I believe this kind of thing has been trod upon, probably even in this thread. Why did Cohen have recordings of his phonecalls with CFSG? Why did lawyers insist upon meeting him in pairs? It is/was never safe to discuss business with him unless you had/have back-up. Or anything, now it seems.
:smack: times a trillion. (I knew I was forgetting something. Big.)
I stupidly forgot yet another equally important guest on that Bill Maher show - historian Nancy McClean, who gave a sobering lowdown on the constitutional shenanigans that the Kock Bros. and ALECare up to.
Guest-starring: Id!, if you liked Bill’s guests, Malcolm Nance, Charles Blow and Steve Schmidt, you’d enjoy watching MSNBC. Those guys are program guests all the time.
Like you, I’m in awe of Schmidt’s facility with language. Not sure I can ever forgive him for Palin, but he is trying.
Hope to see more of Nancy McLean. Her chilling message needs to be heard more widely.
Yikes - never knew of that past transgression.
Not really up on my buzzwords - guessing he’d be considered ‘woke’, then.
Still have the show on pvr, and it’s his third and final overview that’s his most crushing and galvanizing - ending with an impassioned plea to everyone to get out to VOTE for what’s the BY FAR the most important mid-term election in the history of the US, and that it’s basically our last chance.
Gah, wish I could find it on youtube.
Thanks for the tip about those guests also on MSNBC. Too bad they’re never on PBS Newshour, which, I gotta say, I much prefer viewing.
Every single night.
Without fail.
I think some republicans and conservatives are beginning to understand the destructiveness of pandering to the worst instincts of their ‘base’. Unfortunately, for contrite Republicans such as Schmidt, it’s already gone much farther than he ever envisioned it would go. The grave error that they made was believing that they could utilize their base to win elections but then govern more sensibly and more moderately once the election was over. In the age of perpetual campaigning, however, the election is never ever. There’s always a fight to be won, and thus the pressure to keep digging deeper into the dirt builds.
The comparisons to late Weimar Germany are fitting indeed. German conservatives believed that they could control the Nazis. They were dead wrong. The Nazis were not a majority party; they consistently won about 30-35% of the vote (I think they won 37% when they finally took power in 1932-33). But we’re talking about 37% of those who voted, not necessarily 37% of the entire voting eligible population. I’m sure that, like America today, some voters probably checked out.
Oh yes, Constitutional revolution. Conservatives have been talking about it for sometime now, and they’re only a few state elections away from having the power to call for a Constitutional convention.
I was also struck just as much by what Bill Maher pointed out, which is that 4 justices on the bench will have been chosen by presidents who lost the popular vote. So in addition to having the legislative branch controlled by a party that gerrymandered their way into power and an executive branch that won on a constitutional technicality, we also have the judicial branch that similarly controlled by a political minority as well.
This is something I’ve been saying, which is that American democracy really isn’t anymore. I’m not saying that Republicans haven’t won elections legally (although the 2016 election is definitely ripe for speculation in light of what we now know); I’m arguing that the machinery of the Constitution has been exploited in such a way that it doesn’t consistently produce democratic results. America functions by the letter of Constitutional law, not necessarily according to the democratic spirit of the laws and liberties thereof.
And I would submit that the cracks in our democracy began with the decline of socioeconomic equality that we kinda, sorta had in the post-WWII industrial era. Without socioeconomic equality, without economic security for all, true democracy is hard to achieve. Because without that economic security, people begin to doubt the efficacy of a democratic system, which is why the idea of President Trump - a laugh-inducing thought in 2000 - became a reality in 2016. That is why pure capitalism is not really and truly a democratic economic system; it’s oppressive. It’s great at using the talents and ambitions of individuals who can create wealth, but that wealth needs to be redistributed somehow. People like the Kochs and the Mercers want to destroy democracy as you and I know it so that we can’t protest their idea of capitalism.
Those are very good points, but there’s another factor in the not-democracy equation. Republicans have long elevated lying to an art form, and Trump has taken it to a level where facts don’t even matter any more – he lies whenever he opens his mouth. Meanwhile false narratives are enabled and facilitated by the money of the Kochs and Mercers and many like them and all their corporate and plutocratic compatriots. So one of the strongest drivers of not-democracy is that vast numbers of voters have no idea what they’re voting for, and are doing so under tremendous misconceptions about reality. You can’t have a democracy when so much of the populace is ignorant of the issues. On top of all that, nearly half of eligible voters typically don’t even bother to vote at all.
Well put, and an top entry in the Trump-related post of the year contest.
Ahem, allow me to summarize at the level someone of Trump’s literacy can understand:
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Lol, Dotard the First, very stable genius and expert negotiator, just re-implemented the Iranian sanctions. The ones he lifted when he scuttled the Iranian deal.
The sanctions where lifted when the Iranian deal was implemented during the previous administration. When Trump scuttled the deal that included reinstating the sanctions, just not immediately. The linked article says as much.
I’m not sure what you’re actually trying to say here.
I don’t think you have that right. The sanctions were lifted as part of the Obama’s Iran deal. Reimposing them is the act that scuttles the deal.
D’oh! My bad, sorry about that!
You’d need to factor out the people who refinanced for ‘frivolous’ reasons - vacation, granite counter tops, expanded master suite, new BMW, Xbox for the kid - from those who refinanced for reasons beyond their control.
There was a lot of advertising pushing people to ‘tap into their capital’ - but people do have a responsibility to provide for themselves when able to.
FWIW:
I bought my house at the end of 2003. I chose a 30-year fixed-rate loan because I guessed that interest rates would only increase. (They did go down some more, but they’re higher now than when I bought my house; so I made the correct choice.) I did re-finance in 2010, but not to extend my payment time. I refinanced to a 15-year fixed-rate loan so that I could pay it off more quickly. (The monthly payments stayed about the same.)
I bought my 3BR house, on a quarter acre about 450 feet from the beach, at the appraised value of $96,000. According to Zillow, the estimated selling price as I post this is $217,281. I don’t think they take into account the huge new deck, almost half of which has a roof over it, nor the electrical upgrades we had done last year, nor the new front windows. And we’re having more work done.
I did the same. Re-fied, and took out money to do a MAJOR remodel. Shortened my payoff time and only increased the monthly payments by about $100. I paid off the loan about 2 years ago. 
I re-fied to drop my interest 4%. I think that’s a valid reason.
There are way too many reporters who are STILL covering Trump the way they’ve covered normal politicians. Just the other day one was talking about the issue of Trump potentially meeting with Mueller, and referencing the tweets and on-camera remarks he’s made over the months, claiming that he’d be willing to do so.*
What made me want to tear my hair out was the way this news-employee (I don’t want to say ‘Journalist’) kept saying “Trump wants to meet with Mueller but it may not happen because X, Y, and Z”.
An actual journalist, of course, would have said “Trump has claimed he wants to meet” or even “Trump has stated that he wants to meet,” not “Trump wants to meet.”
After all this time, you (the news-employee, I mean) still assume Trump is truthfully reporting his actual intentions and plans? Really???
It’s simply unacceptable to report Trump’s emissions as ‘what Trump wants’ or ‘what Trump thinks.’ The only respectable way to report them as ‘Trump claimed today’ or ‘Trump stated today’ or the equivalent.
*For example,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/robert-mueller-donald-trump/index.html
Why am I not surprised that Loser Donald would think P.T. Barnum is still alive?