himself as “highly regarded” by historians as his predecessor Governor Edward L. Jackson.

    Someone has to ask “Is history repeating itself?”

  5. moslerfan says:

    Really good news on income growth. The best part is that income for the lowest fifth grew the fastest. Somebody is doing something right.

    • 1mime says:

      I heard that today on CNBC. Glad to see unemployment down and wages up, but wish growth was more robust. Still, it reinforces the Democrats argument that the economy is steadily improving, even if slowly. I’d like a little less seesaw in Dow performance…these back to back 250 pt swings are not calming…….

    • 1mime says:

      Mosler, I’ve been reading more about the gains to the lower income earners in this economic report. I have a theory about why this might be happening. Sure jobs have slowly gained, but the one big factor is that ten million Americans have health insurance who were unable to obtain it before. This has not only helped people stay well so that they can work, but it has helped them save money that they formerly have had to spend on out of pocket health care for themselves or members of their family. I believe that is a huge economic factor but may not be as obvious as quantifiable wage and unemployment increases.

  6. flypusher says:

    The President shares our exasperation:

    Do your $&@#%£€ jobs, 4th estate.

  7. 1mime says:

    Witness the death spiral of a formerly fine newspaper. I can’t believe I invested in a 6-month trial subscription, even if it was a great rate…My bad…trying to broaden my reading…This is what lurks on the right and passes for “responsible” journalism. In case you can’t read the full article, here is a salient paragraph, but there is much, much more….. Decide for yourself.

    (Setting – Clinton emerges from daughter’s apartment building following her collapse at 9/11 ceremony)

    James Taranto, WSJ: “The Democratic nominee for president of the United States exposed a little girl to an infectious disease for the sake of a photo-op….The purpose of the photo-op was to propagate the lie that the candidate—who had collapsed hours earlier at a 9/11 memorial—was physically healthy….if Mrs. Clinton has pneumonia, her touching that little girl outside daughter Chelsea’s apartment building was the act of a sociopath.”

    • tuttabellamia says:

      My boss supports Mr. Trump. Why? “Because Hillary is so corrupt.”

      Anyway, over lunch today he encouraged my coworker and me to vote for Mr. Trump, and she and I just looked at each other, smiled, shook our heads, elbowed each other, and in a low voice reminded each other of the importance of getting out and NOT voting for Mr. Trump.

      We got our message across, so our boss knows where we stand. The point is we didn’t think it was worth it to get into an argument with our boss.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        This is our way of protesting and fighting against Mr. Trump. Smile and just say no. And then vote against him. No need to complicate matters.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I don’t know where my boss gets his figures, but he said that Trump and Hillary were neck and neck, and that he was confident that Trump would win. THAT’S when my coworker and I looked at each other, grinned, and said “Not if we can help it.”

      • 1mime says:

        The one thing your employer was correct about is stating that Clinton and Trump are neck and neck. Check out recent polling, Tutta.

      • 1mime says:

        It is obvious that you and your colleague have greater intelligence than your boss. Maybe he/she should work for you?

        Here’s a greater concern – What right does your boss have to ask you to vote for anyone? This is the worst abuse of authority imaginable. That this individual used their position to try to influence your vote is abusive.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, he’s not that type of boss. He understands that he has no power over our vote.

        I’ve worked for him for almost 30 years. We’re like family.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        And yes, I’m disappointed that my boss, who is so smart and such a good person, who is almost like family, would support Mr. Trump.

        As for who’s smarter, he and I once compared our IQ scores, and mine was just a little bit higher, and he went around announcing proudly that his assistant was smarter than he was, so he is confident and self-assured.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Mime, the article you cite is at least clearly labeled “Opinion.”

      It’s just one writer’s take on the matter.

      • 1mime says:

        I didn’t object to the article on the basis of it being his “opinion”, I objected to it as responsible journalism in a newspaper that purports itself to be responsible in its reporting. He is a member of the WSJ Editorial Board, and, as such, that should encourage a higher level of commentary. He was snarky and small in his statements and that is not responsible. Make your case, state your opinion without making wild assertions that Clinton is a sociopath for touching a child when she has pneumonia. That goes too far, Tutta.

    • RobA says:

      WSJ was bought by Rupert Murdoch 10 years ago, which is really all that needs be said about that.

      • 1mime says:

        I knew that, but was really hoping to find an intelligent conservative journal to attempt to balance my natural liberal tendencies. I’m insulted when a paper that bills itself as a quality tome doesn’t at least make an effort to present a more dignified approach to their editorials. Remember, we subscribed to the WSJ for 40 years (pre-Murdoch), so we had a certain history and expectation of the quality of the paper. As I said, my bad….guess it’s why they collect the trial fee up front (-; buyer’s remorse is expensive……

        I have found Politico to be doing a much better job of in-depth reporting. I think you’ll appreciate this article on what the problems are for White Americans….

        A telling observation: “if you’ve always been privileged, equality begins to look like oppression.” This in response to the fact (from 538 analysis) that the average Trump voter has an annual income of $72K/yr, which is higher than that of the average Clinton voter.

        Read more:

  8. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    Tragic irony alert. This person unfortunately gets the Dennis Hastert Patriot Act Award of Disastrous Self-Sabotage.

    “State Rep. Peter Pettalia, R-Presque Isle, was killed in a motorcycle crash Monday evening, according to legislative leaders.”

    “Pettalia, a third-term member of the House, was a well-known motorcycle advocate who was instrumental in repealing the helmet requirement for motorcyclists in Michigan. He served as chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.”

    It sad stories like this that remind me that reality is ultimately not subservient to human desires or folly.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      The tragic end of State Rep. Peter Pettalia reminds me of some of the Florida Republicans advocating for off shore oil drilling, which would inevitably imperil the coastline tourism of South Florida. These pro-fossil fuel fools advocated this offshore drilling even after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

      • 1mime says:

        These same FL fools (Republican) risk spread of the ZIKA virus by playing games with House appropriations legislation. These same Republicans insist on budget tradeoffs for hurricane assistance – until they have a disaster in their own states. These same Republicans insist on blocking funding for infrastructure repair for 8 years in order to deprive a Democratic President from “getting credit”. If Romney were President, do you think they would have approved his $800 million dollar infrastructure proposal?

        Hypocrites. This is how Republicans govern. You like it? Vote for them. I’m not.

    • 1mime says:

      More consequences of discrimination. This is what I hope we will see more of. Holding religious wingnuts accountable in the only way that seems to get their attention – $$.

      538 Newsletter: “In light of the effects of the controversial North Carolina legislation that removes protections for transgender people from local ordinances and forces people to use the restroom of the gender they were designated at birth, the NCAA will move seven planned events from North Carolina in 2016-17. The state Republican Party, which pushed the bill through, did not take it well. ”

      Pity partiers, gather around your miserable selves. May your circle get smaller and smaller and your reach that hurts innocent people become less and less possible. Man, we’ve got work to do in the United States of America!

  9. RobA says:

    The pile on continues. When will cons get it? Their obsolete worldview is at odds with what the majority of Americans want today. I think they genuinely believes there was some “silent majority” they were speaking for.

    Perhaps it is starting to sink in that they are fast becoming nothing but a bunch of kooky hate mongers in the eyes of most of America.

    Also, the GOP statement was characteristicly hideous and tone deaf.

    Keep fighting the good fight, GOP. It’s working out so well for you :/

  10. RobA says:

    The best anti Trump ads are the ones where they just play his own words back.

  11. flypusher says:

    KY Governor taketh away (health care) but now he giveth!! Religious war!

    These people are getting all their excuse-ducks in a row.

    • 1mime says:

      And, there you have it, on full display, the religious right in all its glory.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      This is a sitting governor, if Hillary Clinton is elected:

      “The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood. Of who? The tyrants, to be sure. But who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something that we, through our apathy and our indifference, have given away. Don’t let it happen.”

      Hey, we all get caught up in a speech, and sometimes we say things we don’t mean, so I’m sure he walked that back a bit:

      “I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically…But that may, in fact, be the case,”

      Hmmm, so sitting governor is suggesting the possibility of sacrificing his grandkids in a civil war because Hillary is President.

      We wacky liberals generally just joke about moving to Canada, rarely are we offering our children up to die on the White House lawn.

  12. formdib says:

    I was going to post this as a response to a thread or two below, but I realized it covers more than a few topics we’re talking about, including the signifance of Hillary’s ‘basket of deplorables’ comment, the frustration with the media not holding Trump accountable to the same level of scrutiny, the slowly increased threshold of Trump’s statements, and the agents of intolerance:

    “Indeed, what Breitbart understood, what his spiritual heir Donald Trump has banked on, what Hillary Clinton’s recent pillorying has clarified, is that white grievance, no matter how ill-founded, can never be humiliating nor disqualifying. On the contrary, it is a right to be respected at every level of American society from the beer-hall to the penthouse to the newsroom.”

    By Ta-Nehisi Coates.

    • unarmedandunafraid says:

      Coincidently, I just watched Chris Hayes and Ta-Nehisi Coates discussed Hillary’s half-a-basket remark. I was grabbed by the depth of both these remarkable young men. Quite a conversation if you missed it. I would recommend finding it on the web.

      • 1mime says:

        Also, MSNBC programs repeat in two hours. Hayes on at 6-7, repeats at 9-10. I’ll look for it on line as well.

      • 1mime says:

        On the “All in with Chris Hayes Program”, Ta nehisi Coates made an interesting observation – that is, that this overt nationalism actually began when Barack Obama was elected, and Donald Trump is the antithesis candidate……(he also acknowledged that racism has long existed but is now “out of the box” and likely can’t be put back in there again.)

        Think about that comparison….Barack Obama, Black, dignified, courteous, academic, substantive, young, and Donald Trump, White, savy but intellectually lazy, crude, business man, much older, twice married, lacking substance…..

        It was also pointed out tonight on the Lawrence O’Donnell Show that every time anyone in the Trump team is asked about his birther claims about Obama, the response is: “we’re not talking about that”. WHY do they get to dictate the terms of the questions? Why doesn’t Trump have to answer for making this false claim? Where is the media’s responsibility for holding Trump to at minimum, the same base standard of honesty that they are insisting on for Clinton?

