On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:32:57?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <d576c321-59b8-4915...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>> >American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>> >sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>> >they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>> I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
>> from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
>> "Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
>>
>> This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
>> lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
>> objectively evil the evil is.
>>
>> When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
>> completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
>> a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
>> or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
>> usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
>> not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
>> the two.
>>
>> Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
>> to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
>> causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
>> is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
>> world situation.
>
>But who's the weakling? I'm no fan of either man, but Trump kowtows
>to a dictator over his own intelligence community, wants to withdraw
>from the defense alliance that has kept the peace for nearly 80 years,
>and wants to cut off aid to Ukraine, which quite aside from having
>a right to exist, has greatly weakened one of our major opponents on the
>world stage. He's also facing multiple indictments, is in denial of the fact
>that he lost the election

He appears to be currently justifying the money he received from
various foreign countries as payment for services rendered.

The idea that the President of the United States should /not/ be a
paid agent of a foreign power has apparently never even occurred to
him.

>Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials
>from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution.
>That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.

That is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.

The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
"it takes a long time to turn a ship".

It could also be argued that he /did/ learn something from his first
term: that all that talk about "transition teams" actually made a lot
of sense and was something he should do next time.

>He's spoken several times of wanting to emulate the dictators-for-life
>he admires in Russia, China, and NK.

And he may get his wish -- we have, after all, had several
Presidents-for-Life. Stephen Sondheim composed a musical (/Assassins/)
about those of them who were rudely interrupted, but Tippicanoe
(Harrison) and FDR were also "President for Life".

So, if Trump wants to be President-for-Life ... I think we should pay
attention to who is VP is, as that person will be finishing out his
term. If he is re-elected and the Supremes decide he can serve, of
course.

>I'm no fan of Biden, but the idea of Trump getting back in power scares
>the bejesus out of me.

So far, Biden has at least kept the country in existence. That has
generally been /my/ criterion for voting to give a President a second
term: we survived the first, we should survive the second.

Trump (and the elder Bush) were exceptions, BTW. Although Trump makes
the elder Bush (both Bushes, actually) look so much more Presidential
that I wonder if, in his case, I was just tired of 12 years of
Reaganism. And unimpressed by the Kuwait incident. Trump, OTOH, was
clearly a threat to the country. And still is. IMHO, of course.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 12:14:35 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:32:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <d576c321-59b8-4915...@googlegroups.com>,
> >Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
> >>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
> >>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
> >>they're hearing that from their church preachers.
> >
> >I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
> >from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
> >"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
> Articles I've read suggest a lot of Evangelicals -- particularly older
> ones -- are doing pretty much that. To the point that, for a while at
> least, there were more people in mainline churches on Sunday mornings
> than in Evangelical ones -- for the first time in decades.
>
> Complaints cited included: don't hear the Gospel preached, tired of
> being told what to do, "Christian Nationalists" are clearly not
> Christian and are overunning the church.
> >This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
> >lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
> >objectively evil the evil is.
> That kind of depends on who runs.
>
> My take: whichever Party nominates a post-Baby-Boom candidate will
> win. Hands down. No matter which old fogey is being run against.

So who?

GOP
DeSantis born 1978. (seems to be a smarter, meaner version of Trump)
Haley born 1972 (probably the most acceptable GOP candidate, at least for me).

Dems
Dean Phillips born 1969 (I'm close enough to NH that I get his ads. Seems decent. Won't get it
unless Biden has a stroke or dies)
Marianne Williamson born 1952 (boomer, and a religious fruitcake).

pt

On 1/18/2024 9:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:32:57?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <d576c321-59b8-4915...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>>>> American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>>>> sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>>>> they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>>> I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
>>> from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
>>> "Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
>>> lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
>>> objectively evil the evil is.
>>>
>>> When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
>>> completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
>>> a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
>>> or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
>>> usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
>>> not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
>>> the two.
>>>
>>> Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
>>> to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
>>> causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
>>> is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
>>> world situation.
>>
>> But who's the weakling? I'm no fan of either man, but Trump kowtows
>> to a dictator over his own intelligence community, wants to withdraw
>>from the defense alliance that has kept the peace for nearly 80 years,
>> and wants to cut off aid to Ukraine, which quite aside from having
>> a right to exist, has greatly weakened one of our major opponents on the
>> world stage. He's also facing multiple indictments, is in denial of the fact
>> that he lost the election
>
> He appears to be currently justifying the money he received from
> various foreign countries as payment for services rendered.
>
> The idea that the President of the United States should /not/ be a
> paid agent of a foreign power has apparently never even occurred to
> him.
>
I'd lean more towards it never occurred to him to NOT milk money from
anything and everything. He doesn't approach public office as him
serving the country, he sees it as the country serving him.

>> Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials
>>from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution.
>> That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
>
> That is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
> taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
> Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.
>
> The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
> Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
> be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
> "it takes a long time to turn a ship".
>
And that is EXACTLY why they are a target for Trump and the MAGA crowd.
They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
complicated for them to understand.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 17:30:47 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials
> >from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution.
> >That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
> That is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
> taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
> Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.
>
> The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
> Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
> be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
> "it takes a long time to turn a ship".

I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
public service than is good. Civil servants,
police, and judges are either elected by
party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
president who appoints somebody of their
own party. And again, if that somebody
fails to five pleasure to the president.
And if oaths are sworn then fingers
are crossed.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 17:30:47 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
>> Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
>> be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
>> "it takes a long time to turn a ship".
>
>I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
>public service than is good. Civil servants,
>police, and judges are either elected by
>party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
>president who appoints somebody of their
>own party. And again, if that somebody
>fails to five pleasure to the president.
>And if oaths are sworn then fingers
>are crossed.

Federal civil servants are mostly selected through a normal hiring process,
with the exception of the very top tier "Senior Executive Service" folks.
The SES people are appointed, sometimes by party affiliation, but do not
have the long-term employment guarantees of normal civil servants. They
frequently come in with one administration and leave with another.

It can be interesting to look at positions like that of the head of the FBI
and the NASA administrator and see when they get changed. Surprisingly it
is not all that unusual to see one person last through administrations of both
parties although this is less common today.

But underneath the SES folks are the people whom Trump refers to as the
"Deep State," the people who actually perform the work of government.
Trump had this idea that all of these people need to go away because they
did not do everything he wanted them to do, and that he would do it all
himself. If a person needs a passport, he can apply to Mr. Trump and he
would decide. The world cannot be made to work this way and Mr. Trump's
previous attempts to make the State Department work that way will be causing
difficulties for the US for many decades to come.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 1/18/24 09:30, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"

[stuff deleted]

> Trump, OTOH, was
> clearly a threat to the country. And still is. IMHO, of course.

You are a master understatement.

--
----------------
Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:32:11 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 17:30:47 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials
>> >from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution.
>> >That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
>> That is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
>> taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
>> Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.
>>
>> The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
>> Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
>> be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
>> "it takes a long time to turn a ship".
>
>I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
>public service than is good. Civil servants,
>police, and judges are either elected by
>party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
>president who appoints somebody of their
>own party. And again, if that somebody
>fails to five pleasure to the president.
>And if oaths are sworn then fingers
>are crossed.

Although State-level (and below) Judges are elected in Washington,
Federal Judges are not elected anywhere. They are, indeed, appointed
by the President and must be approved by the Senate -- but, as I have
noted in other discussions, /judicial/ conservatism is /not/ the same
as being MAGA (or even Republican). And, AFAIK, the only entities able
to "dismiss" them are Death and Congress (impeachment/conviction). And
a President trying the first might find out that a /sitting/ President
can, indeed, be charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for murder.

State-level (and below) police are hired. The top-most positions may
be subject to election. This, again, is in Washington. The King County
Sheriff has varied between elected and appointed and the disadvantages
of each became apparent. The Chief of Police in Seattle is hired. I'm
not sure about the State Highway Patrol or any other such forces.

Federal police forces are Civil Servants. The actual workers and
several levels of managers are hired, not appointed or elected. At the
tippy-top you do find a small number of appointees.

The "deep state" is simply ZOG in another form. The new term may have
attracted a few who are not rabidly opposed to the Jews but, like
"from the river to the sea", they simply do not know what the term
refers to.

It doesn't matter how many fingers are crossed. If they have taken the
oath and then betray it, they are insurrectionists and are not only
barred from holding office (a position I expect to see being adopted
in more and more as people get tired of the endless nonsense) but also
subject to various other laws (malfeance, misfeasance, and good ol'
corruption). IIRC, a certain County Clerk in Kentucky was recently
ordered to pay one heck of a lot of money for behaving as if she
thought /her/ oath to uphold the laws of the USA and of Kentucky was,
somehow, not binding on her. And then lacked the good sense to resign
(as a person with honor would have done) because the laws had changed
to something she could no longer support.

