He will win some and his people (including Bannon and his son-in-law) will help him temper his policies some in that regard. He's still Trump, so this will only be so useful. Either way, even Trump-lite is trouble. It's nice that there are restraints available, quite important, but let's not ignore they only go so far.
 

You drastically overestimate the politics of this. Among Trump's supporters, this policy is very popular. Unless and until that changes, Steve Bannon will continue to run the country.

This was a legal victory, not a political one. The legal system has yet to be fully tested in its willingness to oppose fascism because the Supreme Court hasn't yet gotten involved. Personally, I'm not optimistic, especially once the Court regains a ninth Justice.
 

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind asserting that Bannon is running the country; Is it that Trump, who has a multi-billion dollar business empire, and successfully ran for President, must, against all evidence, be an idiot? (Because those the left hates must be horrible in ALL respects, not just one or two; They have to be stupid, ugly, and smelly, as well as wrong.) That being the case, the real power here must be some dude Trump hired, and could fire any time he feels like it. Trump himself is just a puppet manipulated by one of his employees?

This is silly beyond belief.

I think the real significance here is that Indiana only lost because they were trying to do something contrary to federal policy. They're in an excellent position to re-litigate the case on the basis that federal policy has changed.
 

Trump has shown no evidence that he's bright. He is appallingly ignorant of facts. He speaks in gibberish half the time. He repeatedly says delusional/false things. He shows no ability to analyze an issue. He failed in all his business efforts except The Apprentice, which means he's really just a Kardashian.

That said, if you want to argue that he's suffering from some sort of dementia I wouldn't dispute that. He's obese, he's over 70, he doesn't exercise, and he's famous for eating junk food. These are all risk factors, and his inability to construct full sentences suggests some issues.

In any case, your attempt to exculpate Bannon on this particular EO is at odds with all the reports. By the published accounts, DHS said that this EO would not apply to green card holders and Bannon overruled them. Yes, Bannon is the one actually running things because Trump is incompetent.
 

I forgot to mention that Trump's health records, minimal though they were, showed that he was on statins and aspirin. Those are prescribed for atherosclerosis, another risk factor for dementia.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Judge Posner's analysis of the terrorist threat is simply a credulous regurgitation of Obama administration talking points. In reality, the IN governor was correct in noting "the well-documented threat of terrorists posing as refugees to gain entry into Western countries." ISIS/al Qaeda terrorists have infiltrated the EU posing as refugees or other types of migrants. HSA cannot effectively identify terrorists among travelers to the United States unless the vetting reveals a terrorist previously identified by CIA or DIA. Terrorist groups do not publish their membership lists.

Unfortunately for the IN governor in that case, Obama was the President and the Constitution grants the President general power over foreign travel into the US. To the extent travel can be equated with Congress's authority over naturalization, Congress has also authorized the president to act. As Andrew McCarthy noted at National Review:

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

Thus, like Obama's order suspending travel from Iraq in 2011, the Trump order suspending travel with exceptions from seven nations with major terrorist sanctuaries is perfectly legal.

BTW, I do not recall any of the professors here or the Democrat media complaining when Obama suspended travel from Iraq in 2011 to stop potential terrorist invasion.
 

"Trump has shown no evidence that he's bright."

What, you mean aside from managing to be a billionaire, and successfully running for and being elected President? Aside from that, you mean?

I'll believe you've got a point when you accomplish one of those two feats. I'll be generous, the choice of which is up to you.
 

Brett:

Our mandarin caste believes they are more intelligent and thus more able (itself an non-sequitur) than others because of their credentialing. There is no other explanation for their unquestioning belief that fellow mandarins Obama (a man without zero successful executive performance before his failed presidency) and Clinton (a woman with a long resume of failed executive performance) are somehow smarter and more able than the businessman Trump (a man with a long and successful resume of executive performance).
 

Bart,

If you had inherited many millions from your father, as Trump did from his, I'm sure you would also have a long and successful resume of executive performance.
 

I suspect Bart could actually screw that up.
 

"If you had inherited many millions from your father, as Trump did from his, I'm sure you would also have a long and successful resume of executive performance."

The history of Powerball winners really casts some serious doubt on this. 70% of big lottery winners go bankrupt, usually within 5 years. And, geeze, how hard is it to not go bankrupt in response to coming into a lot of money? But the majority manage it somehow.