      • RobA says:

        Indeed Mime.

        I think we all know how it would go down if Hillary just responded “of we’re not talking about that anymore” when asked about her emails.

      • 1mime says:

        Here’s a pretty decent analysis of how the media views its responsibility during the campaign. You will not be surprised, but you will be disappointed.

        “The result is the evident skewing of editorial judgment we see in favor of stories where media interests are most at stake: where Clinton gets ceaseless scrutiny for conducting public business on a private email server; Trump gets sustained negative coverage for several weeks when his campaign manager allegedly batters a reporter; where Clinton appears to faint, but the story becomes about when it was appropriate for her to disclose her pneumonia diagnosis; where because of her illness, she and Trump will both be hounded about their medical records, and Trump will be further hounded for his tax returns—but where bombshell stories about the ways Trump used other people’s charity dollars for personal enrichment have a hard time breaking through.”

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I swear I heard Gwen Ifill mention the statistics that Coates links to on Newshour tonight.

      Another Coates article:

      “We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

      When Hillary Clinton claims that half of Trump’s supporters qualify as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” data is on her side.”

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        From the June Reuters article:

        In nearly every case, Trump supporters were more likely to rate whites higher than blacks when their responses were compared with responses from Clinton supporters.

        For example, 32 percent of Trump supporters placed whites closer to the top level of “intelligence” than they did blacks, compared with 22 percent of Clinton supporters who did the same.

        About 40 percent of Trump supporters placed whites higher on the “hardworking” scale than blacks, while 25 percent of Clinton supporters did the same. And 44 percent of Trump supporters placed whites as more “well mannered” than blacks, compared with 30 percent of Clinton supporters.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bobo, with respect to the Reuters article, I think the figures for Clinton supporters reflecting their preference for Whites over Blacks are still embarrassingly high and nothing to brag about.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        So, the Clinton camp consists of “only” a quarter basket of deplorables versus half a basket of Trump deplorables? I doubt Mrs. Clinton was thinking of perfect percentages when she made that comment — merely that Trump supporters were divided into two camps: 1. The bigots and 2. Those who feel let down by government. I see no reason to split hairs over her remark.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        I agree, Tutt.

      • flypusher says:

        “Those who feel let down by government. I see no reason to split hairs over her remark.”

        Let’s suppose that instead of “half”, she had said “some”. Does anyone think all the indignant butthurt caterwauling from Trumpland would be any less? I don’t.

      • 1mime says:

        The longer this race goes on, the more I understand Clinton’s reluctance with the media. She is held to a level of public criticism that is far in excess of others in public life. She has faults, she has made errors, but she has also done a great deal of good for our country. Where is the acknowledgement of her contributions when her faults are so on display? When you compare Clinton’s life to that of a Donald Trump and the different standards of accountability he has been held to, this reveals a vicious double standard.

      • flypusher says:

        For more deplorable data points, just check the inbox/Twitter feed of any journalist with an ethnic surname:

        And the comment section, as usual, reenforces his point.

    • tuttabella says:

      I’m not understanding what is happening. Has the mainstream media gone from not taking Trump at all seriously to taking him and his supporters very seriously? Is he winning the media over? Is this phenomenon similar to the one recently described in the Atlantic, about how some intellectuals find it appealing to express solidarity with the masses? So now the media comes down hard on Hillary for her “deplorables” comment? Or does the media think this is the way to be “fair and balanced?”

      • 1mime says:

        Tutta, I agree with you. Clinton is being held to a different standard than Trump. The media is giving him a pass. The things he has said have included such ugly comments to people’s faces, at rallies, in press conferences….yet, the focus is on H’s health record? Where’s his? Why isn’t he being held accountable to produce his tax returns? Address the scathing report by the WaPo on using other people’s donations to his foundation to make donations in his name, the people he is surrounding himself with, the list goes on and on…..why isn’t the media all over him?

      • Most anyone who’s followed this farce of an election has heard about how most Trump supporters recognize that he’s full of it when it comes to The Wall, but they don’t much care.

        Also, over 50% of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton will be elected president, while around 26% believe the same of Trump, iirc. Now unless Trump gets throttled beyond anything even Chris is predicting, safe to presume that even a healthy number of the bigot’s own supporters don’t believe he can win this and yet they’re going to vote for him anyway.

        There are two avenues, as I see it, to understanding the media’s treatment of Trump. One is the clear recognition that barring a political earthquake, this race is already over and so there’s no practical point (beyond journalistic integrity, but that’s another argument entirely) to seriously covering such an unserious candidate and so why not milk him for everything he’s worth?

        Second, and more far more importantly IMHO, is the media’s clear aversion to covering the racist bullhorn that has been at the forefront of Trump’s campaign since he descended that escalator. Seriously engaging that isn’t limited to Trump himself, not by a long shot. What that really means is engaging some of the ugliest and darkest truths in our society that our citizens have effectively turned their eyes away from for a very long time. People understand this.

        Aside from a few select articles willing to brave those waters, I’ve scarcely seen so much as an inkling of serious media outlets willing to fall on their own sword like that. And make no mistake, that’s exactly what it is, because doing so means incurring the wrath of a significant portion of the America electorate, many of whom are willing to resort to violence and goodness knows whatever else if they feel threatened.

        Honestly though, none of that makes much of a damn bit of difference. Trump’s already opened Pandora’s Box and there’s no sealing it back up.

      • 1mime says:

        What does matter is what we do with the racism/bigotry that has been revealed and is not going back into the box where has hidden for decades. How are we as a society going to deal with this? If we as people “can’t” talk about it, our leaders “won’t” talk about it, and our media “refuse” to expose it when they “know” it is happening, what is the way forward? Singularly and collectively, we have to take the first step by acknowledging inequality exists. Then, and only then can we begin to deal with the underlying problems at the heart of racism.

        Our media is driven by profit and ratings with few willing to speak the unvarnished truth. People like Ta Nehisi Coates, by virtue of personal racial experience and intelligent insight, is a lonely voice. The Atlantic Magazine has provided a distinguished platform for distribution of his ideas and concerns, but, how many people read this fine journal? When ugly truths dare not be broached for fear of alienating our friends, family, the consumer base or one’s slice of the electorate, the way forward is hard.

        Enough! Are we a nation that is afraid of its own shadow? Don’t tell me you’re not a racist and condone those who are saying vile things, or, worse, join them with veiled hypocrisy and unfounded attacks of your own. Walk the walk. Get your hands dirty. Risk. DO something to stand up for equality in your own personal way. It doesn’t mean one has to make loud protestations, but it does mean that we stand up for those who need our support.

        Coates was right in his assessment that White Nationalism emerged with the election of our first Black President. Donald J. Trump is their answer. Take that, you liberal do-gooders! This man Trump is pay-back for giving us eight years of Blackness, hoards of illegal immigrants, and giving away our jobs. They would risk our country’s very security on that dare.

        So, where do each of us stand on this issue? If you agree with those who think this man, Trump, represents the best choice for our country, call yourself whatever you want, for me, you are part of the problem, and I do not respect either your judgement or your values.

      • RobA says:

        I think the media thinks “fair and balanced” means both candidates get equal time for negative reporting. But that’s only fair and balanced if both candidates have an equal amount of gaffes/mistakes/negative things to talk about.

        When one candidate commits 10 newsworthy mistakes to the others 1, it it appropriate to give that candidate 10 times the negative coverage.

    • Griffin says:

      It’s especially crazy when this group of Trump supporters more-or-less openly admit to holding racist beliefs and then get upset when they’re called “racist”. I thought one of the reasons they often say they love Trump so much is because of how “frank” and “to the point” he is, yet here’s yet another example of how they really don’t care about all that.

      • formdib says:

        Griffin, you can only be frank and to the point (politically incorrect, straight-talking, say it like it is, call a spade a spade, say what we’re all thinking, be direct) if you’re challenging the enemy, not yourself.

        Emphasis on spade a spade, since we’re pretty much at that point.

      • 1mime says:

        From The Atlantic Coates commentary: “The media’s criticism of Clinton’s claim has been matched in vehemence only by their allergy to exploring it.”

      • formdib says:

        There IS something to what Coates is saying about white people just simply not wanting to look at white grievance or racism, even if they’re not necessarily the racists. That it’s easier to assume their complaints are valid until invalidated, but still largely ‘understood’; unlike dealing with the grievances of people of color, which are typically treated as invalid until validated, and then still largely ignored.

        You can trace that in my own posts on this forum. I was on the ‘most of these guys are just worried about being left out of the economic gains of the past few years’ boat until recently. Whereas I assumed some general block of bigots, it’s really taken me until recently to accept that the reason Trump is doing okay is because other people find the block of bigots acceptable … which is a type of bigotry in and of itself.

      • 1mime says:

        And, that is exactly where I come down on those who say they are not racist but look the other way.

      • flypusher says:

        “Griffin, you can only be frank and to the point (politically incorrect, straight-talking, say it like it is, call a spade a spade, say what we’re all thinking, be direct) if you’re challenging the enemy, not yourself.”

        Yes. People say they want straight talk, but most of the time they’re really voting for the one who tells them what they want to hear.

      • RobA says:

        Formd, bigotry is a feature in Trumps campaign, not a bug

      • 1mime says:

        I think it is way more fundamental than just a feature, Rob, but it is buried so deep in some people that they cannot see it in themselves. Instead, they “cloak” it in “Hillary-hate” or “jobs”, or “illegals”. Call it what it is: you don’t want equality for all people, because that would mean you would have to give up some of your own.

  13. tuttabellamia says:

    What I think is sad is that Mr. Trump can say or do anything, no matter how outrageous, and no one even blinks anymore, but Mrs. Clinton tries to downplay a minor health issue, and everyone is up in arms. It’s like expectations are higher for her, so it’s easier for her to disappoint, and the bar has been lowered WAY down for him.

    • 1mime says:

      So true, Tutta. And, not one pundit has said anything positive about the fact that she attended the 9/11 ceremony DESPITE having been diagnosed the day before with pneumonia. She continues to put country before self or party, and that, my friends, is what a President does.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I know the health of a potential President of the United States is important, but I don’t think a candidate should lose all privacy, and I think some health issues are very personal and therefore private. Do we need to know every time she coughs, sneezes, or has upset stomach?

