Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
Thoughts are cheap. If they said something like "I said publicly *link* that Lloyd Austin should have resigned; That's why I think Pete should." that's a strong and defensible position and one meriting respect.
But the standard position has been either they said one thing and it's now opposite now that it's their side doing it and why are you even bringing it up? Or it's "we've made a thousand idiotic and nakedly false assertions about your guys and one of them turned out to have some merit to it, how dare you have disregarded that one?!?!? *cough*Biden's age *cough*
The very idea that bowling existed pre-automation blows my mind. I don't like bowling much to begin with but that the game even existed when they would have to put the pins back up by hand and count the scores manually? *mind blown* I always assumed bowling only came about once machines existed to run the game for you- like frogger.
Sure, and likewise, the current actors have put themselves in the same barrel now and, by dint of their past inveigling, all those "her emails" characters are in that same barrel too if their tune has suddenly changed to, for example, a dyspeptic bloodless appeal to political reality and nothing else.
The worst part- I doubt there'll be significant electoral (and obviously no official, or legal) consequences for this clusterfish- except maybe for The Atlantic.
Don't let the incompetence, mendacity and bumbling fool you- there is no deeper scheme- these really are idiots. And incredible hypocrites considering that they, to an individual, all screamed holy heck about "teh emailz" a decade ago.
Nope. I don't agree with Loomis about much but I do agree with him that Dems in R+X districts should not be primaried and should be encouraged to stay in office forever.
IN D+double digits X districts, though, I would not be at all opposed to regular primarying going on.
Well, and also, without vast social media networks none of the drama around this kind of stuff would ever have a vector to escape your immediate social circle.
"This is Peter Jennings with ABC- you won't believe what Brady, age 23, of Duckhump Ohio was doing to Laura, Becca, Stacy AND Karen all at once on a local BBS. More at 11."
Just that. From the article at the end of the first paragraph where he shifted to talking about the gay angle. "Gay men didn’t start acting straighter; straight people started acting like us."
Looks like the only connection is that the author is gay and is comparing how straight dating has become more like gay dating- whether women acknowledge that or not.
Well Schumer said he's support cloture but that he wouldn't whip in favor of it. If he himself and a couple other Senators vote yes on Cloture but it doesn't hit 60 then that could, potentially, be the best position to be going into a shut down. But if Matty and a couple other folks are correct that the shut down, in of itself, plays into Trump and the Muskrats hands it could by a pyric victory.
I got MattY's analysis too and it did give me pause. Seeing one of my favorite socialists and one of my favorite fanatic Republicans both saying he's wrong suggests his analysis has some merit to it so I do feel marginally better.
The continuing resolutions of the past were, by and large, simply a continuation of the status quos. Inviting the GOP to vote for them was an invitation to the GOP to lose nothing. This CR is full of items the GOP loves and the Dems hate. Voting for it is naked surrender to extortion. If Schumer had the spine that God(ess?) gave a jellyfish he'd have whipped a no vote and told the GOP to do what they would in the shutdown, own the results and come back to him when they were ready to offer a typical CR. This is pretty naked surrender to extortion on Schumers part and I haven't read anything from him that suggests he's avoiding anything Trump and the Muskrats wouldn't do anyhow. Looks like near total surrender to me and I have tried earnestly to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt in the past. What's he going to surrender on next?
Was more tongue in cheek than anything. I have a vague feeling like the West Coast liberal zone is somewhat more nimble than the East Coast liberal zone in adapting so it doesn't surprise me that San Fran is moving faster.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
"
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
"
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
Also Trump and the Muskrats would be, presumably, walking and talking a lot softer if they knew that excessive clowning would get them snap elections.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
"
Oh no heheh.
"
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
"
Thoughts are cheap. If they said something like "I said publicly *link* that Lloyd Austin should have resigned; That's why I think Pete should." that's a strong and defensible position and one meriting respect.
But the standard position has been either they said one thing and it's now opposite now that it's their side doing it and why are you even bringing it up? Or it's "we've made a thousand idiotic and nakedly false assertions about your guys and one of them turned out to have some merit to it, how dare you have disregarded that one?!?!? *cough*Biden's age *cough*
On “Bowling — Balling Up the Score”
The very idea that bowling existed pre-automation blows my mind. I don't like bowling much to begin with but that the game even existed when they would have to put the pins back up by hand and count the scores manually? *mind blown* I always assumed bowling only came about once machines existed to run the game for you- like frogger.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
Sure, and likewise, the current actors have put themselves in the same barrel now and, by dint of their past inveigling, all those "her emails" characters are in that same barrel too if their tune has suddenly changed to, for example, a dyspeptic bloodless appeal to political reality and nothing else.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
The worst part- I doubt there'll be significant electoral (and obviously no official, or legal) consequences for this clusterfish- except maybe for The Atlantic.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
Don't let the incompetence, mendacity and bumbling fool you- there is no deeper scheme- these really are idiots. And incredible hypocrites considering that they, to an individual, all screamed holy heck about "teh emailz" a decade ago.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
Nope. I don't agree with Loomis about much but I do agree with him that Dems in R+X districts should not be primaried and should be encouraged to stay in office forever.
IN D+double digits X districts, though, I would not be at all opposed to regular primarying going on.
"
Well, and also, without vast social media networks none of the drama around this kind of stuff would ever have a vector to escape your immediate social circle.
"This is Peter Jennings with ABC- you won't believe what Brady, age 23, of Duckhump Ohio was doing to Laura, Becca, Stacy AND Karen all at once on a local BBS. More at 11."
"
Hahah! I had no such delusions but this author is probably only in his fishing 20's or early 30's.
"
Yeah good point, basically a very mild version of the delusions John Warnock Hinckley Jr. entertained in the 80's.
"
Just that. From the article at the end of the first paragraph where he shifted to talking about the gay angle. "Gay men didn’t start acting straighter; straight people started acting like us."
"
Err, no, this is Chait- he has no confusion at all about why the right does the various things it does.
"
As usual he's right.
"
Looks like the only connection is that the author is gay and is comparing how straight dating has become more like gay dating- whether women acknowledge that or not.
"
Agreed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Well Schumer said he's support cloture but that he wouldn't whip in favor of it. If he himself and a couple other Senators vote yes on Cloture but it doesn't hit 60 then that could, potentially, be the best position to be going into a shut down. But if Matty and a couple other folks are correct that the shut down, in of itself, plays into Trump and the Muskrats hands it could by a pyric victory.
"
I got MattY's analysis too and it did give me pause. Seeing one of my favorite socialists and one of my favorite fanatic Republicans both saying he's wrong suggests his analysis has some merit to it so I do feel marginally better.
"
The continuing resolutions of the past were, by and large, simply a continuation of the status quos. Inviting the GOP to vote for them was an invitation to the GOP to lose nothing. This CR is full of items the GOP loves and the Dems hate. Voting for it is naked surrender to extortion. If Schumer had the spine that God(ess?) gave a jellyfish he'd have whipped a no vote and told the GOP to do what they would in the shutdown, own the results and come back to him when they were ready to offer a typical CR. This is pretty naked surrender to extortion on Schumers part and I haven't read anything from him that suggests he's avoiding anything Trump and the Muskrats wouldn't do anyhow. Looks like near total surrender to me and I have tried earnestly to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt in the past. What's he going to surrender on next?
On “Of Amtrak, AI, and Arguing About Trains on the Interwebs”
Was more tongue in cheek than anything. I have a vague feeling like the West Coast liberal zone is somewhat more nimble than the East Coast liberal zone in adapting so it doesn't surprise me that San Fran is moving faster.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.