National Revile at Donald Trump

Donald Trump keeps imploding. Here's the transcript and video of his latest debacle. How bad was it?

“You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest – because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit,” Trump helpfully explained to the astonished press corps at Trump Tower. “The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story.”

From Richard Wolffe at the Guardian:

Sadly for Trump, there is only one side to the political reaction to his comments: sheer disgust. As an apologist for racist protestors – even though they obtained a precious permit – Trump has magically created a sense of spine in his own Republican party.

I agree about the disgust, but I do not think Republicans have that kind of spine. I wish they did.

Trump's response to Charlottesville is utterly predictable. Since he has such a limited playbook, his reaction to the negative publicity is also likely to be predictable. Which member of his team will he turn on and blame for the negative reaction? I suspect it will be the one who encouraged him to walk down this thorny path. Steve Bannon comes to mind. [More...]

Once again I am reminded of his campaign speech about the snake. With every passing week, more people around the world realize that he is the snake. The problem is those who voted for him knew he was the snake and they let him in anyway. When people vote for a candidate like Trump out of hate for the opposing candidate, ignoring his glaring deficiencies, rather than for the candidate with experience, talent and a firm plan to help the country, this is the result.

But everyone is now on to the game of bringing right-wing, under-informed, angry white people out of the pockets of Rural America they inhabit. It won't happen again -- they won't have the numbers next time. The rest of the country will have had their fill of the under-informed, inexperienced carnival barker and his equally under-informed, inexperienced children and vote for his opponent, even if they have to hold their nose while doing it.

< Switzerland Hotel in the Doghouse After Posting Anti-Semitic Notice | ISIS Claims Credit for Attack in Barcelona >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heather Heyers mother (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    is currently on MSNBC "revising and extending"

    I called my rep (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    and asked him to renounce Trump. I said first it was colluding with Putin and now the excuses for Nazis. She said she would pass the information on. So I'm waiting. So far he has been unable to make any statement other than to paraphrase Trump. I said pick a side. We have a Nazi sympathizer in the white house. Think about that for a minute. And Republicans have to "think" about this.

    I'm with you Jeralyn. I don't think Republicans have the spine. They will issue more mealymouthed statements and attempt to hide in a ditch.

    As I opined (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    in a comment yesterday, the Russian goal of destabilization may be of one piece: collusion with Trump campaign, hacking, division.  The Daily Stormer, a Nazi website is back on the internet under a Russian web-domain. It lost its address after GoDaddy removed it for mocking Heather Heyes, the woman killed by the Charlottesville terrorist. Google also banned it, before the Russians picked it up.

    Yes, if you (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    research this the goals of the Nazis dovetail with Putin.

    The angry white people aren't just in (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    Rural America; they are in suburban America and in the cities, as well.

    And it's not just poor, white people; as the video clearly shows from the weekend, it's white men in polos and khakis and oxfords.  The head of the UVA College Republicans was part of the protest, so it can't even be said that many of these men are uneducated.

    I don't believe Trump needed any encouragement to do what he did and say the things he said, but I keep coming back to this: you don't have people like Bannon and Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka and his wife, Katharine, in the administration if you are opposed to anything resembling the white supremacist, Nazi, hate group movement.

    These are not "nice people."  Trump is not a "nice person."

    That David Duke and Richard Spencer are praising his performance is all the indication you need that what he said yesterday was not a condemnation, as much as it was an affirmation.  

    And all these Republican Representatives and Senators putting out statements condemning Trump? Is it just going to be words?  I have a feeling it will be.

    Whatever decent people there are in the Trump WH, if they haven't resigned by now, they either aren't as decent as we think, or they feel more or less like the last barrier between Trump and utter chaos, trapped like hostages.

    I don't know where this is headed, but I fear it is somewhere worse than we imagine.

    The whole (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    WWC and "economic anxiety" was nothing but a bunch of BS from people either in denial or practicing wishful thinking. I said from the beginning this was cultural. It is fear of the "other" and it's certainly not limited to any income or education level. A lot of the people that voted for Trump are quite well off. So even if some of those supporters don't support Nazi ideology they were willing to turn a blind eye to it so they could get a tax cut or some other benefit from it. I'm not sure which group is worse in this case.

    Hey, I tried to see it that way (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:16:35 PM EST
    It's what the serious people were selling. I tried it on, but as a fellow white person with family who voted Trump I couldn't get it to fit.

    The infantile white people things fits my family members. They feel like they are losing their edge. Minorities never had much of an edge, they have to grow up. Some white people choose to grow up too, while some hold a little kernel of white supremacy in their heart like it's an insurance policy of sorts.

    It was more comfortable to say WWC. It's not as comfortable to embrace how racist some our country remains.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:26:48 AM EST
    living here in the south it was very easy to identify.

    Baltimore monuments taken down (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    in the middle of the night:

    Confederate statues in Baltimore were removed from their bases overnight by city contractors, who used heavy machinery to load them onto flat bed trucks and haul them away -- an abrupt end to more than a year of indecision on what to do with the memorials.

    Mayor Catherine Pugh, who made the decision, watched in person as the four statues linked to the Confederacy were torn from their pedestals. The Baltimore City Council had unanimously passed a resolution this week calling for their removal amid a renewed national conversation following a deadly terrorist attack by a white supremacist at a rally in Charlottesville, Va. on Saturday.

    Crews removed the monuments unannounced, under cover of darkness between 11:30 p.m. and 5:30 a.m., in an effort to act quickly and avoid the potential for any violent conflicts similar to the ones in Charlottesville, Pugh said.

    Protesters, who held a rally at the Robert E. Lee-"Stonewall" Jackson Monument at Wyman Park Dell near Johns Hopkins University Sunday, had pledged to tear down that statue themselves Wednesday night if the city didn't. A group in Durham, N.C., toppled a Confederate statue there on Monday.

    It remains to be seen if there will be any organized backlash.  I hope not.

    Three cheers for Baltimore! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    Baltimore gets a bad rap for crime and policing. I used to live in Baltimore. I like the city. Great food. I remember great little neighborhood bars where everyone was friendly. Living only 50 miles north, I still visit often.

    offtopic to Chuck0 (none / 0) (#63)
    by jmacWA on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:09:10 AM EST
    Hey Chuck, from past comments I believe you are in my neck of the woods in North Eastern PA.  Just in case you are not following this series in the Guardian I wanted to point it out to you.

    JMAC (Allentown area)


    Thanks (none / 0) (#74)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    I'm southeastern PA. Around York.

    I am aware of very few statues anywhere (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    celebrating and commemorating famed U.S. Supreme Court chief justices. There is presumably a reason that statues of Roger B. Taney was erected in 1871 (and recast in 1887) in Annapolis and Baltimore. Taney died in 1864, on the same day that Maryland abolished slavery. He was a Jacksonian Democrat and a slave-owner, but like his native Maryland he remained loyal to the Union and did not defect from the Supreme Court to join the Confederacy. In addition to writing one of the worst (in every way) decisions in Supreme Court history, Dred Scott (1857), he also authored the brave and correct single-Justice decision in Ex parte Merryman (1861) (in chambers) holding unconstitutional Lincoln's wartime suspension of habeas corpus (which Lincoln disregarded).

    No doubt the move to take down (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    these statues led Larry Hogan GOP Governor of MD, to finally call for Roger Taney's statue to come down:

    Gov. Larry Hogan joined a groundswell of opposition to Confederate-linked monuments on Tuesday, calling for the removal of a statue of the Supreme Court chief justice who wrote an 1857 decision that upheld slavery and denied citizenship to black Americans.

    The statue of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, a Calvert County native and author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, has stood on the front lawn of the State House in Annapolis since 1872, withstanding multiple efforts to remove it.

    Hogan's announcement probably ensures that the bronze likeness of Taney will be removed from its prominent perch in the state capital. Hogan acknowledged the statue may send an inappropriate message in a country that continues to struggle over civil rights and equality.

    "While we cannot hide from our history -- nor should we -- the time has come to make clear the difference between properly acknowledging our past and glorifying the darkest chapters of our history," Hogan said in a statement. "With that in mind, I believe removing the Justice Roger B. Taney Statue from the State House grounds is the right thing to do, and we will ask the State House trust to take that action immediately."

    I say "finally," because of this:

    Hogan previously supported keeping Taney in his spot at the State House, and in 2015 called removing monuments to the Confederacy "political correctness run amok." Hogan did recall more than 100 Sons of Confederate Veterans commemorative license plates that year.

    A spokesman said Tuesday that the governor was moved to change his mind following the weekend events in Charlottesville, Va., where white supremacists held demonstrations and one woman was killed and others injured when a car plowed into a crowd of counter-protesters.

    "The governor was disgusted by the events in Charlottesville and rightly concluded that these memorials had become a rallying point for white supremacists and bigots," Hogan spokesman Doug Mayer said. "Their presence on prominent public land was sending a confusing and ultimately inappropriate message."

    So, but for Charlottesville, I guess this would never have happened.  


    Color me newly informed. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    Now I now know from where Taneytown, MD got it's name.

    I had always thought that, too, but (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    it turns out not to be the case.

    Taneytown was founded in 1754 when one of the area's first land grants took place.  Nearly 7,900 acres were granted to Edward Diggs and Raphael Taney under a patent designated as the Resurvey of Brothers Agreement. Lots were laid out and the first deeds registered in 1762. Raphael Taney, whose home was in St. Mary's County, probably never lived here. He did, however, help design the town's layout and gave it his name. One popular misconception is that the town was named for Roger Brooke Taney, a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. Judge Taney, who shared a common ancestor with Raphael Taney, was not born until 1777.

    So, we both learned something today!


    Ok. Color me a bonehead. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    Shall we now get into whether the name (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    is properly pronounced "Tawney" (as I was taught in law school) or "Teynie," as the street in Philadelphia named for old Roger is called?

    Around here (none / 0) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    it's 'tawney.'

    I had never heard it pronounced (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    'Tawney' until last night :-) Had to double check to make sure it was the same guy! I guess that is the tell that I am a Midwestern non-lawyer.

    I watched the Vice video (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    That CaptHowdy linked to in the open thread. Chilling to say the least. Makes me want to go buy ammo.