    • flypusher says:

      Tutta, that is what makes me want to throw things. You want to grill Clinton and put her every move and statement under a microscope? Fine by me as long as you hold Trump to the exact same standard.

      • 1mime says:

        Media is supposed to be non-partisan. That means, uh hum, that they hold both candidates to the same standard and call them out when they fail. That is fair. That is not happening. I listened to a program on NPR this past week with a discussion on this topic. The political marketing person said that like it or not, if you say something often enough, even the media believe it is true. Trump has bluffed, bullied, and lied and the media has condoned, ignored, and pardoned him. That is why I am worried about the moderators. I don’t think they will work at any higher standard because, as you say Fly, the bar for Trump is so much lower than it is for Hillary. That’s sickening.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I will say that the one health issue of Mrs. Clinton’s that does concern me is that blood clot between her brain and skull from the fall and concussion, a clot which I guess has since been removed. My mom had the very same problem at age 74. The clot was suctioned out and she was fine for a while, but within a couple of years she started showing signs of dementia, which eventually became full-blown.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        But then, Mr. Trump already seems rather demented himself. God help our nation.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        There are other examples. AP and others have published innuendo about the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state. Just innuendo, nothing factual, no examples of this-for-that trading. Many, many publishing outlets carried it.

        Information about Rump foundation indicates he doesn’t donate to it. Instead the foundation accepts donations, then passes them on. It’s just a pass-thru operation. He says: “I don’t have to give you records, but I’ve given millions away.” Ah, there’s transparency.

        Here’s a story about five ‘phantom’ donations from the Rump foundation that so far appear to be 100% bogus. You know, illegal. I’m doubtful it’ll reach beyond the Washington Post, but I hope I’m wrong.

      • 1mime says:

        But what Trump does that is so deceitful is to make donations from his foundation in the name of the Trump foundation and use other people’s money!

  14. RobA says:

    And old timers scratch their heads and wonder why the youngsters are deeply suspicious of no regulation capitalism.

    You can’t have it both ways: you cant have a rigged, broken system which allows you to steal from the masses and be rewarded handsomely AND expect them to believe in the system.

    You must choose between a crooked system with perverse incentives that make perpetual theft and lack of confidence in the system inevitable….OR….one where reasonable regulations cut into profits a bit, and cause the 1% to make a bit less, but which has the backing and confidence of the masses. But you can’t have both.

    It’s so frustrating that, in general, the ones who can’t fathom why anybody would be against capitalism, or calling others “socialist” should they dare express misgivings (I.e. right wingers), are the ones that are raping and pillaging the masses to line their pocket books.

    • 1mime says:

      You don’t have to be a young person to be outraged over this WF scam. Why were they allowed to walk away without criminal charges? I share your outrage Rob. It’s wrong whether you’re 30 or 73.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      How can that even happen??!?!

      Corporate executives are overpaid for being responsible for exactly nothing. Some gig.

    • 1mime says:

      I just heard a live interview with Richard Cordray, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that uncovered this breach of fiduciary trust. The CFPB is, of course, the agency Elizabeth Warren designed and is part of the Dodd-Frank Law. Cordray is one of the most talented, honest people working in D.C. Yet, he and the agency have been on the cutting table every year….

      Cordray noted that: 5300 WF employees were fired. When asked why no one was criminally charged, he responded that the CFPB does not have that authority but that he would be happy to share their records with stockholders, members of Congress if they wished to pursue criminal penalties. The only authority the agency has is regulatory. Maybe someone should ask the House Oversight Committee or the Senate Banking Committee what their plans are to go after the individuals responsible. The Democratic appointee did his job, maybe it’s time for the Republicans to put their action where their mouths are. The WF executive who oversaw this special incentive program walked away with a $125m bonus when she left. Maybe she needs to spend a little of this ill-gained money on attorney fees.

      • RobA says:

        It’s worth pointing out Mine, that the GOP wants to shut down the CFPB. Of course.

        Like how Paul Ryan actually voted and campaigned AGAINST making money managers legally forced to act with their clients best interests (fiduciary duty). He justified it that if money managers have to legally look out for their clients best interest when making decisions with their money, it will add too much red tape and cost. This is the “sane” Republican.

        The whole party is anti American.

    • flypusher says:

      The guys at the bottom of the food chain who set up the fake accounts deserve to be punished, as they caused harm to the customers and the bank. But the higher ups who created that toxic work environment ought to pay a price too. Their decisions (unreasonable sales quotas that set the stage) might not be illegal, but in a just universe it would be a huge blot on their records and they would forfeit any bonuses.

      • 1mime says:

        I’m not sure you understand how this happened, Fly. The “higher ups” devised an incentive plan for their subordinates to meet certain quotas. They did not “check” the methods nor those who were meeting these goals. There was “no” checks and balance. Per Cordray (CNBC, btw) about $2m in customer money was involved. The issue was breach of trust. The higher ups have a responsibility to monitor internal operations. This investigation has been going on since 2011. It has taken this long to get to the penalty phase – and WF paid out $185m while “admitting no wrong”.

        Really? Meanwhile, people are jailed 30 years for similar crimes in society.

      • RobA says:

        I’m actually even ok with a simple firing and not giving them a $150+ million golden handshake.

        The perverse incentives that currently exist in the finance world are a danger to everyone and totally destroy credibility in the system itself.

        These Masters of the Universe are given more money then God has to play with, and are encouraged to take huge risks. If it oays off, they profit handsomely. If it fails, and takes the whole system down with it, no worries, the Gov is there to bail you out.

        All the rewards are private, and all the risks are shared. It’s obscene.

    • Stephen says:

      Dr. Reich has a solution. And it was first proposed by Bill Clinton. You have to be like Obama willing to spend political capital like he did for the ACA to do great things. Hopefully Hillary will have more gumption and can get it done.

  15. flypusher says:

    Sure enough, Trump open his mouth, and more cluelessness (with a touch of racism) falls out:

    But the bar is too damn low, and he won’t take the flack he deserves. It also is a very clear example of how inheriting a lot of $ can buffer you against ecomonic ignorance.

  16. flypusher says:

    About McCain’s run in 2000, I was planning on voting for him in the TX GOP primary. I switch between primaries frequently; my motivation is picking the one where I feel my vote has the most effect. I NEVER do sabotage voting, i.e., voting for a loony to weaken the ticket. Even though I had decided that Gore was my probable choice in November, the Dem primaries weren’t in doubt, and I looked at the GOP contest in terms of if the GOP won, which one would be a better President? I was not impressed at all with W as Governor, but I did like the cut of McCain’s jib. But his campaign was done by the time the TX primary happened, and I sat it out in disgust. I do regret that, I should have voted McCain anyway.

    Of the 3 candidates I mentioned, Bush was the absolute worst one to have in the office on 9/11/01. I can’t see either Gore or McCain looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. That was the mother of all bad foreign policy clusterf$&@s. That one will still be harming people beyond our lifetimes.

    • 1mime says:

      I read an interesting post today, which dealt with the GW Bush decision to invade Iraq. It was an article discussing Colin Powell’s speech in February to the U.N. justifying the invasion based upon weapons of mass destruction. Turns out, the CIA fairly quickly, realized there were no weapons, and informed the Bush administration well before the decision to launch the attack on March 20th. That is damning – they knew and went forward anyway, putting our enlisted men and women’s lives at risk and starting a war that has been the catapult for so many other problems.

      Here’s the link fyi:

      • RobA says:

        “What’s the point of such a big bad military if you dont flex your muscles every once in a while?” is the neocon position.

      • 1mime says:

        Yes, and where were they? And their sons?

      • Armchair Philosopher says:

        That UN speech is the sole reason my husband and I originally supported the invasion of Iraq. We made a point of watching it together, and I clearly remember turning towards each other afterwards and saying that if Colin Powel believes we need to invade, then we need to invade.

        That was probably the last moment I ever fully trust a Republican.

  17. tuttabellamia says:

    This is off topic, but . . . I finally got around to reading the Falling Man article in Esquire, which was excellent. I was not aware that it was written in Sep 2003. As a result, I discovered and have subscribed to the Classic Esquire archives, which contains issues dating back to 1933.

    I previously knew nothing about Esquire. I thought it was nothing more than a men’s fashion magazine, like GQ. I realize now that it has excellent articles, along with fashion hints and the occasional photos of scantily-clad ladies, which don’t bother me, which brings me to the topic of Playboy cutting out nudity, which I think is a shame, because nude photos used to be mysterious and inaccessible, and now they are plastered all over the internet.

    As for the no-nudity Playboy, I don’t see it as a victory for women, considering there is so much nudity and foul language directed toward women online these days, with phrases like “Trump that Witch,” and Sanders supporters sexually trashing that Roberta lady and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and photos of Mrs. Palin with a pool of urine on the ground between her legs. Neither the Left nor the Right is off the hook. And it’s all considered normal now.

  18. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    When I read stuff like this, in the back of my head, I keep saying, “I hope lifer is right”.

    From our friends at 538:
    “From Aug. 22 to 28, SurveyMonkey interviewed about 1,200 registered voters ages 18 to 24. Among them, Clinton led Donald Trump 41 percent to 27 percent, with 17 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 10 percent for the Green Party’s Jill Stein.”

    Obama won this group by 29 percentage points over Romney, and Hillary is winning by only 14. Maybe they come home (they are traditionally liberal) to the Democrats when they go into the voting booth in a tight election, but if they don’t….

    It should be noted that in 2012, voters younger than 25 accounted for about 9 percent of the electorate, a slightly larger share than Latinos (with double counting of young Latinos). Someone wake me when the sleeping giant wakes up.

    • goplifer says:

      There’s a very important tell in those numbers and it shows up in other polling also. In every poll, ignore the gap between the candidates and look at Trump’s %. That’s where the real horrorshow for the GOP is hiding.

      A weak Republican candidate should be in the upper thirties or low forties in that poll with young voters at this stage. Romney was at about 41 in the polls. He finished around 36 after those voters finally tuned in in October.

