Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

This is why it is so critical to resist - these separations are not accidents of a blundering novice politician but deliberate policies designed by an administration that is as racist and uncaring as it is corrupt.

Yep.

 

How about their announcement to the detainees that they can be reunited immediately with their kids if they agree to voluntary deportation? So the administration is turning to blackmail, using children as bargaining chips.

 

And Trump tweeted a day or two ago that he thinks the court order requiring reuniting children with their parents (within 15 days for children under 5, 30 days for the rest) should be overturned because of national security needs.

[Winstonm]

Yep.

 

How about their announcement to the detainees that they can be reunited immediately with their kids if they agree to voluntary deportation? So the administration is turning to blackmail, using children as bargaining chips.

 

And Trump tweeted a day or two ago that he thinks the court order requiring reuniting children with their parents (within 15 days for children under 5, 30 days for the rest) should be overturned because of national security needs.

 

The treatment of detainees is only the tip of the alt-right, corruption iceberg that we are so nonchalantly steering toward.

 

Some of the people who voted for Dennison had legitimate concerns that need a concentrated effort to resolve; unfortunately, those people were swayed to vote for a conman who promised immediate fixes that only "he knew how" to do. Turning those otherwise decent people against this monstrosity who now occupies the oval office will not be easy, as perseverance bias is in our DNA, and when you mix that bias with misguided hope and emotive-based legends it is a toxic kook-aid mixture.

 

The best hope of retaining a republic at this point is a super-majority in the house and senate by 2024 and packing SCOTUS with additional judges. At this point, I have no qualms about doing that.

[Winstonm]

From Axios:

 

Prank caller patched through to Trump on Air Force One

 

 

The host of "The Stuttering John" podcast, John Melendez, got President Trump on the phone yesterday by pretending he was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez. "This is how easy it is to infiltrate the administration," Melendez said in the episode.

 

Why it matters: This calls into question White House security. White House staff members are freaking out today trying to figure out how the podcast host was so easily transferred from the White House switchboard to Air Force One, per a source familiar with the call.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous. Melendez, the host, had three different interactions with two White House operators and got through two call screens before Jared Kushner called him from Air Force One. According to Melendez, Kushner asked if he wanted to talk to the president then or have them call him back later, which is what he did.

 

The details: When the White House operator calls back, he says: "Hello is this Sen. Menendez?" and then "Hello is this Air Force One?"

 

President Trump picked up the phone congratulating who he thought was Sen. Menendez and telling him he "went through a very tough situation."

He also talked about immigration. "Bob, let me just tell you I want to be able to take care of the situation every bit as much as anybody else at the top level. I'd rather do the larger solution rather than the smaller solution."

He said the North Dakota Senate race is "a tough race."

Regarding his SCOTUS nominee, he said they'll be done making a decision in 12 to 14 days.

The White House didn't respond to requests for comment.

 

They probably thought he sounded like Putin. ;)

[blackshoe]

The best hope of retaining a republic at this point is a super-majority in the house and senate by 2024 and packing SCOTUS with additional judges. At this point, I have no qualms about doing that.

Be careful what you wish for, Winston. You may get bit by the law of unintended consequences.

[Winstonm]

Be careful what you wish for, Winston. You may get bit by the law of unintended consequences.

 

Do you have a better idea? Seriously, I am listening.

[johnu]

Maybe not directly Dennison's fault, but it was the Supreme Court that has treated corporations as supermen and routinely rules for corporate interests against consumer interests. Don't expect that to change with Kennedy's replacement.

 

Anatomy of a 97,000% drug price hike: One family's fight to save their son

 

As the saying goes, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" and who can deny that this drug company is working very hard and deserves to be paid.

[hrothgar]

Only the best people

 

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/869275?section=newsfront&keywords=bill-shine-donald-trump-intimidate-journalists-fox-news&year=2018&month=06&date=29&id=869275&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

[kenberg]

The discussion so far:

The best hope of retaining a republic at this point is a super-majority in the house and senate by 2024 and packing SCOTUS with additional judges. At this point, I have no qualms about doing that.

