dagblog - Comments for "Abu Shiksa is dead! Long live Goyische Kopf!"

Evidently the WH Lawyers are

jollyroger — Sat, 20 May 2017 02:51:39 +0000

In reply to I love the interpretation of

Evidently the WH Lawyers are reported to be researching Impeachment...(wonder if someone is hacking their Google feed)

I love the interpretation of

artappraiser — Fri, 19 May 2017 06:26:58 +0000

In reply to I learned to my chagrin that

I love the interpretation of the Constitutional intent as to impeachment in this op-ed today @ NYT. Solves all the issues I have and I totally buy it. Unfortunately most people involved won't.

Impeachment’s Political Heart

By GREG WEINER

The framers cared about a president’s potential abuses over his past crimes and misdemeanors.

Made me think right away about the Clinton impeachment, too. It is precisely what bothered me the most about it, those supposed crimes regarding past supposed sexual harassment and lying about it had nothing to do with Clinton's execution of his job as president.. (Far from it, he performed his job more than ably while spending a lot of time defending himself.) Even if he had been 100% stone cold guilty of the accusations, there was nothing to conflict with the execution of his duties.

I sorta fear that somewhere

jollyroger — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:12:10 +0000

In reply to I'm going to miss Abu Shiksa.

I sorta fear that somewhere in the string theory permanent present, that poor little child is still hanging from a High School wall by his tighty-whiteys...If only deep in the fevered recesses of his traumatized potemkin self.

TRUMP, TRUMP, RHYMES WITH CHUMP, WEDGE HIS WHITIES IN A LUMP...

I have never been sure that

jollyroger — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:02:44 +0000

In reply to No argument from me.

I have never been sure that Trump would "go quietly" were impeachment ever actually to ripen into removal (a heavy lift).

Roger Stone, even now, has a screed afoot pre=emptively rebutting the alzheimer's 25th amendment move (which means they know damn well that it's true...) and there is Trump's private security (lemme see....might there be a close supporter, maybe the brother of a cabinet secretary, who can muster up 10,000 "security contractors" in a quick hurry...?) (ed note: you can almost hear the song..."Keep on flowing, Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on meeee")

I learned to my chagrin that

jollyroger — Thu, 18 May 2017 17:56:12 +0000

In reply to How can it not be over after

I learned to my chagrin that there is jurisprudence immunizing a sitting president from indictment, albeit not tested at the Supreme Ct level, so the specific intent element of the crime of obstruction is less relevant.

By custom and common law, the witness intimidation and jury tampering that Trump performs as a mere appetizer to his loathsome Egg McMuffin breakfast all would cheerfully underwrite article one of the bill of particulars re:Impeachment.

It is surely beyond ironic to

jollyroger — Thu, 18 May 2017 17:49:57 +0000

In reply to I know this about myself: I

It is surely beyond ironic to see high level county chairs and such of the Trotskyite Hippie Party falling over themselves to applaud Bobby Threesticks (as he was known when he ran the San Fran US Attorney office.)

ETA except for that nuclear armageddon thing, I have urged a resolution at my local THP chapter proposing that the THP platform will best be advanced by preventing the more efficacious fascist Pence from replacing the increasingly demented buffoon now in office.

I know this about myself: I

artappraiser — Thu, 18 May 2017 13:51:24 +0000

In reply to Applying the 25th amendment

I know this about myself: I am a relativist pragmatist and I am truly not comfortable with sticking to rigid moral codes.

My rational mind realizes that trying to exercise the 25th amendment would no doubt end up just as much of a complex mess or more so as the other route. So I am going: okay, do it your way.

But I really do think it is far more practically and pragmatically dangerous to ignore that we have a White House right now that is broadcasting to the world that no one is in control here, this guy is incapable, we are losing it, than that laws may have been broken by leaders. I was more horrified to learn later that at the time of Watergate that Nixon was in a paranoid state and asking Kissinger to pray with him than anything else about Watergate. Is it really worth proving that not even a Pence is above the law by finding him complicit in some minor way if we have a major terrorist attack while the White House is in chaos mode, precisely because they are in chaos mode? Or a general meltdown of the world while we are waiting for "justice"?

i am really uncomfortable with the prosecutorial mindset of pursuing "no man is above the law" when politics is involved, as we all make adjustments to our moral codes all the time in this situation. We all know people get away with breaking law in all kinds of ways all the time. Guess Jean Valjean's story just hit me too hard as a kid and never left. I fear prosecutors as much as I fear most criminals. I do not find their method of pursuing truth and justice and rationality always rational or just. The point to stay on: what will help all of us, what will make things better for a majority? The common good thing.

No argument from me.

artappraiser — Thu, 18 May 2017 13:26:31 +0000

In reply to I wish when the "competence"

No argument from me. Especially as if one goes overboard towards the truth of psychosis (being exacerbated by the situation the normally deluded put himself him, i.e., the presidency), it could get counterproductive. And I do really like Douhat and Brooks whole child thing on that front because then you have the "it's not really his fault, he just needs to be protected from himself."

Comes to mind sometimes old simplistic theories are the best: extreme, extreme example of The Peter Principle. If it were written today, Peter could just say "you know, like Trump."

I wish when the "competence"

jollyroger — Wed, 17 May 2017 19:06:51 +0000

In reply to Confirmed with more detail by

I wish when the "competence" metric is invoked, it could be clear that there is "competence" as in "Any competent carpenter could frame that window in half an hour" and "competence" as in "OrientedX3" (person, place, and time...)

I'm going to lobby for "delusional" as our settled descriptor. "Psychotic" may be closer to the truth, embracing as it does disruptions of perception, processing, and self control.

It has been a longstanding

jollyroger — Wed, 17 May 2017 19:01:32 +0000

In reply to How can it not be over after

It has been a longstanding source of shame to me that I cannot successfully rehabilitate myself from Morning Joe.

That being the case, I can report that the new formulation they have hit upon is "He can't remember what the story was yesterday".

I think this is the necessary next step--curiously, (or perhaps understandably...) the Repugnants seem more comfortable with purposeful dishonesty than simple dementia.