      And by the way, at this point in 2012 most polls had the race effectively tied. More importantly, they had the GOP ticket sitting between 47-49% consistently, where they stayed right down to election day. Trump consistently polls between 38-42 – lowest since Dole and Mondale.

      At the other end Clinton is polling consistently 4-6% higher than Trump, even w/ 3rd parties included. That’s about double Obama’s 2012 margin. When you drill into more focused polls, like those addressing specific demographic groups or specific states, her margins over Obama average roughly double or more.

      It is still remarkable that roughly 40% of Americans are considering voting for Donald Trump, but there is nothing in any of these numbers to suggest that this is will ever become a close race.

      • RobA says:

        On the latest polls, the question of “who do you think will win”, Clinton is up something like 25 points.

        Historically, this poll question correlates very highly to the eventual winner.

      • >] “A weak Republican candidate should be in the upper thirties or low forties in that poll with young voters at this stage. Romney was at about 41 in the polls. He finished around 36 after those voters finally tuned in in October.

        Ah, that makes Reuters’ decision to have younger voters turning out at such an abysmal margin in their model much clearer. Everyone knows Trump was going to lose them by a huge margin, but I didn’t realize just how much. There’s your Republican nightmare.

      • 1mime says:

        Do his significantly high numbers of white non-college educated voters not compensate for the younger voter loss?

      • 1mime says:

        Sure hope you are correct, Chris, but Senate chances not looking as promising…And, that’s a big worry. A President whose party doesn’t control at least one branch of Congress is going to be hamstrung.

      • RobA says:

        I assume poll models include historical turn out numbers per group? For example, if college educated whites have a historical turn out of X%, those will be weighted properly to reflect that?

        If so, polls could be way off, especially if this election in particular will have an atypical surge among certain blocs. Say, perhaps Hispanics, or millenials?

      • 1mime says:

        Or, “white deplorables” ………

      • pedneuro says:

        You guys (and girls), why be so pessimistic?

      • 1mime says:

        I am being consistently “realistic”. At the moment, that means I am not confident Dems will win either the presidency or especially, the Senate. I am on record for weeks stating that this race was going to be extremely close, even when Clinton had an 8 pt bounce. Taking back the Senate has always been a dicey call.

      • Stephen says:

        “It is still remarkable that roughly 40% of Americans are considering voting for Donald Trump,”

        I wonder too. Over the last ten years I am realizing why the founding fathers feared the mob so much and put so many safeguards in our government system to protect against the common man. It is why we are a Republic not a direct democracy. If we are going to have universal voting rights we have to do a better job of educating folks. I had several courses on US history and a civics class before I got to middle school. I knew how our government worked and our history before I could vote. We do not do that any more. We have to fix that. That is part of how we fix crazy.

      • pedneuro says:

        Look you think the only people who are going to vote this year are non college educated whites. There’s gonna be a record turnout of other groups too. In the primaries, Hillary got a higher vote share of African Americans versus Bernie than Obama got against Hillary in 2008. I understand your fear of Trump getting elected. I fear that too. And so do countless other, who will also turn out to vote. The polling this season has been volatile, both ways – Clinton had a lead, she lost that lead post Republican convention, she regained that lead after dem convention, Trump gained on her after she had a bad couple weeks of media coverage. And as of now she still is leading, in a bad media patch. So why are we so quick to assume that Hillary polling lead is superfluous and at the same time so quick to believe that trumps polling lead is rock solid? I can bet with you today that it will be a 50-50 or 51-49 dem in the Senate and a Clinton win by 4-5 points.

      • 1mime says:

        I guess I’m going to have to buy two scarves….I already have a bet with Ryan (he bets Clinton wins and Dems re-take Senate), now I guess I have two of you to reward….bets I’ll be happy to lose….

      • pedneuro says:

        1mime, being from India, I am a big follower of Mahatma Gandhi. So, even if this sounds like a cliche, believe me it isn’t – I wholeheartedly believe in what Gandhi said once:

        “Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it: always.”

      • 1mime says:

        I’m ready for a little “failure” on the Trump side……….

    • 1mime says:

      The same survey revealed that Clinton is drawing the support of just half the millennials that Obama drew. She can boost that number, I think, once Obama really starts rolling for her, but she’s not going to win as many of them as she needs to counter the increased number of non-college educated white voters who appear to be wildly enthusiastic about Trump. Voter registration (we’ve chatted about that) is another wild card as is the number of absolute, will vote undecideds.

      57 days to go to E day.

  19. While the political world freaks out over a mild case of pneumonia, in much, much cooler news, behold the Mysterious Magic Leap:

  20. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    A little on and a little off topic.

    I believe folks who think Hillary’s “medical crisis” is no big deal are going to be in for a rude awakening. I would guarantee that Hillary’s political staff knows it is a big deal and likely are flummoxed this morning with how to deal with it. The more they try to disprove she is having health problems the longer her health problems get discussed on TV.

    Folks don’t like Trump, and folks need an excuse to vote for him. Him seemingly less likely to die in office is yet another excuse. Not a good one mind you, but still an excuse.

    Way off topic, check out the pictures NASA has of Mars’ surface.

    We humans are often idiots (see the Trump nomination), but when we put our minds to it, we can do some cool stuff. Those pictures are from a planet approximately 34 million miles from earth.

    • RobA says:

      I mean…..her doc says it’s pneumonia. It’d be one thing if she just denied, denied, denied, since her leaving brings up legit questions.

      But when the doc cones out and says it’s pneumonia, what else can you say? If you just assume the doc is lying for HRC, it’s clear your mind was already made up. And if you’re an undecided who legitimately wants to know about her health in order to make a more informed decision, certainly this would suffice. Pneumonia is no joke, but it’s obviously not in any way disqualifying for the presidency, any more then the flu would be.

      She left an event, her doc confirms she has a relatively common, relatively minor illness and what else can you say? If Trump starts saying “actually, her doc is lying, she has *insert much scarier illness*” or something to that effect, it’ll be worse for him then her.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Trump doesn’t have to say that. Other people will say it for him. Of course, Trump will eventually say it himself, but he doesn’t have to.

        “I don’t know Chris/Gretchen/Bob/Sally/George, there were a few hundred people at that event, and it concerns me when the potential leader of the free world is the only one fainting and having to be carried away on a nice fall day. Sure, they can tell us it is pneumonia or dehydration or whatever, but it isn’t normal and it is pretty scary. I just hope that Mrs. Clinton is really OK”.

        The Democrats would be doing similar concern trolling were it a GOP candidate.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT and Rob, I was thinking that a semi-sick Mrs. Clinton might make for a more sympathetic figure, that it would show her human side and might garner more votes for her.

    • pedneuro says:

      Homer, a slight contradiction in your comment “Folks don’t like Trump, and folks need an excuse to vote for him.”. If you don’t like someone you are unlikely to vote for them. In any case I would not count my chickens yet, and neither should Trump. Fortunes turn on a dime. Remember just a few weeks ago we were taking about how much in disarray Trump campaign was, and there were rumors of GOP leadership drying to replace, him, disown him or other such shit. This campaign is not yet over. There are debates still.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:


        “If you don’t like someone you are unlikely to vote for them. ”

        If that is the case, Hillary is going to struggle to get 40% of the vote. Folks don’t like her either.

        Democrats aren’t going to vote for Trump, but those Republicans who do not like him need an excuse, and him acting a bit more presidential, Hillary fainting, him not pooping himself while in Mexico, etc., give them some cover to do that.

      • 1mime says:

        The only cover that most Republicans need is a win. It’s never been about quality. Unless things start changing dramatically, the Senate re-capture is looking unlikely. At a time when Hillary’s campaign enters its most critical stage, her illness not only worries the electorate, it limits her physically and mentally for the grueling schedule ahead. I remain very concerned about the outcome of this election.

      • pedneuro says:

        If that’s the case then this election will come to a wire, Homer.

      • pedneuro says:

        It seems to me that the entire universe itself is conspiring to get Trump elected. Hell, MEXICO itself did something that made Trump look more presidential. Now Hillary got sick.

      • RobA says:

        All of this is just noise anyways. The 24 hr news channels need raw materiel to churn through the news cycle. If it wasn’t this, it would be some other thing eating up airtime.

        The debates will eclipse anything happening today. That’s where the election will be won. Trumpbhas no where to hide, and that’s a lot of airtime if you don’t know anything about anything

      • 1mime says:

        I agree that Trump “should” do poorly, but holding him accountable is going to be a big job of the moderators. Will they allow him to interrupt (as he loves to do)? Will they allow him to equivocate? Will they follow up with the same or a better question if he doesn’t answer? Will they hold him to the time and format of the program? Trump has controlled the debates in the past by bullying. As I’ve said, there is not one moderator among the four selected, who has the cajones that are needed to hold him accountable, and that is worrisome.

        I don’t agree that the debates are everything. There is too much time left for something else outside the this pair-up to happen….for both candidates. This race is going to be close between the Presidential candidates and frankly, the Senate appears to be a lock for the GOP.
        Turn out is critical as is weather as is some unforseen event….

      • RobA says:

        I don’t think so Mime. I think Lauers deserved shredding will make the moderators extra sensitive to Trumps bullshit. Nobody wants to be criticized the way Lauer was.

        Interestingly, Trump must sense the same. Today, he floated the trial balloon of “maybe we shouldn’t have moderators at all” on CNBC.

      • flypusher says:

        BBC moderators, that’s who we need. They have zero tolerance for evasion and BS.

      • 1mime says:

        And, the BBC moderators wouldn’t have a dog in the fight, either. The four who will moderate will really have to “up” their game because they certainly have not demonstrated the ability to handle slick Don.

    • johngalt says:

      The problem with this is not that Hillary has pneumonia. I had walking pneumonia a couple of years ago, powered through it with one afternoon in bed and a steroid inhaler. It’s her campaign’s inability to be transparent about anything. They spent most of the last week insisting she was in perfect health while knowing (according to their story) that she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. I cannot be the only one thinking, “If they’re hiding this, then what else?” This feeds into the continuing narrative of her being less than honest. The only way to get ahead of this is to be scrupulously honest.