Be careful what you wish for, Winston. You may get bit by the law of unintended consequences.

Do you have a better idea? Seriously, I am listening.

A fair question, let me give it a shot.

It would be good to build support and present viable candidates.

And it would be good to see what went wrong. Yes, the past is in the past, but we will continue to hold elections (for a while at least) and so it is worthwhile to ask how it could all go so wrong. Let me take a crack at that as well. Probably I will not be saying anything highly surprising.

 

I'll start with the Dennison metaphor.

 

I don't know who Dennison is, if there is/was a real person named Dennison or if it is some sort of construct or what/who he is.Sure, I could track it down but I haven't done so. Now some might say that this is because I am stupid or lazy or old or or elite or something. Ok, but I would be willing to bet that maybe 90%, or at least a large number of people if you picked them randomly on the street, could not identify who Dennison is. If it is explained to them that it is often used as a synonym for Trump, they would respond "Oh. Why?" . Or they would respond more forcefully.

The metaphorical point being that the public often has no understanding of what the left is talking about and the left writes the public off as not worth the effort required to be clear.

 

Now an example that is not at all metaphorical. Immigration seems to be a topic much on the minds of people. What is the position of leading Democrats on this? Oh. They are opposed to separating families. Got that. But then? I have mentioned this more than once already.

Winston: You once mentioned your thought that members of MS-13 should not be allowed in.. No doubt many agree. But give a little thought to how this sounds. I realize that you did not say everyone else gets to come if they want. But if someone says "No MS-13" and says nothing more, you might see how others will draw the conclusion you have no other constraints.

 

You aren't running for office, but those who are need to give this serious thought. Those running on Trump-like campaigns would like to portray their adversaries as advocates for open borders, interpreted as anyone who wishes to come can come, with the possible exception of those who belong to MS-13. If someone is running against a Trump supporter and if open borders is not their position, it would be a really good idea for them to be clear about what their position is. Opposing the separation of families is fine as far as it goes, but just about everyone understands that there is more to it than that.

 

We live in an age of extremes. Zero tolerance versus open borders. The vast majority (or so I think) are opposed both to separating families and to open borders. Does a candidate from the left think that a person who opposes open borders is a contemptible racist, someone whose vote they are not interested in? If so, they can make that clear and get whatever support that view will get them. If not, they might want to say what their views actually are.Their opponents will be very happy to portray them as open border enthusiasts.

 

So I have supplied a metaphor and a concrete example. It is ridiculous that someone like Trump could win. But asking how it happened is worthwhile. Blaming it on James Comey is not useful. People can always find someone else to blame. The fact that there is some truth to it does not reduce the need for honest analysis of one's own mistakes.

[hrothgar]

 

Now an example that is not at all metaphorical. Immigration seems to be a topic much on the minds of people. What is the position of leading Democrats on this? Oh. They are opposed to separating families. Got that. But then? I have mentioned this more than once already.

 

 

Here's the thing,

 

I KNOW that Hillary presented very detailed explanations regarding her campaign positions on immigration.

 

Its trivial to find this information. (Google Hillary Clinton campaign immigration and link #3 is https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/)

Why is it my responsibility to spoon feed this you?

 

In a similar fashion, the first person that I heard using the expression "Dennision" as a synonym for Trump was Winston.

To date, the only people that I know who do so are on this discussion forum. There might be more, but its not a pattern that I am used to.

 

None the less, I immediately knew that Trump = Dennison because I know that is the fake name that Trump's lawyers used in the Stormy Daniels case.

This is a basic issue of political literacy

 

Democracy relies on an active, engaged, informed public.

The fact that you

 

1. Don't know any of this information

2. Are unwilling to invest time and effort educating yourself

3. Honestly seem bitter that other people have done this sort of research

 

goes a long way towards explaining why the country is in the mess that we're in

 

I understand that you think that I am calling you old / stupid / lazy, and you're probably correct.

However, its going to take way too much time to try to get you up to speed on these issues and there are more valuable ways for me to spend my time.

