Donald Trump, finally a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine. But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families — and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.
It’s shameful, and so is the fact that it took so long for his fellow Republican candidates to start standing up to him. The sad truth is if you look at many of their policies, it can be hard to tell the difference. (---Hillary Clinton, at a recent Democratic Dinner in Arkansas)
Indeed. And that's because they are essentially adolescents.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Trump's Bridge Too Far?
Okay, Republicans. Is your infantile fascination with Donald Trump over yet?
On Saturday Trump said of John McCain:
And Donald Trump, in particular, has absolutely no right to criticize McCain's war record: Trump got four college deferments and a "medical" deferment, like all rich white boys in the Sixties all did (I'm talking about you, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney and all the rest of those chickenhawks).
Trump is a total dick, the worst kind of vile New York street thug. He claims to have the bestest, most fabulous business acumen, yet he was forced to declare bankruptcy four times, screwing creditors and investors in his casino and real estate scams out of millions of dollars.
Trump is a rich (though not as rich as he says) narcissist who doesn't give two craps about anyone but himself. He threw all Mexicans under the bus because he thinks that will make the racist base of the Republican party swoon over him. Now he does the same to John McCain for stating the obvious about Trump's pretend presidential campaign.
Exactly who does Trump think this criticism of McCain is going to impress? He gets the lead in the national polls and the first thing he does is turn the campaign into a kindergarten name-calling contest. And McCain isn't even running against him.
Trump is either the biggest dick on the national stage, or he's trolling the Republican Party to see how far he can sink them in order to give the White House and Senate to the Democrats.
Actually, it's probably both.
On Saturday Trump said of John McCain:
“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”John McCain isn't my favorite guy. He's egotistical, selfish, self-centered and constantly blustering about attacking any country that looks at the United States sideways. But you can't criticize his war record.
And Donald Trump, in particular, has absolutely no right to criticize McCain's war record: Trump got four college deferments and a "medical" deferment, like all rich white boys in the Sixties all did (I'm talking about you, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney and all the rest of those chickenhawks).
Trump is a total dick, the worst kind of vile New York street thug. He claims to have the bestest, most fabulous business acumen, yet he was forced to declare bankruptcy four times, screwing creditors and investors in his casino and real estate scams out of millions of dollars.
Trump is a rich (though not as rich as he says) narcissist who doesn't give two craps about anyone but himself. He threw all Mexicans under the bus because he thinks that will make the racist base of the Republican party swoon over him. Now he does the same to John McCain for stating the obvious about Trump's pretend presidential campaign.
Exactly who does Trump think this criticism of McCain is going to impress? He gets the lead in the national polls and the first thing he does is turn the campaign into a kindergarten name-calling contest. And McCain isn't even running against him.
Trump is either the biggest dick on the national stage, or he's trolling the Republican Party to see how far he can sink them in order to give the White House and Senate to the Democrats.
Actually, it's probably both.
The Most Consequential President in US History
Vox has a great piece up regarding the president and his now very consequential place in US History.
Obama has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb. He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations, and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.
History tends to more prominently note those presidents who achieve great diplomatic goals. Cuba is opening for business as well. Add in that the president has literally saved people's lives with health care reform and, more or less, saved the economy, and the GOP's worse fears have come true.
Barack Obama is a massive success.
Obama has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb. He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations, and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.
History tends to more prominently note those presidents who achieve great diplomatic goals. Cuba is opening for business as well. Add in that the president has literally saved people's lives with health care reform and, more or less, saved the economy, and the GOP's worse fears have come true.
Barack Obama is a massive success.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Still #1!!!
Donald Trump is still #1 in the GOP nomination according to yet another poll, this time from Fox News. He is most definitely resonating with the GOP base and sucking away support from the likes of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie. In fact, he's really made this a three horse race now and defined an elite tier (himself, Bush, and Walker).
