Can you count?

Mr. Kurt Schlichter over at Townhall quotes the warriors to support his thesis that Trump will win again.  Largely because he can count to 67 - and without 67 votes for impeachment, we won't be able to remove President Trump from office.

And what I count to is a number that is less than 67. That’s the number of traitors to the Constitution you would need in the Senate to convict. 67. But right now, the count is about 50, maybe 49, or even 47 or 48. That’s the number of unAmerican creeps in the Senate who would vote to convict when the garbage Democrats in the house pass their garbage articles of garbage impeachment.

So, liberal elite, until you can count to 67, eat Schiff and die.

Let's take just a moment to reflect that Democrats are the party with no class and Republicans are the more respectable of the two.   "eat Schiff and die."  Oy. 

Anyway the other half of the story, and why Schlichter wants desperately to shut down this impeachment inquiry before it begins is that the more information that comes out about President Trump and his staff's dealing with the Ukraine government, the worse it looks.   So while yes, if the impeachment vote was held today, he'd get another term for sure.  But if its held after several months of investigation with all the facts laid out, the result would certainly change - President Trump can't continue to pretend there was no quid pro quo (well he can, and probably will, but it won't work). 

The real question will end up being how dumb do Republicans who support Trump want to look.   

The Neverending War

David Limgaugh's latest article starts with an interesting statement.

Ever since Trump's presidential announcement, leftists have been plotting and scheming against him.

What makes that so hypocritical is that of course we have - just as Republicans plotted and schemed and broke political norms to take down President Obama.  That's what you do.  From my perspective Republicans and Conservatives have a lot of bad ideas - and I am opposed to them putting those ideas into practice.   Most Republicans and Conservatives would feel the same about my ideas (but just to be clear, I'm right and they are not). 

One key difference between Trump and former Republican Presidents is that Trumps ideas are explicitly racist. 

Of course the big difference between Liberals and Conservatives, as Limbaugh points out, is that Republicans and Conservatives are dedicated to wiping Liberals out. 

In the very beginning of the book, I dispel the myth that the political left and conservatives share the same goals for America but just have different ideas about how to achieve them. If this were ever true before, which I highly doubt, it is demonstrably false now.

So that's that - liberals are dangerous monsters that need to be dealt with.  I can't speak for all Democrats or Liberals but we don't actually want to get rid of Conservatives or Republicans.  You see we actually do believe that Americans with different view points and political philosophies can share a nation. 

If Limbaugh doesn't, maybe that says more about Limbaugh than Liberals. 

Into the Filth Pt 1

Of what will be an ongoing series where I take an article and look through the comments - sometimes this is illuminating, more often its depressing.

Logically there is no way to provide more health care for more people and the resulting more operations, office visits and procedures without the cost going up. You have to be either a mush head or totally dishonest to claim otherwise. I would say Ms Warren is in the liar group.

This is from a poster named Michael Mitchell - and well, I do think I spot a mushhead. His assertion that it is illogical that we could get more healthcare without paying more falls apart when you know (as I do and as anybody should) that the left's contention is that there is a lot of waste created by an inefficient profit-driven health insurance system overlayed on our health care. And if we are going to be this simplistic let's ask an obvious question - the Insurance Companies get your money regardless of whether or not they provide services - so what incentive do they have to provide good services? Rather don't they have a clear motivation to provide the cheapest healthcare they can get away with?

Moderate Democrats ceded control of the Party to sociopaths decades ago; it took the election of Donald Trump to expose this fact to everyone.

That's from TCop19. Sociopaths, eh? The sort of monsters that might put children in cages for example? Or the sort of people that might withhold military aid to an ally in order to force investigation of a political rival? Yep the election of Donald Trump exposed a lot of things.

Democrats are just communists in disguise. They won't call themselves communists because too many people still remember how miserable and murderous communism was in Russia and still is in China and North Korea.

That one from Justdale just depresses me, because it reveals the truth I know but I don't want to accept - that for many on the right they aren't capable of seeing the truth. They have demonized the left so thoroughly that they are only capable of seeing democrats as the enemy who are working to destroy America. How can you share a country with such people. If we say "Democrats want more effective democracy and workers rights and environmental protections" and conservatives say "Democrats want to destroy America because they hate everything about it" what compromise is possible. Do we admit we only want to half destroy America?

A Stroke of Pure Genius

You remember last week when the White House press secretary Mick Mulvaney frankly admitted that there was a quid pro quo between the Ukranian government and the White House, and then scant hours later denied that there was any quid pro quo?   Sure you do - he clearly stated that the White House held up aid money in order to pressure the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and the DNC.   And spent the rest of the week and weekend pretending that's not what he did. 

You might have thought that would be pretty embarrassing - but you don't have the deep political understanding of Kevin McCullough.  He notes that most people think that Maculvey really screwed up

Excuse me if I disagree.

It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.

In fairness it appears that McCullough is focusing on the idea that elections have consequences and that corruption of our political processes is fine because the Democrats are way worse.  This goes back to a truly bizarre conspiracy theory that data that proves the Russians were working for Clinton ended up on a server in the Ukraine, and that if the White House had access to that server they could prove that it was Clinton who was the real villain. 

In an election that she lost.  Three years ago. 

President Trump laid out a Quid Pro Quo doing things that he wasn't allowed to do - but he did them anyway.   The unlawful actions of an out of control President who is willing to strong arm or beg other countries to help dig up dirt on his political rivals is despicable.   And if we give him another 4 years in office I would be very afraid of the consequences. 

Unapologetically Totalitarian

Apparently the American Left (of which I am a part) is becoming more totalitarian every day, according to David Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh's "smarter" brother).  Amazing how that works with us holding one house of congress.   

But let's look at the three sources that he spent literally minutes investigating (he admits as much).  First of all, screenings of Jordan Peterson's latest movie have been cancelled in three cities - Toronto, Brooklyn and Portland because of leftist criticism.  Well those are three pretty liberal cities - should the movie theaters have been required to show a movie they didn't think would attract much of an audience?  Apparently so. 

For the record this goes back to a Canadian rule (An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16, 2016)) which seemingly would require people to not deliberately misgender people - i.e. if someone identifies as a female you shouldn't keep calling them with male pronouns/discriptors.  It's basically considering that a form of harassment - but as is typical for the Limbaugh Clan, he's fine with harassing liberals or people the Left doesn't see as people.  What really matters is protecting the right of Peterson to misgender people as he sees fit. 

There was also an incident involving a teachers assistant showing part of Peterson's lecture to a college class and being reprimanded for doing so - that seems to cross a line to me, and the university has since seemed to back away from that initial decision. 

But the core of it seems to be this - if you are calling people by the wrong gender maliciously to harass than maybe stop doing that. 

Limbaugh doesn't seem that interested in his other two examples.  One is Presidential Candidate Kamela Harris suggesting that Trumps twitter account be taken off line.  I don't think that was a very wise thing to argue, but I sort of see her point in some regards.  He has used his twitter very unwisely.   But I think that Warren is more correct that our goal needs to be to get Trump out of the White House. 

I could be wrong about this one though - it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Trump is going behind in some state so he tweets "West Dakota is trending towards my opponent because of corrupt voters.  I know West Dakota - and I know there are MANY FINE PEOPLE there who will not let this meddling in the election go UNCONTESTED."   Shortly there are people going to voting places to make sure that Trumps suspicions are dealt with. 

Also I know that West Dakota isn't real - made it up to make my point. 

The third one involves Beta O'Rourke's statement that religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status; a statement that nobody is taking seriously, but that Limbaugh is bring up to paint a picture. 

Hating America

Kurt Schlichter's latest article is about why the Elite hates the Trump Doctrine.  Let's get one thing out of the way right off the bat.  The very idea that Trump has any kind of Trump Doctrine is hilarious.  His mind doesn't work that way - he knows what he wants and he wants to trample anything that keeps him from getting what he wants - to pretend that's a doctrine is . . . stretching the definition of a doctrine.

He begins his editorial thus.

Americans are sick of always getting handed the bill for some lame ruling caste priority, whether it’s paying for the privilege of defending Europe on behalf of ungrateful continentals or funding the weird climate religion or letting China get rich off of gutting our industries. Mostly, we are sick of shipping our magnificent warriors off to die in ill-conceived, poorly-planned, ineptly-executed wars where we ended up shedding our boys’ (and girls’) blood refereeing fights that go back a dozen centuries.

This is of course in relation to our abandonment of the Kurds and our willingness to let the Turkish government slaughter them.  The Kurds fought along side us during the recent campaigns against the Taliban and Isis, and many of them gave their lives.  You think that would incur upon us some sort of obligation, but not in Schlichter's mind.  In his mind, the value of America upholding our obligations is very small indeed.

I don't think I'd go to dinner with Schlichter - I feel like I'd be left with the check no matter what he claimed.

He disguises this stark reality with a lot of rhetoric about how much elites hate Trump and hate "real" Americans, and how our real goal is to is to put America last. 

. . .the Trump Doctrine – the notion that American power should be directed toward serving the interests of the American people – is a coherent foreign policy vision of the kind we have not had in the United States for decades.

In case you are wondering Schlichter is no fan of Reagan or Bush.  Here's the thing, this, when it comes to the Kurds, is not serving the interests of the American people.  It is teaching the world that America can't be trusted, that deals with us end in betrayal (something they already suspected).  What happens if everytime you go out to lunch with someone they stick you with the bill?  Eventually you stop going out to lunch with that person.  We might well need allies in the Middle East, and our decision to let the Kurds get wiped out is not in America's best interests. 

