Funny how fast the "no collusion" slogan evaporated after the recent revelations about Trump trying to shake down the president of Ukraine to fabricate a smear campaign about Joe Biden. Two years of hand-wringing about the Mueller report are suddenly moot. Instead of "no collusion" it's now, "Sure I colluded, but it was for a good cause. Collusion with a foreign government is perfectly acceptable if it is done in the name of rooting our corruption. Oh, and it's just a coincidence that the most egregious corruption in the entire U.S. -- indeed the only such example that merits the enlistment of a foreign power to help ferret it out -- just happens to be my leading political opponent.
Somehow, if the polls are to be believed, over a third of the country actually buys that narrative.
When Trump was first elected there were some who hoped that he would "grow into the office" and become less Trumpy, that with some "adults in the room" to reign him in, disaster might be averted. I wonder how much worse things have to get before the last holdouts realize that this is not going to happen. Whenever Trump gets away with something his response is not, "Whew, that was close, I'd better be more careful next time." Instead it's, "Well, that was cool, I wonder how much more I can get away with?" In a scant two years we've gone from, "I never talked to the Russians" to "Sure, I use the power of the presidency to coerce a foreign government to interfere in our domestic politics. So what?" We've gone from pussy grabbing to concentration camps where children are forcibly separated from their families. Do we really need to march all the way to the gas chambers before the Republican party wakes up and realizes that Donald Trump will lead them through the gates of hell if they give him even half a chance? And for what, to overturn Roe v. Wade? To wreak righteous vengeance against the spotted owl?
Seriously, if you're still a Trump supporter at this point (I'm looking at you, Publius) I really want you to explain this to me. What is it that Trump is offering at this point that is worth the price of the nation's soul?
the recent revelations about Trump trying to shake down the president of Ukraine to fabricate a smear campaign about Joe Biden
ReplyDeleteI've read the transcript of the call. Trump didn't ask the president of Ukraine to fabricate anything. And the Ukraine was already investigating the company Biden's son worked for anyway.
Virtually all of the media coverage I see about this is not talking about what Trump actually said. It's talking about what various Democrats and media talking heads want us to think he said.
> Trump didn't ask the president of Ukraine to fabricate anything.
ReplyDeleteOf course he did. Here is what Trump said:
"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine ... there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Not only is Trump asking Zelensky to fabricate a smear campaign, he is telling Zelensky exactly what the smear campaign should consist of.
Oh, and you should read this.
> Ukraine was already investigating the company Biden's son worked for anyway.
So what? That investigation was clearly bogus. But even if it wasn't, there's a *huge* difference between a country investigating wrongdoing within its own borders, and the president of the U.S. pressuring a foreign leader to conduct (or in this case, revive) such an investigation against the president's leading political opponent.
> Virtually all of the media coverage I see about this is not talking about what Trump actually said.
Well, this isn't "all the media", this is Rondam Ramblings, and I've just quoted what Trump actually said. I think you have to be ridiculously naive not to recognize what he said as being exactly how I characterized it. And I'm not the only one. John Bolton thinks so too. (You know it's a cold day in hell when John Bolton and I agree about anything.)
@Publius: in case you're wondering why your comments aren't appearing, it's because they are being blocked by Google's spam filter, and they are so odious that I am not inclined to override it despite my general desire to support free speech. FYI2, I am a descendant of holocaust survivors, to to accuse me of holocaust denial is not going to be well received.
ReplyDelete< Here is what Trump said
ReplyDeleteI know what he said. I said I had read the transcript. He never asked the president of Ukraine to fabricate anything. He asks him to get to the bottom of something that the Ukraine was already investigating anyway.
That investigation was clearly bogus.
I disagree.
I've just quoted what Trump actually said.
You quoted what he actually said in your comment. You didn't quote it in your post. In your post you claimed Trump tried "to shake down the president of Ukraine to fabricate a smear campaign about Joe Biden". That is not what Trump actually said, nor is it a fair description of what he actually said. If you think it is, then I'll just bow out of this discussion since you and I clearly don't speak the same version of the English language.
I think you have to be ridiculously naive not to recognize what he said as being exactly how I characterized it
That's not quoting what he said, or even reporting and paraphrasing what he said, that's putting your own interpretation on what he said. And failing to distinguish those two actions is a big part of the problem I have with all of the media these days. I am disappointed in you for falling prey to it.
I'm not the only one. John Bolton thinks so too.
So does pretty much every Democrat in Congress and every talking head on every major media channel except Fox News. So what? I don't give any credibility to any of them on anything else; why should I on this?
I think you have to be ridiculously naive not to recognize what he said as being exactly how I characterized it
ReplyDeleteTo respond to the substance of this as opposed to the form (which I responded to in my last post just now) will end up being somewhat long, so it might go over the character limit and take more than one post. I offer this simply as my observations for whatever they're worth, not just of the current kerfluffle but of the last few years in something of a historical perspective.
Let's suppose that the Democratic and media characterization of the Trump administration is entirely justified. (I don't think it actually is, but let's assume it is for the sake of argument.) Even given that, the claim that this is somehow the greatest threat to civilization ever and we need to impeach Trump right now, is the sort of hyperbole I expect from Trump, not his critics. Basically, the Democratic and media picture of the Trump administration is of a garden variety late 19th century kleptocracy, not much different from, say, the Hayes or Cleveland or McKinley administrations. Or, for that matter, the Democratic political machines that have been running Chicago for about two centuries now, and New York for longer than that. None of this is new and none of it is a dire emergency that can't wait for the 2020 elections to be fixed.
The promise of the progressive movement in politics, which has been championed mainly by the Democrats for the last century or so (but not always--for example, at the time of the Civil War the Republicans were the progressives and the Democrats were the reactionaries), was to move us beyond that to a less corrupt government that would serve the people better. And the problem the Democrats have right now is that they are failing, as a party, to offer anything to the people along those lines. The progressive wing of the party right now isn't trying to protect civil rights and free speech; they're trying to police thought crime. They aren't protecting the safety of citizens; they're openly refusing to incarcerate violent criminals who happen to be subject to deportation and whom they refuse to turn over to ICE. (I would have no problem if they refused on principle to turn them over and kept them in prison; what I have a problem with is doing neither, and then talking as if they have some sort of moral high ground.) They aren't rooting out corruption; they're just exercising different preferences on who benefits from it. A hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, the Democrats could get away with saying they were genuinely working for a better society; but now they've been caught out too many times for that message to be received.
(Continued in next post.)
(Continued from previous post.)
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, the Democrats are failing to understand that all of the above is the reason Trump won in 2016--not foreign interference or collusion. When the Democratic party machine nominated Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, it was clear to anyone who was paying attention that whatever genuine concern for the people existed in the Democratic party was no longer in control of the party, and therefore did not matter. The cynical view of this is simple: if we're going to have a kleptocracy either way, at least let's have one that's honest about it instead of trying to cloak it in a veneer of public service. I don't know how much of a factor that viewpoint actually was in 2016, but I think it's going to be more of a factor in 2020, and that is only going to hurt the Democrats.
And for extra fun, the Democrats seem committed to courses of action that have no realistic chance of success. Even if the House impeaches Trump, the Senate is not going to vote two-thirds for conviction. And I don't think any of the current Democratic Presidential candidates have a chance of beating Trump. I would have given Biden a fair chance a while back, but he seems to be past it. I would have given Sanders something of a chance, but he's farther left than anyone else in the field, which makes it harder for him to capture independents, and now he seems to have health problems. Any of the rest of them, I think Trump will simply eat for breakfast during an actual campaign. None of them have had to deal with anything like what Trump will throw at them, and none of them seem up to it. And I strongly suspect that's because all of them grew up politically in an echo chamber, where no dissenting points of view were ever expressed and no hard questions were ever asked--which makes them less fit for the actual office of President anyway.
None of this makes the Republicans (even apart from Trump) an attractive choice. That's the problem: it's not that we have one halfway decent party and one not so decent party. We have two corrupt and inadequate parties, and no realistic way for a third party of any higher quality to emerge. Trump is a symptom of that, but he's not the root problem.
Holocaust relativism is always the beginning of Holocaust denial
ReplyDelete@Ron
>@Publius: in case you're wondering why your comments aren't appearing, it's because they are being blocked by Google's spam filter, and they are so odious that I am not inclined to override it despite my general desire to support free speech. FYI2, I am a descendant of holocaust survivors, to to accuse me of holocaust denial is not going to be well received.