One reason Trump had problems in his first term was that the number of
really top-quality people willing to work with him was rather limited.
This impacted the quality of the work those who would work for him
were able to accomplish.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:23:06 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 12:14:35?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:32:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <d576c321-59b8-4915...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>> >>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>> >>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>> >>they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>> >
>> >I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
>> >from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
>> >"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
>> Articles I've read suggest a lot of Evangelicals -- particularly older
>> ones -- are doing pretty much that. To the point that, for a while at
>> least, there were more people in mainline churches on Sunday mornings
>> than in Evangelical ones -- for the first time in decades.
>>
>> Complaints cited included: don't hear the Gospel preached, tired of
>> being told what to do, "Christian Nationalists" are clearly not
>> Christian and are overunning the church.
>> >This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
>> >lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
>> >objectively evil the evil is.
>> That kind of depends on who runs.
>>
>> My take: whichever Party nominates a post-Baby-Boom candidate will
>> win. Hands down. No matter which old fogey is being run against.
>
>So who?
>
>GOP
>DeSantis born 1978. (seems to be a smarter, meaner version of Trump)
>Haley born 1972 (probably the most acceptable GOP candidate, at least for me).
>
>Dems
>Dean Phillips born 1969 (I'm close enough to NH that I get his ads. Seems decent. Won't get it
> unless Biden has a stroke or dies)
>Marianne Williamson born 1952 (boomer, and a religious fruitcake).

As I believe I have said before, I would find
DeSantis/MTG
vs
Newsom/Buttigieg
a most exciting contest.

Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?

I would expect (an expectation heavily weighted, of course, by my
hope) that Trump/Biden would give Biden a second term -- without and
"swing States" to muddy the waters. I nice, clean
70%-or-more-of-the-Electoral-College landslide.

Trump, of course, would scream about "voter fraud" -- by which he
meant "voted for Hillary" in 2016 and "voted for Biden" in 2020 -- but
at least he would not be able to use the Office of the President to
try and overthrow the gummint on Jan 6 2025.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66vh1kb9j6eqcu6u9ke4@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?

As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
to the White House.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 12:06:46 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66v...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
> >well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?

I was familiar with Williamson, only because I spent decades
in the trade bookstore industry.

[quote]

Williamson has written 14 books as of 2019. Seven have appeared on
the New York Times bestseller list, with four reaching number one.
She has sold more than three million books

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson

Those who don't pay attention to who writes woo-woo
best-sellers may not know her from "Adam's off ox."

> As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
> obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
> to the White House.
>

Carter's "ground game" elevated him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/01/14/jimmy-carter-iowa-caucuses/

--
Kevin R

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66vh1kb9j6eqcu6u9ke4@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
>
>As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
>obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
>to the White House.

Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <d0tnqi9h9euvnnt38d52fasa740e1bbs7r@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66vh1kb9j6eqcu6u9ke4@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
>>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
>>
>>As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
>>obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
>>to the White House.
>
>Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
>guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.

Up here in Canada, Joe Clark was so well known when he became leader
of the Progressive Conservatives that his nickname was "Joe Who".
Searching for Joe Who got a hit on his wikipedia page.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <uogtf3$mln$1@reader1.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <d0tnqi9h9euvnnt38d52fasa740e1bbs7r@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66vh1kb9j6eqcu6u9ke4@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
>>>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
>>>
>>>As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
>>>obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
>>>to the White House.
>>
>>Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
>>guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.
>
>Up here in Canada, Joe Clark was so well known when he became leader
>of the Progressive Conservatives that his nickname was "Joe Who".
>Searching for Joe Who got a hit on his wikipedia page.

I should add Clark did become PM... very briefly. Legit won the election
but only a minority government. Ran an insufficiently popular bill though
Parliament, lost the confidence vote, lost the election that followed.

For reasons I don't understand, most of my friends who have had random
encounters with former PMs have encountered Clark in particular.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 4:32:14 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
> public service than is good. Civil servants,
> police, and judges are either elected by
> party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
> president who appoints somebody of their
> own party.

And, most especially, this becomes fatally serious when
these political public servants are the ones conducting
elections!

Blatant gerrymandering, tactics to discourage as many
black people from voting as possible, and so on.

John Savard

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:14:35 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> My take: whichever Party nominates a post-Baby-Boom candidate will
> win. Hands down. No matter which old fogey is being run against.

Oh, dear. As that would allow Trump-wannabe Vivek Ramaswamy to defeat
Joseph Robinette Biden, that is a bad thing.

However, I doubt that is really true. Because then Kamala Harris would be
able to defeat Donald Trump. And I don't think I could hope for that in my
wildest dreams.