    They said they are not going to stop. They said they will kill us if they have to. Back at you.

    Maya Angelou (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    ""When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

    We just have to make sure we get our permit (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    Or else we are just as bad as Nazis

    If you stand up to Nazis permit-less, it's morally equivalent to wanting to gas Jews.


    That's fake news btw... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    at least one of the counter protests groups in Charlottesville did obtain a permit...not that you should need one or anything if you are assembling peacefully.  On all sides, all sides;)

    Hey (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    I got my information from the President of the United States. I'm not exactly awash in coverage here. He gets coverage though. His little speech today was covered in Warsaw.

    watching Larry Kudlow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    and others try to spin this is awsum.  freakin awsum.

    Oh, watched (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    Anna Navarro on CNN tear up the entire GOP. She told them that they have been sitting there quietly while Trump has done all kinds of obnoxious stuff.

    And he acts like he is being (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    so smart with his fallacious Lee - Jefferson analogy that anyone with a brain can shoot holes in, like your snottiest 14 yr old nephew at the holiday table.  

    He is just revoltingly stupid and needs to stop representing my country

    GOP needs to fix this ASAP. I don't care how.

    I'm still not over the Frederick Douglass (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 02:04:24 PM EST

    "Frederick Douglass is an example of someone who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed," he said.

    He is a completely incurious person, who simply does not care to know or learn anything unless he can somehow make it about him.

    Some of his "a lot of people don't know that..." followed by something the average 3rd-grader knows, and his announcement of that "little-known" fact as if he's teaching us something obscure, tell you just how deficient, how truly minuscule his body of knowledge is.

    I'm not sure he could pass a basic citizenship or high school proficiency test.

    And can I just add...can Mike I-stand-by-the-president Pence crawl any farther up Trump's butt?


    I've always been one that can tolerate (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    a lot of arrogance if there is something to back it up. But I cannot abide in in someone like him who is just empty headed and empty souled, continuously self-aggrandizing.

    Yes, I will gladly contribute to a gofundme to get him to quit, if that's what it takes.


    Along with the smug (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    'GOP is the party of Lincoln, Dems are the segregationists' talking point.

    Whoa dude you really got me there.



    Yeah, they're the party of Lincoln (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:41:51 AM EST
    they just happen to like confederate flags and statues of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

    the Republiklan psrty (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    The important point is to get Trump out. Fast. The Republicans will never summon up the courage to take the Constitution route of impeachment/conviction. And, besides, time is of the essence.

     So, Congress should offer him a golden (he would like that) parachute. He resigns immediately and Pence and all the White House and Cabinet appointments go off with him. And, Ryan agrees to decline the presidency. The 83-year old Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, serves as place-holder until we can start again in 2020. A bonus if Gorsuch is impeached as part of the deal.  

    When you make a mistake you generally have to pay for it. And, the country has made a big one. Unfair to those of us who were not part of that mistake, but still, we are part of the consequence.

      We are a big, rich country and can afford to ( or, can't afford not to) make a payoff.  I'd start at $1 billion and no jail time for him or his immediate family.  


    That's a great deal... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    you make the best deal's KD!

    As long as an iron-clad no repatriation clause is included, never allowing the Trump family to return to US soil.  1 billion dollars is a f&ckin' bargain.

    But is there a country on earth that would take him at this point?  Wait, I've got it...a private wing at Guantanamo Bay! We can even throw in gold-plated bathroom fixtures and his personal chef, Ronald McDonald.


    Russia (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    would welcome him with open arms.

    I doubt it... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    Putin doesn't strike me as the kind of tyrant who would welcome a manwhore into his manor after he's finished using him.

    Well, for a significant cut of the 1 billion dollars he might find a place for Trump in Siberia or something;)


    Maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:54:17 PM EST

    Nazi flags (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    and Nazi salutes are illegal in Germany. That's because Germany is ashamed of their bigotry. In America, we're proud of it.

    Next time some one claims statues honoring Confederate generals are history or heritage, ask them how many statues of Hitler are there in Germany?

    Do you know whether Germany has monuments (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    recognizing the ordinary soldiers who fought and died for the Third Reich? I actually have no idea. Could be problematic in any event, since so many of those units were also engaged in war crimes. I've been to Germany three times, including a tour of Dachau, but I don't remember any war memorials, not that we would have sought them out.

    Never have seen any myself Peter, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    and I've been to Europe thirty times.  Granted we were always in the mountains and much was snow covered.  In Munich you can still see bullet marks on several buildings.  We had a ski race in Garmich Partenkirchen, Germany every year and the U.S. Team always stayed at the Drei Moren Hotel.  They have three statues of Moors high above the entrance.  They are black people.  It's a terrific hotel.

    I will ask my niece (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    She has gone to school in Vienna and Germany. She got a scholarship to complete here Masters in Germany in economics this fall.

    We went to Prague for Christmas because my husband and his sister are only 2nd generation Czechs in the US. My niece pointed out to me something the Europeans are supporting and doing in certain towns and countries. On the cobblestone walks in front of houses and buildings you can find raised bronze caps attached to cobbles. On them is the name and date that someone from that location "was taken" and died in Nazi custody or concentration camps. They were on the sidewalks in Prague. But this is overall a European thing, not a German thing. And not all towns in Germany are participating in the marking, just some. Stuttgart did, but Berlin fights it, some argue that people can step on these blocks and the names and dates be disrespected in this fashion. They are appropriately called stumbling blocks though.

    Josh and I are in Warsaw tonight. We came to see another young man with what Josh deals with. He's very bright. He receives stipends in their school system because of how well he does in his studies. But he is not doing as well as Josh physically/medically. His family asked us about a visit, I suspect to discuss this and options available.

    The best ticket from DC to Warsaw and back was offered from Scandanavian Air/SAS. Nobody in the family had flown them before so I was asked to "check them out" before paying. Then they offered me $400 off on each ticket if I left 2 days earlier so I took it. And SAS was a nice flight. Comfortable seats, they didn't try to kill me with pain and suffering, but if you choose seats they charge you. I chose seats. They are 49% owned by the governments of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

    Trying to figure out how to burn these 2 extra days though. I Google things to do in Warsaw. One of them is to get on a train, go to Auschwitz.

    Do you think in some SAS boardroom recently, they decided that any American visiting Warsaw should receive a discount offer for adding 2 days to their trip, in hopes we all go visit Auschwitz?


    ... in this country back in May 1985, when he participated in a wreath-laying ceremony with then-West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl at a war memorial in Bitburg Cemetery, which is the final resting place for over 2,000 Waffen-SS soldiers?

    While there are no official Nazi memorials erected in Germany for obvious reasons, many individual towns in the former West Germany, especially in Bavaria, do have memorials to their fallen soldiers from the Second World War.

    When we visited Bavaria, most of those I saw were simple "Gedenkstein," or memorial stones with a commemorative plaque bolted to it. They were hardly ostentatious, by any means. But they're certainly around.

    While there we visited Schweinfurt, which was once the site of a massive ball-bearing manufacturing complex, and which had naturally presented a prominent and tempting industrial target to American and British air force planners during the war.

    However, two daring but ill-fated (and poorly planned) daylight raids conducted by the U.S. 8th Air Force in August and October 1943, respectively, ultimately cost 142 heavy B-17 bombers and the lives of more than 1,200 American pilots and airmen in total, which then constituted represented nearly 20% of the USAAF's standing combat capacity in Europe at the time.

    After having lunch in the nearby town of Schwemmelsbach, we strolled around a bit and came across a war memorial to that town's dead from the First World War, which had been further inscribed with the names of the town's dead from the U.S. air raids on those ball-bearing plants, as well.

    Further, not too far away in the Frankenwald (Franconian Forest) of northern Bavaria, we saw a fairly prominent Gedenkstein which honored the fallen soldiers of 1st SS Panzer Division, Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler.

    Now, this was a rather prestigious and elite unit which until the latter stages of the war had served as Hitler's personal bodyguard, and been deployed to southern Germany in late February 1945 in a desperate gambit to stem Gen. Patton's advance with his U.S. 3rd Army. Needless to say, Der Führer's finest had suffered tremendous casualties in that failed effort.

    Honestly, seeing that Gedenkstein for the 1st SS Panzer Division surprised me, given what we had been told about the general antipathy of Germans to any official and public mention of the Nazis and the Third Reich.



    i'm never one (none / 0) (#43)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    While there are no official Nazi memorials erected in Germany for obvious reasons, many individual towns...

    i'm never one to pass on german-bashing... in theory (that family who bought me pizza and beer in bremen seemed awfully nice). but as donald is pointing out, it does sometimes seem that a few rural towns didn't get the memo.

    Nazi Memorial Embarrasses German Community

    Dedicated to the Nazi leader Hermann Göring and decorated with swastikas, a bell located in a war memorial in the northern German community of Tümlauer-Koog has sparked a scandal. But locals didn't mind that it was on display -- until the state governor intervened.
    [Spiegel, Nov 25, 2011]

    "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."
    - Sir Arthur Travers Harris (1892-1984), 1st Baronet, OBE, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and C-in-C of RAF Bomber Command (February 10, 1942)

    That country lost an estimated 12% of its 69.3 million citizens in the Second World War. In fact, the carnage and destruction ultimately visited upon Nazi Germany was so vast and extensive that 72 years after its collapse and surrender in May 1945, the German government's War Graves Commission is still locating and recovering the remains of an estimated 25,000 to 40,000 missing soldiers and civilians each year.

    I would certainly object to any official attempt by Germany to raise a public memorial or monument to the honor and glory of Nazism itself, a truly reprehensible scourge upon mankind that was responsible for the deaths of about 50 million people throughout Europe. Their country's collective shame for its monstrous crimes against humanity needs to be everlasting.

    That said, I have absolutely no problem with German communities erecting a humble memorial / Gedenkstein which acknowledges and mourns on behalf of surviving family members their own sometimes severe and grievous losses. Notwithstanding the deplorable cause for which they fought, we nevertheless ought to remember that the estimated 5.3 million members of the German military who lost their lives in the 6-year-long maelstrom were also somebody's fathers, grandfathers, sons and grandsons.

