Thoughts?
 

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)

First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump
and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world.

Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and
the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for
Dream Act “dreamers.� Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to
Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller
became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s
inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black
churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that
Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was
concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller
encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide�-themed novel,
featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and
terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration
restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty
myth� and mocked the “national religion� of “diversity.� He recommended
and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources.

All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most
presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown
the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the
Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of
refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the
president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without
indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious,
often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps.
Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him.
Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney
and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread.

But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of
utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the
impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was
fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s
telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit� in his determination to oppose
corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,� the aid
was released.

This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why,
in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from
Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son
Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian
influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump
employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a
worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of
U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the
whistleblower report a coincidence as well?

But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and
coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the
country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s
conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer
arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the
measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his
party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the
demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a
certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social
values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller
and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by
bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth,
indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and
ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.


Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and
onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush. Gerson
is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the
ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and
a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just
to point out there are evangelicals who can think. ** (No responses to
me needed...I won't read them.)

Thoughts?
 

On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)

First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump
and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world.

Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and
the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for
Dream Act “dreamers.� Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to
Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller
became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s
inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black
churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that
Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was
concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller
encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide�-themed novel,
featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and
terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration
restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty
myth� and mocked the “national religion� of “diversity.� He recommended
and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources.

All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most
presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown
the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the
Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of
refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the
president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without
indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious,
often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps.
Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him.
Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney
and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread.

But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of
utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the
impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was
fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s
telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit� in his determination to oppose
corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,� the aid
was released.

This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why,
in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from
Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son
Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian
influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump
employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a
worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of
U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the
whistleblower report a coincidence as well?

But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and
coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the
country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s
conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer
arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the
measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his
party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the
demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a
certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social
values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller
and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by
bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth,
indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and
ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.


Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and
onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.Â* Gerson
is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the
ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and
a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just
to point out there are evangelicals who can think. **Â* (No responses to
me needed...I won't read them.)


I hate seeing wasted electrons. The environment, you know.

Thoughts?
 

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:19:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)

First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump
and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world.

Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and
the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for
Dream Act “dreamers.” Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to
Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller
became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s
inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black
churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that
Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was
concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller
encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide”-themed novel,
featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and
terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration
restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty
myth” and mocked the “national religion” of “diversity.” He recommended
and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources.

All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most
presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown
the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the
Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of
refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the
president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without
indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious,
often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps.
Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him.
Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney
and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread.

But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of
utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the
impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was
fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s
telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose
corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid
was released.

This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why,
in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from
Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son
Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian
influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump
employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a
worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of
U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the
whistleblower report a coincidence as well?

But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and
coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the
country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s
conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer
arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the
measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his
party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the
demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a
certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social
values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller
and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by
bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth,
indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and
ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.


Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and
onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.* Gerson
is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the
ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and
a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just
to point out there are evangelicals who can think. *** (No responses to
me needed...I won't read them.)


I hate seeing wasted electrons. The environment, you know.

===

'Airree still thinks that quoting an 8 day old editorial written by
someone else is journalism.

Thoughts?
 

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:59:27 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:


(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)


My thought is this is simply political theater timed to meddle in the
2020 election.
We used to shoot a president ever 20 years or so, now we just try to
assassinate them in a political witch hunt. (Nixon in the 70s, Clinton
in the 90s and now Trump in the tens).
These were all cases of suddenly deciding things presidents used to do
with impunity was now a crime.

Thoughts?
 

On 11/22/2019 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:59:27 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:


(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)


My thought is this is simply political theater timed to meddle in the
2020 election.
We used to shoot a president ever 20 years or so, now we just try to
assassinate them in a political witch hunt. (Nixon in the 70s, Clinton
in the 90s and now Trump in the tens).
These were all cases of suddenly deciding things presidents used to do
with impunity was now a crime.

what a disappointment. The implication was that you had an original
thought to share. Instead you plagiarized and even treated us to a
demonstration of your lack of writing prowess

--
R.I.P. Fat Harry

Thoughts?
 

On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)

First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump
and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world.

Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and
the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for
Dream Act “dreamers.� Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to
Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller
became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s
inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black
churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that
Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was
concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller
encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide�-themed novel,
featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and
terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration
restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty
myth� and mocked the “national religion� of “diversity.� He recommended
and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources.

All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most
presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown
the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the
Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of
refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the
president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without
indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious,
often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps.
Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him.
Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney
and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread.

But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of
utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the
impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was
fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s
telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit� in his determination to oppose
corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,� the aid
was released.

This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why,
in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from
Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son
Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian
influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump
employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a
worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of
U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the
whistleblower report a coincidence as well?

But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and
coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the
country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s
conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer
arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the
measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his
party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the
demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a
certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social
values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller
and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by
bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth,
indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and
ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.


Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and
onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.Â* Gerson
is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the
ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and
a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just
to point out there are evangelicals who can think. **Â* (No responses to
me needed...I won't read them.)

There you go Fat Harry. Drop a bag of steaming horse**** on our
doorstep, ring the bell, and run away. So childish and cowardly of you
Fat Harry.

--
R.I.P. Fat Harry

Thoughts?
 

Keyser Soze

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)
———-


In other words, “Swiped “

Thoughts?
 

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Keyser Soze

(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)
———-


In other words, “Swiped “

===

It would be tempting to call it plagiarism (again) but at least he
gave credit to the source in a roundabout way designed to get his digs
in with a cheap shot.

Thoughts?
 

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
- show quoted text -
===

It would be tempting to call it plagiarism (again) but at least he
gave credit to the source in a roundabout way designed to get his digs
in with a cheap shot.

,,,,,


Iverbtime it’s proven his cheap shots always backfire on him. But he can’t figure that out...Lol

Thoughts?
 

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:37:22 -0500, Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

On 11/22/2019 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:59:27 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:


(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill
the void, er, chasm, here.)


My thought is this is simply political theater timed to meddle in the
2020 election.
We used to shoot a president ever 20 years or so, now we just try to
assassinate them in a political witch hunt. (Nixon in the 70s, Clinton
in the 90s and now Trump in the tens).
These were all cases of suddenly deciding things presidents used to do
with impunity was now a crime.

what a disappointment. The implication was that you had an original
thought to share. Instead you plagiarized and even treated us to a
demonstration of your lack of writing prowess

I snipped Harry's cut and paste. the rest was all mine.