[Winstonm]

akwoo, on 2020-November-28, 17:13, said:

Re: integrity/character.

When people say that Jimmy Carter is a good person but not a good president, what they mean is that they want the government to lie, cheat, and steal on their behalf, and President Carter wasn't willing to do that.

Yes it's important for our government to have integrity, but most voters also want the government to be crooked against those they perceive as crooks, and most people have a rather elastic definition of who the crooks are.

I don't think that is accurate - although more accurate than it used to be, or should be. There is definitely less acceptance of the validity of "the other side" than any time since, most likely, the Civil War. Still, without integrity, we have lawlessness.

Quote

"It was like a rumor Whac-A-Mole," said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Despite being a Republican who voted for Trump, Raffensperger said he refused repeated attempts by Trump allies to get him to cross ethical lines. "I don't think I had a choice. My job is to follow the law. We're not going to get pushed off the needle on doing that. Integrity still matters."

About 7 million more people voted for integrity over crookedness. Still a margin that thin is too thin to sustain a democratic republic for much longer. Unless we can find a way to elevate those numbers, the U.S. is on perilous ground.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Beyond the specific ridiculousness, I always find it bizarre how rarely these columns say “a large minority of the electorate voted for Trump because they prefer republicans’ policy views.”

Isaac Chotiner at The New Yorker said:

These Maureen Dowd columns where she has her conservative brother write them are always bad, but this one descended to new depths. People voting for Trump because they were tired of being lied to is amusing enough, but the last sentence takes the cake.

The Democrats remain mystified by the loyalty of Trump’s base. It is rock solid because half the country was tired of being patronized and lied to and worse, taken for granted. Trump was unique because he was only interested in results.

https://nytimes.com/...pgtype=Homepage

45 percent for McCain in 2008

47 percent for Romney in 2012

46 percent for Trump in 2016

47 percent for Trump in 2020

The shifts at the margin lead to big changes in outcomes, but most voters are party loyalists.

[Winstonm]

This reads like a textbook on the progression of mental illness:

Quote

She zipped through classes at the University of North Carolina, earning her diploma in less than two years. She added a law degree and in her early 20s became, she has often said, the youngest federal prosecutor in the country. And when Sidney Powell — then a Democrat — moved into private practice, she co-wrote a paper hailed as a "manual" for deciphering sometimes-arcane appellate rules, salting in advice for fellow attorneys: Never "slant" the truth to benefit a client. "To write anything less than an accurate statement of facts can cost an attorney credibility with the court," she wrote.

Fast forward two decades — through a bitter case she says shook her faith in the U.S. justice system — and there was Powell at a lectern at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee, introduced as an attorney representing President Trump.

At the Nov. 19 news conference, before a national television audience, she asserted that "communist money," the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and a manipulated computer algorithm were all connected in a secret plot that had altered potentially millions of ballots and stolen the election from Trump.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-29, 11:03, said:

This reads like a textbook on the progression of mental illness:

From the article.
"In calls to the White House, several GOP senators warned that Powell seemed unhinged, two officials said.
Powell, at least for the time being, had gone too far."

Too far? Too far? Do we say that robbing a bank to pay the rent is going too far? And "at least for the time being"? Later it will be ok?

We passed "too far" quite a while ago.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-November-29, 13:25, said:

From the article.
"In calls to the White House, several GOP senators warned that Powell seemed unhinged, two officials said.
Powell, at least for the time being, had gone too far."

Too far? Too far? Do we say that robbing a bank to pay the rent is going too far? And "at least for the time being"? Later it will be ok?

We passed "too far" quite a while ago.

Too far was about 4 years and 20 stops ago - but not a single Republican pulled the cord.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-29, 14:26, said:

Too far was about 4 years and 20over 23000 stops ago - but not a single Republican pulled the cord.

FYP

[Winstonm]

If this isn't reason enough to enact the 25th Amendment I don't know what would be:

Quote

At one point during the interview, Trump even speculated that his own administration's law enforcement entities could be complicit in the alleged conspiracies, which spanned across mail-in and in-person voting.

“This is total fraud. And how the FBI, and Department of Justice — I don't know, maybe they're involved — but how people are allowed to get away with this is stuff is unbelievable. This election was rigged. This election was a total fraud,” Trump said.