    In many instances, particularly as the was drew to a close and the German Wehrmacht was running on fumes, these German soldiers were very young draftees, sometimes as young as 14 years, whose only real crime was getting caught up in an utterly horrific situation of their parents' and elders' own choosing and making.

    Speaking as someone who lost his own father to a misbegotten and thoroughly unpopular war in Vietnam, I cannot begrudge Germans the right and opportunity to remember their dead and reflect on lessons that were learned the hard way. The wars in Europe and southeast Asia are long since over. Proper mourning is a necessary and vital step on the path to eventual recovery, and one which we must all take if any of us are to move on and grow positively from such difficult and painful experiences.



    I don't think any country (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:05:48 AM EST
    should have more tribalistic memorials simply to "our dead". But that's just me.

    World Wars I and II were apocalyptic testaments to the depths that humanity is capable of sinking to.

    If some much-more-evolved humanoids witnessed what went on on planet earth in the last hundred years, they'd have been forced to conclude that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

    And lets not forget that Ford and Coca Cola and ITT and Standard Oil and GE et al helped to bankroll the German economy all through the 1930s - because their shirts may've been black and brown, but their money was green.


    I wonder if there is a monument... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    to Major General Smedley Butler USMC anywhere...and if not, why not?  

    There probably isn't (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    for more-or-less the same reason Kissinger's been on television hundreds of times, and you can count Noam Chomsky's appearences on one hand.

    I see there's a rather unobstrusive plaque (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    inside City Hall in Philadelphia dedicated to Butler.

    Probably no "War Is A Racket" quotes on there though. And nothing on there about the right wing one percenters out to oust FDR that Butler exposed in the thirties.


    Keep your lamps.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    ...trimmed and burnin

    Well mother don't you stop prayin'
    Father keep right on prayin'
    Don't you stop prayin' for this old world is almost done
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    For this old world is almost done
    Brother don't you stop prayin'
    Sister keep right on prayin'
    Don't you stop prayin' for this old world is almost done
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep your lamps trimmed and burning
    For this old world is almost done
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    For this old world is almost done
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    Keep our lamps trimmed and burning
    For our race is almost run
    Songwriters: Rev. G. Davis


    Touche... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    can't be advertising logic and reason, sh&t might catch on and it's just so terrible for business;)

    And therein lies your answer. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    jondee: "If some much-more-evolved humanoids witnessed what went on on planet earth in the last hundred years, they'd have been forced to conclude that the lunatics had taken over the asylum."

    All we have to do is outlaw war and abolish capitalism. Simple as that. Problems solved. Or maybe not.

    No doubt, we can likely fill an entire thread and then some, decrying the wretchedness of the human condition and lamenting the blackness of mankind's collective soul. And then, in that regard, we can either:

    (a) Be paralyzed into inaction, and perhaps then be victimized ourselves, through our own sense of dread, despair and hopelessness;

    (b) Chastise others for their perceived shortcomings, failings and follies by virtue of our own (often false) personal sense of moral superiority, but otherwise find them to be unworthy of our time and effort; or

    (c) Roll up our sleeves, get our hands dirty, and do what we can -- either as individuals or in cooperation with others like-minded -- to learn from our mistakes, correct our errors, alleviate the pain and suffering of others without any expectations or conditions on our part, and otherwise seek to mitigate the impact and fallout from man's own individual and collective tendencies toward selfishness and excess.

    We admittedly live in an imperfect world but to be sure, we do have choices. How we respond to the challenges before us will often define how others ultimately perceive, judge and remember us. And in certain circumstances, the choices we make may further determine our own destiny -- or seal the fate of others.

    It's entirely our call. Aloha.


    very strict laws (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    Nazi salutes are illegal in Germany.

    my understanding is that it is illegal to import, stock, distribute, produce (even electronically), or display in any way (with exceptions for official historical-educational use)... any nazi symbol including altered or stylized versions meant to imitate and that modern neo-nazi symbols are illegal. germany also bans terrorist symbols and flags incuding ISIS and the u.s. backed syrian militia. other countries do also.

    it varies from country to country. some countries simply prohibit the display of the Nazi Swastika and Hammer-Sickle at public events. that seems reasonable to me.


    Reasonable or not (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 09:28:41 PM EST
    The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States absolutely precludes such laws in the U.S.A., at either the state or federal level. This was decided in a "red flag" case in 1931.

    What is your opinion of this decision? (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 03:01:21 AM EST
    ACLU will no longer defend hate groups that protest with firearms

    "The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb," Romero told the Journal. "If a protest group insists, `No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,' well, we don't have to represent them. They can find someone else."

    I know you are associated with the ACLU and support 1st Amendment rights for all. Personally, I think the line they have drawn is a good one but would like your take on it.

    Hopefully since this is connected to the revulsion of actions in Charlottesville,  this is an acceptable topic for this thread.


    My take is that a ban on carrying firearms (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    during a mass rally or march is a reasonable "time, place and manner" regulation of the First Amendment activity. So if the national ED of the ACLU is saying that ACLU will not and should not argue otherwise, I agree. Likewise, I agree that an attempt to intimidate and threaten can masquerade as a march or rally. Openly carrying firearms could often be an indicator of that sort of intent. I hope and expect the ACLU continues to apply this standard neutrally, and not only to right-wing or racist groups. I remember the dramatic demonstration by the Black Panthers, taking advantage of the state's open-carry law, at the California Legislature in May 1967.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    i simply said (1.50 / 2) (#46)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    that it was a reasonable that some countries prohibit these totalitarian flags at public gatherings.

    i'm not the advocate on this forum that american citizens with nazi or confederate flags should be beaten - and that somehow, forty years after nspa v skokie, every nazi or racist symbol is now 'fighting words' with the expectation that any 'reasonable person' would be provoked to violent reaction. if this is correct, then perhaps scotus should re-examine that case. it seems bad law to wink and assert these are 'fighting words' and people who display nazi or confederate flags deserve to get beaten without prohibiting the action that 'justifiably' instigates the violent assault.

    personally, i prefer it the aclu-silly-liberal way. where idiots walked and resonable people rolled their eyes and ignored them.

    but apparently (i'm told here) the u.s. is on the verge of an actual civil war. if this is the case, and not hysteria as it seems to be to me, then perhaps we can apply Ex Parte Quirin and declare anyone holding a nazi or confederate flag to be 'enemy combatants' and promply arrest them.

    and by the way (to my haters) nothing in what i write is an endorsement of a crazed racist who murdered a young woman or an assertion of moral-equivalency between nazis and counter-protesters.


    oh (none / 0) (#51)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:46:01 PM EST
    did that come across as too strident?
    i read nspa v skokie and ex parte quirin this afternoon.

    I don't have time to detail all the ways (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    that your comment #46 seemed to me unresponsive, defensive, inaccurate, etc. But no, in my opinion it was not "too strident." Let me just say my comment about the "red flag" precedent was meant to be informative, not as an attack on you. It underlay an expression of my professional and personal opinion that for the U.S., at least, the European laws on hateful symbols would not be "reasonable."

    re: 'red flag c1931' (none / 0) (#52)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:33:33 AM EST
    Justice Butler believed that in this case, the Court was not called upon to decide whether... the real or imagined anarchy that could follow... creates a sufficiently compelling reason to prohibit such activities.

    it just seems to me you cant have both 'in america, even the most offensive speech is allowed' -AND- these are 'fighting words' that would induce any 'reasonable person' to throw rocks and botttles and attack with pepper spray. at what point does the 'anarchy that follows' provide a 'sufficiently compelling reason to prohibit such activities.'?


    linea, if I could, may I make an (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    observation/suggestion that might be of some help, both to you and others who end up getting bogged down in these arguments?

    While all of us have the ability to read and research legal cases and issues, most of us - and I include myself in this - do not have the legal education and experience to know whether the material we find that seems on point and relevant really does result in our making cogent, credible legal arguments.

    I know your intentions are good - I am not in any way suggesting that you are doing anything but trying to have an intelligent discussion - but I also know that it is driving the lawyers here a little crazy reading some of the "legal" arguments, because it's near-impossible to let faulty legal reasoning stand uncorrected.

    On the other hand, people like Peter are usually more than happy - time permitting - to answer questions, and expand our knowledge and understanding of the law.

    Anyway, just a suggestion.


    i know {sigh} (none / 0) (#154)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:09:49 PM EST
    linea, if I could, may I make an (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne
    observation/suggestion that might be of some help, both to you and others who end up getting bogged down in these arguments?
    While all of us have the ability to read and research legal cases and issues, most of us - and I include myself in this - do not have the legal education and experience to know whether the material we find that seems on point and relevant really does result in our making cogent, credible legal arguments.

    i spent a part of my afternoon today making notes on 'clear and present danger' that 'provokes the average person to retaliation' before i realized Nazi in Skokie: Fighting Words or Heckler's Veto [DePaul Law Review] was written in 1979.

    i know mine wasn't a very good post. i was very irritated that a few people here are espousing violence as an ''american' virtue when they should be condemned. adults, as scotus noted, should be able to 'avert their eyes' if offended and not behave like children having a tantrum, throwing rocks and bottles.


    The "fighting words" doctrine (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    was applied by the Supreme Court in one 1952 case (Beauharnais, decided 6-3) and never since -- and that case seems to have been decided more on the basis of racist tracts being "group libel," where libel is categorically unprotected. It is generally considered a "derelict on the waters of the law," not a foundation for contemporary First Amendment doctrine. I can't think of a significant case where that precedent was applied successfully to suppress or punish speech. It has been pretty much supplanted by the "threat" category.

    My mistake: Endorsed twice (none / 0) (#125)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    The doctrine's origin is in Chaplinsky v NH (1942), which is also a precedent of highly dubious continuing validity. See, in particular, Snyder v. Phelps (2011). The rest of what I wrote, I think, remains correct.

    One Would Think So (none / 0) (#60)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:41:22 AM EST
    The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States absolutely precludes such laws in the U.S.A., at either the state or federal level. This was decided in a "red flag" case in 1931

    If you recall, duringt the fifties and sixties the House UnAmerican Activities Committee made any public discussion of Communism virtually illegal.  I'm not sure anyone could even DEFINE "communism," much less explain why believers in a vague political philosophy should be prosecuted, persecuted, blackballed and slandered.


    Hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:02:43 AM EST
    Steve Bannon accidentally called the editor of a Liberal publication and then accidentally gave that journalist an interview? He goes on to call his past racist following "losers". Says we've got to crush them more. Then he goes on to say that he hopes Democrats keep talking about race, it allows him to crush us with his economic nationalism?

    I'm going to call complete bull$h*t Steve. You'll do anything to end this current Nazi storm you created because you never calculated it was going to destroy you. And it is destroying you. But you can't undo the evil you stoken in an accidental interview with a libtard. Nope, not gonna fly.

    I'll venture another guess too Mr. Bannon. You are behind a few Democrats recently telling other Democrats they must drop this Russia collusion thing or WE ARE THE ALT LEFT. You planted that little bit of "identity politics" in the press too huh?

    Alt Left, nobody can abide being called it though there is no agreed definition, just shuddering Democrats.

    If we drop the race issues, we not only let down our base we destroy our base. If we drop the Russia questions we let down the whole country and the world.

    The effing press made their living for how many years talking about Clinton's emails while Trump doesn't even use an encrypted phone? And he's handed out clearances to I guess almost all of his kids now that we know Junior was on the NSC email list. If we drop Russia, we are cowards and idiots.

    The evil creepy shits choose our topics for us too and we allow it! They had US...the effing Democratic Base...arguing about Clinton emails. If we're so smart, how did that happen? And now after that Trump is running about wildly with zero security precautions, and the same people who argued Clinton was horrible say NOTHING about Trump's wild lack of security protocols?

    So we're just knee jerk defensives? That's it? That's what we get for all our SMARTS? I hope not, but I have a few doubts.

    Bannon-Kuttner Interview (none / 0) (#89)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    President "I need the facts" Trump (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    reacted with lightning speed to the attack in Barcelona that involved a van driving into a crowd, and in so doing, repeated a myth about pigs' blood-tipped bullets:

    President Trump resurrected a dubious story about a renowned U.S. Army general's handling of Muslim insurgents following Thursday's terror attack in Barcelona, Spain.

    "Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!" he tweeted.


    "The United States condemns the terror attack in Barcelona, Spain, and will do whatever is necessary to help. Be tough & strong, we love you!" he tweeted.


    Okay, so let me see if I can get all this straight:

    Charlottesville: waited hours to even comment, and then did so reluctantly.  

    Barcelona:  tweets immediately

    Charlottesville: leaves it up to others to decide what this attack was - terror?  murder?  "Whatever."

    Barcelona:  calls it terrorism right off the bat.  No "waiting to get all the facts."

    Trump still has not called Heather Heyer's family,  Neither he nor anyone from the administration even showed their faces at her memorial service.

    Such a small, hollow excuse-for-a-human.

    Charlie Pierce weighs in: (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:48:22 PM EST
    Seriously, though, I think the fact that we're arguing over whether or not we should end the free ride through our history that treasonous racists have enjoyed for 150 years is a very salubrious moment. For example, it is now much more widely known that the great majority of these statues were erected long after the Civil War, and that most of them were erected either during the high-tide of lynching in the South during the beginning of the 20th Century, or during the 1950s, when mass-resistance to racial desegregation was gathering steam in the old Confederacy. (This latter phenomenon also accounts for the resurrection of the Confederate battle flag.) These were not put up as tribute to heritage or history. They were put up as reminders to African-American citizens as to who really was in charge of their lives, 13th amendment or no. These were tributes to the "culture" of Jim Crow, of sharecropping, and of lynching. More people are aware of that now than were aware of it two weeks ago, and I think that's all to the good.


    Over the weekend, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the unfortunate mistake of saying that to remove the statues was to "sanitize history." This is, of course, a familiar charge, but it also is a criminally inaccurate one. These statues were put up in the first place to sanitize the history of the men who fought to maintain chattel slavery and the men who later re-established white supremacy in the old Confederacy. Removing them does not sanitize history. It fumigates it.


    All emphasis is mine.

    Since when has that idiot Trump... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    become so concerned about the fate of Confederate general monuments?  If he is so worked up about their "beauty" why doesn't he start buying them up and installing them on his resorts?  I'm sure they'll look great: having a Robert E. Lee on every hole, a Stonewall Jackson guarding every tee shot, a Jefferson Davis protecting every clubhouse, and a Nathan Bedford Forrest guarding the sanctity of every lounge.  Besides, this isn't really about monuments, is it?

    Gold-plate them and they will (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    fit right in with the Trump decor...

    Just look at (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    Trump as president of the Confederate States of America. A lot of what he does makes sense in that context.

    Trump makes the cover (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:51:45 PM EST
    i getting just a bit tired (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    of the republiklan partys generic outrage at racism and white identity politics.

    even tired of of the ones who act like this started with Trump.  the ones who are shocked SHOCKED to find racism in the party that gaves us  the southern strategy of Nixon, the welfare queens and young bucks buying liquor with food stamps of Regan, the Willie Horton of HW Bush and i could go on but i think the point is made.

    i heard a remarkable thing yesterday.  unnamed white house aids were stunned (paraphrase) 'to hear the president say publicly what he has often said privately'.  really?  really?

    what does it even say about these people that this is what they are concerned about?

    but its important because i believe it clarifies the partys problem with Trump.

    their problem is not what he thinks.  its that he says it outloud.

    they are rightly concerned.  Trump has torn away the veil and ditched the dog whistle.  he is revealing the ugly underbelly of the republican base in a way that is simply not acceptable.

    it will be his downfall.

    I'm with ya bud. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    I grew up in SC with the horrors of Strom Thurmond. I tell people this guy raped his black maid, hid the child and then lied about it for years. He also ran for president on a platform of murdering black people. When LBJ passed the civil rights bill the GOP welcomed this POS with open arms. Have they not noticed what the GOP has been doing for decades? Are they that stupid? Did they really think that someone who was so racist in private and lacked so much self control wasn't going to belt it out in a press conference?

    And Republicans are trying to gaslight their own history on all this. I had one a while back tell me that the Republicans passed civil rights. I showed him that no, that was not true. He then started talking about the LBJ tapes. I said repeating a lie over and over and moving the goal posts to talk about what LBJ said privately do not change the facts.


    I really think (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    It's what will finally get congressional republicans to turn on him.  They will accept any outrage, any horror except laying all the racist cards of the party on the table.

    I also believe he is certainly smart enough to know this.  Which I think is one more indicator he knows he is going down and he is making it clear he won't go down alone.


    Considering that Trump (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    is probably a master at blackmail I would imagine he has had Putin give him the hacked emails from the RNC or he has Putin giving him something. So yeah, Trump will attempt to spill the beans and take the entire party down in flames with him.

    Apparently there is a Camp David (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    Meeting of some importance tomorrow.  On the subject of Afghanistan.   The VP cut short his trip to return for it.

    It's said they may decide to turn the war over to Betsy DeVos crackpot brother Eric Prince.  In other words privatize the Afghan war.

    I bet you think I'm making that up.  I understand. It sounds made up.


    Personally (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:52:40 PM EST
    I'm back and forth on this being brilliant and being a nightmare.

    One the one hand, if you are going to "privatize" something, war seems like not a bad thing.  At least from the point of view of soldiers who are asked to die in them for one tenth what the mercenaries will make.

    On the other it's Betsy DeVos crackpot brother.

    So,there's that.


    NOOOOO! (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 06:31:38 AM EST
    Mercs do things in your name with no accountability to you. I bet the UCMJ is gone from this discussion too. What will the ROE be for mercs? Trust me, this is a terrible idea.

    Eric Prince's forces were part of the Yemen raid. How did that go? They killed EVERYBODY.


    you might want to put Afhganistan (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    comments in an open thread. This one's about the revile against Donald Trump over his Charlottesville remarks.

    I'm pretty sure the noun is "revulsion" (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:19:32 PM EST
    not "revile," by the way.

    Nothing in MT's post #195 (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:56:36 PM EST
    suggested to me that she thought you shared that opinion. I understood her to be asking (rhetorically) how anyone could believe such things. Referring, of course, to those who do believe it, not to you. Sorry, Linea, I don't hate you or mock you, but the truth is that you are overly defensive and take things personally that are not directed at you that way at all. MT is very clearly not a mean person at all.

    i disagree (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by linea on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    re: "MT is very clearly not a mean person at all."

    how can i not be angry? she asked me a question and i politely told her 'good question' and went out of my way to provide her with an answer - only to discover she was being a mean troll. the question was a trick and she was being mean and trolling me.

    amd she is clearly asserting that i am endorsing sexist and racist views and going out of her way to misconstrue what i posted.


    i'm sorry i'm angry! (2.00 / 1) (#200)
    by linea on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    i can only take so much in one thread. when CaptHowdy and Yman are picking on me and then MilitaryTracy pretends to ask me question when she's just trolling - it's too much!

    Let's keep going (1.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:14:35 AM EST
    So the ONLY reason each and everyone was there protesting the removal of a statue was raw raciism pure and simple.

    Let's keep going. There some 50 odd government buildings in West Virginia with that old Kleagle Robert Byrd's name on them, time for chisels and renaming.

    Also FDR that appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court.

    And let's not forget that old segregationist Woody Wilson, the man that segregated the civilian federal workforce.

    Classic ridiculous "talking points" post (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    and trollery.  No one but AAA actually said (or even implied)
    the ONLY reason each and everyone was there protesting the removal of a statue was raw raciism pure and simple.
    Only the organizers and spokespeople, and all the signage the marchers carried and chants they joined.
        As for the rest, the only halfway logical and relevant point is the knock on Woodrow Wilson. As for FDR, the most racist thing that he did was hardly the appointment of Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Cf. Japanese internment. (Black was briefly in the Klan when rising in Alabama politics and serving as a local judge. He was a New Dealer as a U.S. Senator, and one of the greatest civil libertarians and devotees to the Constitution (a strict constructionist, btw) of all time as a Supreme Court Justice.)