Managing to live a very lavish lifestyle, and go through more than one divorce, and still be wealthy, is, in fact, extraordinarily difficult.
 

Gerard: If you had inherited many millions from your father, as Trump did from his, I'm sure you would also have a long and successful resume of executive performance.

Financial capital does not equal intellectual capital or sound business management.

Billions of dollars of financial capital is lost every year investing in businesses which failed because of bad ideas and/or bad management.

Businesses with second generation management fail more than most. They rarely become more successful.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aileron/2013/07/31/the-facts-of-family-business/#3b23a52946e7

Business success does not mean Trump will be a successful government executive, but he does offer a far better general executive resume than his predecessor or election opponent.
 

Brett forgot to mention regarding Trump's smartness a reminder that Trump is an author, best selling at that. Brett and many other Trump supporters in awe of Trump's business acumen relied on Trump's "The Art of the Deal" published in 1987, before, of course, before "Little Casino's" businesses failed and went the way of bankruptcies. Of course, Trump had help with this book and his co-author had something to say about this during the campaign. [Those interested, Google for the skinny. Apparently Trump back then did not think of some sort of non-disclosure, gag agreement.]

Perhaps Brett provides a diagnosis:

"Managing to live a very lavish lifestyle, and go through more than one divorce, and still be wealthy, is, in fact, extraordinarily difficult."

based upon his own personal experience or other anecdotal evidence. But just Google on Trump's messy divorce from Ivana that included overcoming a pre-nup and the efforts The Donald had made to create a picture that he was not then that wealthy.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted), part of the Trump "MEGALOMELANIA" seems to be missing at the WH, which may account for the K-K-Khaos with last Friday's XO, impacting Trump's once proclaimed daily activity.

 

I wouldn't say I'm "in awe of" Trump. I'd frankly be more impressed with him if he spoke in complete sentences with proper grammar, and maybe thought a little bit more before opening his mouth. That foot in mouth disease he's got is pretty impressive.

I just think it's remarkably irrational to deny that he's smart. Delusional, even. As I say, the left seem to have this mental tic, that they can't admit that somebody they dislike and disagree with could be intelligent. Their foes have to possess every human fault, and no human virtue. They have to be absurd caricatures.
 

Brett:

I wonder whether Trump's diction is natural or part of his act?

In any case, I believe the content of Trump's communications are intentional and calculated. The Donald is very good at pressing buttons to obtain a certain effect. There is very much a method to his madness.
 

aside from managing to be a billionaire

Assumes facts not in evidence. If you can provide evidence that he (a) actually is worth a billion dollars; AND (b) earned that money honestly, then we can talk.

As for being elected President, we've had presidents without much above the shoulders. Warren Harding springs to mind. Reagan in his second term. Nobody thought Hayes was all that bright. Nor W.H. Harrison. So yeah, somebody can become president without impressive intelligence.
 

Brett's:

"They have to be absurd caricatures."

Long before the 2016 campaign, Trump 's efforts at celebrity over the years have been well documented. The caricatures over those years of Trump were apolitical. [Perhaps someone has a timetable of when Trump was a Democrat, Republican Mugwamp.) Perhaps in the early days of his career subsidized by his dad, he needed to do things on his own to enhance recognition. Early on he had the benefit of Roy Cohn of Joe McCarthy infamy. He tried to promote himself acting as someone else. His marriages/affairs/divorces were fodder for the NY press, exposure that he admittedly enjoyed - just spell his name right. Trump did a lot of sowing of oats as he ventured with casinos that failed. Ah, the salad days of our youth. Many of us eventually grow up. But not The Donald. He continued into a reality show, where he was the boss and his decisions could not be countermanded by others. Even as he entered his 7th decade, there was the Access Hollywood matter, with tapes beicoming public during the 2016 campaign. That was not a youthful frolic and banter that might be excused. I don't recall that Trump ever repented for his excesses. He declines to apologize for anything. Much of the "history" was public knowledge well before the Access Hollywood event. No, The Donald was not interested in tic tac for her toe. Perhaps the iceberg of The Donald has more to be exposed. And then there's Trump's 'to Russia With Love" campaign that he wishes to continue in his presidency. Despite all the information available, Trum via the EC became America' first PG* President. So far, what we saw is what we got, despite Trump getting almost 3 million less of the popular vote. The caricatures are not absurd. Fortunately, even as President, his authority is not absolute. See Mark Graber's post.

