atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6784: The Democrats and their intrigues.

Predictably, the long knives are out for the least-insane candidate in the current lineup.
...[T]he fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real deal and 2) they are scared of her.
I'll say it again that my first impressions of Tulsi Gabbard were essentially me telling the Democrats, nominate her if you want to live.

Here's the problem, though. What she says about pulling the US out of the "world cop" role is against all the entrenched interests: the military-industrial complex, the government-media complex, big business...the usual suspects. People who have invested a great deal in the American hegemony.

And the Democrats--however much they may scream about ending war--don't actually want the war to end, any more than those entrenched interests do. Democrats have lot of constituents who are in the business of providing materiel to the military. Understand that when we drop a smart bomb on someone, that expended ordinance has to be replaced, and at half a million a pop it's not too hard to figure out whose nest gets feathered fastest.

None of this would be a problem if Tulsi Gabbard were otherwise an obvious lunatic on the same level as Williamson. But she's not; she comes off as intelligent, concise, cogent, and--above all--Presidential, in a way the other candidates do not. (Yes, even Smilin' Joe Biden.)

When I say, nominate her if you want to live, I mean it:
And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. It's also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here and we'll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the average Democrat voter is.

If she doesn't begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign policy.

No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It's the area where Trump is the weakest. He's not weak on women's rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.
Tulsi Gabbard is their ticket to defeating Trump. I would not like it if she did, so I am not disappointed to see them doing exactly as I expected and trying to kill her chances at the nomination; and further I am amused that they seem incapable of understanding what they are doing to themselves by running so far to the left.

The basic strategy for becoming President is a two-parter. First, you run hard to your side of the aisle to win the nomination; then you run to the center to win the general election. At least, that's how Democrats do it; because when a right-winger runs as a right winger in the general election he wins, every time. (Remember that leftists must lie about who they are to get popular support.) Trump didn't do this; his message was consistent throughout the 2016 election season. Reagan was much the same way.

So, to some extent, the hard-left pandering we're seeing from the Democrat lineup is just the candidates playing to the base. Hard-left voters are the one who decide on the nominee--mostly--and these are the ones they need to play to in order to get the nomination. But I interjected "mostly" into that sentence because the Democrat nomination process features superdelegates. In 2016 Bernie Sanders had the popular vote but the Democrat party's own version of the Electoral College put Hillary in the spotlight.

So, it's going to be interesting to see who the actual nominee is when the superdelegates have their say. I don't think it'll be Tulsi Gabbard, any more than I think it'll be Joe Biden.

* * *

A majority of Democrats support impeaching Donald Trump even though he has not committed any impeachable offenses.

Here is the problem there: a bare handful of top Democrats know what this issue does for their prospects next year. Although they will not admit it in public, they know Trump is a very popular President, and taking down a very popular President is extremely difficult, especially when he hasn't done anything wrong.

FFS it took two years of concentrated effort for them to get rid of Nixon, and at that, his crime was trying to cover up something stupid done by his subordinates. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, not the least because his opponent was a meathead, and had he not covered up the Watergate break-in but instead publicly deplored it and let his people dangle--things might have been different, and might not.

They don't have that with Trump. At least with Watergate there was a crime--the break-in--but the whole "Russia collusion" thing is made-up horseshit. No laws were broken and Trump did nothing to obstruct the investigation. An impeachment attempt over this would be a purely partisan witch hunt, and I'm confident the general public understands that (hence Trump's popularity in spite of the constant Democrat-media drumbeat against him).

The people gunning the hardest for impeachment don't seem to understand that not liking the President is not grounds for impeachment. Whatever your reason--you think he's stupid, you think he's a racist--the bar for impeachment is deliberately set very high. We've had worse Presidents than Trump (his predecessor comes to mind) but you cannot impeach a President for being a feckless tool. He must commit a crime in office.

Believe me, there are things I would have liked to see Obama impeached for, things which acually were "high crimes and misdemeanors". The Benghazi debacle, for example.