    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    I thought the thrust of the post was revulsion at Trump pointing out that a lot of the people there were to innocently protest.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    the thrust of this post is that "innocent" people do not stand with people shouting Nazi BS. People do not idolize monuments to dead generals, who's only claim to fame is fighting to be on the wrong side of history, unless said people happen to remain on the wrong side of history.

    Innocent my as* (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:14:19 AM EST
    they looked around and saw all the nazis and white supremacists and rather than being utterly repelled saw fit to add the strengh of numbers to their cause.

    Maybe, these (none / 0) (#183)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 12:36:51 PM EST
    very fine people are just statue fans caught up in the fervor and passion of a goosestepping march, and were fascinated by the heavy and costly armaments of their co-marchers. They may not have looked up and noticed the flags, and swastikas.

    Another theory... (none / 0) (#191)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    all them tiki torches could lead a fine & innocent person to believe there was a kick ass pig roast and luau in the neighborhood, and they just followed the crowd in hopes of some pork butt and umbrella drinks at the end of the march.

    Run away and (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    beat up your straw man. This is about people who fought for an evil cause. If you embrace that cause just go ahead and say it. It seems the majority of Republicans are apparently A-okay with Nazis and see nothing wrong with their ideology. You own it and quit trying to blame someone else for what you yourself have done. It would help move things along if conservatives like yourself started telling the truth.

    Statues (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    in the public square should have the intention of celebrating the good and/or good works of the individual so honored.

      The human being so celebrated will have, in addition to the good/good works, all the frailties and complexities of human beings, including within the context of time and circumstances.

      We honor founders, such as George Washington for the good he did as a successful leader in the war for independence against the Crown and for initially effecting the ideas of the new  US Constitution and "the presidency", including the peaceful transfer of power.

     And, we  honor Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of, and contributions to, democracy, and his important foreign diplomatic efforts on behalf of the newly founded country.

      Washington and Jefferson were, also, slave owners. Both of these great historical figures contributed to the founding of the country and its original sin.  We live with the fruits of both, but, on balance, we celebrate the former and disdain the later--continually striving, on the base they helped provide, for the more perfect union.

    What good/good works do we celebrate with a statue,for example, of Jefferson Davis?  Despite being in a many decades later historical period, Davis, as with Washington and Jefferson, was a slave owner.

      Maybe, it was his service to the United States of America as Secretary of War during the Pierce Administration. Or, a senator from ole Miss? Doubtful.  Davis was president of the Confederacy, a failed insurrectionist caught in an attempted flight to Europe sporting his wife's shawl. The  rebellion and the confederate government was triggered by the election of a US president some states did not want, and so as to maintain slavery as an institution.

    What good did the confederate generals do for the country?  Statues are erected for them because they led a pro-slavery insurrection well. Or, have been thought to have done so. Robert E. Lee, slave owner and a West Point Commandant, when the choice of his life arrived, went with the confederacy, and left the Union.

    Perhaps the good thing Lee did occurred after the defeat of the insurrection.  In his writings, Lee opposed erecting monuments: "As regards the erection of such a monument (a proposal for a Stonewall Jackson monument, in 1866) my conviction is that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment, and continuing, if not adding to the difficulties under which the Southern people labor."  That may be worth a statue.  



    But GA6 ... don't you think (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    that the most effective way to refute a devastating charge of making and then doubling down on indefensible false moral equivalencies is to propose even more false moral equivalencies?

    Some scarecrow cookies. .... (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    Might be a good use for all that extra straw.

    BTW - The same, tired Byrd smear?  Let me know when when those confederates denounce racism and the KKK, as Byrd did.  Let me know when Byrd commits treason like the confederates you conservatives love to defend.  You can be a patriot.  You can be a neo-Confederate defender.  You can't be both.


    Oh for Pete's sake (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    Robert E. Lee was a traitor who caused the death of hundreds of thousands.....to further the treason of a states that wanted to perpetuate slavery.

    You can't see that as different from the other historical figures you mention?

    Good grief.  


    Nobody Here Wants to Tackle the Question (1.50 / 2) (#90)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    How will you respond to demands that Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln!, Woodrow Wilson, et al be posthumously punished for their racism in words and deeds just like Andrew Jackson, J.C. Calhoun, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson et al have been punished by removing their statues, portraits and names?  If history is a guide, the posters here won't attempt a serious answer but will simply attack the questioner.

    "If history is a guide" (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    ... others will continue to post trolling "questions" using sophomoric logic, then pretend to be a victim after demanding a "serious" answer to a ridiculous question.

    BTW - Get back to me when the non-confederate traitors in that silly "question" commit treason to preserve their right to own slaves.


    "Traitors" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:02:11 PM EST
    Should've been in quotes.

    It is just getting started. (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    That probably (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    was a Nazi that did that. Boy you really are clueless or deliberately obtuse aren't you? Some one also defaced the Lincoln monument and more than likely that was another one of your Nazi pals. And the only person on Facebook named Quintin Mitchell talked about in the article is a Trump fan.

    Maybe, But (none / 0) (#136)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    did you see this part of the article?
    Bishop James E. Dukes of Chicago's Liberation Christian Center responded to Mr. Trump's comments by calling on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to rename Washington Park and remove a statue of the first U.S. president over his ties to slavery.
    "It's time," Mr. Dukes wrote on his Facebook page, The Washington Times reported. "Please read my letter to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and The Chicago Park District. I'm calling on them to change the names of Washington and Jackson Park. Slave owners do not deserve the honor of our children playing in parks named after them. There is no way a Native American Community would allow a General Custer Park or a Jewish Community allow a Gestapo Park in their community."
    And if being in the Washington Times makes the article suspect, try this, or this.

    They are not being "punished" for (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    their racism, Ricky, the statues are coming down because they were monuments to treason; they celebrated participation in a war against the US.

    Any of those other names you floated rise to that level?

    If you are interested in history being your guide, I'd suggest you learn some.


    Nobody Was Convicted of Treason (1.50 / 2) (#98)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    after the Civil War, even during reconstruction.  Washington's will said his slaves should be freed after Martha's death.  So I am not the only one here who doesn't know history.  By the way, did you know that Columbus Day is now Indigenous Peoples Day in Minneapolis and Seattle?

    Stop denying that voices will be be become louder in future years to go after certain now sacrosanct historical figures.  Right now, I think the first to be toppled is Woodrow Wilson.  And by the way, I have never said it is a bad thing.  I just asked, in essence, why it is not a natural extension of current trends.


    Very good of you, RickyJ, to stand up (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    on this criminal defense blog for the presumption of innocence. Because the Union was incredibly magnanimous after the war -- unlike the Nation's erstwhile enemies, who never ceased (and whose successors continue) to undermine the winning causes of liberty and union -- and for lack of a criminal conviction (summary conviction at a court martial, followed by execution, would have been expected in those days), the American-born leaders of an Army that fought against the United States to destroy the Nation should not be called traitors. All right, then.

    Perhaps this will help (but not (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    overly confident you will be having any kind of an "a-ha!" moment):

    These arguments [by Trump and others - such as yourself] aren't exactly offered in good faith. But even then, they reflect a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Confederacy as a project -- and of the difference between commemorating its leaders compared to America's Founding Fathers.

    Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the other politicians and generals who served the Confederate States of America aren't noteworthy historical figures who also happened to benefit from the institution of slavery. They are historical figures who are noteworthy almost exclusively because they led an insurrection against the United States of America, an insurrection whose primary purpose was to perpetuate slavery.

    Owning human chattel -- and offering intellectual and political defenses of the institution of American slavery -- is an important and dishonorable part of Thomas Jefferson's legacy. But it's the entirety of Davis's legacy.

    [My emphasis]

    The huge problem with Trump comparing Robert E. Lee to George Washington


    So It Ends With Confederate Generals? (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    Of course there are differences between Lee and Washington.  However, I never said there were not.  I was asking, what's next?  And are you saying, that's it, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson will never be toppled?

    Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    never committed treason against the United States of America. So yeah, that's a good line.

    No, it does not end with Confederate generals. (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Jefferson Davis was not a general. Neither was Roger Taney. It encompasses all public displays that symbolically celebrate the cause of Confederate rebellion (treason) and/or its underlying defense of white supremacy.

    Thank you, Anne. That is exactly (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    the message I was working on composing in my own mind, but hadn't gotten around to writing up.

    That's some poor reading (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    No one said they were "convicted", but their actions (levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" is the very definition of treason.  It's also indisputable that they did exactly that.

    Of course, the only reason these traitors were not tried and convicted was the prioritization of the need for national healing.  But you already knew that.


    Here's your problem in a nutshell (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    "sacrosanct historical figures."

    If by current trends you mean disabusing the history challenged of their quaint false notions, I'd say that's a good thing.  

    The fact is, while the men that founded this nation weren't perfect, the premises they arrived at nearly are.

    People so scared of these conversations need to ask themselves what about this country do you really love? IMO, it's not the historical figures themselves that should get the most focus, rather, what they documented for us to use in the years that follow.

    Americans should identify with ideals not people. People come and go, people are flawed, ideals are usually not as complicated.  


    The lack of convictions (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    does not preclude that what the leaders of the confederacy did was treason. By any definition, going to war against your own government or land of allegiance is treason. Convictions be damned.

    There are 9387 Americans buried in Normandy (that's in France). Those Americans died attempting to kill Nazis. A noble cause. My personal opinion, and my opinion only (and most likely not shared here), is this should still be a goal for Americans. To kill and/or capture Nazis.


    Ricky, yeah, yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    all this silly emphasis on diversity and politically correct history.  It really is annoying.  God, if only we could go back to when we just adored our leaders....who were all white.....Those were the days.....

    and? (none / 0) (#151)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    By the way, did you know that Columbus Day is now Indigenous Peoples Day in Minneapolis and Seattle?

    on a 9-0 vote. my councilmember voted for this and i support her. everybody i know in seattle supports it.


    Considering that Columbus (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    never set foot here, why the hell is Columbus Day even a thing. I'm with Seattle and Minneapolis too.

    right? (none / 0) (#158)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    i mean really. it's all about 'states and local rights' and 'my elected sheriff is the only legitimate law enforcement in the land' but seattlelites can't vote to honor First Peoples? really? it's ridiculous.  