* Those nasty Access Hollywood tapes
 

Keep in mind that George W. was America's first MBA President. While Trump went to the Wharton School (U/Penn) it was as an undergraduate. By the Bybee {expletives deleted), Trump claimed to be very smart with great grades at Wharton. But Trump never revealed his scholastic records from his days at Wharton of his earlier two years at Fordham. Recall that Trump in his Obama birther years demanded that Obama release his college and law school scholastic records to prove that Obama had the smarts to be President.

George W. did not take actions that caused 9/11 (although he may have ignore certain intel as "CYA"), just a week into Trump's term, his XO of Friday, some have claimed, may lead to terrorism.
 

"Assumes facts not in evidence. If you can provide evidence that he (a) actually is worth a billion dollars; AND (b) earned that money honestly, then we can talk."

The ironic thing about the above is that Mark sneers at the Birthers for wanting to see Obama's long form birth certificate, and doesn't have enough self-awareness to grasp that he's no different, he's just obsessing over a different piece of paper, and ignoring the adequate evidence in front of his face.

"As for being elected President, we've had presidents without much above the shoulders. Warren Harding springs to mind. Reagan in his second term. Nobody thought Hayes was all that bright. Nor W.H. Harrison. So yeah, somebody can become president without impressive intelligence."

Where "without much above the shoulders" must mean only a couple SD above the mean, instead of three or four. You didn't fall for that silly Presidential IQ hoax, did you?
 

For those Trump voters who thought he was great because of his business acumen, here's part of a comment I put up today at Dorf on Law:

***
I just finished lunch here at home watching a Charlie Rose re-run from last Friday of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. It was an amazing discussion. Many of Trump's supporters (I won't describe them) were impressed with Trump as a businessman claiming to be a billionaire, claiming successes as an author and businessman, etc, etc. Trump's wealth as compared to either Buffett or Gates is chump change. During the interview, neither one claimed to be very smart. Buffett is 86 (I think I'm a month older than he but many a dollar shorter) and Gates a couple of decades younger. There was talk of the Gates Foundation, to which Buffett as signed on for his wealth. They talked of important things in life to them, especially family (the dangers to leaving too much wealth to children). Their financial successes are known in quite a bit of detail as their business careers are/were with publicly traded companies that disclose financial performance, etc. Trump had a casino business with publicly traded shares that failed via multiple bankruptcies. Trump also has a foundation, but the less said about that the better. The Gates Foundation has vastly contributed to education, medicine and other worthwhile charitable endeavors worldwide. Trump had his for-profit Trump U., regarding which fairly soon after Nov. 8th he paid $25 million to settle claims of fraud. Trump as President claims his cabinet nominees have the highest IQ of any prior cabinets. Trump offers no evidence but perhaps in his mind IQ relates to wealth, as none of his nominees seems to be like a populist that the Trump campaign attracted, several having Wall St. roots. Comparisons can go on and on. Perhaps Trump supporters might Google Charlie Rose to pick up this re-run interview of Buffett and Gates. Better yet, tonight HBO has a documentary special on Buffett.

***

I won't be watching the Buffett documentary as I don't subscribe to HBO. Maybe Trump supporters do.

 

I don't need to argue Trump is some sort of "idiot" to look at the situation and make a reasonable conclusion that Bannon (and a few others) have a special amount of authority and influence in making policy here. Trump made his money is certain areas. He has certain skill-sets. Some such people even get elected for office. Doesn't mean they suddenly are skilled at the new position. This is not just about Trump. And, no, to cite something actually put out there, having a sexy wife doesn't really change much here one way or the other in any relevant fashion.

Brett himself argued before the election that it was reasonable to conclude Trump would preside over experts, his skills and knowledge after all in real estate and not crafting executive orders involving nuances on immigration law and such, delegating a lot as merited. This would not mean others was "running" the show exactly, but (again this was Brett's own stance, or at least where it would lead) it would in practice give them a lot of discretion. They would be "running" a lot more than they would in another scenario.

If one doesn't want to say he is "running the country" or something, that is fine. I think Mark Field as a whole knows what he is talking about, but at times the breadth of his tone is an easy target, and we tediously get responses like the ones here latching on to the broadest points.
 

The ironic thing about the above is that Mark sneers at the Birthers for wanting to see Obama's long form birth certificate, and doesn't have enough self-awareness to grasp that he's no different, he's just obsessing over a different piece of paper, and ignoring the adequate evidence in front of his face.

The fact that you could see the 2 cases as similar speaks volumes.
 

" He has certain skill-sets. Some such people even get elected for office. Doesn't mean they suddenly are skilled at the new position."

No argument there. Obama demonstrated, (As if anyone needed further proof!) that the skills involved in getting elected were distinct from those needed to govern competently. Trump isn't necessarily going to be an exception to this rule, though the fact that he's held private sector executive positions most of his life is promising. During the campaign he demonstrated a fairly steep learning curve. He needed it, because he had a lot to learn!

I expect there will be a lot of mistakes made in the first few months. Especially since he's presiding over a bureaucracy populated by devoted members of the opposition party, who won't exactly be eager for him to be a success.

But Mark had to go and claim, not that Trump's experience was in a somewhat different area, but instead that Trump had shown no evidence of being bright. And THAT is just delusional.
 

"The fact that you could see the 2 cases as similar speaks volumes"

The fact that you don't is why I say you're lacking in self awareness.
 

Irony duly noted.

As for Trump, I doubt he'd score higher than about 120 on an IQ test. But he could put the issue to rest by releasing his test scores. Until then, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
 

A suggestion was made that Bannon was running the country.

The reply wondered why. Was it that Trump is some sort of an idiot? Well, no, you don't have to be an "idiot" to have that happen. Also, various who were elected weren't that bright, so merely being elected doesn't mean you are. Is Trump an idiot? Mark Field suggests he isn't that bright, providing examples. His strong language is too much for one of Trump's supporters but the details not refuted.

Likewise, merely being elected doesn't mean you can successfully do the job. Brett readily agrees now, making a dig at Obama along the way. A success in another field doesn't make the idea that Trump is delegating things to someone more skillful in the details in the current one unreasonable either. In fact, Brett himself suggested Trump would delegate a lot. So, really how far are we apart?

"the left seem to have this mental tic, that they can't admit that somebody they dislike and disagree with could be intelligent"

This might seem to be true to you but over and over again I have seen members of "the left" readily agree such and such a person is intelligent, but still think their views wrong. The famous example is Scalia and RBG, but there are lots of other examples. The same applies to people they might dislike personally.

To the degree it happens, there is nothing special about "the left" here & "the right" includes such cases too.
 

Trump's businesses operated as publicly traded corporation were a failure, perhaps due to the oversight involved with such companies. As I understand it, Trump's business empire consists significantly of entities not so subject to scrutiny. With his wholly owned entities, whatever the assets consist of, Trump can decide basically as he pleases. Trump has refused to release his tax returns and/or disclose details of what his business consist of and where they operate. In more recent years following the bankruptcies of his publicly traded casino businesses, his successful businesses consist of the licensing of his brand on buildings developed by others, making him the gold standard of licentiousness.
 

BREAKING NEWS: Trump pulled a Tricky-Dick Nixon firing the Acting AG. Now there's even more reason to stall the approval Beauregard Sessions. At least Nixon waited for his second term to act with open paranoia.
 

Trump's wealth as compared to either Buffett or Gates is chump change.

Really?

If they think the voters will elect the candidate with the most personal wealth, the Democrats are welcome to run either, or more fittingly George Soros, against Trump in 2020.

In the history of democracy, has a major political party ever had a longer and more childish temper tantrum after losing an election?

https://youtu.be/WsWJGQdw-pQ
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag: Trump pulled a Tricky-Dick Nixon firing the Acting AG.

Poor analogy.

The Obama "Justice Department" was one of the most lawless and partisan in American history.

Firing the acting AG of the ancien regime for refusing to enforce his President's legal orders is only a good start.

Trump needs to task Sessions with choosing a completely new team and then demand the resignations of every current US Attorney.

Its time to clean house.
 

"aside from managing to be a billionaire,"

The operative term here is "be a billionaire" as opposed to make a billion dollars. Its not very difficult to inherit daddy's money.
 

In the history of democracy, has a major political party ever had a longer and more childish temper tantrum after losing an election?

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:12 PM

Tea Party birthers, you fuckwit.
 

"As for Trump, I doubt he'd score higher than about 120 on an IQ test."

Maybe a smidge higher than that, but that's the general range most Presidents have been thought to have been in, 120-130. A high enough IQ to be successful in most fields, it's the point at which drive and determination become more important than raw IQ in most fields, though perhaps not string theory. No sensible person would deny that somebody with a 120 IQ was "bright". You don't need to be a member of the Three Sigma Society to be a good President.

"The operative term here is "be a billionaire" as opposed to make a billion dollars. Its not very difficult to inherit daddy's money."

No, that's true. If you were content to just bank it and live off a small fraction of the interest, instead of being an active businessman, you could likely hold onto it. Still having that sort of money decades later, after running multiple businesses while living a lavish lifestyle? That's where it starts to get difficult. Anybody can hold onto money if they don't do anything with it. (Though most don't.)
 

bb:

The Tea Party voter rebellion started after the imposition of the Porkulus and the Democrat House passage of Obamacare.

The Republican Party did nothing comparable after Obama's election.
 

SPAM I AM!'s current view of the man he called a fascist over and over again seems to be that Trump is a benevolent fascist. SPAM is obviously sucking up to Beauregard to regard him for a DOJ position to get SPAM out from under that boring DUI legal practice in his little mountaintop high CO community where he is known as just another pisshole in the snow.
 

Mark: As for Trump, I doubt he'd score higher than about 120 on an IQ test.

A 120 IQ score places you in the top 13% of the population under this measure.

http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ%27.html

Because people who do well on IQ tests also do well on the various standardized tests used to enter university and the university degree is the gateway to higher paying work, this suggests the relationship between IQ score and economic success may be, at least in part, an artifact of using testing as a gateway to education.


 

Possibly, Bart, but there are a number of STEM fields where it's basically impossible for people with IQs in the 100 range to succeed. You just can't grasp the subject matter unless you're at least 1 standard deviation above the mean.

STEM fields tend to be well paid in part for this reason; The supply is inherently limited.
 

Shag:

Campaigns and governance are often very different things.

Obama and his Democrat Congress campaigned within the Reagan paradigm of limited government (you can keep your insurance and keep your doctor), tax cuts (for everyone apart from the top 1-2%), and a "net spending cut" to balance the budget and assailed Bush for ignoring Congress.

However, Obama and his Democrat Congress governed completely opposite to their campaigns and, when the voters fired the Democrat Congress in response, Obama started ruling by decree through the bureaucracy.

Trump did indeed run a fascist political campaign to get elected. Time will tell if he will continue and expand our budding totalitarian government.

To date, Trump's orders are a mixed bag, but none of them are totalitarian. They are often the opposite.

On the side of limited government, we have rolling back the Obamacare burden, freeing the pipelines, freezing federal hiring, and a call for eliminating two regulations for every new regulation (although I have no idea how that can work under current law)

On the side of populism, Trump made moves to follow through with his promises to limit immigration and withdrew from TPP.

Trump's most disturbing acts are not (yet) official, but rather threats against businesses who conduct business overseas.

I am waiting to see whether Tump can work with Congress and, if not, whether he starts to rule by decree like Obama.

You Democrats weaponized the absolute bureaucracy only to hand it over to Trump. Let's see if he uses your weapon.
 

Brett, in successive comments:

"Where "without much above the shoulders" must mean only a couple SD above the mean".

"Maybe a smidge higher than that, but that's the general range most Presidents have been thought to have been in, 120-130."

Note that 2 SD (the first claim) would be an IQ of 132/130, depending on the scale. The second comment therefore has Trump in the range I said. He wouldn't qualify for a "gifted" class in CA schools.
 

bb:

The Tea Party voter rebellion started after the imposition of the Porkulus and the Democrat House passage of Obamacare.

The Republican Party did nothing comparable after Obama's election.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:46 AM

Dumbfuck, you were whining about what a terrible president Obama was on this blog before he was even inaugurated. You are in no position to be talking about childish temper tantrums.

 

Brett: Possibly, Bart, but there are a number of STEM fields where it's basically impossible for people with IQs in the 100 range to succeed.

In order to test that hypothesis, we would have to train a large, randomly selected population in STEM skills, measure their success after the training and then test them for IQ.

I suspect effective intelligence is at least as much environmental as it is genetic. I have seen too many kids from broken homes and sh-t communities who succeed when challenged, many of them in my own units when I served as an Army NCO and then officer. I have also seen too many mandarins-in-training who score very well on tests, but have no intellectual curiosity and merely regurgitate what they are taught.
 

This from Mark's comment:

"He [Trump] wouldn't qualify for a 'gifted' class in CA schools."

is a reminder that Trump won the vagina lottery [no, not his PG qualities via the Access Hollywood tapes), in Queens, NY, eventually gifted with his dad's real estate business.

As to Trump's IQ, as they say in the 'hood: 4Q.
 

bb: you were whining about what a terrible president Obama was on this blog before he was even inaugurated. You are in no position to be talking about childish temper tantrums.

I could see Obama coming from a mile away.

While I felt mildly ill watching the election returns, I did not subsequently demonstrate, riot, or destroy other people's property. I did not call Obama everything from abnormal to sociopath. I did not attack Obama for the money he made selling books. I applied the same Constitution to Obama that I did to Bush.
 

Mark, what's the error bar in remotely estimating somebody's IQ without any testing or access to transcripts? Pretty large, and I'm guessing it gets larger on the downside as you lack ideological sympathy with them. (To be fair, larger on the upside in the contrary case.)

The truth is, neither of us really have any idea what Trump's IQ is, plus or minus 15 points, save that we can reliably estimate that it's significantly above 100.
 

The truth is, neither of us really have any idea what Trump's IQ is, plus or minus 15 points, save that we can reliably estimate that it's significantly above 100.

I can agree with this, at least for some values of "significantly".
 

My IQ might have dropped from this back/forth. Not significantly though.
 

You can afford to lose more than some of us.
 

Sandy's next post may add NYTimes columnist David Brooks to his list of Rubin and Gerson based upon Brooks' column today on Republicans' Faustian bargain with the Trump/Putin/Bannon Maladministration. Some of us recall Brooks' critique years ago in his late college days of conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. Brooks was so effective that Buckley co-opted Brooks by offering him a job, that started the career of Brooks in punditry as right-leaning. Brooks adapted under the tutelage of Buckley, rarely straying from conservatism. I await Republican reactions to Brooks' "J'accuse" of this Faustian bargain. Some Republicans may claim the end justifies the means, but that depends on how it "ends" with Trump at the helm. Trump seems to be emulating Tricky-Dick Nixon. Are Trump's son-in-law and Bannon in combination Nixon's Kissinger in Trump's Administration? Who remembers the refrain "I Wonder Who's Kissinger Now?"
 

Shag:

At National Review, Brooks offered mildly conservative op-eds because the job required them.

At the NY Times, Brooks reverted to his mandarin self and offered establishment progressive op-eds. Brooks was engaging in self examination when he wrote Bobos in Paradise and a series of op-eds about the mandarin caste and the populist rebellion against them. Brooks is one of the few mandarins who took the backlash seriously long before Trump arrived on the scene.

Once again, the GOP mandarin establishment is fully purchased into the progressive political economy and they only differ with the Democrat mandarins in degree and details. All the mandarin caste of both parties see Trumpist populism as a clear and present threat to their status and power.
 

I'm inclined not to add David "I'm a tool" Brooks to the canyon of heroes quite yet. I agree with MY's response to a suggestion Brooks isn't pulling his punches:

Matthew Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias 4h4 hours ago

@ezraklein David Brooks only pulls punches when it counts.

Ana Navarro continues to be a favorite for me personally. Her actually voting for Clinton, realizing what was at stake, helped a lot.
 

SPAM I AM! refers to David Brooks as "mandarin" while now embracing the "orange" version whom he described over and over again as fascist. Now, SPAM is a Trumpissy populist. (No, not the Access Hollywood derivative.)
 

Might Trump's prime time announcement of his (pro)choice candidate for the Court serve as dousing gasoline on the flames of his first two weeks of on-the-job-training as America's first PG* President? I expect it will will result in significant contributions to Planned Parenthood as was the case with ACLU on immigration XO.
 

I could see Obama coming from a mile away.

While I felt mildly ill watching the election returns, I did not subsequently demonstrate
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:01 AM

No, you just waved your pom poms while the other Tea Party morons protested. Then you spent the next 8 years whining like a little bitch. It was an 8 year temper tantrum.

 

Yeah, you remember those Tea Party riots? All the smashed cars and burning buildings?

Oh, wait, it's you. You probably DO 'remember' Tea Party riots.
 