I think the old guard in the Democrat party understands that political capital is finite. I'm not sure the rest do. But what you spend on impeaching the President is not available for other things, and when you're going up against a popular President you need to be sure it's worth the effort.
That's a lesson both parties should have learned from the Clinton impeachment. The GOP may have; I don't think the Democrats did.

If they impeach Trump, the Senate is unlikely to convict. But if the Senate did convict and remove Trump, where would that leave us? "Mike Pence, 46th President of the United States," that's where.

Let's say Trump wins reelection and the Democrats impeach him and manage his removal by the end of 2021 such that January 2022 sees the inauguration of President Mike Pence. He would then be President until January 20, 2025. And who do you think will run for President on the GOP ticket in 2024? Pence, of course. Only now he has three years as President to run on. (It could not be Trump running because Presidents are limited to two terms, a total of eight years. That'd leave Trump with three years--you can't do that; at the very least it would prompt a constitutional crisis. I don't think you can serve a second four-year term after having served part of one.)

One thing is certain: having removed Trump, the Democrats will not be able to remove Pence. Impeachments are rare; removals are even rarer. How much more unlikely would it then be for them to both impeach and remove Mike Pence from office soon enough for it to do them any good at all? And how does that make them look? And what do they expend trying to do all this--only, in all liklihood, to put whoever Pence selected as his VP into the White House. And if I'm Pence, in that position, I select a real hard right-winger, someone worse than myself or Trump, someone who would cause leftist head explosions across the land were he even to sit in the President's chair just to try it on for size. Because that's insurance: they don't dare impeach me lest they get their worst nightmare for a President.

It seems to me that the people who are screaming "Impeach Trump!" the loudest are the ones who are missing the forest for the trees--thinking tactically instead of strategically. Unable to get past "Orange man bad!" they don't realize that there is life after Trump, and that if they get it via impeachment they are likely not to enjoy the results.

I think Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders understand that. I'm not sure the rest do. But I'm pretty confident that a vote to impeach Trump will hand him the White House in 2020.

So? GO GO GO! Impeach Trump! Yeah!

* * *

I honestly do not want this but I understand the writer's point implicitly.
I actually want this to happen. Bring on the theocracy! I want to see liberals silenced by force for a change. I want to see the things they hold dear smashed and mocked and degraded before their eyes. I want to see feminist bakers forced to produce cakes with "A woman's place is in the home" written in icing. I want to see progressives keeping silent out of fear. I want to see them brutalized by thugs who know they won't be punished. I want to see their gender studies classes disrupted by screaming goon squads. I want to see their politicians obscenely mocked, slandered, and ran out of restaurants. And I want them to realize the laws won’t save them.

Because they were okay with lawlessness when it was directed at someone else. What are they going to do when it comes back at them, when they've destroyed the only means that could save them?
Though, to be honest, we could use some of this: "I want to see progressives keeping silent out of fear."

"I want to see progressives keeping silent out of fear." "A New York City art gallery owner says he was viciously beaten in Manhattan by a large group of teens for wearing a 'Make America Great Again' hat."

"I want to see progressives keeping silent out of fear."
A woman has pleaded guilty to throwing a sports drink at a Florida congressman who frequently appears on television supporting President Donald Trump.

Federal court records show that 35-year-old Amanda Kondrat’yev pleaded guilty to assault Thursday in Pensacola.
The left uses violence to stifle anyone who speaks against them. That needs to be stopped. The left insists that its violence is speech; that being the case, I want them to keep silent for fear of going to jail.

They can get up and protest peacefully all they want. They have a constitutional right to do so. But what they do not have a right to do is to throw things, beat people, set things on fire, intimidate, or shout down other speech. And they need to live in fear of the consequences of doing anything other than peacefully protesting.

* * *

The race card is getting rather dog-eared.

* * *

Just on the face of this I'd say there has to be a catch, and a serious one. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd wager the truth will come out relatively soon.

But hey--if it's actually what it appears to be, that's fantastic.

* * *

Speaking of fantastic. Nail salon customer tried to leave without paying for service, and the resulting tussle with salon employees sparked the usual "community outrage".

A race pimp said, "If you can't respect us when we allow you to be here and make money off us, take your shop back to where you come from."

So when I parse that according to the known rules of English, I have to ask: how is it "making money" if someone leaves without paying for the service she received? "If you can't respect us," he says. So, you're demanding that "respect" come to you in the form of letting people steal services? To run away, unimpeded, without paying?

This kind of sloppy thinking is why there are so few employment opportunities in certain communities. A shopowner insisting that you pay for goods and services is not "disrespecting" you.

This same anal extrusion likely decries the "racism" that exists because no one wants to open a business in his neighborhood. Because the simple act of keeping someone from stealing from you is met with a bunch of protestors outside your shop. Yeah.

Earth to asshat: you are part of the problem. You keep using that word "respect" but I don't think it means what you think it means; and further it's likely that you need to spend more than a couple of minutes paying attention to a freshman Macroeconomics class.

* * *

Okay, we see the pattern, but what does it get her? Chicago's new lesbian-of-color mayor makes no bones about her loathing for the police that serve under her. The article makes plain that she is doing all this in order to lay the blame for rampant crime at the feet of the police.

But what does that get her, other than the convenient scapegoat? By this, I mean that this situation cannot go on because the endgame for this is a completely lawless city. That probably leads to Pritzker declaring martial law and seending in the National Guard.

Is this something to do with the election in 2020? I don't know how paranoid to be, but with the left it's always a good idea to keep their goals in mind, which is always seizing total control.

Because otherwise, this doesn't make any sense to me. As the major of a major city you cannot let your personal disdain for the organs of government to get in the way of keeping it functioning. But leftists don't care about the safety of the hoi polloi, either; proles are fodder for the revolution and if you need to use up a few (or a few million) that's just the price of doing business.

On the gripping hand of this, though, I am reminded of the casual disdain Hillary Clinton had for her Secret Service detail when she was First Lady. She trusted their professionalism to overcome the personal distaste for her that must have developed in them after a few months' worth of tolerating her utterly ingracious behavior towards them. Chicago's mayor is not; she's got a non-Chicago PD man heading her security detail. Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.

In any case, unless this woman is a political strategist on par with Julius Caesar, I don't think things will work out the way she thinks they will.

* * *

How in the hell does this kind of thing happen?
The 235-page report outlines how federal authorities, the US Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics, and Michigan State University failed to stop Nassar, despite receiving a slew of warnings about his abuse that spanned years under the guise of performing what he said was a legitimate medical procedure. As a result, "hundreds of women and girls were sexually abused by Larry Nassar," the report stated.
I am simply aghast at this. You'd think that someone would step up and say something.

Ah, but you see, no one is above the law, except those who happen to share the perversions of the people in power.

* * *

PizzaGate was dismissed without proof. Oh, look, there's nothing there! See? Someone said there's nothing there, so it's nothing!

People whose views I take seriously (I count neither Arse Technica nor the FBI among them) say that there is a lot more to PizzaGate than we are being told. Ditto for QAnon.

* * *

I like how full of implication this bit is. Ooooohh, board games! They're mostly played by white males! And some of those white males play Nazis or Confederates! Ooooooo!!! MUH RACISS!!!

*rolleyes*

One comment made me laugh out loud: "It will be interesting to see what they do to the model railroaders." Ditto for other hobbies that require some level of manual dexterity and technical skill. For example, I've met one black model rocketer in my time.

It's not because minorities cannot master the skills for these hobbies, though. It's because their interests lie in other directions. There's nothing (or not much, at least in some cases) wrong with that, but failing to acknowledge that people are all different is the height of racist thinking.

It's perfectly okay for there to be hobbies which appeal primarily to white people, just the same way that's the case for blacks, hispanics, asians, or lower crotobaltislavonians. SJWs treat all this stuff as if white people are deliberately excluding other demographics from these hobbies, but that's simply not the case. A lot of hobbies are such niches that their practitioners welcome any and all new participants with open arms. Every hobby I've tried in my life has been the same: people who are already into it say, "Hey, you're new at this? That's fantastic! What do you like most about it? Oh, that's fun! Yeah! Have some information! Have more! Read this and look at that! See this? This is how I did that! Oh, hey--you're going to need one of these; you can have that one since I've got a dozen more!"

Of course, the SJW says, I'm white, and that's part of white privilege. *rolleyes*

* * *

SNERK

Gauchos do not take kindly to vegan protests. Heh.

* * *

Venezuela, like Zimbabwe, and--all too soon--South Africa. Yep. Yep.

* * *

"The Cost of Free Health Care".
It's true that all Canadian citizens and legal residents (though not illegal immigrants [yet]) get "free" health care, but only in the sense that you don't get a bill after seeing a doctor or visiting a hospital. Medical care is subsidized by taxes, but the price comes in another form as well--rationing. A 2018 report from the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, found that wait times between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist average 19.8 weeks. That's the average. There are variations among specialties. Those waiting to see an orthopedist wait an average of 39 weeks, while those seeking an oncologist wait about 3.8 weeks.

Canada has the same modern medical technology that the U.S. offers, but Canadians must wait more than a month for a CT scan, more than ten weeks for an MRI, and almost a month for an ultrasound.
I observe, here in the Peoples' Demokratik Republik of Illinoistan, the same level of "care" found in Canada. Thanks to the far-reaching tentacles of the local medical monopoly, it's impossible to see a specialist in certain disciplines without waiting a month or more.

Mrs. Fungus had an appointment to see a doctor at the end of July, only then she got a letter postponing it, and the quickest any of the doctors in that clinic could see her was October 22.

Which led me to ask, "WTF is this, Canada?"

And she has private insurance, what Obamacare probably regards as a "gold medal" tier insurance package. She's not on Medicare or Medicaid or a "pot metal" tier insurance plan. You can understand why a public subsidized ("socialism lite") plan would get bottom-tier service; they don't pay much to providers compared to private insurance. At least, that's the theory.

So even for a populace of about sixty million people, socialized medicine doesn't work. I mean, sure, you never have to pay a doctor bill--but if there is ever something you need from that medical system, it's a crapshoot whether you'll get it in time if it is not immediately life-threatening.

Okay, present at the ER with a stab wound to the chest or abdomen and you'll get treated immediately. Present at the ER with nonspecific bowel pain, nausea, and a fever, and you might be seen that night and might not. Hopefully someone will have time to look at you before your appendix bursts....

* * *

More analysis on Boeing possibly opposing on-orbit refueling.
What's interesting; if this story is true, Boeing opposed fuel depots because they threaten SLS. But SpaceX, now working on "Super Heavy" rockets with roughly the same capability as SLS, are *actively* supporting fuel deports. Why the difference? Because SLS was never meant to really do anything. Launch once a year, one extremely expensive mission maybe to the moon, call it good. Pretend to be moving outwards again, but the minimum possible steps taken as slowly as possible
...because "minimum possible steps taken as slowly as possible" makes for very long and lucrative "cost plus" contracts for Boeing.

Boeing's smug assertions, aimed at SpaceX, that the first manned vehicle to land on Mars will be a Boeing product is missing the essential fact that Boeing is not working towards that goal while SpaceX is. And SpaceX is using their own money to do it, to their own schedule. The post is correct; SLS isn't anything. It's not for anything. It's certainly not meant to enable cheap access to space. Because then "there's no exclusive rights for anyone!"

* * *

The Red Decade may be worth reading.

* * *

Well, it's Friday. Tomorrow is Saturday, and I won't have to work to schedule. Maybe cut the grass in the early afternoon if I am feeling it. We're seeing Cats tomorrow night, though, so I can't relax too much.

...right in the middle of fucking Lollapalooza. *whimper*

The festival with the dumbass name is within city walking distance of the theater, worse luck. I expect finding parking to be a nightmare, as I also expect traffic to be one.

Hence the whimper. Wish me luck.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments