Friday Talking Points -- Run It Up The Flagpole
It is supposed to be a metaphor, of course. It's supposed to be said when a person or company is about to try out a new idea or product: "Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes." In other words: "Let's try it out and see how it goes -- it might wind up being popular." But this week the saying sprang to mind in a much more literal fashion, since Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito already knew who was going to salute the two very real insurrectionist-themed flags that got run up the flagpoles in front of both his house and his vacation home. Flying them after the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol signified support for those who had besieged the building, plain and simple. It was a rather treasonous thing to do, when you get right down to it. Which Alito fully knew (or should have, at any rate).
His first reaction when the story broke was to blame his wife. In his telling of the tale, his wife got into a neighborhood political spat and retaliated by flying the American flag upside-down from a large flagpole in front of the Alito house. This happened days after the January 6th attack, which had also featured upside-down American flags being waved by the insurrectionists, as they violently forced their way into the building. Alito's glib explanation didn't really hold water, since neighbors reported that the flag stayed there for "two to five days." So it wasn't just the wife doing something Alito himself was unaware of -- he had to have gone in and out of his house several times, seen the flag flying, and done nothing about it.
Then things got worse, as another picture was made public, of another flag flying in front of Alito's vacation home. Yet again, it was a flag heavily featured in the insurrection attempt. Alito hasn't blamed this one on anyone else yet, but give him time -- surely he'll come up with something.
So we now have two Supreme Court justices whose wives were active supporters of the insurrectionist movement. Both of them should recuse themselves from all cases dealing with the event, but neither has (and neither will). This is because the judicial code of ethics all other federal judges have to follow does not apply to the highest judges in the land. They answer to no one. There are no hard-and-fast rules they are required to follow. And the John Roberts court simply does not care what the public thinks of them.
This is not normal. Constitutional law professor Leah Litman explains why: "[Justice Alito's] statement -- which says his wife displayed a symbol associated with a failed coup to subvert democracy because she was offended by an anti-Trump sign one of her neighbors displayed -- is so incoherent it is insulting to our collective intelligence. And a Justice who resides in a house that displays symbols glorifying a coup should not participate in cases that will determine whether people who participated in said coup will face any accountability." Seems like a pretty basic concept, one would think.
Democrats, of course, hit the roof. The whole episode has even revived the threat of the Senate passing a bill to reform the ethics of the Supreme Court legislatively, but even if such a thing were to pass it would doubtlessly be ignored by the Republican House. Still, they're doing what they can:
Two senior Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), are requesting a meeting with Chief Justice John Roberts "as soon as possible" amid reports that properties owned by Justice Samuel Alito displayed two flags with links to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
"We urge you to immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Alito will recuse himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol," Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote in a letter released Friday.
The Roberts court is corrupt. This much is already known. Their standing with the public has taken the biggest nosedive since polling on the question began. But again -- they simply don't care. Because that is where we are as a nation. We are now in the midst of (as we wrote about earlier this week) what can only be called an Era of Political Shamelessness.
This era radiates outward from Donald Trump, of course, who is the master of shamelessness. His first criminal trial -- the one involving hush money paid to a porn star, of course -- moved towards a conclusion early in the week. Both the prosecution and defense have now rested their cases, and the only things which remain are closing arguments from both sides, jury instructions, and deliberation of a verdict. All of this was put on hold for the holiday weekend, and will resume next Tuesday. We could even have a verdict by this time next week, folks.
Trump, of course, just sinks lower and lower into his own shameless mire. He is still out there insulting the judge, this time calling attention to the fact that he wasn't born in America. Outside the courthouse, the scene of pro-Trump demonstrators is precisely as seedy as you would expect. Also, the anti-Trump protesters successfully prevented one of the "parade of the bootlickers" media performances this week, by making so much noise nobody could hear what they had to say.
