Well, I can't speak for either of those people but, it was an interesting read. Thanks for posting the link.
Rams
Ditto.
I'm probably safe in saying that "VDH" is not, and never has been, on the reading lists of any of the leftists on this forum.
Along with subjects such as economics, defense and foreign policy which they are notoriously inept at, leftists generally eschew anything to do with actual history.
As someone that has read and studied a lot of military and political history for many years, I think I'm also safe in saying that VDH is almost required reading for any serious student.
Thanks for the link. I found the article to be accurate and insightful.
Never Trumpers had always assured their former conservative colleagues that Trump would either fail or prove liberal. But he has done neither. And as far as his demonstrable crudity and uncouthness, the hearings showed that the Democrats were far crueler and crass in deed than Trump was in word. So perhaps half of the small minority of Republican Never Trumpers, in horror at the Antifa tactics of the Democrats, retreated to the old adage of “hang together or hang separately.” Those who doubled down by joining leftists in opposing the Kavanaugh nomination revealed that they have crossed their Rubicon and now are either orphaned or unabashedly part of the new progressive Democratic party — at least until their useful obsequiousness no longer serves current progressive agendas.
When I was 12 years old, I lived just outside the Beltway. I wonder just how much money I could make if I claimed I saw Lady Bird throw trash on the White House lawn.
Haha! I live 1 hour from Johnson City, which is where Lyndon Johnson's home / ranch, etc... is located. It's both a National Park, and a State Park... not totally sure how that works out... but I plan to visit it at some point before I move. They apparently have a small car collection, the Air Force One that he used during his presidency, and a few other cool things to look at. Maybe his presidential library is there too.
Honestly, I don't really know very much about the guy... out of all the more modern presidents, I know the least about him than most of the others from Eisenhower to present. I've got a book called "Dark Side of Camelot" that's about him that I got from my grandfather, haven't read it yet. I've only heard rumors though that he was sympathetic to Communism... or that there was at least a suggestion this was true.
LBJ was the most miserable S.O.B. to darken the door of the White House in my lifetime. He is directly responsible for making the Viet Nam war into the huge mess that it was. He is the reason that welfare is a social and economic disaster. People credit him with civil rights legislation, but the truth is far, far more sinister. He is the poster child for election fraud and some say he is responsible for Kennedy’s assassination.
But, Lady Bird’s crusade against litter did make a positive difference, which was the basis for my comment about her throwing trash on the lawn.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-03-2018).]
LBJ was the most miserable S.O.B. to darken the door of the White House in my lifetime. He is directly responsible for making the Viet Nam war into the huge mess that it was. He is the reason that welfare is a social and economic disaster. People credit him with civil rights legislation, but the truth is far, far more sinister. He is the poster child for election fraud and some say he is responsible for Kennedy’s assassination.
But, Lady Bird’s crusade against litter did make a positive difference, which was the basis for my comment about her throwing trash on the lawn.
I know my grandfather absolutely despised him. My grandfather was in Vientam, but as a civilian (worked for the CIA at the time). He used to rant about the guy, and pretty much said the same thing you did (that Vietnam was the mess it was because of him). He used to say that by the time Nixon got into office, the war had been botched so badly that we had no other option than to evacuate.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I often wonder if there was more to Kennedy's assassination. Looking at the history of the Democrat party, it seems like crazy has always been there. JFK seems far more like a modern-day Republican than he ever did any kind of Democrat. I used to think that Socialism was a new thing in the Democrat party... but holy crap, it had its hay-day with FDR... and never really went away with the exception of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
I truly can never understand how someone can support socialism. Part of me thinks that maybe those who do support it, know deep down it doesn't work... but maybe they vote that way in hopes that it'll benefit them at least in the short term... and then after that they don't care. Socialism has a long-history of destroying countries economically, and not a single country was ever made great as a result of it. Every country that is socialist today that's not a total **** -hole, was made successful in the first place as a result of capitalism / free trade. It's only after they implemented some form of socialism that they're at best... stagnant.
I know my grandfather absolutely despised him. My grandfather was in Vientam, but as a civilian (worked for the CIA at the time). He used to rant about the guy, and pretty much said the same thing you did (that Vietnam was the mess it was because of him). He used to say that by the time Nixon got into office, the war had been botched so badly that we had no other option than to evacuate.
Nixon knew how to win the war and could have done so, if he were allowed. He met some of the same kind of resistance that Trump faces now, and the American people just wanted out, period.
Nixon, in the end, lost to his own ego and paranoia. The "Watergate" fiasco was a stupid mistake.
Nixon knew how to win the war and could have done so, if he were allowed. He met some of the same kind of resistance that Trump faces now, and the American people just wanted out, period.
Nixon, in the end, lost to his own ego and paranoia. The "Watergate" fiasco was a stupid mistake.
Yep, I was reading about him the other day. It seems he was similar to Trump in some ways, and was good enough with foreign policy that even Clinton asked for his help on stuff.
I hope that rinse and threedog take the time to read this analysis.
I may have something to say about it within the next few days. It's kind of a long article. I don't want to say anything until I have found more time to peruse it.
I would have liked to have seen the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings go like this:
Opening statement from Senator "Chuck" Grassley (R), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
quote
Judge Kavanaugh is a man in his early 50s, with a long and distinguished track record that led to his current position as a federal judge, appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Considering these circumstances--which are likely going to be the case for any future Supreme Court nominees after Judge Kavanaugh--I would like the unanimous consent of all the committee members about the Judge's earlier years, as he progressed through high school, college, law school, and his first years after receiving his law degree, while he was still in his 20s; to wit:
We welcome any evidence from this period that is favorable to the Judge's appointment to the Supreme Court, and we are not going to consider or even hear testimony of any allegations against him of misconduct during these years. He has no felony convictions on his record and has never been charged with any felony crime.
I hope that I can have unanimous consent from all the committee members, including our friends from the Democratic Party. I want this to become a standard that will apply to this Supreme Court nominee and all future Supreme Court nominees, regardless of whether the President who nominates is a Democrat or a Republican, and regardless of whether the next chairman of this committee is a Democrat or a Republican.
What say you all? . . . So there is unanimous consent. Thank you, and let's begin.
Maybe not a realistic scenario, in terms of what is possible, politically.
Doesn't it sound good, though? Then there would not have been all this focus on events that if they actually happened, were the events of so many years ago, and while Judge Kavanaugh was still a very young man.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-21-2018).]
The TRUTH always eventually comes out. It just takes time and it is NEVER what the leftist media originally told you.
Ok, I love this post. It reminds me of a time long, long ago when somebody said something to the effect "we must believe the women". I wonder why he is not still saying it? LOL
NONE of your whackadoodle scenarios are realistic Ronald. You live in a psychotic fantasyland.
Clement Haynsworth
G. Harrold Carswell
Robert Bork
Clarence Thomas
Ted Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.
“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.
Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
"There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view."
(Obama, of course, later nominated and won approval of 2 of his own leftist ideologues; Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan)
In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.
Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”
The list goes on and on and on and on....
The ONLY time that leftists want comity, cooperation and "bipartisanship" is when they are OUT OF POWER.
EXAMPLE:
"(DEMOCRAT) Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both members of the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House Monday to make a deal to fill court vacancies.
The two California senators asked Pat Cipollone, tapped to be the acting White House counsel in October, to broker a deal over three 9th Circuit Court of Appeals positions.
“While we continue to oppose the slate of nominees the White House put forward on October 10, we remain hopeful that you will work with us to reach a bipartisan agreement in a timely manner,” they wrote.
I hope that rinse and threedog take the time to read this analysis.
So, the article; to wit:
"Kavanaugh Casualties" In tatters: The mainstream Left, Never Trumpers, conventional wisdom, #MeToo, the media . . . Victor Davis Hanson for National Review; October 9, 2018. https://www.nationalreview....-trumpers-metoo/amp/
Remark the date on which this article was published. October 9. So, a month before the 2018 midterm elections.
And, about those midterm elections?
It was fairly described as the largest midterm gains by Democrats over Republicans since 1974, when there was a Republican President in the "hot pot", undergoing a lobster-like immersion in slowly boiling water; to wit: the Watergate-related investigations.
The Republicans continue to have the upper hand in the Senate and the upper hand over Judicial nominations. But not an upper hand over much of anything else, at the federal level. The Democrats also made gains across the country in the state-level elections for Governors and State Legislatures. City-level and county-level elections? I know less about that, but I would be surprised if the Democrats did not also make gains across the country there, too; relative to the Republicans.
That is a 2018 Midterm elections Exit Poll, as reported by CNN. CNN, the legendary "Fake News" source; but I don't think it would be hard to find similar data from other exit polls that were conducted. (Some of these polls are still underway.)
So I don't think that this "Kavanugh Casualties" analysis in the National Review is any kind of "Big Deal."
As someone who looks forward to the possibility of having a new President take over after the current President completes his first term, I think the most interesting part of the "Kavanugh Casualties article" is where the author discussed the Democratic Party and its current trends and prospects:
quote
The [Kavanaugh] hearing confirmed that the traditional JFK/Hubert Humphrey Democrat party, as once envisioned by a Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, or Jim Webb, is long kaput. In its place is being birthed a hard-left progressive movement that absorbs the ideologies and methodologies of its base and that now incorporates all sorts, from Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist hipsters to Black Lives Matters, Antifa, and Occupy Wall Street protestors.
Some truth there, but also some exaggeration and hyperbole, on the part of the author.
I hope the Democrats end up with a strong Presidential candidate for the 2020 national elections. Maybe an outsider. Someone whose name isn't already on everyone's lips (so to speak), in the most popular or most-read political forums and discussion venues.
The Democrats would benefit from a 2020 candidate who comes across as being both willing and capable of reigning in the most strident and radical voices in the Democratic coalition.
Possibilities I would rather not see happen: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren... too "professorial", not sufficiently realistic or adept at compromise; not "quick on their feet"; not particularly likable personalities when presented on the public stage. Hillary Clinton... "give me a break." Joe Biden... not the worst idea that's come along, but I think there could be better candidates for the Democrats.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2018).]
Democrats in 1894 knew it would be bad, but they didn't know their losses would be historic.
"Leading up to the November midterms in 1894, the Democrats were in trouble. Democratic President Grover Cleveland, elected just two years prior, was facing a catastrophic recession, a railroad strike and an army of jobless workers demonstrating in Washington, D.C. for relief.
Party leaders knew the democrats could have a bad showing—but they did not realize just how bad it would be. In the end, democrats lost more than 100 seats in Congress in the largest single turnover of power in American history."
"Democrats lost 116 seats in the House and five in the Senate. This was made all the worse, by today’s standards, because there were only 44 states in the Union."
Nowadays we get leftists like Ronald crowing about 40% of that as "historic" and the left didn't even gain control of the entire Congress this election, but then history has never been a strong suit of leftists.
Gotta try to put some sort of shine on that participation trophy I guess....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-29-2018).]
As a safety man in the trucking industry, we never called a crash an accident. The term "accident" implies that it was unavoidable, but in most cases, a crash is the result of mistakes. There are crashes that are called non-preventable, but that is a "technical" term. Even then, the circumstances that precipitated the crash were usually within someone's control.
res ipsa loquitur n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.
I thought you were referring to O'Rourke's campaign.
Not Beto O'Rourke's unsuccessful campaign to unseat Ted Cruz.
That image is a representation of how the voting across the country changed between the Presidential election of 2016 and the midterm election of 2018. It's district by district.
The Red arrows are for districts that went more Republican in the midterm, compared to 2016, on a percentage basis. The Blue arrows, for districts that went more Democratic. The length of each arrow is proportional to the percentage change that was registered between 2016 and 2018.
There are Blue arrows in districts where the Republican candidate (for the House) won in 2018, but where the Democrat won more votes on a percentage basis, compared to 2016. And vice-versa.
"North Carolina's election-fraud investigation sets its sights on GOP operative"
"Weeks after the midterm elections, an election-fraud investigation into North Carolina's 9th District is focusing on an operative with a criminal record who worked for the Republican congressional candidate, Mark Harris."
You need to be aware of exactly what Ronald is dishonestly bleating about.
It's called "ballot harvesting".
The left engaged in massive ballot harvesting with wild abandon in California and Arizona in this past midterm election, but hypocritically accuse others of it where they didn't win.
Oh, by the way, I did check in with my thoughts about the "Kavanaugh Casualties" article in the National Review, which was cited in Message #160 at the top of this page (5). As was suggested to me by name. "Hey, rinse, where are you?" In so many words.
Anyone with a yearning could scroll backwards through this Topic to find my remarks about that article.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2018).]
•Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg undergoes surgery to remove two malignant nodules from her left lung, the Supreme Court says. •She was "resting comfortably" at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York after the surgery. •There was no evidence of disease elsewhere in Ginsburg's body, and no further treatment is planned, the court said. •The nodules were discovered during tests to treat rib fractures she sustained in a fall last month, the statement says.
The President will be appointing yet another associate justice and the newly expanded Republican majority in the Senate will approve and the left will completely lose what little is left of their diseased minds.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-21-2018).]