      Her health problems are not going to affect my vote. If she were diagnosed with terminal brain cancer a week before the election, I’d still vote for her. What’s the worst case? She dies in office? Then Tim Kaine becomes president and I don’t really have a problem with that.

  21. formdib says:

    “[…] contemporary Americans from across the political spectrum cherish a version of history in which the United States has moved steadily, if slowly, toward acceptance and equality, from the Emancipation Proclamation to Brown v. Board of Education to the Voting Rights Act, to Barack Obama’s election and a post-racial future. Although this narrative has always been a fantasy, Trump’s popularity on the heels of Obama’s reelection renders it incoherent — that is, unless Trump is bizarrely cast as an economic populist standing up for the little guy, an impulsive and uncouth corollary to Bernie Sanders. “Economic anxiety” has become a popular term for articulating Trump’s appeal; even when his campaigns explicit appeals to racism are acknowledged, we want to assume that this racism is caused by economics rather than by a resurgence of white nationalism that we’d rather believe remains buried in the past. Never mind that the median household income of Trump primary supporters was higher than the national average, as well as the average income of Clinton and Sanders voters. At times, even Trump seems confused about the nature of his appeal, as in early August, when he sympathized with residents of Ashburn, Virginia, about all of the factory closures they’d suffered through. Thousands of local residents attended the rally, but not because of economic anxiety; Ashburn is in the wealthiest county in the nation, and the crowd reacted with confusion when Trump asked if any attendees had worked at the shuttered Smithfield Foods plant, which is three hours away. They did, however, enthusiastically heckle a group of silent Muslim protestors.”


    “But while the novel ends happily for our narrator’s family and, by extension, for other segments of the populace, it puts US history back on the path that led to the internment of Japanese Americans, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the lynching of Emmett Till, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the My Lai Massacre, the Oklahoma City bombing, state-sanctioned torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the abandonment of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, the killing of Eric Garner, and too many other crimes motivated by American xenophobia, racism, and anti-government paranoia to enumerate here.”

    An article that tears down both the narrative of ‘economic distress’ and the notion of ‘demographics as destiny.’ Good read.

    • 1mime says:

      It is surprising that the article assumes the probability of a Trump defeat given the polling shifts of the race. The shift from an America of equality back to an America of fear and hate is uncomfortable to imagine, but it could happen….even if Trump loses, and most assuredly, if he wins. The fear and anger of people Trump has rallied will still be there. If he should win, there is no reason to think he would not use this force to achieve whatever goals he wants. If he loses, Clinton will have not only the GOPe to contend with, but she will have an energized, “outed” populace who are not supporters. Tough times ahead. Let us hope that Clinton recovers quickly so that she can get “her” campaign back on track. I simply cannot imagine our nation under a President Trump.

    • 1mime says:

      Yep. I still believe candidates have to speak to “offensive behavior” rather than direct comments at people, but as Rob pointed out, it’s true! And, as this reporter points out, she was speaking in a broader context. Politics sucks. It just does. Trump can say whatever he wants in as ugly a manner as possible and the media says, “that’s just Trump”. Hillary states something that is fact and it’s all over the news. That evidently isn’t going to change, but IF HRC loses this election, the media can pat themselves on the back. And, they better not make one complaint about Trump because they full well knew what they would be getting. I’m sorry, the double standard is so obvious. Go after Hillary on policy, lack of press conferences, inaccuracies, poor policies, pantsuits (!), email/foundation – but jeez, why not back her up on something like this.

      Truly, the emperor has no clothes.

  22. Good grief! All we need is for Hillary to pass out and it’s game over! this is all over the news!

    • 1mime says:

      Campaigning is brutal. Try doing it in heels, Donald Trump!

      FWIW, I think Clinton is tired. I don’t think she looks well but I don’t assign it to anything but obvious fatigue from a non-stop campaign. We are all different and I am sure Trump advocates will hold up his stamina as a plus -which it is, but it does not replace more important qualities a president must have.

      Think back to FDR who was not physically well but whose mind and whole being was focused on serving our country. Would I take one day back from his tenure because he was physically impaired? Not a minute. Keep this in perspective. I think Clinton’s handlers need to reassess her schedule and give her some down time.

      • pedneuro says:

        1mime, I agree. But in order to stop the rumors of her health issues spreading like wild fire, Hillary campaign need to release her health records, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise it will be a very serious issue, trust me on this. Even reasonable people in the media are raising questions that public needs to know about her (and Trump’s) health. Even if Trump lies or doesn’t release his health records, Hillary needs to release hers NOW.

      • 1mime says:

        You are probably correct.

      • RobA says:

        Nah, disagree. I actually think leaving a major event early for some unknown health reason actually DOES raise legitimate health questions.

        But the Trump campaign used up their powder. Theyve been hammering for weeks on her health for things that have absolutely no actual relevance to her health, and that’s severely dampened the bite to actual legit criticism.

        On CNN and MSNBC, for the most part, criticism of her health has been roundly rejected as irrelevant or inappropriate. It’s only on Fox News the stories have much traction, and frankly, those who watch Fox are probably unreachable anyways.

        I think most ppl will brush this off as Trump being Trump. He cried wolf for weeks about her health, and now that maybe there could be an opening on health criticism, nobody will listen.

        Now, if I were her (and assuming there’s nothing major in her health records) I would announce I’d release my health records so long as Trump releases his. Put the pressure on Trump, and if he refuses to release his own, none of his attacks on her health will have any bite.

        I would be absolutely shocked if Trump doesn’t have pretty serious health issues. I’ve seen less bloated bodies pulled out of the river on crime documentaries.

        With all that said, all presidential candidates should be required by law to submit to independent medical testing by a non partisan health authority. Same for tax returns.

      • formdib says:

        “Nah, disagree. I actually think leaving a major event early for some unknown health reason actually DOES raise legitimate health questions.

        But the Trump campaign used up their powder. Theyve been hammering for weeks on her health for things that have absolutely no actual relevance to her health, and that’s severely dampened the bite to actual legit criticism.”

        I agree with Rob about the legitimacy of health concerns, but I disagree that this doesn’t help Trump. It helps him a lot.

        This is more ‘broken clock’ than ‘boy who cried wolf’: now that mainstream media and video documentation shows Hillary in poorer health than generally imagined, he can point out that all the media’s pooh-poohing of his Hillary health rants was them ignoring him or calling him a conspiracy theorist incorrectly. If everyone is always dismissing his statements as conspiracy theory and he’s right this time, what does that mean about all the other conspiracy statements he’s said that they’ve equally dismissed? The media and the Democrats are in it together to hide from you the Truth, and only I have the answer!

        What does this do for votes? It’s that same ‘on the margins’ issue Nate Silver describes: ‘leaning Republican’ undecideds decide, “Well, in the end, it’s probably better to vote for someone who won’t die on us,” whereas leaning Democrat voters start taking a more serious second look at the third party candidates.

        Trump will not and will never release anything transparent that helps this decision be made by voters and he will never be held accountable to it by anybody who doesn’t already disagree with him. There’ve been statements on this board trying to armchair trying to diagnose him but public perception wise, he’s as good as healthy.

        All Clinton can do is submit reports saying she’s healthy, which puts her on the defense and keeps the argument in mind. If she plays the “I’ll release mine when you release yours” with Trump, she’ll lose that game by earning the sense that ‘both sides are equally corrupt.’ She can only fight opaqueness with transparency and, at best, turn the argument into, “I released mine and everyone can read them, now where are yours?” Lead by example… annnddd…. she doesn’t operate in that way.

        Super frustrating but the best we can hope for is that this issue is, in fact, largely marginal. I’m not sure how much it affects other people truly. From my side, if she dies in office and we get Tim Kaine, I’m still happy with my selection of POTUS.

      • 1mime says:

        Well, that’s cold, formdib. Let’s not bury Hillary just yet (-; I agree with your logic on how this episode affects both her need to release her health records, and that it will help Trump – and that is most unfortunate at this point in the campaign. It’s only going to get harder from here, in both physical and mental demands.

      • pedneuro says:

        formdib, “Lead by example… annnddd…. she doesn’t operate in that way.”

        If that truly is the case then it’s her election to lose. They always play safe, always hide from the media and get clobbered as a result. It’s been more than 3 weeks of relentless negative media coverage for her, which has correlated with her declining polling numbers, and there is no end in sight.

        Lately it looked like that her numbers are rebounding again, and now with this, I fear things will be back to square one. If Clinton campaign does not start acting proactively on this issue, this will come back to bite them (and us when Trump is president come January), I tell you.

        If there is any sense in their campaign, and if their campaign is as A class and full of brilliant people as everyone likes to assume, they will proactively release her medical records.

    • Stephen says:

      Calm down. This will not change a vote. Presidents have had similar stuff happen. We forget these people are human and share our frailties.

    • 1mime says:

      This report just released: Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. She is being treated for it but was overcome through a combination of dehydration and heat. Anyone who has had “walking pneumonia” knows it is short term and readily managed. I’m glad there was a specific reason but sad that in today’s campaigns, she felt she had to push on despite her doctor’s recommendation that she rest. OTOH, she’s a tough lady.

  23. RobA says:

    More evidence that “reluctant” Trump voters who “just can’t vote for Hillary” due to her “unethical” behavior, mostly revolving around emails and the Clinton Foundation.

    Donald Trump has his own foundation. Unlike the Clintons, which has spent hundreds of millions doing ACTUAL charity work, which has helped millions of ppl, and which gets top marks from all independent charity watch dogs, Trump “regifts” donations given to his foundation to other charities, with no money from himself (unheard of for family foundations, according to the article). And once in a while he dips into the foundations coffers to buy his own stuff, such as a 6 ft painting of himself.

    More disturbingly, Trumps $25k “donation” to Bondis campaign came from his foundation.

    So Clinton haters will point to her foundation which does great work and gets high independent marks as her unfitness, meanwhile Trump uses HIS foundation to spend OPM on his own stuff and to bribe state attorney general’s who then drop their fraud investigations, and he gets a pass.

    More evidence that Trump supporters are either disingenuous, or lying, or just don’t understand the issues they purport to value.


  24. 1mime says:

    This is a great story which was first told in a small volume entitled, “The Day the World Came to Gander, Newfoundland, 9/11”, by Jim DeFede. The WaPo link is a quick read but I encourage all to read the book which will restore your faith in humanity. Like all here, I honor all who died and all who helped on this terrible day.

    • RobA says:

      I was in high school in 9/11 and I grew up in Halifax, which is (I believe) either 1st or 2nd (behind Gander) in terms of flights diverted that day. There were some 10,000 ppl who showed up. It was unique, everybody pitched in. Ppl just showed up at the airport and took ppl home. We grabbed 5 ppl from TX, they stayed with us for 4 days until flights resumed. Great people, my parents still keep in touch with them.

      This story brings back memories, both good and bad.

      • 1mime says:

        How wonderful that your family and community helped, Rob. And, yes, we should never forget the horrible tragedy nor the wonderful outreach that occurred. The lessons from both are equally important.

        Thanks for sharing your experience. It’s a great little book..I read it in one sitting. There were some amazing personal stories – When you have time, try to read it. We read and hear so much negativity that it’s important to balance with wonderful stories like this.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Ppl just showed up at the airport and took ppl home.

        That’s so Canadian. Very sweet.

  25. My thoughts are with the people of the American republic on this day.

    (If you’re not American, then… um… happy Teutoburg Forest day, I suppose?)

    • Griffin says:

      Thank you EJ that’s very thoughtful. My Scottish Aunt was telling me how in Glasgow for at least the past few years on 9/11 there is a mass moment of silence where everyone stops what they’re doing and I thought that was very kind, Europe can definately be an underappreciated ally in too many cases.

    • RobA says:

      While obviously, this was explicitly an attack on America, more then anything, 9/11 was an attack on an entire way of life, on liberalized Western civilization.

      America is the leader of the Western world and for symbolic reasons, of course it was America and NY that was attacked. It was also an attack on Canada, France, UK, Germany and many more. I think that’s why there was such global unity in the immediate aftermath. Of course, that posirive goodwill was squandered (and then some) in the years afterwards, but today it’s appropriate to reflect on 9/11 and wonder how to get back to that cooperation.

      Imagine for a moment if that enourmous goodwill/political capital was expended on peaceful outreach and increased cooperation between Muslim nations and the middle East, instead of war and revenge. In a way, we got really unlucky that 9/11 happened to occur during the first (and only) time that war mongering neo cons were almost totally in power. Of all recent administrations (Obama, Bush I and II, Clinton, Reagen, Carter etc) and even hypothetical administrations (Gore, McCain, Romney), the one you’d probably want least to be in power was the one that actually was.

      Bush/Reagen obviously had neo cons as part of their administration (ppl whose worldview is that when holding the hammer of US military might, every global problem is but a nail that needs pounding). But it was only in W’s administration that the neocons were totally in charge. Even though W himself was not a neocon, pretty much everyone else was. The moderating influence of Powell had no chance against Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremner, Cheney et al.

      • Griffin says:

        I think your partly right about it being an atrack on Western Civilization as well America was actually Osama Bin Laden’s target for other reasons. He was mostly angry that the US had military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and took it as an insult that a Wahhabist nation needed “Christians” aid to defend itself. Im guessing he was going to attack somebody I think our military bases just gave him a convenient excuse to attack us. I would say he had a serious chip on his shoulder when it came to the relative military weakness of Saudi Arabia.

  26. formdib says:

    OT: An interesting article on Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s national finance chairman and potential Treasury secretary.

    People overuse the term Machiavellian, but I’ve actually read both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, and this guy is a good Machiavellian, in the morally neutral sense. It’s clear he’s using Trump for an opportunity of a lifetime but isn’t particularly interested in Trump’s ideology specifically. He has the skill set for the position but his detachment from speaking on the issues makes it unclear whether he has the judgment. He is risking his reputation and prestige, but perhaps he only really built that to get to this place as his goal anyway. He seems to have influence on Trump in return for successful achievements of the tasks he’s been assigned, but it’s unclear how well he’d do if he suddenly attracted Trump’s ire, and supporting Trump for the position in the first place makes it look like he’ll only do what Trump tells him and what enriches himself, not what’s best for anybody else.

    To be perfectly honest, if more guys like this constituted Trump’s ‘the best people’ claim, I could agree that the candidate is a dumpster fire but aforementioned dumpster at the very least seems set behind a functioning establishment.

    • 1mime says:

      Still, regardless the qualifications of this man, how can any rational professional stand behind Donald Trump? Isn’t that an automatic disqualifier?

      • formdib says:

        That’s the thing about Machiavelli. The Prince was never a justification of, but rather a recognition that there are no moral victories under a despotic regime. The best you can do is play games of influence to protect your own power and prestige. The qualities of the despot doesn’t matter in any case, the rules of influence remain the same. If Mnuchen is as Machiavellian as this article makes him seem, there’s no true difference to his end game between Clinton and Trump, except that Trump offered him the more prestigious position.

        That’s partially why The Prince is so disturbing to many people. In Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli imagines a society that can represent all people (in other words, a republican society, the society he actually wanted, based on Roman ideals). In The Prince, he acknowledges that ‘the people’ are beside the point in a despotic regime, and thus are disposable according to the rules of court.

        It’s his cynical acknowledgement of that type of stateshood, as well as his sense of humor and ability to recognize the inherent contradictions and dualities of such a regime, that The Prince is often simplistically read as a satire. It’s actually realpolitik observed from the courts of Louis XII and his run-ins with the Medicis.

        Anyway Machiavelli aside, there are certain details of this article that make it sound like this Mnuchin guy doesn’t really have any more loyalty to Trump than he does for Goldman Sachs, these are just opportunities he’s taken in his own career; that same behavior shows his willingness to do the same thing with Democrats, Hollywood, and other institutions; so in my mind he’s more about playing games of influence than seeking moral victories.

        And partly what I’m saying here is that if Trump becomes President, Mnuchin is the BEST in character we can expect from Trump’s cabinet, because he may be cynical and power-seeking, but he at least is qualified and capable, and it’s in his interest to keep the nation intact.

      • 1mime says:

        I have a sneaking suspicion that with a Trump cabinet, the peter principle would apply…..I also have a problem with the whole “latching on” to position themselves well….Isn’t that part of the problem with politics today? Not saying that the profession of politics is always honorable, but there are people who “serve” versus those who climb.

    • RobA says:

      This is pretty much the portrait of what I envision most of Trumps team is in the background: mostly competent, no principles, morally dubious, and definitely NOT a “true believer”.

      With the exception of Bannon maybe (and even him, there is evidence that he’s more intensely ambitious then a legit white nationalist/Trumpista) most of the top Trump team seem more like rank opportunists. Christie, Giulianni, Conway, Mnuchin, Kushner etc don’t strike me as ideological partners with Trump.

      If Trump loses, the fallout is going to be interesting. When all these ambitious opportunists start exiting (either right after or just before the election) they’re going to be falling all over themselves to see who can scorch the earth more in order to make themselves look less bad.

      • flypusher says:

        “If Trump loses, the fallout is going to be interesting. When all these ambitious opportunists start exiting (either right after or just before the election) they’re going to be falling all over themselves to see who can scorch the earth more in order to make themselves look less bad.”

        And if those pay checks bounce, they’ll really be looking to dish

      • 1mime says:

        “If those paychecks bounce….”

        From what I’ve read, first, you have to receive a check………..

      • RobA says:

        I should add, bizarrely, not even Trump himself is a “true believer”. I made the comment that “none of Trumps top advisors are ideological partners with Trump”. I should have said they aren’t ideological partners of TrumpISM. Not even Trump is an ideological partner with Trumpism.

        Hes just as much an opportunist as his upper echelon.

      • 1mime says:

        Trump doesn’t know what he believes in. He has no core beliefs except personal gain.

  27. Mark says:

    I would submit here, to the folks who fear for U.S. democracy, if anything is in danger it is the two party duopoly – I hope. And it’s about time.

    • A first-past-the-post system is naturally set up to have at most two parties. Until that’s amended, the only alternative to the duopoly is permanent Democrat rule.

      You might be okay with this.

      • flypusher says:

        One party Dem rule is a lesser evil than one party GOP rule. An competent and functional opposition party helps to hold the party in power accountable. A GOP implosion would temporarily increase Dem numbers/power, but a really big tent is an unstable political intermediate state. Because of the natural tendency of our system towards 2 parties, there would be a schism, probably the Bernie people.

      • 1mime says:

        I remain extremely cautious about the probability of Dems winning the presidency and re-taking the Senate this election. Therefore, a Democratic rule continuum is far from assured.

      • Fair Economist says:

        First-past-the-post plus a presidential system makes more than 2 parties nearly impossible. At the same time, effective governance with two hostile parties in a checks-and-balances system can be difficult, You see this in the difficulties with passing budgets and appointing judges since we went back to split control in 2011.

        Historically the US usually ends up under what I call ‘party and a half’ system where one party rules most of the time but the other takes partial or complete control when the party in power blows it. This was true for 1800-1824 (Democratic-Republican over Federalist), 1836-1856 (Democratic over Whig), 1860-1930 (Republican over Democratic), and 1932-1980 (Democratic over Republican). Given the Scylla and Charybdis problem of corruption with one party and gridlock with two perhaps this is the best situation.

    • Kenneth Devaney says:

      here is a link to an article suggesting that very thing. Emanating from the Silicon Valley.

      • 1mime says:

        That was interesting, Kenneth. I applaud much of the reasoning behind the suggested changes but I also have concerns. One of the strengths of our nation has always been our collective sense of responsibility that transcends generations. That has manifested itself in programs that benefit the elderly, disabled, and ill. Per the author, ” if you believe the accounts of what motivates millennial entrepreneurs, it’s about “making a difference” more than it is about their bank accounts—so there’s hope.) I wonder how accurate that is.

        I love the idea of making the political process more open to all people, eliminating the power that comes from big money, simplifying the process, encouraging more people outside the political hierarchy to be able to run for office, to eliminate the benefits to a party from voter suppression and legislative gerrymandering, reducing the time that the public is barraged with campaign appearances/ads, throwing out power brokers who have special interests….BUT,
        the real test will be consensus. Maybe this younger group can muscle these changes through, but there is real danger that national priorities will shift due to the drivers of the change.