In Trump's other criminal cases, a hearing was held by the pro-Trump judge in Florida on the case involving classified documents. Other court documents were released as well that showed that four more documents with classified markings were found in Trump's bedroom months after the F.B.I. searched his Florida resort. Trump responded by shamelessly lying to redirect everyone's attention (and by "everyone" we mean "the mainstream media," to be clear). A standard boilerplate document laying out the conditions for using deadly force during the search (which is standard for any search warrant being executed, mind you) was somehow spun by Trump as: "BIDEN'S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!" Well, no. No they weren't. Not even close. They even planned the search specifically when Trump wasn't going to be there, in fact. Here is what the document actually said:
Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
Again, this is standard language used before executing any search warrant. In fact, very similar language was used before the Justice Department conducted a search of President Joe Biden's properties for any classified documents. But Trump shamelessly spun it (in a fundraising announcement) as some sort of assassination attempt.
Up in Georgia, the prosecutor who has charged Trump (and all his henchmen) with attempting to subvert democracy by overturning an election's result won her primary this week. So did the judge assigned to the case. Nobody's holding their breath for this case to move forward, but for now at least the voters seem to approve.
Out in Arizona, a criminal election-subversion case that didn't charge Trump also moved forward, as people like John Eastman were hauled into court to plead "not guilty." The real fun and games with this case, though, was Rudy Giuliani getting served his court papers. Rudy had been avoiding the process servers so successfully he tweeted out a rather daring taunt: "If Arizona authorities can't find me by tomorrow morning: 1. They must dismiss the indictment; 2. They must concede they can't count votes."
Four hours later, Rudy had been served and the Arizona attorney general tweeted back at Rudy: "The final defendant was served moments ago. @RudyGiuliani nobody is above the law." Rudy also wound up pleading "not guilty," and had to pony up a $10,000 bond to boot.
Maybe this is why he's now out there hawking "Rudy Coffee" at the low, low price of $30 for a two-pound bag? Shamelessness abounds, it seems.
Moving on to campaign news, President Joe Biden gave a commencement speech this week at a historically-Black college and was met with some mild and very polite protests. Which, these days, is about as good as can be expected for any college's commencement ceremony. Biden also announced the cancellation of another $7.7 billion in student loan debt, which brings his total to $167 billion in loans forgiven for a whopping 4.75 million borrowers. He still has plans to forgive student debt for an additional 30 million borrowers this year, but as we saw previously, this will immediately be tied up by lawsuits from angry Republicans.
Abortion rights are polling phenomenally well in both Arizona and Florida, two states where the issue will be on the ballot this November. In Arizona, enshrining abortion rights in the state's constitution leads by 65 percent to 21 percent. It's even leading among Republicans, by a margin of 43-38. Florida is going to be a tougher row to hoe, though, since the referendum has to hit a supermajority of 60 percent to pass. So what do the polls say? Right now in Florida abortion rights leads by 60 percent to 20 percent (including a 43-34 percent lead among Republicans). That is pretty good, this far out from the election, so it might actually have a chance of passing even with that high supermajority bar.
In the Maryland race for an open Senate seat, Republican Larry Hogan flip-flopped on abortion and has now decided he is pro-choice. The head of the Maryland Democratic Party responded with: "When somebody has a lifetime of being antiabortion and then somebody listens to their pollster and listens to their consultants and changes their position two days after a primary, I think people say, 'Come on, man.' It's just not believable."
Meanwhile, Louisiana moved to make one of the pills used in medical abortions illegal, with possession punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Democratic candidates everywhere are leaning hard on their support for abortion rights, which is completely understandable considering how popular the issue truly is.
Trump just provided a new opening on this front as well, by ignoring the question he was actually asked in an interview and instead answering a different question altogether. He was asked directly about proposals to ban contraception, but Trump somehow mixed this up with his standard answer on abortion pills and said: "Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policy than others," and he promised his campaign would be releasing "a policy on that very shortly, and I think it's something that you'll find interesting." This is his stock talking point -- six weeks ago Time magazine asked him about his abortion policy plan and Trump promised it "in two weeks," but no plan has been released (and no plan will be, at least until the Supreme Court forces him to with an upcoming ruling).
Trump immediately tried to walk his answer back, insisting: "I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS OF [sic] BIRTH CONTROL." But this isn't exactly true, as Salon helpfully pointed out.
Democrats, of course, pounced. As well they should, since contraception rights poll even more sky-high than abortion rights do.
But this wasn't Trump's biggest gaffe of the week. His campaign reposted a charming little video with fake newspaper headlines bragging about the wonderfulness America would usher in by re-electing Trump. But one of the sub-headlines clearly celebrated: "the creation of a unified Reich," which is more than a little disturbing, obviously. It's yet another example of the Trump campaign showing their love for Hitler and Nazis and other strongman-style regimes.
Again, Democrats (led by Joe Biden) pounced. But the best Biden ad of the week wasn't Biden denouncing Trump as anti-American but instead a different one, which issued dire warnings of a Trump second term, read by none other than Robert De Niro (which is well worth watching in full).
Over in the Trump camp, Nikki Haley finally buckled and admitted she would be voting for Trump, despite spending months warning how dangerous he would be as president again. Because shamelessness abounds in Republicanland.
Which brings us to the most laughably shameless -- and downright Orwellian -- move this week, brought to you by Ron DeSantis and all the other bigots in the Florida Republican Party. DeSantis declared that all bridges in Florida will now only be allowed to light up with the state-approved colors of red, white, and blue. This comes right before Pride Month, when some Florida bridges are used to lighting up rainbow-colored displays. The ironically-challenged head of the Florida Department of Transportation announced this new policy by saying (in part): "Thanks to the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida continues to be the freest state in the nation." Because the whole "state dictates what colors bridges can be lit with" effort has been named (we said "Orwellian" and we meant it): "Freedom Summer." You know -- freedom! Except when you try to do something the governor does not politically approve of, of course.
Representative Jim McGovern stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and told the truth about Donald Trump this week. So of course his words had to be stricken from the record. In the GOP's increasingly-Orwellian world, the Dear Leader simply cannot be maligned in any way by anybody, period.
What set them off was McGovern speaking some truths in some very plain language: "A candidate for president of the United States is on trial for sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law. He is also charged with conspiring to overturn the election. He is also charged with stealing classified information. And a jury has already found him liable for rape in a civil court."
McGovern also said: "Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he's not a king. We have a presumptive nominee for president facing 88 felony counts, and we're being prevented from even acknowledging it.... And yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it's OK to talk about the trial, but you have to call it a sham."
All of this is demonstrably true. So, of course, it had to be stricken from the record. Republicans these days are such snowflakes that they "can't handle the truth" as the classic movie quote puts it.
Erasing McGovern's comments from the official record is within Republicans' power. Thankfully, erasing the underlying truth of the statements is beyond their reach (although they would surely love to have that power).
For speaking the truth, for making Republicans prove his point, and for doing so in a rather dramatic fashion, Representative Jim McGovern is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.
[Congratulate Representative Jim McGovern on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
Steve Kramer, described as "a Democratic operative," is now facing state criminal charges and federal fines for commissioning a robocall that faked Joe Biden's voice to tell voters not to bother to vote for him in the New Hampshire primary earlier this year. The Washington Post updated this story with this new development:
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella announced on Thursday that [Steve] Kramer had been indicted on charges of felony voter suppression and misdemeanor impersonation of a candidate. He faces a total of 26 counts across four counties based on the residences of 13 New Hampshire residents who received the calls.
The Federal Communications Commission also announced Thursday that it would propose fining Kramer $6 million for violating the Truth in Caller ID Act. The FCC also proposed a $2 million fine for Lingo Telecom, a carrier that put the AI calls on the line.
. . .
The robocall, which went out the weekend before the New Hampshire primary, sounded like a digitally generated voice impersonating [President Joe] Biden that advised people not to vote on Tuesday, according to complaints that the New Hampshire attorney general had said it was investigating in January.
Biden's faked voice, in the call, used one of his signature phrases, calling the primary election "a bunch of malarkey," and he went on to tell recipients of the call: "It's important that you save your vote for the November election. Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again. Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday."
Republicans are notorious for these sorts of below-the-radar dirty tricks, but it's rare that a Democrat gets caught deploying one. For his anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) actions, we have to pile on to the criminal charges and federal fine by handing Steve Kramer his very own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award as well.
[Steve Kramer is not an elected politician, so it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry.]
Volume 753 (5/24/24)
This week we decided to keep things short (if not exactly sweet). Our talking points do tend to run on at times (well... most of the time, if truth be told...) so we'd like to get back to them being a lot closer to bumpersticker slogans just for once.
We have a theme we built all of these around, as we head into the Memorial Day weekend. To honor all those who fought and died for America in the past, our theme this week is: "I want to live in an America where...."
Before we begin, though, we did have to highlight one of the best little bits of wordsmithing we've come across all year. This line was written by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, to lead off an article on the Trump campaign's use of "unified Reich" this week. It is worthy of any late-night comedian's writing staff, so we will end our introduction here with Milbank's brilliant phrase:
As you've probably heard, Donald Trump has once again raised a führer.
Without interment camps
This is a big campaign promise for Trump, and it needs to be condemned much more forcefully than it has been to date.
"I want to live in an America where the military isn't rounding up millions of people based on their ethnicity and sending them to internment camps in the desert."
We treat our allies as our friends
Enough with Vladimir Putin and Russian propaganda in the halls of Congress! Stand up for NATO!
"I want to live in an America where we stand up to our enemies and support our allies -- instead of the other way around."
No personality cults
Can the Republican Party ever recover from Trump? It sure would be nice to see them try....
"I want to live in an America where we have two functioning political parties and they are both based on ideas for how to make our country better -- rather than personality cults who make excuses for rapists and insurrectionists and felons."
The peaceful transfer of power
This used to be self-evident, but not any more.
"I want to live in an America where presidents give up power gracefully and peacefully when they lose elections, instead of launching insurrections and coup attempts."
Universal rights everywhere
Perhaps the most potent argument Democrats have at the moment.
"I want to live in an America where every woman has exactly the same human rights no matter where she chooses to live."
I do not think that word means what you think it means
This one could equally be written as: "...where we don't use Orwellian terms."
"I want to live in an America where the word 'freedom' means any city is free to light up a bridge with whatever colors they damn well choose -- without being told they can't do so by a bigoted state government."
Without corrupt courts
And finally, an important one, to close on.
"I want to live in an America where the highest court in the land isn't blatantly corrupt and actually has an enforceable ethical code they must follow, just like every other judge in the country has to."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
TP#2 We treat our allies as our friends.
If only!
In other words, sometimes it is true that with friends like America, the allies don't need any enemies.
TP#5,
I know what's trying to be said here but there has to be a better way to say it. I've got nothing better right now but, I'm workin' on it. :-)
On my trips to DC a long time ago, the place that stands out the most for me, even before the WH, is the Supreme Court. It's sad to think how low the Court has sunk in terms of how the public views its integrity.
I believe it can become the most respected branch of government again but, it's going to take a lot of time and effort.
The most disturbing thing about Alito and Thomas being "in the Don's corner" is that the Supreme Court declares what's legal. A few examples off the top of my head:
* Counting every ballot in FL in 2000 was not legal, thus 8 years of "Shrub"
* A Muslim ban was legal, so Trump could prohibit immigrants from entire countries based on religion
* Trump could steal from the military budget to "build the wall"
* Racial gerrymandering is perfectly legal, so long as everyone who supports it says it's a naked partisan power grab.
So when Trump is re-elected and declares that all future elections are suspended, if the Supreme Court agrees, will Americans once again roll-over?
Sadly, most Americans are ignorant of our own history. The Democratic convention of 1968 was a self-inflicted disaster, resulting in the re-election of (the evil mastermind of Vietnam) Nixon. Ironically, it was the young, idealistic protesters who swayed middle America to vote for Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in modern history.
Will the campus protests in 2024 convince progressives to NOT support Biden and "law and order" voters to support Trump?
Just watched some of the videos from Trump’s rally in the Bronx and my hubby noticed something odd. I was questioning how many of the largely white crowd were paid to be there, Devon replied that he’d guess that most are there for money and not as actual Trump supporters. He told me to look at the red MAGA caps that they were wearing. Almost all of the Trump supporter's caps are brand new. True white trash wants their caps to be well broken in. It's a source of pride for your cap to show its milage.
Trump and Fox News were bragging that 25k showed up to support him. The drone footage of the rally maybe showed 2.5k at best.
Trump has been upset that there aren't mobs of his supporters showing up to protest his trial. Maybe that is why the GOP has been rushing down to the courthouse to cheer him on.
Trump isn’t nearly as popular as he thinks he should be.
It was a rather treasonous thing to do, when you get right down to it. Which Alito fully knew (or should have, at any rate).
So under the current circumstances, would it be safe to say that the SCOTUS will not be granting the POTUS full immunity to smite down those he deems to be enemies of America? Asking for Justice Treasonous. :)
Trump, of course, just sinks lower and lower into his own shameless mire.
There is no bottom to the endless whining of the "orange turd" (props to Stormy Daniels).
He is still out there insulting the judge, this time calling attention to the fact that he wasn't born in America.
Do you think the orange turd insulting Judge Juan Merchan has any clue whatsoever that Judge Aileen Cannon -- who is slow walking Trump's willful retention of classified documents and conspiracy to obstruct justice case in Southern District of Florida -- was also born in Columbia?
Trump's brand of racism is predictable because his ignorance is the type that goes deep down into the bone.
italyrusty
5
Sadly, most Americans are ignorant of our own history.
This is sadly true.
The Democratic convention of 1968 was a self-inflicted disaster,
Self-inflicted? There was global civil unrest as well as countless protests in American in 1968 due to raging anti Vietnam war sentiment, men being eligible for the draft who weren't eligible to vote, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. in April and Robert F. Kennedy in June. The Democratic convention in August was just more of the same continuing unabated civil rights and anti-war protests.
resulting in the re-election of (the evil mastermind of Vietnam) Nixon.
Nixon wasn't re-elected in 1968. Nixon had narrowly lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960 who was (obviously) succeeded by Lyndon Johnson upon JFK's assassination in 1963. Johnson then was re-elected in 1964 in a landslide against Barry Goldwater (who only won 6 states), but then LBJ (famously) declined to run in 1968. Nixon won his first election in 1968 (not what I would describe as a landslide) but won re-election in a massive landslide in 1972 running against George McGovern who won 1 state and the District of Columbia while Nixon won 49 states.
Ironically, it was the young, idealistic protesters who swayed middle America to vote for Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in modern history.
Nixon's landslide was in 1972 and had nothing to do with the 1968 protests. Keep in mind, in 1968 there was an Independent run by George Wallace and the "Dixiecrats" that basically split the Democratic Party over racial issues, and Wallace won many of the states in the Deep South. I personally believe Robert F. Kennedy would have defeated Nixon, but we'll never know.
Will the campus protests in 2024 convince progressives to NOT support Biden and "law and order" voters to support Trump?
Comparing Chicago 2024 to Chicago 1968? I'm sure the media will be salivating all over this prospect, but I personally think it's a giant leap in false equivalency. I also think "law and order" voters supporting Trump is a laughable prospect when considering Trump's war on the rule of law in America and his decades of history in breaking it. :)
[1]
Elizabeth, countries don’t have “friends” nor “allies.” Countries have interests. That’s why, for example, America rebuilt Japan and (West) Germany after WW2 to counter the Soviet Union.
Yea, verily, America has screwed its allies — most recently Trump abandoned the Kurds who battled ISIS on our behalf. But on the whole America has (and continues) to offer a far better deal than the Russians/Chinese block. So I don’t “get” your statement.
You give the impression that you’re soaked in pro-Russian pro-Hamas propaganda. This is not the Miss Vancouver that I met down here in Weigantia.
@Caddy,
i am not interested in engaging with you, on anything, anymore
Okay, that was me trying to be funny. :)
best leave comedy to the professionals.
[10]
Countries do not have interests. They have internal politics, which consistently leads them to act in ways that are blatantly contrary to their putative interests.
[9]
Lawn order is one of the opposites of rule of law.
Rule of law is when you have actual laws, a functioning judicial system, and stuff like that. It's what MAGAts are spitting on. Lawn order is when you like to fantasize about shooting "criminals" and such-like. It's a political/ cultural identity thing, and MAGAts love it. The lawn order vote is going for Trump 100%.
Lawn order works on my behalf against them, however I define them at the moment, but the rule of law applies to me and people like me as well.
Kicks [9]:
You are absolutely right, I was confusing 1968 and 1972. Nixon won the Presidency for the first time in 1968.
BTW, though it's no excuse, I was 5 years old in 1968, so I don't have firsthand experience. And I am a product of public education in the rural South, where "American History" class ended before the Great Depression. :)
Perhaps popular media has overstated the impact the student-led protests and resulting police overreaction had on Nixon's victory.
And, no, I wasn't comparing the two Democratic conventions. I was trying, however poorly, to pose the question of possible parallels between the impact PROTESTS of 1968 and 2024. The latter have been OVER-reported IMO, especially with the additional GOP propaganda of the Congressional hearings.
Re: "Law 'n Order"
And that slogan is as meaningful to too many American voters as "freedom of religion" - which of course means, "I am free to worship Jesus, and you are free to do as I do ... but NOT to have any (or NO) other belief."
best leave comedy to the professionals.
Right. Because, God forbid we have any fun around here.
Why am I not surprised?
No need to reply.
oh, i insist.
PLEASE leave comedy to the professionals.
no, because you suck at it.
because you knew what kind of response you'd get before you wrote it.
have a happy lag ba'omer and a lovely week.
~JL
Joshua, you disappoint me. Seriously.
Usually, my first impressions about what kind of person a person is is usually pretty spot on. Not so in your case, sadly. And, don't ever doubt that I am deeply saddened by this realization.
Joshua,
This is the absolute last thing I ever thought I would ever say in a place like this, especially to you, and it literally pains me to tap it out but, for the sake of the good of this excellent blog, I think the less interaction we have, the better - regardless of the issue at hand.
gosh, that sounded personal. okay then, feel free to stop responding.
:(
Might consider leaving the drama to the thespians, too.
Really? I see my criticism of how the Biden administration is handling things - from war to presidential elections - has been hitting a nerve. Well, that criticism comes from a place of love ... and fear that Democrats are doing what Democrats do to lose in November.
You can't let this happen! Yeah, that's dramatic but, it's true!
Here's some free advice - stop the obsession with Trump - your actual drama queen - and start paying attention to what actually matters.
Elizabeth Miller
26
Really?
Yes, you seriously suck at comedy.
I see my criticism of how the Biden administration is handling things - from war to presidential elections - has been hitting a nerve.
Nope! It's actually three things:
* PLEASE leave comedy to the professionals because you suck at it. (props to JL)
* Might consider leaving the drama to the thespians, too. (props to dsws)
* Absolutely unequivocally leave the mind reading to the telepathists because you suck at that too.
Here's some free advice - stop the obsession with Trump - your actual drama queen - and start paying attention to what actually matters.
I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- I tell you, to find that people are discussing the "Republican" opponent on a political chat board! *laughs*
You know nothing at all if you're under the absolute asinine belief that the posters on this forum aren't "paying attention" to a myriad of current events, and you're even more clueless than that if you're under the mistaken impression that you can read our thoughts and/or control our comments.
In conclusion, pound sand. :)
Elizabeth, I cannot think of a single Weigantian who doesn’t pay far more attention to politics and current events than 98% of American voters at this (still months away from) the election phase. Yourself included, with extra credit for being Canadian.
Having said that IMO you appear to have included pro-appeasement, anti-Biden and anti-Semitic content in your news mix. My other beef is that you’re failing to address our respective replies/arguments regarding a given topic. You really was far better at “engagement” before you kind of lost your mind over Ukraine — heck, you still haven’t answered the question why is Ukraine in NATO a bad idea? It still trips me out that you were so pro-Joe before Ukraine and now I’m a far bigger fan than I was in 2020.
The Board Mother stuff doesn’t bother me because (1)your heart is in the right place and (2) I feel no particular obligation to conform.
Are all of you youngsters around here unaware that the term 'To suck" traces its roots, at least as far back as the sixties, to fellatio, and while it has evolved in other directions away from its origins, it is still technically homophobic!
italyrusty
17
BTW, though it's no excuse, I was 5 years old in 1968, so I don't have firsthand experience.
I wish I could say I didn't have any firsthand experience either, but when I was a baby I was handed to Lyndon Baines Johnson whereupon (I am told) I began screaming very loudly and holding out my tiny arms for my father to take me back. I have no memory of the traumatic event, but I've been assured repeatedly I was a colossal embarrassment.
And, no, I wasn't comparing the two Democratic conventions. I was trying, however poorly, to pose the question of possible parallels between the impact PROTESTS of 1968 and 2024. The latter have been OVER-reported IMO, especially with the additional GOP propaganda of the Congressional hearings.
I'm just saying I will be surprised if the media isn't falling all over themselves to make that comparison, and I also wouldn't put it past the Trump campaign/MAGA cult minions to be planning a "ratfucking" protest based on rhetoric being bandied about at right-wing rallies.
C. R. Stucki
29
Are all of you youngsters around here unaware that the term 'To suck" traces its roots, at least as far back as the sixties, to fellatio, and while it has evolved in other directions away from its origins, it is still technically homophobic!
Two things:
* Anyone who'd see the word "suck" as it's being used in this comments section and immediately think of "fellatio" likely isn't getting any.
* Any male who claims incorrectly that "fellatio" is "homophobic" likely has a partner who never gave him any.
So it appears it sucks to be you, Stucki.
I'm kidding. :)
CRS,
Have I got a book for you!
She Comes First: the thinking man's guide to pleasuring a woman ... by Ian Kerner, Ph.D.
I promise you'll be thanked for your effort. And, you can thank ME, later. :)
For the record, I regard "suck" in its more literal sense as equally applicable to fellatio and cunnilingus, regardless of the sex of the active participant. Its derogatory sense is attested from 1971, according to Etymonline, which says it referred to fellatio. I would have guessed that the person doing it would have been presumed female, in which case turning it derogatory would have been misogynistic rather than homophobic. But I'm not old enough to have witnessed the origin of the derogatory sense.
[28]
heck, you still haven’t answered the question why is Ukraine in NATO a bad idea?
Was it Ukraine in NATO per se that was allegedly a bad idea, or only pushing for it at the time in question, in the manner in question?
Re Ukraine in NATO
You can see Putin's point. How would we feel about Cuba or Mexico or Canada joining the Soviet Bloc??
I would have guessed that the person doing it would have been presumed female, in which case turning it derogatory would have been misogynistic rather than homophobic.
Indeed!
And, I should think it would be a reasonable assumption to make that turning it derogatory is rooted in the same misogynistic rationale as is the opposition to abortion and reproductive rights.
In other words, those who oppose abortion and reproductive rights are many of the same people who have misogynistic views about sex and sexuality and what a healthy sex life looks like. This is the point that I'd like to see emphasized in the abortion debate with as much fervor as other arguments used to support abortion and reproductive rights.
[35]
If Putin's feelings are hurt by the fact that there are countries in the world that he doesn't rule, he should get to just have to deal with it, exactly like literally every other person on the planet. Unless he's suicidal, in which case he should be prevented by any means necessary from taking the rest of us along with him.
There are rules. Now, rules don't have to be obeyed. If you're playing canasta and you don't like the rule that says a three keeps you from picking up the pile, you can pick up the pile anyway. It just means that you're not playing canasta any more. Likewise with the rules for having there continue to be some people in the world who aren't dead yet despite the existence of weapons that can kill every person in the world in a matter of minutes: you can break those rules too. It just means that you aren't alive any more, and neither is anyone else. If Putin pushes any further into the gray areas of the rules, he should be relieved of his responsibilities (such as breathing and maintaining a non-zero blood pressure) before he takes the rest of us along with him.
Cuba literally joined the Soviet bloc. The US didn't get to conquer Cuba, because it’s against the rules. We got to throw a tantrum and eventually pull our missiles out of Turkey, but -- and you can tell this part because there are still people who aren't dead -- we didn't get to conquer the country.