To put it positively, one thing you and I agree on is the evil of the Holocaust and are both against Holocaust Denial. When ever I come across Holocaust denial on the internet, I call it out. I also report Twitter users who post anti-semantic statements, including (((triple parenthesis))).
It is not the first time I've pointed out to you that comparing President Trump to Hitler is a form of Holocaust denial. I'm well aware your parents are Holocaust survivors, so I assume your use of this rhetoric is out of ignorance or having just not thought about it. Note I did not accuse you of Holocaust denial, but of using rhetoric that is a form of Holocaust denial.
Now that you are informed (again), that comparing President Trump to Hitler is a form of Holocaust denial, I hope you will stop it. If you continue to do it, that would be odious and shameful, and I will call you out of on it every time.
@Publius:
ReplyDeleteThe reason I cite my credentials as a descendant of holocaust survivors is not because I believe that my pedigree gives me any special authority. It's because I actually *talked* to my grandparents about what it was like. That gives me more direct information about the holocaust than the vast majority of people currently living. I know details about what happened that are not often emphasized in the history books.
One of the things that struck me most about what my grandparents told me is their emphasis on how many people said, "It can't get that bad." Well, my grandparents thought it could get that bad, and they fled. Their friends who thought it couldn't get that bad stayed behind, and they all died. "Die wahren alle vergassed" (they were all gassed) were my grandmother's exact words. The tone of her voice when she told me that is seared into my memory. She was calm and wistful, but I could tell she was concealing deep pain even forty years after the fact (I interviewed her in the mid 1980s).
"Don't compare Trump to Hitler" is today's version of "it can't get that bad." Yes, it's true that there are significant differences between Trump and Hitler. Mostly, Trump is worse. Hitler at least was an actual patriot. He was not corrupt. He really believed in his heart of hearts that what he was doing was for the good of Germany, and in fact many of his policies actually did make Germany better and stronger, at least economically and militarily (until he invaded Poland -- that didn't work out so well).
Furthermore, Hitler never colluded with a foreign government (that would have been anathema to him). He never accepted bribes, never used his position of power to enrich himself. He was in many ways a great leader. But he had one big problem: he was a psychopath and a megalomaniac who saw anyone who was not a fully able-bodied white person as sub-human. And Donald Trump has the same problem. On top of that, Trump is corrupt and a traitor and a narcissist and a pathological liar, but that's not the reason it's fair to compare him to Hitler. Hitler was none of those things.
The reason it's fair to compare Trump to Hitler is the xenophobic rhetoric, the intentional systematic infliction of emotional distress as a political tool, the deportation and family separation, the concentration camps, and the coming genocide against the Kurds that he just greenlighted.
Obviously Trump is not going to *literally* build gas chambers; that plot point is too hackneyed even for Trump. That doesn't mean that Hitler has nothing to teach us about Trump. He does. The only denialism going on here is from the people saying, "It can't get that bad." For the Kurds, it already has.
Phantasmagoric Psychodrama, Part 1
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>"Don't compare Trump to Hitler" is today's version of "it can't get that bad." Yes, it's true that there are significant differences between Trump and Hitler. Mostly, Trump is worse. Hitler at least was an actual patriot. He was not corrupt. He really believed in his heart of hearts that what he was doing was for the good of Germany, and in fact many of his policies actually did make Germany better and stronger, at least economically and militarily (until he invaded Poland -- that didn't work out so well).
You need to break out of the phantasmagoric psychodrama that dishonest Democrats and the dishonest national press have created. Everything you claim about Trump is false:
. Trump is a patriot
. Trump is not corrupt
. Trump policies are for "making America great again." The economy is a full employment. The economy has been growing strongly since he took office.
Also, the invasion of Poland went swimmingly. The invasion of the Soviet Union did not.
@Ron:
>Furthermore, Hitler never colluded with a foreign government (that would have been anathema to him). He never accepted bribes, never used his position of power to enrich himself. He was in many ways a great leader. But he had one big problem: he was a psychopath and a megalomaniac who saw anyone who was not a fully able-bodied white person as sub-human. And Donald Trump has the same problem. On top of that, Trump is corrupt and a traitor and a narcissist and a pathological liar, but that's not the reason it's fair to compare him to Hitler. Hitler was none of those things.