Learn to read, champ. I said protest, not riot.
 

bb:

FWIW, I attended our local Tea Party rallies in 2009 and 2010. A few thousand of us gathered peacefully. prayed, spoke against the Porkulus and Obamacare, read from the Constitution, chatted with the single officer at the event, cleaned up after ourselves, and went back to work.

Far more importantly, the tens of millions of us who did not attend rallies voted and kept voting.

You can see the results here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016
 

Shag:

I have never endorsed Trump. I am in wait and see mode.

If Trump nominates Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court tonight, as is rumored, the Donald's administration will already be far superior than the alternative.

 

FWIW, I attended our local Tea Party rallies in 2009 and 2010. A few thousand of us gathered peacefully. prayed, spoke against the Porkulus and Obamacare, read from the Constitution, chatted with the single officer at the event, cleaned up after ourselves, and went back to work.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 7:27 PM

That appears to meet your standards for a temper tantrum. Congrats on your continued lack of self awareness!


 

I wonder if The Donald had his Tic Tacs during his dog and pony show. I notice Mrs. Justice to be (or not) got buzzed twice.
 

Senate Democrats should follow candidate Trump's advice to Senate Republicans on Obama's nominee regarding now President Trump's nominee: "Delay, delay, delay."
 

Over at the VC there are some hesitations and some relief that the pick wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Regarding Mitch McConnell's taking candidate Trump's advice during the campaign, was Mrs. Mitch the quid pro quo?
 

Shag: Over at the VC there are some hesitations and some relief that the pick wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Then you won't mind when Trump names another like him when Ginsberg follows Scalia to the great courthouse in the sky.
 

Dems need to force McConnell to nuke the filibuster. Then they can do whatever they want in 4 years.
 

"Over at the VC there are some hesitations and some relief that the pick wasn't as bad as it could have been."

At this point, the only thing that would really please that bunch is an open borders fanatic who'd rule having immigration laws was unconstitutional.

"Dems need to force McConnell to nuke the filibuster. Then they can do whatever they want in 4 years"

Dems were going to do whatever they want in 4 years, (Or whenever they get a President and a Senate majority, however narrow.) anyway. Didn't you get the memo from Reid and Kaine? The filibuster is dead the moment it gets used against Democrats.
 

I'm not a fan of VC but visit there w/o comment. But note that our own Brettbart )the really, really "unBreit") ignored this part of my comment:

"Regarding Mitch McConnell's taking candidate Trump's advice during the campaign, was Mrs. Mitch the quid pro quo?"

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), more and more references are being made to "President" Bannon in charge of the K-K-K-K-Khaos of the Trump Administration.
 

bb: "Dems need to force McConnell to nuke the filibuster. Then they can do whatever they want in 4 years"

If the Dems want to force the GOP to use the "nuclear option," the filibuster exception would be limited to Supreme Court confirmations.

I would love to see McConnell remove the filibuster or at least limit it to a set number of hours of actual debate. There is so much misgovernance to reverse and a 100% a chance the folks who imposed that misgovernance will filibuster to protect it.

One more reason for a constitutional convention.
 

SPAM I AM! omitted from his:

"One more reason for a constitutional convention."

his usual armed revolution alternative. Perhaps when he posted this comment, his Glock was not in his jock to remind him. It's also possible that a constitutional convention might provoke an armed revolution, perhaps a goal of anarcho-libertarians led by Steve Bannon.
 

If Trump keeps appointing judges willing to enforce constitutionally limited government, those appointees may end up checking any threat Trump may pose to the Constitution.
 

BD: One more reason for a constitutional convention.

Shag: his usual armed revolution alternative...It's also possible that a constitutional convention might provoke an armed revolution

Not really.

Given states have equal representation at the convention and a supermajority of states must ratify any amendments recommended by the convention, it is impossible to have a runaway progressive convention.

If instead the convention recommends and the states ratify amendments re-limiting government as I propose, progressives lack the arms, training and will to wage an armed revolution.
 

SPAM I AM! claims:

" ... progressives lack the arms, training and will to wage an armed revolution. "

without providing evidence. In the past SPAM has stated that his ilk has such arms, training and will to wage an armed revolution. This coming from what neighbors in his mountaintop community describe as just another pisshole in the snow targets SPAM as unpalatable.

By the Bybee 9expletives deleted), I did not say a possible armed revolution resulting from a constitutional convention would be by progressives. If a constitutional convention doesn't go the way SPAM and his ilk wish, they might take the armed revolution route.