 

In a similar vein, you are seizing on comments that Winston made about MS-13...

 

MS-13 is a DISTRACTION.

MS-13 has nothing to do with the actual border conundrum!

It is something that low education voters like to bleat about because the real issues are hard.

 

And, much as I like Winston, he doesn't speak for the Democratic party.

So why would you use the fact that Winston only says No MS-13 to infer that the democrats have no plan?

[Winstonm]

The discussion so far:

 

 

 

A fair question, let me give it a shot.

It would be good to build support and present viable candidates.

And it would be good to see what went wrong. Yes, the past is in the past, but we will continue to hold elections (for a while at least) and so it is worthwhile to ask how it could all go so wrong. Let me take a crack at that as well. Probably I will not be saying anything highly surprising.

 

I'll start with the Dennison metaphor.

 

I don't know who Dennison is, if there is/was a real person named Dennison or if it is some sort of construct or what/who he is.Sure, I could track it down but I haven't done so. Now some might say that this is because I am stupid or lazy or old or or elite or something. Ok, but I would be willing to bet that maybe 90%, or at least a large number of people if you picked them randomly on the street, could not identify who Dennison is. If it is explained to them that it is often used as a synonym for Trump, they would respond "Oh. Why?" . Or they would respond more forcefully.

The metaphorical point being that the public often has no understanding of what the left is talking about and the left writes the public off as not worth the effort required to be clear.

 

Now an example that is not at all metaphorical. Immigration seems to be a topic much on the minds of people. What is the position of leading Democrats on this? Oh. They are opposed to separating families. Got that. But then? I have mentioned this more than once already.

Winston: You once mentioned your thought that members of MS-13 should not be allowed in.. No doubt many agree. But give a little thought to how this sounds. I realize that you did not say everyone else gets to come if they want. But if someone says "No MS-13" and says nothing more, you might see how others will draw the conclusion you have no other constraints.

 

You aren't running for office, but those who are need to give this serious thought. Those running on Trump-like campaigns would like to portray their adversaries as advocates for open borders, interpreted as anyone who wishes to come can come, with the possible exception of those who belong to MS-13. If someone is running against a Trump supporter and if open borders is not their position, it would be a really good idea for them to be clear about what their position is. Opposing the separation of families is fine as far as it goes, but just about everyone understands that there is more to it than that.

 

We live in an age of extremes. Zero tolerance versus open borders. The vast majority (or so I think) are opposed both to separating families and to open borders. Does a candidate from the left think that a person who opposes open borders is a contemptible racist, someone whose vote they are not interested in? If so, they can make that clear and get whatever support that view will get them. If not, they might want to say what their views actually are.Their opponents will be very happy to portray them as open border enthusiasts.

 

So I have supplied a metaphor and a concrete example. It is ridiculous that someone like Trump could win. But asking how it happened is worthwhile. Blaming it on James Comey is not useful. People can always find someone else to blame. The fact that there is some truth to it does not reduce the need for honest analysis of one's own mistakes.

 

Thanks for the response.

 

First, let's talk Dennison. Wikipedia describes it this way: (emphasis added)

 

Donald Trump has used several pseudonyms including "John Barron" (or "John Baron"), "John Miller" and "David Dennison". His practice of sometimes speaking to the media under the guise of a spokesperson has been described as "an open secret" at the Trump Organization and in New York media circles.

 

Michael Cohen used the alias David Dennison in lieu of Donald Trump in many non-disclosure agreements, including the one for Stormy Daniels.

 

Second, as far as immigration is concerned, it is accurate that I said I am against MS-13 coming into the country. That said, I think it is falling for the Fox model of argumentation, though, to say that anything I do not specifically deny I must be in favor of.

 

Immigration reform does not mean open borders. If there were open borders, all immigration would be legal; hence, stopping MS-13 members from immigrating is all the evidence needed that open borders are not supported.