Because she has two colossal strikes against her. She is not white. And she
is not male. So her support would be confined to the liberal faithful, absent
extreme and unusual circumstances. Such as happened in 2008, when the
stock market crashed, and Barack Obama's rival, John McCain, reacted by
telling the American people that this was no big deal, because the fundamentals
of the economy were sound.

You don't react to a stock market crash by channeling Herbert Hoover if you
want to get elected.

And yet, after Obama was elected, I remember reading that Obama was defeated
by McCain in the white popular vote... Obama only got elected because strong support
from black voters, and possibly voters from other marginalized groups (i.e. Latinos),
swung the election.

Which would, rather understandably, have undermined the legitimacy of his victory
as percieved by white people who would have preferred someone other than Obama.

And the same thing was true of the 2020 election that saved the country from another
four years of Donald Trump!

Plus, of course, the pessimistic indicators that if Trump can stay out of jail long enough
to make it to the 2024 election, he is likely to be elected once again... give some
appearance of legitimacy to the claim that bringing him to justice is a political plot
to deprive Americans of their freedom to select the next President of their choosing.

As a Canadian, utterly dependent on the continued commitment of the United States to
NATO and the struggle for world freedom, as being played out on the world stage in
Ukraine at the moment... I view this with concern. Sadly, despite our Prime Minister no
doubt having a personal dislike for Trump, he is not taking the obvious necessary step
of providing Canada with a full strategic nuclear deterrent with a credible second-strike
capability.

If what your very survival depends on is at risk of going off-line, you take immediate
action to secure a replacement. That is a no-brainer, but the world's democracies seem
to have politicians with less than no brains.

John Savard

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
> dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
> complicated for them to understand.

Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason
for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.

It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!

Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies
of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
free.

The free enterprise system is a wonderful thing when it works properly,
but there are some rich businessmen who are greedy, and who want to
make more money than they could under a democratic government that
enforces fair competition. Crony capitalism - as existed in Russia before
Putin decided to dispense with his cronies when they realized the invasion
of Ukraine was bad for business - is their future for America.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 12:57:10 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:14:35 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > My take: whichever Party nominates a post-Baby-Boom candidate will
> > win. Hands down. No matter which old fogey is being run against.
> Oh, dear. As that would allow Trump-wannabe Vivek Ramaswamy to defeat
> Joseph Robinette Biden, that is a bad thing.
>
> However, I doubt that is really true. Because then Kamala Harris would be
> able to defeat Donald Trump. And I don't think I could hope for that in my
> wildest dreams.
>
> Because she has two colossal strikes against her. She is not white. And she
> is not male. So her support would be confined to the liberal faithful, absent
> extreme and unusual circumstances.

I'd be willing to vote for Harris if she could show a history of leadership and
accomplishment.

I just googled 'accomplishments of kamela harris', and got 3 things:

Spokeswoman pushing freedom of choice. Possibly her biggest, albeit
modest, success - 2022 saw the 'red tide' pushed back.

Spokeswoman for expanded voting rights. Halted by the far right in the
House.

Dealing with the border crisis. So far, a failure, and no one is unaware of
that.

pt

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 12:36:03 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <uogtf3$mln$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <d0tnqi9h9euvnnt38...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>Nicoll) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <br9lqipcbfmprb66v...@4ax.com>,
> >>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
> >>>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
> >>>
> >>>As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
> >>>obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
> >>>to the White House.
> >>
> >>Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
> >>guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.
> >
> >Up here in Canada, Joe Clark was so well known when he became leader
> >of the Progressive Conservatives that his nickname was "Joe Who".
> >Searching for Joe Who got a hit on his wikipedia page.
> I should add Clark did become PM... very briefly. Legit won the election
> but only a minority government. Ran an insufficiently popular bill though
> Parliament, lost the confidence vote,

The bill could easily have been passed with a nod to the Creditistes, who
had five seats and were pretty conservative. Assuming all the conservative MPs
showed up to vote, which they did not. Rather suspiciously.

No minority government in decades had managed to get its budget rejected, and
this was pretty clearly an excuse to hold an election while the liberals were
without a leader, Trudeau having resigned ("I won't have you guys to kick
around any more") somewhat earlier.

> lost the election that followed.

Not all deep laid plots prosper. Crosbie's incredulous anger on election night
was a thing to behold. I would guess that the plan was his idea. In
particular, the assertion made by some conservatives, that this was
a trick by Trudeau, reeks of guilty knowledge.

Mind you, it might make a good plot in the novelistic sense.

With his sizeable minority Clarke could have held power for three or four
years. However good his record, though, I suspect he wouldn't have
survived an election in the early 1980s - voters are ruthless with
politicians who are in power at the wrong time.