Fundamental Changes to Our Country

David Limbaugh, brother to Rush, has an article excoriating Joe Biden that will surely play to those who hate Democrats and Liberals reflexively but won't convince many others. 

It is unbearably rich for any modern Democratic leader to admonish us about threats to the Constitution. One of Obama's central missions was to undermine our system as founded -- to fundamentally transform this nation.

What makes this claim interesting is that a lot of the policies that Democrats and Liberals suggest are pretty popular.  Obama acted within the Constitution - frankly to a fault.  After Sen. McConnel determined he would not hold a vote on any nomination of President Obama, there was an argument to be made that by refusing to hold a vote, they were, in effect, leaving it up to the President.  President Obama could have done that to either force a vote or to get one of his nominees on the bench; but he didn't.  The law wasn't clear so he erred (and I do mean erred) on the side of caution.   That's what Democrats do. 

One way to look at the government is that it is a machine to produce justice, and that it will produce justice if everybody plays by the rules.  Sometimes your policies go through and sometimes they are rejected, but as long as the machine is maintained properly it's fine. 

The other way to look at is that we all basically know what a good society might look like, and if the machine isn't producing a good society, than it must be busted and we should bang on it until it works right (this isn't original, I'm cribbing from ideas in this video from Innuendo Studios). 

Limbaugh doesn't care about a fair system, he cares about a system that gives him what he wants.  Despite the increasing evidence that Trump and his surrogates leaned on the Ukraine, he doesn't care.  What he cares about is defeating liberals and returning America to the happy days of the 1950s (society wise, I doubt he wants to bring back Eisenhower era tax rates). 

The Bit You Don't Say

Scott Morefield's latest article is about how to prevent the loss of gun rights if Congress decides to limit them (in the case of a Democratic congress (and let me take a moment to smile at the thought of a Democratic congress)).   Anyway he outlines three strategies that might come into play.   One of them is Jury Nullification.

In truth, a jury can, in theory, declare someone innocent of a crime regardless of what the law says, regardless of actual guilt or innocence, but simply on the basis that a particular law is unjust.

The establishment doesn’t want you or anyone else to know that, of course, but that doesn’t make it any less true. When it comes down to brass tacks, how many small town red state juries will vote to convict, say, a mother who used her AR-15 to defend herself and her small children from a home invader, or an elderly man for keeping the gun his grandfather passed down to him?

It's a slippery argument - because how many small town red state juries would vote to convict if a white person shot a black man down because he or she was afraid. It is basically an argument in favor of letting people's initial prejudice set the terms for laws.  To take Morefield's own example if a black guy fired a weapon to defend himself from a white man, would red state juries be as likely to nullify as if a white guy fired a weapon to defend himself from a black man? 

Morefield argues that the 10th amendment and State's rights be invoked to protect the right of individual states to allow gun usage, which seems a risky proposition to me, depending on the law in question.  While I agree that allowing Tennessee to be Tennessee is fine; they have to understand that the firearm rights offered by Tennessee only apply to those in Tennessee.

Finally there's this nugget.

It’s easy to think that leftists, when and if they get total control, would resort to the practices of their 20th Century ideological forebears – leftist ‘heroes’ like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao – and just start killing people willy-nilly, particularly those they disagree with. And don’t get me wrong, they likely would if they could.

This is why democracy doesn't work anymore.  If one side of the aisle believes the other side to be murderers in principle (even if current conditions preclude it) how can you make lasting agreements with them?  All agreements and compromises with the conservative part of our nation have to involve the knowledge that they believe us to be murdering monsters.  And there's no shame in breaking promises to murderous monsters. 

I don't think it's a good idea for us to look at them in the same light (for one thing, Morefield and his ilk aren't all conservatives or all inhabitants of a red state) - but it is worthwhile to remember that all compromises with them have to include the possibility of betrayal. 

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel are on the Case!

Carlson and Patel are willing to admit that Trump acts in a dumb fashion, but that it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

The key question with Trump's Ukraine call, though, is whether the president's actions, advisable or not, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It's hard to argue they do. The president did not, as was first reported, offer a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians. He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation. The Justice Department has already looked at the totality of the call and determined that Trump did not break the law.

Of course that is just a little bit disingenuous. First of all, it pretends that there was no quid pro quo, even though we are learning more about the negotiations the Trump Administration was conducting with Ukraine every day. There's also the question of how committed Bill Barr is to protecting the President (considering his round the world tour to encourage other nations to spy on an American Presidential candidate, I'd guess Barr is pretty committed). Then there is this whopper.

Impeaching a president is the most extreme and anti-democratic remedy we have in our system of government. A fundamental cornerstone of our entire system is to respect the will of the voters.

Conservatives sure didn't feel that way in the 1990s when they impeached Clinton on his sexual behavior - they were comfortable with it then, but now this is extreme and anti-democratic. And this is the only way we will get to the bottom of the crimes that the Trump Team seems to have committed.