He later said, “All I can say, is: With all of the fraud that's taken place, nobody has come to me and said, ‘Oh, the FBI has nabbed the people that are doing this scheme.’”

The Department of Justice, he said, in response to a leading question by Bartiromo, is “missing in action.”

He also charged news media and social media companies with ignoring what he said was the worst political scandal in American history, and alleged, again with no evidence, that ballots were requested in the names of dead people, and that “many mailmen are in trouble for selling ballots.” He accused two leading Republicans in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, of failing to properly administer the election. “I’m sorry I endorsed him,” Trump said of Kemp.

It's no longer cute, curious. or an act - this guy is insane and has way too much power. He needs to be put aside. Now.

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-29, 19:43, said:

If this isn't reason enough to enact the 25th Amendment I don't know what would be:

It's no longer cute, curious. or an act - this guy is insane and has way too much power. He needs to be put aside. Now.

I think your President had shown, within about 4-6 months of taking over, that he as the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".

A few centuries from now people will probably have replaced "Nero" with "Trump", and "Rome" with "United States".

Edit: I just checked that particular betting market I referred to in previous posts. It is still open AND is now paying 5% on Biden!!! Any takers? No?? If one weighs risk v. reward and says "forget it", one is essentially saying that the US Govt. (viz. ALL the three branches of Govt. --- Executive, Legislative, Judiciary --- concurrently) is not trustworthy OR that the 2020 elections were not fair (or both).

Edit 2: I am not implying that people should risk their money. I too am in the "forget it" group; it's just that logic dictates the opposite view.

This post has been edited by shyams: 2020-November-30, 05:15

[Winstonm]

Quote

Since the election, surveys have consistently found that about 70% to 80% of Republicans don’t buy the results.

Are these the same surveys that said Biden had a 15 point lead in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania?

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2020-November-29, 13:25, said:

From the article.
"In calls to the White House, several GOP senators warned that Powell seemed unhinged, two officials said.
Powell, at least for the time being, had gone too far."

It would be hard to give any credibility if those GOP senators didn't also warn that the Manchurian President was seriously unhinged.

[Winstonm]

Two questions: 1) Where is the American Bar Association now?

Quote

Trump campaign lawyer Joe diGenova declared Monday that the Trump administration’s former cybersecurity chief deserves to be put to death for claiming that the presidential election was the “most secure” in the country’s history.

President Trump fired Chris Krebs, his head of cybersecurity, earlier this month after Krebs disputed Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was rigged against him. Krebs found himself at odds with the president after he called the election the “most secure in United States history.”

“Anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity that guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot,” diGenova, who is also a former U.S. Attorney, said during an appearance on the Howie Carr show, broadcast on Newsmax, in comments first reported by The Bulwark.

2) Why is this guy still allowed to practice law?

[y66]

Seung Min Kim, Jeff Stein and Mike DeBonis at WaPo said:

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled an approximately $908 billion stimulus proposal on Tuesday, aiming to break a months-long partisan impasse over providing emergency federal relief to the U.S. economy.

Congress has faced increasing pressure to approve additional economic relief since talks between the White House and House Democrats collapsed, first over the summer and then again in the fall ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

With negotiations among congressional leaders at an impasse, rank-and-file senators in both parties have for several weeks worked together on a proposal that could break the logjam. Several centrist lawmakers in the Senate — including Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — held a news conference Tuesday morning to push their new bipartisan agreement as a template for legislation that could pass Congress as the economy faces increasing strain from a winter surge in coronavirus cases.

“Our action to provide emergency relief is needed now more than ever before. The people need to know we are not going to leave until we get something accomplished,” Manchin said, flanked by about a half-dozen lawmakers in the U.S. Capitol. “I’m committed to seeing this through.”

The plan circulated by the bipartisan group is light on details but seeks to reach a middle ground on numerous contentious economic issues.

It would provide $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits for four months — a lower amount than the $600 per week sought by Democrats, while still offering substantial relief to tens of millions of jobless Americans. The agreement includes $160 billion in funding for state and local governments, a key Democratic priority opposed by most Republicans, as well as a temporary moratorium on some coronavirus-related lawsuits against firms and other entities — a key Republican priority opposed by most Democrats. The measure also includes funding for small businesses, schools, health care, transit authorities, and student loans, among other measures.

Quote

The measure faced early opposition from both flanks, with liberals opposed to the liability shield and conservatives opposed to spending more money to help the economy. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, criticized the proposal for leaving out another round of $1,200 stimulus checks. Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs for the conservative group FreedomWorks, said conservative GOP senators would likely reject the measure over its price-tag. Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are among those who have resisted another spending package.

“Anything that adds to the deficit is a non-starter,” Pye said.

At the news conference, Romney stressed that he is a deficit hawk and that the proposal cost far less than the $1.8 trillion pushed earlier by White House officials. He also said the legislation was partially funded by more than $500 billion in unspent money from the Cares Act, reducing the amount of new spending it entailed.

Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, spoke positively of the bipartisan effort and urged lawmakers to quickly approve emergency financial help.

“More will be needed later, but immediate relief is needed now,” Nelson said. “That’s what the senators are talking about. We cannot wait.”

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-29, 19:43, said:

If this isn't reason enough to enact the 25th Amendment I don't know what would be:
size="3"]It's no longer cute, curious. or an act - this guy is insane and has way too much power. He needs to be put aside. Now.[/size]

If he actually believes these things, it might be evidence of insanity.

But we know that Trump lies through his teeth all the time. It became clear from the Bob Woodward tapes, when he admitted to knowing that COVID-19 was a serious problem, but was deliberately downplaying it to the public. His public statements are not an accurate representation of his actual beliefs.

So his comments about fraud in the election could be part of a planned strategy to rile up his base, not delusions. He's learned that bluster like this works for him. And that's not grounds for invoking the 25th Amendment, unfortunately.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2020-December-01, 11:46, said:

If he actually believes these things, it might be evidence of insanity.

But we know that Trump lies through his teeth all the time. It became clear from the Bob Woodward tapes, when he admitted to knowing that COVID-19 was a serious problem, but was deliberately downplaying it to the public. His public statements are not an accurate representation of his actual beliefs.

So his comments about fraud in the election could be part of a planned strategy to rile up his base, not delusions. He's learned that bluster like this works for him. And that's not grounds for invoking the 25th Amendment, unfortunately.

His niece, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, says he is so ill he believes (convinces himself) that whatever he says at the moment is true, which is what makes him such as effective liar. Mental illness is one of the toughest things to diagnose, though, as you are always questioning how much is real and how much is put on.

But the question to ask is: what planned strategy and why rile up the base? The election is over - unless you believe it is not. Which means you cannot distinguish reality. A strong symptom of mental illness.

[y66]

Jim Kessler said:

Required reading for 435 House and 100 Senate members ... @jasonfurman and @LHSummers paper: Reconsideration of Fiscal Policy in Era of Low Interest Rates.

WC executive summary: The risks of going too big on fiscal policy are much smaller than the risks of going too small.

Quote

The last generation has witnessed an epochal decline in real interest rates in the United States and around the world despite large buildups of government debt. This paper argues that while the future is unknowable and the precise reasons for the decline in real interest rates are not entirely clear, declining real rates reflect structural changes in the economy that require changes in thinking about fiscal policy and macroeconomic policy more generally that are as profound as those that occurred in the wake of the inflation of the 1970s.

We discuss three implications for fiscal policy that follow from low interest rates:

First, fiscal policy must play a crucial role in stabilization policy in a world where monetary policy can counteract financial instability but otherwise is largely “pushing on a string” when it comes to accelerating economic growth.

Second, we reconsider traditional views about the dangers of debt and deficits. We note that in a world of unused capacity and very low interest rates and costs of capital, concerns about crowding out of desirable private investment that were warranted a generation ago have much less force today.

Third, we consider the issue of borrowing in the context of how the borrowed funds are used. Drawing on recent work considering dynamic scoring effects of various Federal expenditure programs we argue that borrowing to finance appropriate categories of Federal expenditure pays for itself in Federal budgetary terms on reasonable assumptions.

We conclude with thoughts on appropriate guidelines for U.S. fiscal policy. We reject traditional ideas of a cyclically balanced budget on the grounds that it would likely lead to inadequate growth and excessive financial instability. We set the goal that fiscal policy should advance economic growth and financial stability. Achieving this goal depends on both improving responses to downturns and expanding and improving public investment. As a new guidepost, we propose that fiscal policy focus on supporting economic growth while preventing real debt service from being projected to rise quickly or to rise above 2 percent of GDP over the forthcoming decade. We also propose three guidelines that would be consistent with achieving this broader objective within the guidelines we recommend: (i) undertaking substantial emergency spending that is not paid for in response to economic downturns; (ii) paying for all long-term commitments with broad exceptions for ones that plausibly pay for themselves in present value; and (iii) improving the composition of government to make it more supportive of demand and also more efficient.

[johnu]

y66, on 2020-December-01, 15:15, said:

WC executive summary: The risks of going too big on fiscal policy are much smaller than the risks of going too small.

Moscow Mitch and his Moscow associates have already signaled that because a Democrat is going to be president, they are again in favor of no deficit spending.

[y66]

Quote

On Tuesday, Attorney General William P. Barr shot down President Trump’s assertion of widespread voter fraud, acknowledging that the Justice Department had uncovered no wrongdoing “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

“Fraud on a scale — also known as the president’s annual physical,” Stephen Colbert joked on “The Late Show.”

Quote

“When Trump heard about William Barr, he was so mad, he ordered William Barr to prosecute William Barr.” — JIMMY FALLON

[Winstonm]

Past is prologue: Harper's, Nov. 1964

Quote

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.

I believe now this "paranoid style" is being termed "authoritarian voter".

This post has been edited by Winstonm: 2020-December-02, 13:27

[y66]

Gabriel Sterling, a high-ranking elections official in Georgia said:

Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We’re investigating. There’s always a possibility, I get it, you have the right to go to the courts. What you don’t have is the ability to — and you need to step up and say this — is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed.

I think Mr. Sterling meant "inciting", not "inspiring".

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2020-December-02, 12:15, said:

I think Mr. Sterling meant "inciting", not "inspiring".

A little more about this: https://digbysblog.n...ry-slope-leads/

Quote

Reacting to Sterling’s emotional press event, McKay Coppins of The Atlantic told “All In with Chris Hayes” how Trump, insecure and paranoid, regularly demands Republicans prove their loyalty:

He’s created this increasingly absurd set of litmus tests that he requires the rest of his party to pass. First it was Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States … absurd conspiracy theory, completely untrue. People felt like they had to go along with it or at least wink at it in order to be taken seriously by the Republican base.

Then it was Muslim immigration should be banned. Then it was openly soliciting foreign interference in a presidential election. It’s fine, and we don’t have to care about it. Then it was the idea that the presidential election should be reversed. The outcome should be reversed by tossing millions of ballots. That’s currently the argument that Donald Trump’s legal team is making, and the vast majority of Republican elected officials are going along with it…. I’m pretty sure we’re going to hear pretty soon the idea that bribery for a presidential pardon is no big deal. That’ll be the next litmus test.

Trump has been doing this for years. And I think that what was so powerful about that clip that you showed wasn’t really the anger and indignation, at least to me. It was the desperation. It was like almost a sense of hopelessness, because he knows even as he’s giving this impassioned speech … he knows that President Trump is not going to forcefully condemn these threats. He knows that the vast majority of Republican senators, especially the ambitious ones, are not going to come out and condemn this. So it’s almost like a cry into the wind. He’s saying his peace, but he knows that it’s probably not going to make a difference.

Hayes recalled a column by National Review Online writer Michael Brendan Dougherty that Trump’s demands for loyalty echo the initiation rites of street gangs:

Allegiance to a plain insanity is a good test of loyalty, like being beat-in during a gang initiation… It demonstrates “commitment” or heart. Shared insanity can make people loyal to each other, sure. But it does so by rendering them useless or repulsive to the normal and decent people who need champions.

The paranoid style of the American right has a storied history dating from the McCarthy and Bircher eras and before. That paranoia, Dougherty wrote, once “expressed itself in the demand to believe Dwight Eisenhower was a communist.” Thirty years ago in another century, after the Berlin Wall fell, American conservatives declared Sir Ronald of Reagan had slain the Evil Empire and won the Cold War. Yet they are still fighting it.

International New York Times opinion writer Jochen Bittner cautions that Trump-world’s refusal to accept the loss echoes what he calls “arguably the most potent and disastrous political lie of the 20th century — the Dolchstosslegende, or stab-in-the-back myth.”