But with a little luck we might have avoided the shame of having
envelope-stuffed-with-cash guy as our PM.

William Hyde

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 2:16:32 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

> I just googled 'accomplishments of kamela harris', and got 3 things:

There's her history as a drug warrior.

https://reason.com/video/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-drug-warrior-vice-cop-draconian-prosecutor/

Seems to have done a 180° flip-flop since the BLM protests.

There's her history of career advancement through personal relationship.

[quote]

In the mid-1990s, Harris had dated [ Willie] Brown, who was investigated by the
FBI when he was speaker of the California Assembly and as mayor was dogged
by conflict of interest, and she had benefited from his political patronage.. As the
speaker of the state Assembly, Brown had named Harris to well-paid posts on the
California Medical Assistance Commission and Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board. As mayor of San Francisco in 2003, Brown was supportive of her district
attorney campaign although they were no longer dating. Critics—including her
opponents—were bemoaning cronyism at City Hall.

[/quote]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/24/kamala-harris-2020-history-224126/

I'm not a fan, and I wouldn't be if she were as white as Liz Warren or Hilary R Clinton.

--
Kevin R

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:07:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48?PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
>> dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
>> complicated for them to understand.
>
>Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason
>for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.
>
>It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
>wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
>as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
>restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
>Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!
>
>Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
>were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
>would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies
>of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
>free.

The Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery (except as the punishment for
convicted criminals). It has no racial qualifications.

So who says only African-Americans would be enslaved if it were
removed?

Or even only non-White people?

>The free enterprise system is a wonderful thing when it works properly,
>but there are some rich businessmen who are greedy, and who want to
>make more money than they could under a democratic government that
>enforces fair competition. Crony capitalism - as existed in Russia before
>Putin decided to dispense with his cronies when they realized the invasion
>of Ukraine was bad for business - is their future for America.
>
>John Savard
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:38:39 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 4:32:14?PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
>> public service than is good. Civil servants,
>> police, and judges are either elected by
>> party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
>> president who appoints somebody of their
>> own party.
>
>And, most especially, this becomes fatally serious when
>these political public servants are the ones conducting
>elections!
>
>Blatant gerrymandering, tactics to discourage as many
>black people from voting as possible, and so on.

That's usually what the Legislature is doing, not what the people who
actually conduct elections.

Who might be appointed or even elected at high enough levels, but are
mostly employees. Or volunteers, to help run polling places for States
wedded to the past.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:17:11 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:07:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48?PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >
> >> They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
> >> dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
> >> complicated for them to understand.
> >
> >Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason
> >for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.
> >
> >It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
> >wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
> >as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
> >restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
> >Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!
> >
> >Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
> >were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
> >would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies
> >of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
> >free.
> The Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery (except as the punishment for
> convicted criminals). It has no racial qualifications.
>
> So who says only African-Americans would be enslaved if it were
> removed?

Some may hope to emulate, knowingly or not, the situation in
northern Mali, where in some Tuareg controlled areas, the descendants
of slaves have been re-enslaved, under the ownership of the
same families which owned their ancestors.

It's as simple as this: a man with a rifle points it at you and says "Your
grandfather was my grandfather's slave, so you are my slave".

People of slave descent who have escaped poverty generally are not
subject to this. Perhaps because they left the area. Or perhaps they
have their own rifles.

Some of these people have since been freed. It is not clear
what proportion have.

William Hyde

On 1/21/2024 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:17:11 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:07:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48?PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
>>>> dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
>>>> complicated for them to understand.
>>>
>>> Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason
>>> for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.
>>>
>>> It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
>>> wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
>>> as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
>>> restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
>>> Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!
>>>
>>> Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
>>> were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
>>> would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies
>>> of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
>>> free.
>> The Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery (except as the punishment for
>> convicted criminals). It has no racial qualifications.
>>
>> So who says only African-Americans would be enslaved if it were
>> removed?
>
> Some may hope to emulate, knowingly or not, the situation in
> northern Mali, where in some Tuareg controlled areas, the descendants
> of slaves have been re-enslaved, under the ownership of the
> same families which owned their ancestors.
>
If it is unknowingly it is probably because said individuals don't know
what Mali or Tuareg are.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>they're hearing that from their church preachers.

Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
Christian is supposed to be.

I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

On 1/23/2024 1:52 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>> American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>> sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>> they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>
> Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
> embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
> of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
> Christian is supposed to be.
>
> I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

They like the idea of a dictator setting America right again. No more
of this silly liberal love your neighbor crap, fire and brimstone for
all but the chosen! No chance WE will be recipients of any!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.