    Even as a (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 05:47:12 AM EST
    child I remember thinking why do we have a holiday for an Italian who landed in the "West Indies"?

    I think it's a fair question... (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    and I will attempt an answer....when significantly more than half the country becomes offended by monuments to our founding fathers, we can have a free and open (if not civilized) debate on if they should be moved from their prominent locations to a museum or other less prominent location.  I don't see it happening though outside the most extreme of circles...rational people can put their opinions or famous memorialized Americans in a historical perspective.

    I do not believe any confederate monument should be destroyed or defaced...I do think it's a good idea to move them to museums with other historical monuments to be used as a learning tool, and admired for their artistic merits.  They really do not belong on prominent display on public or government property...in my humble opinion, if opinions are allowed to be humble anymore;)

    Think of it as the final healing phase of reconstruction....and those butthurt about it will learn to get over it, just like I got over the St. John's Redmen being renamed the St. John's Red Storm 20 years ago.  


    The Replies Are As Expected (1.33 / 3) (#128)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    They ignore the question of whom, in general, should be posthumously punished for their racism and instead concentrate on how bad some members of the Confederacy were.  

    I find the case of Princeton student Willglory Tanjohn, Class of 2018, quite revealing.  She wrote a letter to the Daily Princetonian attacking the school's reverence for its former president, Woodrow Wilson,

    I told the administrator that Wilson is arguably the most racist U.S. and Princeton president, and the administrator agreed that Wilson was indeed racist. They argued that he may have not been the most racist president in history because he had a plethora of competition, including George Washington who they mentioned has multiple institutions, a state and our capital that bear his name.
    and is featured between 14:25 and 25:25 of this Podcast done by Malcolm Gladwell.  Her angry rant starting at 22:10 "This university owes us everything..." shows quite clearly that she feels nothing positive Wilson did as President of Princeton or the US can make up for his vile racism.  Do I think that a similar case can be made against Washington, Jefferson, etc?  Certainly, and although it has has been muffled up to now,  I expect it to get much louder in the future.

    No, you miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    It is not about racism.  It is called treason.  Got it?

    Or if you want to look to slavery--those who were primarily known for supporting slavery.....not as an incident to an otherwise noteworthy career.

    But you do not want to get it.....Just back Trump...no matter what....He tweeted it, so it must be defended.


    The "1" troll rating (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    is for refusing to read, take seriously, or respect the several direct and thoughtful responses to your original post. It is a lie to say
    They ignore the question of whom, in general, should be posthumously punished for their racism and instead concentrate on how bad some members of the Confederacy were.  
    Anne, KeysDan and KDog, in particular, directly answered your "question," albeit without accepted your false framing ("punish," "for their racism," etc.). They even did you the courtesy of pretending that you meant it seriously as a question for discussion.

    I Ignore the Ratings (none / 0) (#139)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    I never rate anybody either.  They are just an attempt to enforce groupthink. And I can read English also and the posters you mention did not answer my question which was in effect, "Which non officials of the confederacy should be stripped of their public honors for their racism and why?"
    Why are you in denial that there are movements to do just that, despite citations?

    Stonewall Jacksons Great Great Grandsons Wrote a (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:02:54 PM EST
    Letter published here, asking that Stonewalls' statue be removed for his slavery ownership and participation in a war against the U.S.and "fighting on the side of white supremacy."

    And Their Reason Was His Racism, Not Treason (none / 0) (#173)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:35:08 AM EST
    In fact "treason" only occurs in the letter once in a quote.  Yet I see over and over in this thread that the reason the monuments to confederate figures should be removed is their treason.  I find this just as ridiculous a description of the motive of the protesters as the claims of Robert E Lee and others that the reason for the secession was "States Rights" and not the preservation of slavery.  I have no doubt that in the future there will be more protests against any recognition and respect of other anti-black racists that were prominent in US history.  Identity politics is here to stay, and if Steve Bannon is right, that is good news for his side.

    Treason (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    is a very powerful word, that need not be repeated over and over again like your silly talking points.

    Some people argue racism some people argue treason. Many people  would argue it was treason in the defense of a particularly vile form of racism, a toxic mix that only existed among the confederates.  


    Of course the treason is connected to (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    racism - that was why the committed it in the first place!

    To re-post something I posted yesterday:

    These arguments [by Trump and others - such as yourself] aren't exactly offered in good faith. But even then, they reflect a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Confederacy as a project -- and of the difference between commemorating its leaders compared to America's Founding Fathers.

    Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the other politicians and generals who served the Confederate States of America aren't noteworthy historical figures who also happened to benefit from the institution of slavery. They are historical figures who are noteworthy almost exclusively because they led an insurrection against the United States of America, an insurrection whose primary purpose was to perpetuate slavery.

    Owning human chattel -- and offering intellectual and political defenses of the institution of American slavery -- is an important and dishonorable part of Thomas Jefferson's legacy. But it's the entirety of Davis's legacy.

    Treason does not happen in a vacuum - at the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker: there's always a reason for treason.  

    It was racism - the belief that white men were entitled to treat black people as property, not even according them "human being" status - that these men deemed such an important concept that they chose to commit treason against the United States in order to preserve their right to own slaves.

    And it was racism and a desire to preserve the white man's dominance over black people that spurred the installation of these monuments in the first place.  Many of us would like to think that we have progressed beyond the need to leave in place statues and monuments that celebrate the effort to keep people of color down; those who want to argue that taking the statues down is erasing history have to pretend, I guess, that we don't have actual history books, because the books don't accommodate the kind of specious reasoning that's being used to argue in favor of keeping the monuments (well, unless you live in places where there's been an effort to use textbooks that actually do re-write history).

    I find it profoundly sad that in spite of being given numerous opportunities to do critical thinking on the finer points of this argument, many of which have been spelled out in some detail here and are easily available on many other sites, you seem to prefer to ignore them for what seems like the express purpose of setting up a disingenuous "big picture" scenario that suffers greatly from being built mostly from straw.


    Again you are mistaken. Ratings (none / 0) (#145)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    around here are pretty scrupulous, and do not reflect mere agreement or disagreement. They reflect either praise for a particularly well thought-out or helpful comment (5), or condemnation of mere trolling (1), criticism of the quality or accuracy of the comment while recognizing it as not trolling (2), or mixed good and bad qualities (3 and 4). The question you now claim to have asked, (a) is not what you asked; and (b) assumes part of what the answer should be, which a person responding does not have to accept. And no, I am not in denial. Nothing I have written here addressed that last issue, that is, what some other people may want or advocate.

    You (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 06:00:22 AM EST
    still fail to explain how the people responsible for the darkest period in American history deserve any honor, much less publicly.  They were on the wrong side of history, period. Any idolization of them is a validation of their wrongness.

    We idolize the founders and subsequent leaders, despite their flaws, not because of them. Jefferson was a terrible person for owning slaves but he is a monumental figure in history for helping create modern democracy, undeniably bending the arc of history towards justice and equality.

    The Confederate leaders on the other hand are famous for one thing and one only, trying to reverse that arc. Why exactly do the deserve any reverence or respect?    


    IF You Read My Posts Fl Joe (none / 0) (#174)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    you will find out that I have made no statements that the Confederate statues should stay where they are.  My posts all are directed towards examining what is likely to happen in the future and not about whether that will be good or bad.

    Yes I (none / 0) (#175)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:04:23 AM EST
    have read your straw man arguments, you purport to not support the idolization of the Confederates, but you seem to be using some specious "slippery slope' argument to argue against their removal.

    It's been answered several times (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    You just don't like the answer, because you can't figure out a logical counterargument, so you respond with "That's ridiculous!"  But here it is in simple terms again.  The Confederates were traitors.  By the very definition of the term, they committed treason.  They did so in defense of slavery and their "right" to continue to own human beings.  Hundred of thousands died as a result of their treason.  NOT ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE VENERATED WITH A STATUTE (OR OTHER MONUMENT) IN A PUBLIC SQUARE.   Statutes on a battlefield or museum are fine, as a method of remembering our ugly history to endure it never happens again.  Also, to remember the true, racist motivations for most of these monuments which were erected many decades later and the attempts to revise/sanitize history.

    That was easy.  Or, at least ...

    ... it should be.

    BTW - The false equivalencies to push a silly, slippery slope arguments are not remotely believable.

    Removing Confederate Memorials Doesn't Mean Washington and Jefferson Are Next.


    Al Sharpton Has Done Well (none / 0) (#179)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    in pushing black identity politics into the headlines.  For example, he was one of the most important voices in getting in play a nation obsession over Trayvon Martin.  Here is him advocating public defunding of the Jefferson Memorial. I don't think that claiming that the current attack on the confederate statues is part of a more general campaign is that absurd and ample documentation has been given in this thread.  And, I haven't argued that the campaign is a bad thing.

    Is it really identity politics (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    When being black can get you killed simply for being black and a black person wants to talk about that?

    Check With Jeralyn (none / 0) (#182)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    to see if you have correctly characterized the Martin/Zimmerman case.

    Or, check with me (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    Militarytracy characterized it perfectly.

    With Zimmerman's recent history (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    I find his recounting of the events leading to Trayvon's death highly suspect.

    Again you try to change the subject (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    No one here has disputed that there are individuals or even groups who would advocate that the U.S. not honor anyone, no matter how historically distinguished otherwise, who owned slaves. They have a right to express that opinion and to try to persuade others to make it come to pass. We have disputed that that would follow from the rationale of taking down statues of Jefferson Davis. A number of us have also expressed the opinion that we would not agree with suggestions like the one you attribute to Sharpton.

    I Don't Know What the New Subject Is (none / 0) (#192)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 04:59:24 PM EST
    I have consistently brought up what I think will be the natural continuation of the demand to get rid of the statues.  You are welcome to argue that the efforts of Bishop Dukes, Willglory Tanjohn and Al Sharpton won't get far and it shouldn't be hard if you are right that my "slippery slopeism" is nonsense.  And what is this "you attribute to Sharpton" business?  You didn't find the link to a video where he advocates public defunding of the Jefferson Memorial good evidence that is what he is advocating?  Please don't spin like you are making a case to a dimwitted jury.