Even more interesting is that he's not really spending any money and getting all sorts of free press. I guess I'm wondering (still) if the average conservative voter realizes that this type of candidate has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. It's fun to hang out in the clubhouse where mouths foam and bowels are blown but anger, hate and fear don't play very well with the general election voter, especially the folks that make up the demographic of his pet cause-immigration:)
Even more interesting is that he's not really spending any money and getting all sorts of free press. I guess I'm wondering (still) if the average conservative voter realizes that this type of candidate has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. It's fun to hang out in the clubhouse where mouths foam and bowels are blown but anger, hate and fear don't play very well with the general election voter, especially the folks that make up the demographic of his pet cause-immigration:)
Thursday, July 16, 2015
So, NOW It's Terror
I guess when a guy named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez goes on a shooting spree, it's terror. When thousands of other Americans do it, we have either shrugs, oh wells, or fucking crickets. Check out the headline on Fox News
TERROR STRIKES CHATTANOOGA
Kuwaiti-born gunman opens fire on Tenn. military centers, kills 4 Marines
And Drudge...
MUHAMMAD SHOOTS UP MARINES IN TENNESSEE; 4 DEAD'MOTIVATED BY ISLAM'
And any of the other right wing sites...
Sense a pattern yet?
Oh, and were there guns at either of the military facilities? Y'know...the whole gun free zone dealio...
If conservatives are serious about stopping guys like Abdulazeez from shooting people, maybe we should refine our gun laws. Once again, another example of someone who not have been allowed to own a gun had we passed Manchin Toomey.
TERROR STRIKES CHATTANOOGA
Kuwaiti-born gunman opens fire on Tenn. military centers, kills 4 Marines
And Drudge...
MUHAMMAD SHOOTS UP MARINES IN TENNESSEE; 4 DEAD'MOTIVATED BY ISLAM'
And any of the other right wing sites...
Sense a pattern yet?
Oh, and were there guns at either of the military facilities? Y'know...the whole gun free zone dealio...
If conservatives are serious about stopping guys like Abdulazeez from shooting people, maybe we should refine our gun laws. Once again, another example of someone who not have been allowed to own a gun had we passed Manchin Toomey.
San Francisco Dude Kicks Fox News' Ass
Check out this story...
He didn’t want to answer the questions because he knew Fox News was not going to make a good faith effort to cover the issue. He didn’t want to just duck his head and hide, because he knew how that looked on TV. So he addressed Fox News directly: “Fox News is not real news. And you’re not a real reporter.” This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.
And, not surprisingly...
Response from Fox News fans has been less positive. His social media feed has been flooded with “really extreme fringe hateful” posts. His office voicemail is also filled to capacity.
Again, force is the only language these people understand...
He didn’t want to answer the questions because he knew Fox News was not going to make a good faith effort to cover the issue. He didn’t want to just duck his head and hide, because he knew how that looked on TV. So he addressed Fox News directly: “Fox News is not real news. And you’re not a real reporter.” This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.
And, not surprisingly...
Response from Fox News fans has been less positive. His social media feed has been flooded with “really extreme fringe hateful” posts. His office voicemail is also filled to capacity.
Again, force is the only language these people understand...
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Another Shooting At A Gun Range
So, we've had the Chris Kyle shooting...the little girl with the Uzi accidentally kill her instructor...and now this.
Shooting of Firearms Trainer by NYC Woman Exposes Gun Range Loophole
Not only does this continue to illustrate that the "gun free zone" assertion is an ever growing pile of shit, this incident could have been avoided and a life saved had we passed Manchin Toomey.
Shooting of Firearms Trainer by NYC Woman Exposes Gun Range Loophole
Not only does this continue to illustrate that the "gun free zone" assertion is an ever growing pile of shit, this incident could have been avoided and a life saved had we passed Manchin Toomey.
Another Study Torpedoes Defensive Gun Use
A recent study published in The Journal of Preventative Medicine offers new support for the argument that owning a gun does not make you safer. The study, led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examines data from the National Crime Victimization Survey — an annual survey of 90,000 households — and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm, but also that such incidents are much more rare than gun advocates claim.
Contrary to what many gun advocates argue, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveals that having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation. The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.
What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).
Contrary to what many gun advocates argue, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveals that having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation. The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.
What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).
Trump is #1
Donald Trump is leading the GOP nomination race?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
I guess we know where the GOP is these days...where I've always said it's been:)
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
I guess we know where the GOP is these days...where I've always said it's been:)
Obama As Nixon?
As conservatives foam at the mouth about appeasement, the recent agreement with Iran (full text available here) reads less like appeasement and more like Nixon's pivot to China. The president himself has channeled Ronald Reagan using Gip's "Trust but verify" line but the comparisons to China are closer to objective reality.
China was a pretty awful country on a number of levels when Nixon went to China and already had a small cache of nuclear weapons. Nixon gambled that bringing China into the world economic community would tame their more militaristic intentions. He was right. Making money in a global economy based on capitalism using tends to chill people out. This is exactly what President Obama thinks will happen with Iran.
With sanctions set to fall apart anyway, this was the best route to take even though it isn't a perfect deal. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon in the next decade. Take note of how criticism of the deal is now centered on Iran being able to fund terrorism not get a nuclear weapon. That speaks volumes...
China was a pretty awful country on a number of levels when Nixon went to China and already had a small cache of nuclear weapons. Nixon gambled that bringing China into the world economic community would tame their more militaristic intentions. He was right. Making money in a global economy based on capitalism using tends to chill people out. This is exactly what President Obama thinks will happen with Iran.
With sanctions set to fall apart anyway, this was the best route to take even though it isn't a perfect deal. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon in the next decade. Take note of how criticism of the deal is now centered on Iran being able to fund terrorism not get a nuclear weapon. That speaks volumes...
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Jeb! Wants Us to Work!
Last week Jeb! Bush said that Americans need to work more hours to get our economy to grow at 4%.
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
Since 2000 average Americans are working 25% harder for no more money.
So the question is, what incentive do Americans have to work even harder? From 2000 to 2012 the wages of real working Americans did not go up, while productivity (the thing Jeb! wants us to crank up), increased from a relative base of 100 in 2000 to 124.9 in 2012.All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
| Tax rate ordinary income | Single | Tax rate on capital gains | |
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $9,225.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $9,225.00 | $37,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $37,450.00 | $90,750.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $90,750.00 | $189,300.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $189,300.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $413,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $413,200.00 | 20.00% | |
| Married filing jointly / Qualifying widow or widower |
|||
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $18,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $18,450.00 | $74,900.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $74,900.00 | $151,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $151,200.00 | $230,450.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $230,450.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $464,850.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $464,850.00 | 20.00% | |
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
Predictable Responses
Now that an agreement has been reached with Iran regarding its nuclear technology, bowels are being blown all over conservative land. The race to see who can denounce it best is on! The responses have been all too predictable and I have to wonder if people are even paying attention to what conservatives are saying anymore. It's always the same "Obama succeeded again so we have to act like 8 year olds" response. I mean, have they even read the agreement yet? How can they denounce it?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
Monday, July 13, 2015
The False Flag Candidate?
Donald Trump is leading the Republican presidential race in many national polls. He's doing this by espousing the most cliched Republican memes, becoming the very caricature of a conservative that Democrats love to ridicule.
Many are speculating that Trump will drag the Republican Party into such a deep, dark hole that they'll never be able to crawl out of it. The consensus is that Trump can never be president; far too many Republicans despise the man.
The question is, why is Trump doing this?
Unquestionably because he's a greedy narcissist who thrives on attention. In that way he's the same as the other 20 Republicans running for the nomination.
But Trump's "campaign" is costing him real money. He doesn't have billionaires like the Koch brothers pumping money into his Super PAC. Many of his business deals have been sunk because of his comments. If he's as brilliant as he tells us he is, he must have some ulterior motive.
Trump's right-wing credentials are called into question by conservatives who are capable of remembering anything that happened before the last Indy 500:
“I truly, honestly, and with all my heart and mind think Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters are making a yuuuuuuge mistake. I think they are being conned and played,” Jonah Goldberg, the author of Liberal Fascism, wrote. “I feel like a guy whose brother is being taken advantage of by a grifter. I’m watching helplessly as the con artist congratulates him for taking out a third mortgage.”They cite his Ivy Leauge and Manhattan background, his previous support for abortion, immigration, assault weapons bans, government health care, as well as his backing of Democratic politicians.
Other National Review writers concurred. “Donald Trump has been a conservative for about ten minutes,” Jim Geraghty wrote.
Sometimes, as people age they become more conservative -- whether that's due to the wisdom of age, an inability to adapt to the new realities of a changing society, or atherosclerosis is still open to debate. So maybe Trump is sincere in his racism and intolerance.
On the other hand, there's speculation that Trump is running a false-flag campaign: he's pretending to run for president to sabotage the rest of the Republican field with his outlandish stances.
If so, Trump wouldn't be the first to fool conservatives. Comedian Stephen Colbert is famous for duping conservative viewers with his parody of conservative talking heads like Bill O'Reilly.
I guess we'll find out if Trump is punking Republicans when he announces his running mate:
Seventeen Now!
It looks as though former Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore, is going to fill up the GOP clown car even further and throw his hat into the 2016 presidential race. That makes seventeen candidates now on the GOP side and five candidates now on the Democratic side. AP News has a piece up about why there are so many people running on the GOP side.
Personally, I think it's a vanity thing combined with that white trash reality show dealio that conservatives just can't resist. I suppose the fact that being a conservative is part of a cottage industry as well. Being all loud and shouty about librals makes some good cash!!
Personally, I think it's a vanity thing combined with that white trash reality show dealio that conservatives just can't resist. I suppose the fact that being a conservative is part of a cottage industry as well. Being all loud and shouty about librals makes some good cash!!
Sunday, July 12, 2015
A Deeply Attractive Man
Donald Trump is on a roll. His recent speeches in Las Vegas and Arizona were extremely well attended by the conservative base. Ol' Sheriff Joe Arpaio had the honor of introducing the Donald at the Arizona speech, even taking the time to bring up that tried and true chestnut from the past-the president's birth certificate.
There's been quite a bit of talk about how Trump isn't a real Republican and is just doing this to promote himself. Yet if you take a look at him, the constant fear peddling, anger and hate that emits from his yap makes him a PERFECT representation of conservatives today. Combine that with his self centeredness on steroids, his wealth, and his titanic hubris and, if you are a conservative, what's not to like? Truly, a deeply attractive man...:)
There are a couple of interesting pieces on Trump that have popped up this week. The first comes from Paul Rosenberg over at salon.com who widens out the discussion to include Sanders and a broader look at what American voters want.
Subsequent research has intensified this division. Conservatives win by making broad, sweeping appeals, which can often have little relationship with the facts (Iraq’s WMDs, “voter fraud,” global warming denialism, etc.). Liberals win by focusing on how to fix specific problems. Thus “government spending” in general is seen as a negative, but spending on most specific programs is strongly supported. The pattern is clear: The more practical the question, the more liberal the answers. That’s just how U.S. politics works.
Yep.
Kevin Williamson at the National Review has looked at Trump and decided a new term was in order-the WHINO.
You know the RINO — Republican In Name Only — but you may be less familiar with the WHINO. The WHINO is a captive of the populist Right’s master narrative, which is the tragic tale of the holy, holy base, the victory of which would be entirely assured if not for the machinations of the perfidious Establishment.
The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.
This certainly explains why there is so much division among conservatives. And why they can't win national elections. Williamson has a great take on an argument I've heard many times from some conservatives.
I did an interview with Matthew Boyle of Breitbart Radio, a nice enough guy but a pretty good example of the WHINO style in American politics. What about Romney? Boyle demanded. Romney, he said with absolute assurance, lost to Barack Obama because millions of conservatives stayed home, finding him insufficiently committed to their cause.
The first aspect of what is wrong with this analysis is obvious: It assumes that a “real conservative” who couldn’t beat Mitt Romney in a Republican primary dominated by “real conservatives” would have defeated Barack Obama in a national election not dominated by conservatives at all, i.e. that Romney was the weakest candidate except for all the guys who couldn’t beat him. But the defects in this analysis do not stop there. I am not sure that the psephology actually says what the WHINOs think it does, but even if it were so, the further problem with this line of thinking is obvious: If you are a conservative, and if you believe that the way to reform American public policy is to elect conservatives, and you arrived at Election Day believing that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were, from the conservative point of view, interchangeable commodities, then you are either a fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed.
We must give some consideration to Trump, Breitbart’s Boyle informed me, because he is a vessel for the expression of the base’s frustration. The base should get a hobby.
No shit. But this is exactly how much of the base thinks. And that's why they are supporting Trump.
There's been quite a bit of talk about how Trump isn't a real Republican and is just doing this to promote himself. Yet if you take a look at him, the constant fear peddling, anger and hate that emits from his yap makes him a PERFECT representation of conservatives today. Combine that with his self centeredness on steroids, his wealth, and his titanic hubris and, if you are a conservative, what's not to like? Truly, a deeply attractive man...:)
There are a couple of interesting pieces on Trump that have popped up this week. The first comes from Paul Rosenberg over at salon.com who widens out the discussion to include Sanders and a broader look at what American voters want.
Subsequent research has intensified this division. Conservatives win by making broad, sweeping appeals, which can often have little relationship with the facts (Iraq’s WMDs, “voter fraud,” global warming denialism, etc.). Liberals win by focusing on how to fix specific problems. Thus “government spending” in general is seen as a negative, but spending on most specific programs is strongly supported. The pattern is clear: The more practical the question, the more liberal the answers. That’s just how U.S. politics works.
Yep.
Kevin Williamson at the National Review has looked at Trump and decided a new term was in order-the WHINO.
You know the RINO — Republican In Name Only — but you may be less familiar with the WHINO. The WHINO is a captive of the populist Right’s master narrative, which is the tragic tale of the holy, holy base, the victory of which would be entirely assured if not for the machinations of the perfidious Establishment.
The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.
This certainly explains why there is so much division among conservatives. And why they can't win national elections. Williamson has a great take on an argument I've heard many times from some conservatives.
I did an interview with Matthew Boyle of Breitbart Radio, a nice enough guy but a pretty good example of the WHINO style in American politics. What about Romney? Boyle demanded. Romney, he said with absolute assurance, lost to Barack Obama because millions of conservatives stayed home, finding him insufficiently committed to their cause.
The first aspect of what is wrong with this analysis is obvious: It assumes that a “real conservative” who couldn’t beat Mitt Romney in a Republican primary dominated by “real conservatives” would have defeated Barack Obama in a national election not dominated by conservatives at all, i.e. that Romney was the weakest candidate except for all the guys who couldn’t beat him. But the defects in this analysis do not stop there. I am not sure that the psephology actually says what the WHINOs think it does, but even if it were so, the further problem with this line of thinking is obvious: If you are a conservative, and if you believe that the way to reform American public policy is to elect conservatives, and you arrived at Election Day believing that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were, from the conservative point of view, interchangeable commodities, then you are either a fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed.
We must give some consideration to Trump, Breitbart’s Boyle informed me, because he is a vessel for the expression of the base’s frustration. The base should get a hobby.
No shit. But this is exactly how much of the base thinks. And that's why they are supporting Trump.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Study Finds That Guns Don't Deter Crime
A recent study by Harvard Medical study finds that higher firearm ownership does not deter crimes. "We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."
Monuteaux and his colleagues wanted to test whether increased gun ownership had any effect on gun homicides, overall homicides and violent gun crimes. They chose firearm robbery and assault, because those crimes are likely to be reported and recorded in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report. Along with that FBI data, the researchers gathered gun ownership rates from surveys in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an ongoing, nationally representative survey in which participants answered questions about gun ownership in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
Using those years and controlling for a slate of demographic factors, from median household income, population density, to age, race and more, the researchers compared crime rates and gun ownership levels state by state. They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant).
Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun.
Monuteaux and his colleagues wanted to test whether increased gun ownership had any effect on gun homicides, overall homicides and violent gun crimes. They chose firearm robbery and assault, because those crimes are likely to be reported and recorded in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report. Along with that FBI data, the researchers gathered gun ownership rates from surveys in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an ongoing, nationally representative survey in which participants answered questions about gun ownership in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
Using those years and controlling for a slate of demographic factors, from median household income, population density, to age, race and more, the researchers compared crime rates and gun ownership levels state by state. They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant).
Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun.
Had We Passed Manchin Toomey...
AmericaBlog has a post up regarding the failure of the antiquated background check system which allowed Dylan Roof to get his gun that eventually killed 9 people in Charleston. It turns out that the gun used in the massacre was not, in fact, a gift from his father. Roof purchased the gun himself.
Had we passed the Manchin Toomey bill in 2013, Roof would have been denied the purchase of a gun and those nine people would still be alive today. Here is the full text of the bill which clearly illustrates the streamlining of the background check system. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the assholes in the Gun Cult are responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Unlike the relatives of the victims, I am unable to forgive so easily.
They're at fault and should be treated accordingly...like any other fucking criminal.
Had we passed the Manchin Toomey bill in 2013, Roof would have been denied the purchase of a gun and those nine people would still be alive today. Here is the full text of the bill which clearly illustrates the streamlining of the background check system. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the assholes in the Gun Cult are responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Unlike the relatives of the victims, I am unable to forgive so easily.
They're at fault and should be treated accordingly...like any other fucking criminal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)