. Trump has never colluded with a foreign government
. Trump has never accepted bribes
. Trump is not using the Presidency to enrich himself (he was rich before office). Contrast to Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.
. Trump is not a traitor
. Trump is not a pathological liar
All of your accusations are not backed up by facts; they are just partisan hate-attacks against President Trump that your perpetuate.
In addition, one might consider the Hitler-Stalin pact collusion with a foreign government. Hitler also enriched himself in office (Eagle's Nest, anyone?).
@Ron:
>The reason it's fair to compare Trump to Hitler is the xenophobic rhetoric, the intentional systematic infliction of emotional distress as a political tool, the deportation and family separation, the concentration camps, and the coming genocide against the Kurds that he just greenlighted.
A lot time ago, you asked me to point out whenever you were committing hypocrisy. Here you go:
. Trump is the chief executive, in charge of implementing laws passed by Congress. The "systematic infliction of emotional distress," "deportation," "family separation," and "concentration camps" are written into US law. He is following the law passed by Congress. Furthermore, all of those things happened in the Obama administration, yet you didn't say a peep about them. Hypocrisy=1
"The coming genocide against the Kurds" is your forecast of the future, not a certainty. Trump is an isolationist. The Kurds are not Americans. His loyalty is to Americans (he's a patriot, remember?). Perhaps you can direct me to your posts against the Clinton administration selling weapons to Turkey, the very weapons used against the Kurds.
You accuse (without evidence) Trump of corruption, while ignoring the corruption of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Maxine Waters. Hypocrisy=1
Phantasmagoric Psychodrama, Part 2
ReplyDeleteYou accuse Trump of colluding with foreign governments, while ignoring (Hypocrisy=1):
. Hillary colluding with foreign governments in the 2016 campaign via the "diry dossier" AND received help from Ukraine.
. The illegal $2.8 Chinese campaign contributions to Bill Clinton in 1996 and his subsequent sell-out of America to China.
. Bill Clinton colluding with Boris Yeltsin for help in his campaign and the other times Democrats colluded with Russia.
@Ron:
>That doesn't mean that Hitler has nothing to teach us about Trump. He does. The only denialism going on here is from the people saying, "It can't get that bad."
Look around. Times are good. People are at work and making a lot of money. The US isn't engaged in any significant wars.
America has gotten better during the Trump administration.
To think that the environment is bad is be seduced by the phantasmagoric psychodrama spun by dishonest Democrats and the dishonest national media.
In Summary
Educated liberals like to think they understand everything better than others -- they have more insight, more historical knowledge, to put current times into a context that the average slub can't comprehend.
You haven't achieved that. You repeat lies about political opponents you don't like, and ignore the infractions of politicians you do like. You are just an extension of #FakeNews.
To compare Trump to Hitler is an aid to Holocaust denialism. It goes like this: "A grandson of Holocaust survivors says Trump is worse than Hitler. But no in in the US is being rounded up and killed. That must not have happened in Nazi Germany either -- those jews just left or were relocated. The Holocaust is a lie created by the allied powers to smear Germany after the war." Perhaps they'll link to your blog.
To compare Trump to Hitler is also a goddamn lie.
@Publius:
ReplyDeleteLet's consider your bullet points one by one:
> Trump is a patriot
Right. That's why he volunteered to serve in Viet Nam and otherwise has led a life of exemplary public service. Oh, wait...
> Trump is not corrupt
So the story about him awarding the G7 contract to himself is fake news? He's not only corrupt, he is brazenly, openly corrupt. He's not even trying to hide it any more.
> The economy is a [sic] full employment. The economy has been growing strongly since he took office.
The difference between Trump and Hitler in this regard is that Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack Obama while Hitler took over during the Great Depression, which in Germany was greatly exacerbated by the aftermath of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler actually did make Germany great again, whereas Trump is merely managing to keep from destroying the U.S. -- so far. He's only been in office three years, and it took George Bush a full seven to produce the Great Recession, so there's time yet.