    I have no time for viewing videos (none / 0) (#193)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 05:18:22 PM EST
    I learn from reading from trusted sources, which is 20 times more efficient. Also, videos are readily subject to misleading editing. So no, I didn't. I took your word for it.

    As you keep raising 'identity politics' (4.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Towanda on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    in comments that suggest that you see 'identity politics' as a phenomenon originating in the civil rights movements circa 1960s, a correction: Such 'identity politics' trace to the 1860s . . . with the KKK.

    I thought American "identity politics" (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    went back even farther than the Klan, to the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic Know Nothings of the 1850s. Not to argue with my favorite Actual Historian.

    Can't blame you (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    If you can't formulate an actual counterargument, try to change the subject and engage in strawman arguments.

    Just like Trump.


    Well, tell me which (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    ones are traitors and which ones aren't? You are conflating slavery with everything else to excuse your own either ignorance or deliberate obfuscating of the issues.

    This is pure hysteria from the right wing. Let me put it in simple terms: Robert E. Lee Stonewall Jackson et. al were traitors. They practiced treason and fought to defend the evil of slavery. If you seriously are worried about history you need to start telling the truth. Washington freed his slaves so how does that wash with your other mishmash of names. To play the false of equivalence game of people who fought to defend an evil is just sad on your part.


    thanks for this post (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    i think (perhaps naively so ) this could ultimately lead to some spine.  rare as it might be.

    McConnells wifes "i stand by my men" response will be in history books.

    this is coming to a head.  maybe more than one head.

    Boston (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    Organizers for what is being billed as a free speech demonstration have received a permit from the city of Boston for a rally Saturday, even after being told by the city's Democratic mayor that he does not want them there.

    "I didn't want them to get a permit, quite honestly, but we also believe in free speech in our country," Boston Mayor Marty Walsh told reporters Wednesday.

    Even though Free Speech Boston has obtained a permit to hold a rally on Saturday, many of the rally's original speakers have signaled they do not plan to attend because they feel the mayor's rhetoric has put their safety in jeopardy.

    and 8 other cities (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 05:54:37 PM EST

    Alt-right protests against Google's allegedly anti-white-male diversity policies were already being planned before the white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville this last weekend. And organizers of the March on Google in (at last count) nine cities are trying to distinguish themselves from the motley gang of neo-Nazis, Kluxers, and open white supremacists who held the Unite the Right rally in Virginia. They issued a statement that closely tracks the evasive take on Charlottesville of you-know-who in the White House:

    We, the organizers of the March on Google, join the President in condemning the actions in Charlottesville on August 12th. Despite many false rumors from those seeking to discredit us we are in no way associated with any group who organized there.

    We condemn in the strongest possible terms any display of hatred and bigotry from any side. It has no place in America. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society.

    But inevitably, given the timing, what looks and feels like a proliferation of far-right public events is going to attract attention, and probably counter-demonstrators. The "march" will be directed at Google facilities in Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., in addition to the company's headquarters, GooglePlex, in Mountain View, California.

    Bannon and Miller and Gorka will be headed out (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:25:18 AM EST
    The door of the White House soon, no matter how many accidental interviews they accidentally give to liberal publications.

    Who could have predicted the nation would catch fire like this simply by stoking a little Klansmanship?

    I don't know if Kelly will want to handle that chief of staff job much longer.

    Did you see this, from the guy in the Vice video you put up? Real tears? Seems manipulative somehow to me.


    i did see it (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    i could not stop laughing.  what a pu$$y.

    Hey nimrod (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    That's why yer daddy wore a hood

    One thing I've seen some speculation about (none / 0) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    is the calculation as to whether this triad, and Bannon in particular, has more potential to hurt Trump from outside the administration than from the damage he seems to be doing from within it.

    Does Bannon go back to Breitbart? Does he provide any clues as to where the bodies are buried?

    I don't know.  

    How deep is the bench from which to bring on replacements?  Aren't we kind of at that point where no one with even a shred of integrity would consider working in the West Wing, leaving God-knows-what to take these jobs?

    We saw how Trump reacted after Flynn got the boot.  We saw Trump resist saying what was expected of him on Saturday and on Monday, culminating in his fck-it presser on Tuesday.  What fresh hell will he subject us to, how much more damage does he do in the wake of having to fire - or having to accept the resignations of - Bannon, Miller and Gorka (and if Sebastian goes, I'm thinking his wife - Katharine - goes with him)?

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm reading that Republicans think they have figured out how to gut Medicaid without having to futz around with the ACA.  

    We're battling the Hydra, aren't we?

    Hydra, also called the Lernean Hydra, in Greek legend, the offspring of Typhon and Echidna (according to the early Greek poet Hesiod's Theogony), a gigantic water-snake-like monster with nine heads (the number varies), one of which was immortal. The monster's haunt was the marshes of Lerna, near Árgos, from which he periodically emerged to harry the people and livestock of Lerna. Anyone who attempted to behead the Hydra found that as soon as one head was cut off, two more heads would emerge from the fresh wound.

    we are (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    we are way past this ending with Trump IMO.

    we will be dealing with the fallout of Trumps mainstreaming of Nazis for a generation.  in other words, for the rest of our lives.  

    what i think is being undercovered is the fact that Trumps statement and in general his views are STILL supported by 79% of republiklans.

    there is about, i would say at least, 25%, perhaps as much as 35% of this country who are happy.  real happy.

    he is one of us.

    this is going to get worse before it gets better Anne.


    The "Basket of Deplorables" (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    Seems to be pretty accurate, no?

    I believe we are past the ending of Trump too (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    But logistics is having a hard time catching up. Our current President burns stuff down at an astonishing rate. Every brain struggles to process the real life consequences and just keep up.

    My spouse is part of a think tank team. After the Transgender "ban" I was pretty Trump riled that day, spouse came home but had a hard time at first comprehending the red lines instantly crossed by Trump. 2 black women are on his team though and by lunch the next day he fully GOT IT (the social deterioration in the ranks if this goes into play) because of them. You can't f#ck with military social structure like Trump wants to or thinks you can. They have been at war together too long. They are bonded perhaps sadly and perhaps wonderfully in a way the rest of us can't get to. You may have to take a few minutes splainin, but most of them get it on a deep survival level. Then my spouses big boss tweeted a Trump nullifying Tweet. And the boss just did it again on the racism issue.

    Not everyone can keep up. One of our best friends is in Tampa with Centcom and he's high up in the chain. Wicked smart! Speaks fluent Russian, doesn't pull punches on Russian hacking or election disruption. I was pretty upset that McMaster seemed to miss the mark on Sunday on this racism sh#t. And he didn't get the McMaster dropping the ball immediately either. It's coming at everyone too fast while they are simply doing their jobs.

    But 5 joint chiefs Tweeted, most of the military frigging got it and has it.

    When does the GOP House and Senate get it?


    Senator Bob Corker (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    A leading Republican senator told reporters on Thursday that President Trump "has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful."

    Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker was at the Rotary Club of Chattanooga and spoke to local reporters there. In video posted by Chloe Morrison of Nooga.com, Corker added, "And we need for him to be successful. Our nation needs for him to be successful."

    Trump Defends 'Beauty' Of Confederate Memorials
    Trump Defends 'Beauty' Of Confederate Memorials
    Referring to the president's response to the violence that came with white supremacist demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, Corker said, "He also recently has not demonstrated that he understands the character of this nation. He has not demonstrated that he understands what has made this nation great and what it is today."

    Corker also warned that without that, "our nation is going to go through great peril" and called for "radical change" at the White House.



    this is about (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    fitness to serve.  this is a stunning statement from a republican who has not until now spoken up.

    I did read some of that too Anne (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    I'm a bit cut off here but twitter does well here and provides many links thank goodness.

    I predict that it's going to be them or Kelly. I don't think Kelly will take seriously the risk booting them is. That General thing, he's always been able to control so much damage in the past. Hush people, shame them, give them a carrot if tough guy love fails. Not many Generals understand political risk. Ha, if they did they'd never sign up/risk being a General :) Trump probably understands it better. One thing for certain in my mind. Every Conservative tenet that McMaster and Kelly hold dear will be their undoing staring at the ceiling all night. What is likely to happen to Kelly and McMaster will cause some Conservatives in the military to disconnect from the Republican party.

    Conservatives in the military get to live in a bubble. They pretend it's still the party of Reagan and not much that challenges them gets through.

    It was my husband who originally told me the alt right was after McMaster. It was a day before it hit the press. Lord senior military who got a memo were pissed that day. Then the shock of Charlottesville silenced everyone, they just stand and stare at it.


    POLITICO (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    Armando (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    has a diary up over at Kos saying well, what do you call people who were willing to overlook Trump's racism on the left?

    How about (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 07:50:28 PM EST

    i agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    The term "alt-left" was probably simultaneously invented hundreds or thousands of times, always bearing a slightly different meaning depending on its inventor.

    it's a childish retort to 'alt-right.' yet the the alt-right chose that name for themselves. i do quibble a bit that the author includes the neo-nazis and kkk with the alt-right. we call nazis, nazis. we call the kkk, the klan. the term alt-right is attempting to describe something else.

    i would assert that the alt-right describes a group of - males, often educated, who consider themselves to be intellectuals, who espouse 'scientific-sexism' and 'scientific-racism' and thus (they assert) they are not sexist or racist at all. they dont have swastika tattoos on their necks and often work in technology. they are my supervisors and co-workers in silicon valley and seattle.


    What's the difference between (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:09:37 PM EST
    Nazis and klan?

    good question (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:35:44 PM EST
    i have no idea so i googled and found this:
    p.s. it's not mentioned, but i believe the kkk has historically considered themselves a christian organization.

    Neo-Nazism, the modern iteration of the ideology that first took hold in Germany under Adolf Hitler, is a racist faction that primarily targets those who are Jewish, the SPLC notes. According to the SPLC, neo-Nazis believe that the country's social problems can be traced back to a "Jewish conspiracy that supposedly controls governments, financial institutions and the media." Neo-Nazis also share a love of Hitler and Nazi Germany, the SPLC notes, and may hold prejudiced views towards other minority groups, though Jews remain the "cardinal enemy."