 

I do not have an answer for immigration. Somewhere between zero and infinity is a number of immigrants who would be good for our country and for them. I would suggest that the ideas of a group of economists and other professionals would be helpful to know in order to formulate some kind of immigration plan. An international body would be needed to address the problems of refugees and other asylum seekers.

 

When you have no empathy and are biased against others, the answers are clear cut: build a wall, keep them out. When you realize that you live in an interconnected world, your answers are not at all clear and the honest person looks for help in making those decisions.

 

Why was Dennison elected? Recent history explains it quite easily. George Wallace kept the door open. David Duke nearly won a senate seat in Louisiana. Erdogan, in Turkey, has moved the country toward religion and less democracy. When people are oppressed, and wealth disparity is the current oppressor, people look for someone to blame for their problems. Demagogues - strongmen - have historically used such dissatisfaction to rouse an army of anger.

 

The one thing Bannon was right about is that this populist uprising is a worldwide event - but it is misguided, and his reason to accept it is to use it to his advantage. What we need are leaders who try to correct the disparity of wealth; instead, we have demagogues worldwide who appeal to nationalism, religion, and law and order as imaginary solutions to real problems.

 

We are at a crossroads of history, and the momentum is against the western alliances that have kept the world order since the end of WWII. Now, we have clown princes entertaining the masses while stealing the wealth of nations.

 

But it can't be our fault - it must the their fault! Sad.

[kenberg]

Here's the thing,

 

I KNOW that Hillary presented very detailed explanations regarding her campaign positions on immigration.

 

Its trivial to find this information. (Google Hillary Clinton campaign immigration and link #3 is https://www.hillaryc...gration-reform/)

Why is it my responsibility to spoon feed this you?

 

In a similar fashion, the first person that I heard using the expression "Dennision" as a synonym for Trump was Winston.

To date, the only people that I know who do so are on this discussion forum. There might be more, but its not a pattern that I am used to.

 

None the less, I immediately knew that Trump = Dennison because I know that is the fake name that Trump's lawyers used in the Stormy Daniels case.

This is a basic issue of political literacy

 

Democracy relies on an active, engaged, informed public.

The fact that you

 

1. Don't know any of this information

2. Are unwilling to invest time and effort educating yourself

3. Honestly seem bitter that other people have done this sort of research

 

goes a long way towards explaining why the country is in the mess that we're in

 

 

I agree very much with the last sentence as to this being at the heart of the problem. Now let us consider 1 ,2 and 3, along with what is above.

 

1. I could guess the origin of Dennison. But right, I did not care to bother. As to Hillary's views, I looked at the site. I will just pick one item, but I think it is pretty representative.

Hillary will focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety, and ensure refugees who seek asylum in the U.S. have a fair chance to tell their stories.

 

Ok, so from this we can conclude that HC, like Winston, would be opposed to letting MS-13 members in. The rest get to tell their stories.. And then?

 

We can also look at http://www.chicagotr...011-column.html

 

Now I also don't know who the reporter John Kass is. I just googled for HC and open borders, and he was the first that came up. But the following is in quotation marks:

 

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.

 

 

I remember this from the campaign.

Let's suppose that she said this. As far as I know the quotation was never denied or claimed to have been taken out of context. Then indeed she gets credit for being clear about this. It probably did not help her. But it is clear. We could reasonably ask that others be equally clear. Now she does say it's a dream. but a candidate for president talking about her dreams? One might reasonably conclude she will attempt to move the country toward this dream.

 

2. Unwilling? Yes and no. My guess is that I spend more time and effort in trying to understand such matters than many do. I try to cast an informed ballot. Last Tuesday I did not cast a vote for the Board of Education, I just hadn't thought about it, but that's unusual for me. Usually I go over the list of candidates and do my best. For president? Of course. And other high offices. But sure, if someone wants to talk about Dennison I could track it down but I don't bother. Dennison was a metaphor, the idea being that someone who wants my vote should accept that I am not always willing to do research for figuring out what they are talking about.

 

3. Bitter? No. Really, I am not. Very discouraged and pessimistic might be right. So many things that once would have been seen of minor importance now create outrage. Sarah Sanders is asked to leave a restaurant. I would really like it if nobody cared what I thought about that. The regular patrons could let the owner know what they think if they wish to. But we now have a national debate over it. I occasionally eat at the local Chick-fil-A. They are very Christian. I am not They still serve me. I still eat there. We seem to have lost all sense of restraint. I don't see these comments as bitter. But I am pessimistic.

 

 

But most important: "goes a long way towards explaining why the country is in the mess that we're in".Winston was asking what should be done. A large part of my suggestion was to stop blaming other people. It's fair enough to see me as lazy and ignorant. But if I am then so are many many people, and that has always been so. Always will be. If the approach is "If people are just so lazy and stupid that they cannot see things my way then what's a good progressive to do" then I can tell you what they will do. They will lose elections.

[hrothgar]

 

Ok, so from this we can conclude that HC, like Winston, would be opposed to letting MS-13 members in. The rest get to tell their stories.. And then?

 

 

A judge makes a decision on a case-by-case basis, just as has been done for decades

[hrothgar]

 

 

I remember this from the campaign.

Let's suppose that she said this. As far as I know the quotation was never denied or claimed to have been taken out of context. Then indeed she gets credit for being clear about this. It probably did not help her. But it is clear. We could reasonably ask that others be equally clear. Now she does say it's a dream. but a candidate for president talking about her dreams? One might reasonably conclude she will attempt to move the country toward this dream.

 

 

I also remember this statement from the campaign.

 

The presentation is out of context since Clinton's comments were specifically about energy rather than labor mobility.

(Not a big concern for me because I actually favor labor mobility)

[ldrews]

Thanks for the response.

 

First, let's talk Dennison. Wikipedia describes it this way: (emphasis added)

 

 

 

Michael Cohen used the alias David Dennison in lieu of Donald Trump in many non-disclosure agreements, including the one for Stormy Daniels.

 

Second, as far as immigration is concerned, it is accurate that I said I am against MS-13 coming into the country. That said, I think it is falling for the Fox model of argumentation, though, to say that anything I do not specifically deny I must be in favor of.

 

Immigration reform does not mean open borders. If there were open borders, all immigration would be legal; hence, stopping MS-13 members from immigrating is all the evidence needed that open borders are not supported.

 

I do not have an answer for immigration. Somewhere between zero and infinity is a number of immigrants who would be good for our country and for them. I would suggest that the ideas of a group of economists and other professionals would be helpful to know in order to formulate some kind of immigration plan. An international body would be needed to address the problems of refugees and other asylum seekers.

 

When you have no empathy and are biased against others, the answers are clear cut: build a wall, keep them out. When you realize that you live in an interconnected world, your answers are not at all clear and the honest person looks for help in making those decisions.

 

Why was Dennison elected? Recent history explains it quite easily. George Wallace kept the door open. David Duke nearly won a senate seat in Louisiana. Erdogan, in Turkey, has moved the country toward religion and less democracy. When people are oppressed, and wealth disparity is the current oppressor, people look for someone to blame for their problems. Demagogues - strongmen - have historically used such dissatisfaction to rouse an army of anger.

 

The one thing Bannon was right about is that this populist uprising is a worldwide event - but it is misguided, and his reason to accept it is to use it to his advantage. What we need are leaders who try to correct the disparity of wealth; instead, we have demagogues worldwide who appeal to nationalism, religion, and law and order as imaginary solutions to real problems.

 

We are at a crossroads of history, and the momentum is against the western alliances that have kept the world order since the end of WWII. Now, we have clown princes entertaining the masses while stealing the wealth of nations.

 

But it can't be our fault - it must the their fault! Sad.

 

While I don't agree with your views, I do support you. You seem to be quite sensible.

[Winstonm]

Credit "Dennison" to Johnu, from whom I stole the idea.

[kenberg]

A judge makes a decision on a case-by-case basis, just as has been done for decades

 

Of course. But this does not get to the issue. There are a very number of refugees world wide. Not everyone wants to come here. There are a very large number of people in this hemisphere who have serious fear of violence where they live. They would like to go somewhere, and here is a reasonable choice from their viewpoint. I think Syrians would rather go to Germany than here, I think Guatemalans would rather go here than to Germany. I am not sure of this, but I think so. At any rate, it seems that Germany has to decide what their policy should be toward the large number of Syrians who would like to go there. We have to decide what we will do about the large number of people from Central and South America who would like to come here. While I might say "Let the judge decide", I expect a Presidential candidate, or a Senate candidate, would have a more substantial opinion. Decide on what basis? Perhaps they made a difficult journey and have no record of any substantial criminal activity. Does that suffice? I am not asking about what the current law actually says, I am saying that I expect a candidate for president to say what s/he thinks the law should be.

 

It's tricky. When Eisenhower, in the first election that I followed, said "I will go to Korea" nobody asked why he would do such a thing or what hotel he would stay at when he got there. People found the simple statement clear enough. Most people, including me, do not read long position papers. I might do so sometimes. Certainly not always on every issue. They need to find a way to make their basic approach clear.

 

Example: It is my view that we should try hard to help with the severe problems that the people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have. The primary focus should be on fixing the problems that are causing so many people to want to leave. That would be good for them since then they could remain where they grew up and have family. No doubt some need to leave, at least temporarily, and we should work with that.

 

I have no idea whether leading figures in the Democratic Party, for example Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, agree with this general approach. I think that they do not, but perhaps I am wrong.

[Winstonm]

Of course. But this does not get to the issue. There are a very number of refugees world wide. Not everyone wants to come here. There are a very large number of people in this hemisphere who have serious fear of violence where they live. They would like to go somewhere, and here is a reasonable choice from their viewpoint. I think Syrians would rather go to Germany than here, I think Guatemalans would rather go here than to Germany. I am not sure of this, but I think so. At any rate, it seems that Germany has to decide what their policy should be toward the large number of Syrians who would like to go there. We have to decide what we will do about the large number of people from Central and South America who would like to come here. While I might say "Let the judge decide", I expect a Presidential candidate, or a Senate candidate, would have a more substantial opinion. Decide on what basis? Perhaps they made a difficult journey and have no record of any substantial criminal activity. Does that suffice? I am not asking about what the current law actually says, I am saying that I expect a candidate for president to say what s/he thinks the law should be.

 

It's tricky. When Eisenhower, in the first election that I followed, said "I will go to Korea" nobody asked why he would do such a thing or what hotel he would stay at when he got there. People found the simple statement clear enough. Most people, including me, do not read long position papers. I might do so sometimes. Certainly not always on every issue. They need to find a way to make their basic approach clear.

 

Example: It is my view that we should try hard to help with the severe problems that the people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have. The primary focus should be on fixing the problems that are causing so many people to want to leave. That would be good for them since then they could remain where they grew up and have family. No doubt some need to leave, at least temporarily, and we should work with that.

 

I have no idea whether leading figures in the Democratic Party, for example Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, agree with this general approach. I think that they do not, but perhaps I am wrong.

 

The main issue is helping solve the problems that make those in Central America and elsewhere flee for their lives and the lives of their children - but where are the Bobby Kennedys of today who can energize a people for good rather than bad?

[kenberg]

So. My main point in brief:

A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

 

[Al_U_Card]

So. My main point in brief:

A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

"Let them eat cake!" comes to mind (not an exact quote, either) but quite indicative of the elitist approach and mindset. If they were really superior, they would never get caught out, but criminals of every ilk are just that way.

[hrothgar]

So. My main point in brief:

A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

 

The biggest reason for what's going on right now is almost certainly FOX News.

 

The first amendment is a wonderful thing. But it has its problems as well. One of them is the emergence of an infotainment channel that spews a nonstop series of lies and mistruth and reinforces the world view of a bunch of narrow minded bigots.

[hrothgar]

Interesting claim:

 

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

 

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

 

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

[cherdano]

Interesting claim:

 

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

 

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

 

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

Sorry, this seems BS. Would need a LOT of things to be a legitimate story. (Why would his son ever be a target in the Mueller investigation? Why would there even be a remote chance of *his son's case* reaching the supreme court?) Doesn't need a lot to be a bogus story that spreads because liberals would like to believe it.

 

Any evidence for this claim?

[hrothgar]

Sorry, this seems BS. Would need a LOT of things to be a legitimate story. (Why would his son ever be a target in the Mueller investigation? Why would there even be a remote chance of *his son's case* reaching the supreme court?) Doesn't need a lot to be a bogus story that spreads because liberals would like to believe it.

 

Any evidence for this claim?

 

Kennedy's son is getting dragged into the Mueller investigation because

 

1. Said son worked in a very senior position at Deutsche Bank and personally approved hundreds of millions of dollar worth of loan's to Trump at a time when no one else would do business with the man

2. Note that these are the same set of loans that originated out of DB's Russia desk and are being used to suggest that there is money laundering

3. Mueller first started subpoenaed records regarding Trump’s BD loans in December 2017

 

The issue is not that a case against Kennedy's son would directly end up in front of the Supreme Court, but rather, that the Supreme Court might need to issue rulings in the event of an impeachment and that these same money laundering charges might be relevant to the charges brought against Trump.

[kenberg]

Interesting claim:

 

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

 

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

 

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

 

I guess I would put this in the "Well, I suppose it could be" category. And I don't see you as claiming that it is much more than that.

Kennedy is, I think, 82. I am 79. There is a scene in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel that speaks to me, as maybe it did to Kennedy. A professor is talking with a friend saying that he enjoys his work but someday he will retire and give it all up. Later we see him at a faulty meeting as someone drones on and he lifts his head and says "This is the day".. I might be off on the details but that was the idea. The point is that I would not make too much of Kennedy appointing his clerk for October and then later saying "It's time, I'm outta here"..

 

I had not heard anything about his son. I imagine we will hear more. Stranger things have turned out to be true, but I think we can all wait on this, and we very possibly will never know just why now. I'm healthy, or healthy enough, but I get tried. I misplay hands that I should not misplay. I need a nap from time to time. I'm not dead, but I'm not 30 either. Neither is he.

 

I wish him a happy retirement.Think I will go lie down for a while now.

 

[Winstonm]

The biggest reason for what's going on right now is almost certainly FOX News.

 

The first amendment is a wonderful thing. But it has its problems as well. One of them is the emergence of an infotainment channel that spews a nonstop series of lies and mistruth and reinforces the world view of a bunch of narrow minded bigots.

 

To expand a bit, I live in Oklahoma, which voted for Dennison by about a 2-1 margin. Very red. No matter where you go in this state, you will find the televisions in public places tuned to Fox. It is a 24/7 bombardment. For the Republican majority that lives here, their home viewing of news is tuned to Fox.

 

Why is this so important?

 

This past Friday, Larry Kudlow, the White House economic adviser, was on Fox, and he bald-faced lied about the state of the deficit and the results of policies - he claimed that the federal deficit was "coming down rapidly" because of the massive tax cuts of the Republicans, that the tax cuts were generating huge new economic growth and "throwing off enormous amounts of new tax revenues," with the result that "the deficit...is coming down, and it's coming down rapidly."

 

Then, a few hours later, he told the Post that his comments were about expectations for the future, that he should have said future deficits.

 

These are media savvy individuals, and their messaging was strategically planned to maximize effect. Knowing that the vast majority of Republicans get their news from Fox television and social media, the big lie was presented there as fact. This will be believed by the majority who receive no other input but Fox - and they are legion. That message will be re-enforced with social media over and over and on message boards and in online arguments.

 

The explanation came with via the written word in a low-by-comparison newspaper. Is it cynical that say such media savvy individuals knew that a correction in the Post would reach only a tiny fraction of the intended targets for their initial lies?

 

Do this daily, over and over and over, and lies become a type of truth - the truth of faith, of true believers.