        As with all paradigm shifts, there is good and bad. I agree that the idea is worth exploring, that change is needed, and that there both risk and reward can result. It might be interesting to those of you who haven’t seen the documentary, SanFrancisco, 2.0, to view it. This doc speaks directly to the impact that the Millennials and GenXers can have…It doesn’t mean that the ideas aren’t important, but change can do both good things and cause other problems. Here’s a link:

      • Fair Economist says:

        Doesn’t work. In American politics one party has to collapse *first* before a new party can succeed. The reason’s pretty simple: a movement needs to be stronger to create a new party than to take over an existing one. Trump is exhibit A on this: he’d never have succeeded if he’d started a new party but he’s taken over the Republican and only a handful of elected Republicans are still resisting him.

      • 1mime says:

        Looks like Silicon Valley will not be denied – going the traditional donation route now, but in a big way – $20M. There is a link to his 800 word essay within the article you might want to read, that states why he decided to become active.

  28. “When he limps back to his bankrupt tower, there will still be no force in the Republican universe capable of stopping his ideological successor. The former Party of Lincoln is now the Party of Trump. There is no going back.”

    Damn. This is really bad news for the country. As you state, the Democratic Party is only, at most, one generation behind the Republicans on the road to crazy at this point.

    Are we going to end up like Europe, where we have a center-right sensible party and two (or more) parties on either extreme. The problem is that any long term monopoly on power breeds corruption so we end up having to pick one of the extremes to throw the bums out, then realize that the extremists are nut cases and repeat the process of creating an acceptable middle party all over again.

    Perhaps this is democracy’s Achilles heel.

  29. Armchair Philosopher says:

    Trump isn’t saying anything different than what Republicans have been saying for years. He’s just turned it up to 11. Provided he loses in November, I’m actually glad he was the nominee. He’s pulled the covers off the Republican party and exposed them for what they are.

    “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” -Louis Brandeis

    This next part is OT, but if you haven’t yet read the excellent Politico piece about Air Force One on 9/11, then clear 30 minutes, grab a cup of coffee, and settle in. It is fascinating.

    • johngalt says:

      Agreed. An absolutely fascinating account. Thanks for posting.

    • 1mime says:

      The “only plane in the sky” narrative was amazing in that it showed how incredibly unprepared we were for domestic terrorism. What a difference a decade plus has made in our nation’s readiness. To their credit, our military, intelligence, and political wings responded quickly. We have learned from each experience but one wonders if a democracy can ever truly be as well protected due to our way of life. The greatest protection we have had has been our isolation. With the sophistication of terrorists, aided by technology and abject focused evil, it will never be enough. All in all, government “worked” as it needed to on 9/11 on the back end. Hopefully we have learned more about prevention from the tragedy of 9/11.

      I was pleased to see that Pres. Obama was so considerate in his efforts to inform George W Bush as soon as possible. That is as it should be.

      Very interesting. I’ve shared it with others.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      I was no fan of Bush II, but I always felt the disparaging things said about how he handled 9/11 were a bit unfair (the clusterF#($ after 9/11 clearly is at his feet however).

      Michael Moore’s movie with the lingering of those minutes in the classroom was brutal.

      There were probably a few hundred ways to handle that day, and there was no way anyone could know what the right thing to do was.

      • flypusher says:

        I have a very short list of “Things W did right”, but in the service of truth and honesty I’ll trot one of those items out. Bush took a very clear and forceful stand against the type of Islamophobia that Trump is stirring up.

      • 1mime says:

        Except it related to toppling Sadam Hussein…….

  30. Griffin says:

    I have a little bit of confusion about the nature of “Fusianist” conservatism that was proposed in the 1950’s by National Review writers and championed by Barry Goldwater, and could be considered the first major factor in the Republican Party starting its right-wing shift. Wasn’t the whole idea to combine the economic libertarianism of Northern conservatives with the social conservatism that was more common of rural conservatives? So why were the offspring of this worldview so hostile to the latter social conservatives who took over the party if their own ideology was also supposed to be socially conservative anyways?

    • Griffin says:

      Thinking about this I think I answered my own question. The fusianists while socially conservative actually cared about “Judeo-Christian values” while the latter-day social conservatives/reactionaries were just using it as code for social authoritarianism and white nationalism and were more indifferent to economic policies so long as it wasn’t seen as an “attack” on “white people” (while fusianists were actual hardline supply-siders). I suppose that makes sense.

  31. RobA says:

    Off topic (other then the term was used in the post) but I sure hope Hillary doesn’t run from her “basket of deplorables” comment. I probably wouldn’t have advised her to say it, but frankly, part of the reason why Democratic morale seems perpetually low is that they try so hard to be diplomatic (which is often appropriate) that they remain so even when it’s appropriate to call a spade a spade. It is frustrating beyond belief to stick to increasingly outdated methods of conduct when the other side clearly has no such compunctions.

    I would have said “significant numbers” instead of “half” but that’s just splitting hairs. The fact is, large numbers of Trump supporters, from David Duke, to the Alt Right, to all the white nationalists to large swaths of the GOP base ARE deplorables. Period. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this objective truth, or at least not saying away from it.

    I don’t think I’d keep hammering this point, but I’d hope she takes the position of “I call it like I see it. If Trump and his supporters do not wish to be called what their behavior clearly suggests they are, then perhaps they should change their rhetoric/behaviors”.

    Trump has said so many objectively deplorable things, from birtherism, to the Curiel thing, to the Khan thing, to the Main/PoW thing, to the David Duke thing, to all the ridiculous insinuations (“there’s something going on with Obama. Either he doesn’t understand terrorism, or he understands it too well”) and yet its HILLARY who (according to the mouth breathers on the right) that is being outrageous because she’s CALLING these things as they actually are? Bullshit.

    The right needs to grasp this concept: it is not “divisive” to call out when others are being divisive. It is not “racist” to call out racism. And it is not “deplorable” to call out deplorable behavior/rhetoric.

    Look at the reports from Trump rallies, with huge numbers truly believing Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and wearing “Trump that bitch!” shirts, and chanting “lock her up” regarding political opponents, with the anger and misogyny and white supremicist undertones: those things ARE deplorable and the ppl conducting themselves ARE deplorable, and if they can’t handle being called what they are, too bad. Perhaps we can build some safe spaces and give out some trigger warnings first.

    • 1mime says:

      Hillary is “old school” just as John McCain is. They subscribe to campaigns which are civil and issue focused. That is not what this campaign is. I think it’s a fine line to walk, but do agree that to pussyfoot around calling out the behavior and rhetoric and beliefs for what they are is honest. I wonder if she could speak to the behavior without assigning the behavior specifically to Trump supporters whether that would achieve the same truth. Probably not, as you suggest. I prefer our candidates for president to speak in a manner that is above the fray, while clearly understanding that that sentiment is out there. Since this is such an atypical campaign, where Trump says whatever he wants and gets away with it, it is harder for her to maintain the decorum she instinctively adheres to.

      What is so concerning is that people have lost respect for the process and the people. Running for office (in the classic manner) is extremely hard. I don’t understand people who will support Donald Trump, whatever the reason. There are other options, which even if they accrue to a 3rd party threat, are still more dignified and acceptable than voting for this man.

      • 1mime says:

        correction, is “dishonest”.

      • I think that’s an extremely astute point. Party politics in the American Republic is not broken, the Republican Party is broken. Anyone who calls for an overthrow of the entire system is ignoring that half of it still works perfectly well, and thus is (implicitly or explicitly) showing that they regard Clinton and her party as every bit as unacceptable as her foes. This is a strange position for them to take, but a very revealing one.

    • 1mime says:

      Whether it is as honest as standing by her original remark, I would suggest that it is more “presidential”. Leaders have to be above this kind of thing, Rob. Focus on the actions. words rather than getting personal. She is not in a position to risk which is too bad since so many have been going under the assumption that her victory is assured, but we have less than two months to go with early voting starting soon. Every vote counts. I’m glad she walked it back as stated.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      but frankly, part of the reason why Democratic morale seems perpetually low is that they try so hard to be diplomatic (which is often appropriate) that they remain so even when it’s appropriate to call a spade a spade. It is frustrating beyond belief to stick to increasingly outdated methods of conduct when the other side clearly has no such compunctions.

      In conversation, a reasonable person may acknowledge a possibility in an argument she/he disagrees with before addressing the issue. It’s polite. But don’t do it. Politeness is not the point.

      Elizabeth Warren is very good at this. Recognizing the (former) 140-character limit, she doesn’t start with, “I hate to say this, but…..” Instead, she says something like “Trump is a small, petty, money-grubber.”

      One prof at school said if you know your argument has a weakness, don’t acknowledge it. Believe me, he said. Tons of people are available to point it out. You shouldn’t do it.

      Reasonableness is useful in knocking out the details of a plan or policy; not so much in debate.

    • objv says:

      Hmm … According to Hillary, I’m either part of the 50% who are in the “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” basket of deplorables or part of the 50% who are disenchanted losers … I’m going to need help with this one. Where do I fit in?

      Mime, if you’re out there right now, where do your older siblings belong? Do they fit in the racist basket or the loser basket?

      Maybe it’s just me, but I fear Hillary isn’t going to garner more votes with that kind of language. I’ll bet it will make Trump supporters even more likely to make it to the polls in November.

      • 1mime says:

        Let me state clearly. Those who support Donald Trump for whatever reason are making a bad decision. I have more understanding for those who are scared and angry due to loss of their jobs than I do for educated, informed people who are making a decision to support Trump. If that includes you, so be it. If Trump wins, we are all losers.

      • flypusher says:

        This is under the category of “beware of what you wish for, you might get it.” That’s what you get without “political correctness”.

        An impolitic statement to be sure, but also with a whole lot of truth do it. The quibble points are the percentages she cited.

        There’s another basket, the sell out basket.