    Ku Klux Klan
    The Ku Klux Klan is a white supremacist group in the U.S. founded in 1865. Though the KKK's popularity has risen and fallen throughout the group's over 150-year history, the racist group enjoyed revivals in the 1920s, when it amassed four million members by 1925 in response to a surge in immigration, and in the 1960s as a backlash to the fight for civil rights. The SPLC currently estimates that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 active KKK members in the United States.

    The organized group, which is known for its uniform of hooded white robes, has primarily been known as an anti-black organization since its post-Civil War years, when the group existed as a "vigilante group to intimidate Southern blacks," according to the SPLC. However, the organization has also long been opposed to other non-white groups, along with Jews, immigrants, the LGBT community and Catholics.

    Just pointing this out (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    You lectured on what certain groups are called without even understanding what defined the groups you lectured on?

    you didnt point anything out (none / 0) (#54)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 12:50:48 AM EST
    Just pointing this out (#53)
    by Militarytracy

    and you missed the point completely.

    we have a WORD for nazis... nazis.
    we have a WORD for the kkk... the klan.

    what is the point of the NEW WORD alt-right if it isn't describing some difference (i proposed a definition that described a difference).

    or we we inventing synonyms?

    p.s. i'm sorry to misconstrue your snarc as an actual question.


    Also many White Nationalists (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 01:13:26 AM EST
    Self identify with membership in both groups

    Synonyms? (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    Alt-right is a term that includes both the KKK and Nazis, but also a broader coalition of right-wing groups and ideologies.  It's not remotely a "synonym":

    a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.

    Surprised that you, of all people, wouldn't consult Wikipedia.


    whatever (none / 0) (#149)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    i defer to the journalists at BBC News for a more accurate definition of alt-right:

    BBC News: Trump's shock troops: Who are the `alt-right'?

    Smith's story was picked up by the BBC and other news outlets, and many picked up on the link between the image and the amorphous movement known as the alt-right. But what is it, what do its members believe, and what influence are they having on mainstream politics?
    As a disparate, mostly online phenomenon that lacks a cohesive structure or any sort of central organisation, it's tough to pin down. But observers of the movement - both critics and supporters - agree on a few things.
    The alt-right is against political correctness and feminism. It's nationalist, tribalist and anti-establishment. Its followers are fond of internet pranks and using provocative, often grossly offensive messages to goad their enemies on both the right and the left. And many of them are huge supporters of Donald Trump.

    BBC News: White supremacy: Are US right-wing groups on the rise?

    The alternative right (or alt-right) is a disparate group of provocateurs who hate political correctness and love Mr Trump, although critics say they are bigoted white nationalists....
    Alt-right factions, according to a guide written by Breitbart's Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, include "intellectuals", "natural conservatives" and "the meme team" - mostly young activists with a penchant for internet trolling.
    The movement's ideals focus on "white identity" and the preservation of "traditional western civilisation", according to Richard Bertrand Spencer, who coined the term "alternative right" in 2008.
    Liberty, free speech and the right to offend are its touchstones. Opponents call it racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic.

    You might want to defer to the person (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    generally credited with coining the term: Jared Taylor.

    He explains the term in the video at the link.


    perfect! (none / 0) (#156)
    by linea on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 09:34:25 PM EST
    thank you!

    it's almost exactly what i have been saying, over-and-over.

    this is what i wrote (which apparently deserves ridicule, derision, and mockery):

    i would assert that the alt-right describes a group of - males, often educated, who consider themselves to be intellectuals, who espouse 'scientific-sexism' and 'scientific-racism' and thus (they assert) they are not sexist or racist at all. they dont have swastika tattoos on their necks and often work in technology. they are my supervisors and co-workers in silicon valley and seattle.

    Scientific racism? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    If it was valid how could a Barack Obama even happen to the world? Or a Mandela?  Where's the science?

    Did you know there is a whole "scientific" explanation of why the earth is flat?


    Did they come up with anything (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    Polish internet won't load the comments for me. It says sorry, too much BS, can't do it.

    I'm fine not using alt left. This protest voting seems to be a habit though with some kind of serious bloggers. I notice at DK some people who protest voted after the Obama/Clinton primary did it Again in the Clinton/Sanders primary. If you were angry Clinton didn't get the nomination in 08 why would you protest vote against her in 16. And they were organized. I watched them from Facebook. Didn't say a word. It wouldn't have made a difference and then I couldn't have watched them do it. So I was quiet and watched.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:30:44 AM EST
    they came up with a name but lawdy some of these people really completely embrace the victim status like the alt-right though from a different angle but just as childish.

    Donald can you weigh in on this (none / 0) (#130)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    Channel surfing yesterday and caught some remarks from a guy teaching at the War College.  He had a PhD in history specializing in WWI, but went on to say the majority of WWI history guys now think WWI did not end in 1919, instead it ended at the earliest in 1945 since WWII was to a great part due to the failure of a real end to WWI.  He went on to say some folks think WWI did not really end till the end of the cold war.  He went on to say there were three things necessary for a war to end.  The last and most important was agreement by both sides on the causes of the war.  He then pointed that after the Civil War there was basically a real peace because both sides agreed the cause of the war was states rights.  He pointed out that the agreement on the cause of the war did not have to be based in reality, just that both sides had to agree it was the cause.  Then he said part of today's problems are due to the fact that there is no longer as much agreement on what caused the Civil War and no agreement on how to achieve a just peace.  Again the definition of a just peace simply has to be something that both sides agree on is a just peace; not a just peace in reality.

    I have always had great respect for the guys I knew who taught in the War College.  In this case I was really impressed with the idea that reality may not be as important as what folks think is reality.  Part of what I see as one of the biggest problems today is both the left and the right have polar opposite ideas on what is fake news with little reason to think they can agree on much of anything.

    It could be as simple (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    as a reactionary movement to deny modernity.....

    The Right has lost on Civil Rights, Women's Rights and role in Society (this is a biggy, and the biggest reason imo) and now on gay rights and marriage equality.

    So, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  We have a classic reactionary response to modern progress.....and this manifests in a denial of basic facts and making up alternative facts.


    i have heard (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 06:58:08 PM EST
    the "states rights" thing my whole life.  it has been a standard southern deflection to any discussion of race and the civil war.

    no, so it goes, the civil war was not about slavery at all.  it was about states rights.

    but, it was about their right to have slaves, right?  is my standard response.


    a pardon for Assange (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:09:22 PM EST
    Far-right blogger and provocateur Chuck C. Johnson said on Thursday that he helped arrange a highly unusual meeting between Orange County GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this week.

    Rohrabacher said in a statement that he plans to bring information to President Trump from the three-hour meeting, which took place Wednesday in London at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been living in asylum since 2012.

    He would not detail that information to The Times, but in an interview Thursday morning with the Daily Caller, Rohrabacher was more explicit, saying he and Assange talked about "what might be necessary to get him out" and suggested they discussed a presidential pardon in exchange for information on the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee, which were published by WikiLeaks before the 2016 presidential election.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    someone who lives in CA can tell me why Rohrbacher's district in California tolerates such a Putin stooge as their rep. I mean my Lord ole Dana is out there and proud about his association with Putin. Like that republican said it sounds literally like he's on Putin's payroll.

    GOP sinecure (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:58:03 PM EST
    Ran initially as a Reagan cheerleader.  Once in, no one in GOP Orange County will challenge him, no matter how weird he gets.

    But Orange County is trending blue--as Hillary won the County overall by 9 points.  Obama lost it twice.

    But Rohrabacher's District is still reliably GOP.  But other GOPers in Orange County are getting closer to being dumped.  Issa, who represents a southern sliver of Orange County and Northern San Diego County, won by just some 1500 odd votes.  His challenger?  Colonel Applegate.  Retired Marine.   Perfect for a District that encompasses Camp Pendleton.   Applegate is running again.  


    White Nationalists in Laguna Beach (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    this weekend.  Counter demonstration to be led by Mayor.

    Laguna Beach.  At Main Beach.....The scenic heart on the beach.....Good lord....what cheeto hath unleashed.  


    Laguna Beach is in a Very Conservative County (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:11:08 PM EST
    Orange County, John Wayne territory. I think it's beautiful, but the county is a bastion of conservatism.

    Also, it's an America First rally, and the primary goal is anti-immigration.

    Some local nut on You Tube who is supporting the rally says Laguna Beach is a leftist city in a red county.

    bq. "It's a far-left city in a conservative county in a left-wing state... We want to flood Laguna Beach with so much red they don't know what to do.

    The Mayor says:

    bq. This is a serious, serious thing," said Mayor Toni Iseman. "We are a community that embraces diversity. We are the quintessential opposite of their core values," she said of America First!


    Why Laguna Beach (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:10:32 PM EST
    From one of the anticipated participants:

    "We want to gain national, possibly international attention," he said, while talking for more than five minutes about why Laguna is the selected venue.

    "Laguna is the exception to the rule," he said. "It's a far-left city in a conservative county in a left-wing state... We want to flood Laguna Beach with so much red they don't know what to do."

    Good thing the eclipse (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    Is on Monday.  The way this weekend is looking it would likely lead to blood sacrifice if it happened during a gathering

    Sunday morning (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    during peak tourist season?   It will take a long time to get in and out of Main Beach.....

    A Pardon (none / 0) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    for the biggest leaker of all times? In tRumpworld anything is possible I suppose. IMO Rohrabacher needs to be shopping for his own pardon, he is in deep with the Russians.

    Interactive Timeline - (none / 0) (#165)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    Everything We Know About Russia and Trump on Bill Moyer's website.  Don't wanna forget about the Russians who are still at the gate.

    Paul Ryan, Republican (none / 0) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:49:42 PM EST
    Speaker of the House, disregarded beautiful legacy and erased important history when he removed (to a an undisclosed location) the beautiful portrait of the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

     The portrait hung for years in the ornate hallway just off the House floor along with paintings of other former Speakers in the Speaker's Lobby.  The legacy of Speaker Hastert continues in the so called Hastert Rule, where a majority of the majority is needed to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.