bc: P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
I'm pretty sure I did. I'd be 100% sure if I knew which you'd pick if you were forced to choose between your preferred foreign policy (or tax policy, or immigration policy) and my civil rights. If you believe nobody will ever demand you make that choice at the polls, I worry you're not paying strict attention.
Let's not kid ourselves: the brutality of ICE, the invasion of
Venezuela, the threats to Greenland, and tax cuts for billionaires are
inseparable components of the Cult of He, Trump -- which proclaims opposition is treason. It's not a Chinese menu, it's a cable bundle.
Of course I know you know that my civil rights are your civil rights too, so that eases my mind a bit.
--TP
3 weeks ago
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
One of them is: can He, Trump pay for Greenland out of His own pocket? Or get His soon-to-be-trillionaire frenemy to buy it and present it to Him gift-wrapped?
If bc wants the United States to buy Greenland, he must be advocating for Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the money. Good luck with that.
The perennial MAGAt line that NATO countries owe it to "us" to spend more on "defense" would make some sense if the implication was that "we" could spend less as a result. But the MAGAt-in-Chief wants a $600B increase (to $1.5T) next year. NYT gift link.
--TP
3 weeks ago
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
--TP
3 weeks ago
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
--TP
3 weeks ago
ICE "agents" are all thugs. Their MAGAt apologists are all scumbags. That is all.
--TP
3 weeks ago
Pro Bono: Trump wants four things:
to keep out of jail
to have people telling him how great he is
to make a lot of money
to be remembered as a great president.
That's a perfect diagnosis of He, Trump. What I'd like to hear in addition is a diagnosis of those Americans who suffer from Trump Worship Syndrome.
For all I know, TWS sufferers may not actually disagree with Pro Bono's list. They might merely not care about it because they have a list of things that their Orange Jesus is doing for them. It would be interesting to know what's on that list.
Alternatively, TWS sufferers might in fact dispute Pro Bono's diagnosis. It would be fun to hear one of them do so, if we had one commenting here.
--TP
3 weeks ago
bc,
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
--TP
3 weeks ago
bc:I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
GftNC: Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
(blush)
bc: P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
I'm pretty sure I did. I'd be 100% sure if I knew which you'd pick if you were forced to choose between your preferred foreign policy (or tax policy, or immigration policy) and my civil rights. If you believe nobody will ever demand you make that choice at the polls, I worry you're not paying strict attention.
Let's not kid ourselves: the brutality of ICE, the invasion of
Venezuela, the threats to Greenland, and tax cuts for billionaires are
inseparable components of the Cult of He, Trump -- which proclaims opposition is treason. It's not a Chinese menu, it's a cable bundle.
Of course I know you know that my civil rights are your civil rights too, so that eases my mind a bit.
--TP
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
One of them is: can He, Trump pay for Greenland out of His own pocket? Or get His soon-to-be-trillionaire frenemy to buy it and present it to Him gift-wrapped?
If bc wants the United States to buy Greenland, he must be advocating for Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the money. Good luck with that.
The perennial MAGAt line that NATO countries owe it to "us" to spend more on "defense" would make some sense if the implication was that "we" could spend less as a result. But the MAGAt-in-Chief wants a $600B increase (to $1.5T) next year. NYT gift link.
--TP
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
--TP
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
--TP
ICE "agents" are all thugs. Their MAGAt apologists are all scumbags. That is all.
--TP
Pro Bono:
Trump wants four things:
That's a perfect diagnosis of He, Trump. What I'd like to hear in addition is a diagnosis of those Americans who suffer from Trump Worship Syndrome.
For all I know, TWS sufferers may not actually disagree with Pro Bono's list. They might merely not care about it because they have a list of things that their Orange Jesus is doing for them. It would be interesting to know what's on that list.
Alternatively, TWS sufferers might in fact dispute Pro Bono's diagnosis. It would be fun to hear one of them do so, if we had one commenting here.
--TP
bc,
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
--TP
bc: I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
--TP