> Trump has never colluded with a foreign government
Perhaps. But it's not for want of trying.
> Trump has never accepted bribes
Trump is brazenly and openly accepting bribes even as I write this.
> Trump is not using the Presidency to enrich himself (he was rich before office).
That is unclear. Where are his tax returns? Just because someone flies around in a private jet doesn't mean he's rich.
> Trump is not a traitor
We'll see.
> Trump is not a pathological liar
He's been averaging 13 lies a day since taking office, and that number has gone up recently, so roughly one lie every single waking hour for the last three years. Exactly how much does a person have to lie before you would consider it pathological?
> All of your accusations are not backed up by facts
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that one.
> Hillary
Oh please, not that again. Have you not looked at today's news?
Forgot a couple of links:
ReplyDelete> Trump has never colluded with a foreign government
Perhaps. But it's not for want of trying.
> Trump is not using the Presidency to enrich himself (he was rich before office).
That is unclear. Where are his tax returns? Just because someone flies around in a private jet doesn't mean he's rich. It just means someone was stupid enough to loan him a lot of money.
Metered 2
ReplyDelete>> Trump is not a traitor
We'll see.
Oh, so you admit you have no evidence. Check.
>> Trump is not a pathological liar
He's been averaging 13 lies a day since taking office, and that number has gone up recently, so roughly one lie every single waking hour for the last three years. Exactly how much does a person have to lie before you would consider it pathological?
Pathology implies intent. I understand what he's saying. You just don't understand how he communicates.
>> Hillary
>Oh please, not that again. Have you not looked at today's news?
The State Department report of 38 individuals responsible for 91 violations of rules for handling classified information, plus another 497 violations where they did not assign responsibility? So, 588 instances of classified information being on Hillary's unsecured server? Oh, an not one person is found culpable? Not one person put in handcuffs? Not one person disciplined? 588 violations and no one is responsible?
The DOJ needs to review this and open a criminal case.
Of course, why did Hillary Clinton have her own email server? To control what would be archived. Hence she deleted 30,000 emails after they had been subpoenaed. In addition, she and her correspondents used aliases to try and avoid future keyword searches. For example, Chelsea Clinton was "Diane Reynolds" -- but Chelsea is stupid, she signed all her emails "Love, Chelsea."
More Bullet Points
ReplyDelete1. When Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) reached out to the Soviet Union -- in 1980 (against Jimmy Carter) and 1983 (against Ronald Reagan) -- to undermine the foreign policy of each President, was that collusion with a foreign government?
2. In 2012, President Barak Obama said to Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president at the time: "After my election I have more flexibility." This now infamous quote was from a hot mic; Obama was telling Medvedev that at that time he just needed Vladimir Putin, who had won Russia's presidential election earlier that month, "to give me space" on Russia-related issues until after his election. Medvedev told Obama, "I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you." Was that collusion with a foreign government?
3. When Jimmy Carter sent (communist spy) Armand Hammer to lobby the Soviet Union to let Jewish 'refuseniks' emigrate to Israel, to strengthen Carter's standing in important States, was that collusion with a foreign government?
4. In 1996, when Bill Clinton pledged to support Boris Yeltsin if Yeltsin would resolve the poultry dispute between the US and Russia, was that colluding with a foreign government?
5. In 1984, when Tip O'Neil (Speaker of the House) told Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, "that it was in everyone’s best interests if the Soviets would help the Democrats keep 'that demagogue Reagan' from being re-elected," was that collusion with a foreign government?
6. When Hilary Clinton earned $100,000 in 1978 & 1979 trading cattle futures, from a $1,000 initial investment, was she engaged in a corrupt activity?
7. Was it corrupt that Huma Abedin was allowed to work in the State Department as Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff, while also working for the outside consulting firm Teneo, and the Clinton Foundation?
8. When Chelsea Clinton was hired by NBC for a $600,000 a year salary, do you think anything was corrupt about that?
9. When Bill Clinton tried to have a secret meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her airplane at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, was that corrupt?
10. Was it corrupt for Bill and Hillary Clinton to profit from selling HIV-tainted blood for Arkansas prisoners?
What do you think of the book Guilty As Sin by Edward Klein? Here's an interview with Ed Klein about it.