      • objv says:

        Well, looks like I have been sent off to take my basket of deplorables to Grandma’s house in my little, hooded, red jacket. Hopefully, Grandma Hillary won’t turn out to be a wolf. Yikes! I have no desire to be eaten alive.

        In actuality, I am headed off to a real Grandma’s house (my children’s grandma). My husband and his sisters are going to meet and do some work around his mom’s home and make it more handicapped friendly and sort through his late dad’s garage.

        We leave tomorrow and I won’t be posting much next week. (Do I hear a YAY?)

        We’re driving to liberal land. California or BUST!

      • 1mime says:

        I have made numerous handicap modifications Ob, and the ones that are most critical (depending upon mobility) are: bed rails; roll in shower with either a rolling shower chair or a stable shower bench with a back and sides; safety bars in shower and toilet area; roll under sink; minimum 36″ door openings for walkers/wheelchairs; ramps at doorways (I used Discount Ramps online); pneumatic safety bars (OXO Brand only) that can clamp safely to slick walls or slick counters; flat flooring – low pile carpet that can be cleaned; removal of area rugs and any items that encourage tripping; installation of drawers in place of cabinets below counters to reach frequently used utensils, dishes, appliances; placement of microwave on lower shelf. The rest is so site and individual specific that you’ll figure it out from necessity. If she is still fairly independent, she will be able to communicate her needs. If she’s medicare eligible, she is able to ask for an occupational assessment of her home that is specific to her needs and environment. As you undoubtedly know given your nursing background, slipping is the number one cause of injury and hospitalization of the elderly. Medicare offers many resources if you contact them.

        Good luck. She is fortunate to have family who cares.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Maybe it’s just me, but I fear Hillary isn’t going to garner more votes with that kind of language. I’ll bet it will make Trump supporters even more likely to make it to the polls in November.

        Oh are you feefees hurt. Trump has been degrading minority groups and women since day one of his campaign but its Clinton’s remarks that are not helping. Well she is right there are a lot of deplorable people supporting Trump. You may find racists and white nationalists acceptable but most people do not.

      • 1mime says:

        True to form, the media has been blasting Clinton for her “47%” moment…..Where is Trump’s 100% responsibility?

      • flypusher says:

        “Well she is right there are a lot of deplorable people supporting Trump. You may find racists and white nationalists acceptable but most people do not.”

        We are in legitimate-1984-slavery=freedom territory with the Trump apologists/rationalizers. Hillary lies, so vote for the bigger liar. Hillary can’t be trusted, so vote for the most untrustworthy candidate of all. Hillary said something insulting about some of the people backing Trump, so vote for the guy who keeps insulting just about everyone. This is like one of those Star Trek episodes where they fry the circuits of the androids/master computer with a barrage of utter nonsense.

      • 1mime says:

        I’m sorry, Fly, but anyone who reads this blog has no excuse for voting for Trump except that they must agree with him. There are people who come from a different background whose decision to support T is more understandable, even though he is still a terrible choice. Here’s a story about people like that. Clinton cannot change this situation, of course, neither can T, but for these people, it’s like you stated earlier – it’s the only way they feel they can register their protest to what is happening in their lives. That “what is happening” is going to continue to happen but at least one can understand where they are coming from, even if we know they are hurting themselves more by voting for Trump.

      • flypusher says:

        What is the exact percentage of deplorables in the Trump camp? Some parsing if the #s:

      • 1mime says:

        “t’s likely many are genuine conservatives who simply support the candidate they see as more conservative. ”

        Trump “MORE” conservative than Clinton? How the heck would they know? By his well-detailed program/policies? Or, are they just “guessing” because of the “R” next to his name!

      • flypusher says:

        “Trump “MORE” conservative than Clinton? How the heck would they know? By his well-detailed program/policies? Or, are they just “guessing” because of the “R” next to his name!”

        In the case of people like Ryan and Pence, I’d say they are gambling. Gambling that he will somehow win despite his ignorance, unfitness, and lack of conservative cred, and that he’s content to leave the heavy lifting of governing to them. Or he gets bored and quits. Or if he does something really outrageous/ one of his simmering scandals explodes, they can act shocked and then start impeachment proceedings. That’s a big reward, but the risk is big too. I call them sell outs, because they are willing to back a disastrous choice for the possibity of power.

      • formdib says:

        Here’s the full, actual quote of Hillary’s ‘baskets of deplorables’ comment:

        “We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?


        The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

        So if you’d LIKE an out, you could put yourself in the latter half… the half that ‘feels the government let them down.’

        However, it’s up to you, not us, to decide whether you’re racist or not. You are supporting a man whose entire platform is white grievance, and no actual really real plans to really confront this whole ‘government let me down’ thing.

        So, make your choice. ARE you “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic”, or not?

        I know your thoughts on Hillary, but I’m not even making the argument that you should vote for her. Vote for who you will, but it does reflect on your character.

      • 1mime says:

        Formdib, here’s a question spawned by your comment, “it’s up to you, not us, to decide whether you’re racist or not.” My problem with this is that too few people recognize that they ‘are’ racist, thus to allow “them” to decide is, IMO, giving them a pass. Failure to honestly recognize their own racism causes more denial. I’m tired of that.

      • formdib says:

        In this case, it’s simply that I don’t feel Objv’s racist. I feel I understand her antipathy and anger toward Hillary, she has gone to lengths to focus on that.

        So I don’t find her motivations so pro-Trump, especially since she’s expressed she’s not pro-Trump. So since Trump isn’t inspiring her with white grievance, it’s up to her to decide whether she wants to stay in the tent with with grievance.

      • 1mime says:

        You are a generous soul, formdib.

      • flypusher says:

        ” I feel I understand her antipathy and anger toward Hillary, she has gone to lengths to focus on that.”

        This strikes me as yet another gotcha attempt- surely we couldn’t support THIS insulting and outrageous thing that Hillary said!!!

        Except we can and we did, because it wasn’t insulting to anyone who wasn’t racist, misogynistic, etc, unless they chose let Trump cherry pick it for them, and it’s also not outrageous given the verifiable truth behind it. These people have been polled, for months now, and a significant number of them do hate. Trump has hired/is advised by some very bad people (Ailes, Bannon, etc.) and he has done NOTHING to discourage the deplorable behavior by the dregs of his worshipers. Nobody’s being attacked for being White or Christian or working class or patriotic.

  32. irapmup says:

    I do harp on some thoughts and this post will be no exception.

    The death of the Republican Party also sounds the death knell of American politics as we think we have known it for the past couple of centuries.

    Our nation was not founded of by and for the people rather a small group of elites who while it appears their hearts were in the right place, the fact is they sought to rule as benevolent dictators, a mindset which has not skipped much of a beat in the following passage of time.,

    Beyond a means of financial support, the average citizen, however defined, was never considered part of the equation. We have for all intent been ruled and for all purpose been exploited by a class who understand what comes out of the kitchen leaves only so much pie to be divided.

    It isn’t as though socialism was ensconced in the halls of Harvard, William and Mary or St. John’s College, all founded well before our Declaration of Independence was signed. That developement had to wait until many more were killed under a more obvious form of monarchy and in another country. Even then and apparently to this day the allure of dictatorship has proved overpowering to those with enough muscle to grab their piece.

    Here in our nation the appeal of wealth has been clothed in deceptive robes. We all share in what we consider the benefits of freedom everytime we use the newest handheld device to access the latest lyrical beat or call mom from jail after being busted for smoking a joint. This is what many among us consider wealth. This is also the only thing many of us have as wealth

    It certainly isn’t clear to most of us, but our freedom is rationed in smaller doses to some,than others, but especially those who don’t share the heavenly skin tones of our Caucasian founders,

    Mr Trump is no more a Republican than I am.

    He is simply a person, who like many others, has only known their skin color to dominate any other consideration in almost every transaction ever undertaken in our society. His followers began to feel the pinch of what honest and open dealing throughout our nation actually meant when Mr Obama, clearly a man who does not share their hue, became our President.

    Unfortunately he alone could not overcome the hostility which still reigns throughout large parts of our nation and is clearly reflected in our Congress especially their intransifent refusal to even consider his ideas let alone accept the fact he is, unlike them, an intelligent sentient human being.

    The idea of a President, like that of a representative body, have begun their slide into the bin of failed ideas, not because they are unworkable rather that they demand intelligent consideration which in turn requires intelligent participants.

    The fact that over 10% of our adult population cannot read at all and nearly 100 million adults in our nation do not read above a sixth grade level sounds the death knell on our participatory democracy more clearly than any of Mr Trump’s apparently rabid followers.

    Unless we look inward to understand and address the problems we harbor under the guise of freedom, the exploitation of war which benefits very few of those hidden among us will plague and eventually destroy us.

    • 1mime says:

      Intelligent people plus intelligent discussion would normally deliver intelligent outcomes. I have no doubt that most of our members of Congress are “intelligent”, but what I do doubt is that they are “wise”. If not, how could intelligent discussion yield anything other than intelligent consensus? There is too much focus on power and ego, individual gain and party superiority.

      I fear for our nation that so many of our citizens hold such narrow visions of the world. That our political institutions would give us candidates like Donald Trump could be our next president. That is unthinkable to me.

      As noted, our younger generation as well as others, feel they are being left out. In this vacuum, enters a Donald Trump, the antithesis of a thinking person, and a Hillary Clinton, who it appears, despite her superior qualifications, is being rejected by millions. What kind of person do we need to lead our country at this point in history?

      As for me, I will genuinely miss Barack Obama.

  33. Zenlineage says:

    Thanks for keeping the posting up. Call me a neanderthal, but I always thought that GWBs official government photograph (and also his manner of speaking prior to being elected) told you everything you needed to know about the man. Goofy. Oddly optimistic beyond reasonable expectation. Puer aeternus to throw some Latin around. I might have disagreed with McCain on a lot of things, but this clearly would not have been his starting point in a presidency.

  34. 1mime says:

    Chris, a couple of corrections in paragraph 3: “running ‘mate’ not made; “temerity ‘to’ not the”

    Another super post…don’t know where you find the time…I guess you’re in a more reflective mood following your departure from the current GOP…In traveling down these finer times within the Republican Party, it helps me better understand how far the party has fallen and what it was and still could be with the right people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: