Comments about Trump Derangement Syndrome put me in mind of this old saw:
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Similarly, its not TDS to say that he's deranged. Not to mention demented and amoral and childish and vindictive and....
2025-10-07 19:32:30
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
2025-10-07 19:22:33
Stephen Miller. He’s a bad person, full stop.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
2025-10-07 15:32:17
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
2025-10-07 00:36:49
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
2025-10-06 13:43:27
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
2025-10-06 13:27:41
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
2025-10-06 03:30:52
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
2025-10-05 21:45:39
the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances
So, are you expecting the police to successful arrest every criminal? Because that's nothing we've ever seen in history. Or maybe you want them to somehow prevent any crime from happening?
I assume you have more sense than that. So what standard are you using for doing an acceptable job to "enforce the law and ordinances"?
2025-10-05 16:19:38
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I'd say that we've made significant progress over the last two centuries. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
2025-10-05 02:13:27
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
2025-10-03 16:30:54
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots.
In December, you could have made that argument. Plausibly, if not particularly persuasively. Today? Not so much.
At this point, it's pretty clear that they are not merely a bunch of idiots. At minimum they are a bunch of armed and dangerous psychopaths and sociopaths. Many of them are also idiots. But that is rather beside the point.
2025-10-01 19:28:57
Tony, I think you missed the heavy dose of sarcasm in Charles' comment
2025-09-27 17:22:56
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.
Comments about Trump Derangement Syndrome put me in mind of this old saw:
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Similarly, its not TDS to say that he's deranged. Not to mention demented and amoral and childish and vindictive and....
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
Stephen Miller. He’s a bad person, full stop.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances
So, are you expecting the police to successful arrest every criminal? Because that's nothing we've ever seen in history. Or maybe you want them to somehow prevent any crime from happening?
I assume you have more sense than that. So what standard are you using for doing an acceptable job to "enforce the law and ordinances"?
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I'd say that we've made significant progress over the last two centuries. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots.
In December, you could have made that argument. Plausibly, if not particularly persuasively. Today? Not so much.
At this point, it's pretty clear that they are not merely a bunch of idiots. At minimum they are a bunch of armed and dangerous psychopaths and sociopaths. Many of them are also idiots. But that is rather beside the point.
Tony, I think you missed the heavy dose of sarcasm in Charles' comment
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.