u.s. politics: is this purity test covered under my obamacare?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Frum isn't a bad guy. He means well, but he gets a lot wrong. 

[BloodRider]

8 hours ago, Triskan said:

Why do you guys say that?  I get he doesn't tow the line on Islam.  is there no middle ground though?  He is one of the most articulate destroyers of Trump.  Does that mean nothing?  

This type of thinking is how we get the idea that Tillerson is a reasonable Sec, of State.

[BloodRider]

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not defending Afghanistan or Iraq or really any American Military adventurism since WW2. Does David Frum hold some political opinions I don't care for? Sure. Right now, he is among the most important voices on the Right that is holding Trump's feet to the fire. That is worth lauding at this point. As shitty and dangerous as the Bush administration may have been, I don't believe them to be on par with our current administration. All I can suggest is that you give what he's saying about the Trump administration a listen. He is among the most critical voices on the Right at this moment in regards to Trump.

No.  It does not elevate Frum.  I would think one would want to separate his policies and opinions from his overall character.  Same goes for those we mostly agree with, I hope.  Frum having one or two correct opinions is not enough critical mass for me to rate him as not a shitbag.  YMMV, natch, and we can argue about where the line is drawn, but IMO Frum is so far from the line that he is still just a stopped clock.

[Fez]

12 hours ago, SkynJay said:

I would love to find the article released soon after the election in which the author gave just a glimpse of the attack file being built on Bernie by the conservative machine.  It wasn't pretty, not because it was anything new but because context would go right out the window and leave only an ugly story for the very middle class white voters he would have supposedly pulled better.  The right held back from attacking Bernie, possible because they never thought he had a strong chance and they were able to direct their attacks against HRC for months. 

This isn't to rehash what happened, just a reminder that we never saw what they right could have done in an all out blitz on Bernie.  Speculating on what happened instead is a bit foolish.

The one attack I know was coming was that back in the early '60s Sanders spent a summer a kibbutz in Israel. This particular kibbutz was one of the ones that was more communist than just socialist, and supposedly there was a portrait of Stalin still hanging in one of the public buildings there while Sanders was there. This was going to come up a lot as evidence of how radical he was.

 

7 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

seriously, you guys want to defend david fucking frum, then give me something more than he's anti-trumpist, because that's like the lowest goddamn bar to hurdle. show me one thing, one single position or one action he has taken that i should laud him for....

One, being anti-Trump is a bar that a lot of Republicans have failed to clear, which makes it important. Two, its not just being anti-Trump, it's being loudly public about it at all times. Frum has a microphone and he uses it.

Three, as far back as 2010, well before Trump was on the scene, Frum was getting into more and more diagreements with the Republican party and the direction it was heading. He especially opposed the Tea Party, with rather colorful words.

And in terms of specific positions, he publicly supported gay marriage in 2011, saying he was wrong about his earlier opposition; and he supported Obama taking executive action on gun control if Congress refused to act.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Frum also lost his job at AEI in 2010 for (allegedly) criticizing the GOP's stance on health care reform.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Mueller is cranking up the heat:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.08114eaaa7c9

[Fez]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Frum also lost his job at AEI in 2010 for (allegedly) criticizing the GOP's stance on health care reform.

It was not publicly confirmed why he lost his job; though the Washington Post sure thought it was because of that criticism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502336.html

The post is here, btw. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo/ Probably the part that got him fired is the ending:

Quote

 

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

The one attack I know was coming was that back in the early '60s Sanders spent a summer a kibbutz in Israel. This particular kibbutz was one of the ones that was more communist than just socialist, and supposedly there was a portrait of Stalin still hanging in one of the public buildings there while Sanders was there. This was going to come up a lot as evidence of how radical he was.

Speaking as a non-practicing Jew, I'm pretty sure they would have destroyed him for, ya know, being a non-practicing Jew. 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

jfc, give me one solid reason to concede david frum is good, as opposed to not quite as shitty. is that really so much to ask?

This is about the closest thing I can come to agreement regarding both sides of this Frum discussion.

On the one hand, I think building up Frum as some principled conservative is ridiculous.  It's the same type of alarming goal-post shifting the left now embraces with describing John Kasich as "moderate."  Really, the guy who spent six years acting like an asshole on Fox News is now "moderate?"  Similarly, the only "principles" Frum stands for is continuing to be a voice for an establishment wing of the GOP that doesn't really exist anymore.  His stances and advocacy would have far more merit in my eyes if they didn't always seem to conveniently coincide with a career move.  He's not as bad as, say David Brooks, who's much more hackish and clearly just wants to be the Republican liberals like.  His MO is more presenting himself as a conservative with a brain, retaining some shred of intellectual integrity and shame.  If you want a truly principled conservative you have to go all the way to George Will.

On the other hand, it's rather silly to impugn Frum's morals due to the Iraq War or his authorship of the axis of evil (actually his offering was axis of hatred).  He was a speechwriter doing his job, it's not like he played any type of role in the planning or execution of the war.  Would Dubya have done exactly the same thing leading up to and during the war if Frum never coined the phrase - or even if Frum never existed?  Unquestionably.  I'm not going to sit here and condemn Frum's supporting of the war as some cardinal sin because lots of people supported the war, including the New York Times and half the Democratic party.  Moreover, Frum has expressed regret for his support, repeatedly.

In conclusion, the best I can say about Frum is it is deeply depressing that I miss the days when he was the political enemy.  Or, to paraphrase the late great Frank Pentangeli - I'll do business with David Frum, I respect David Frum, but I'll never trust David Frum.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

No.  It does not elevate Frum.  I would think one would want to separate his policies and opinions from his overall character.  Same goes for those we mostly agree with, I hope.  Frum having one or two correct opinions is not enough critical mass for me to rate him as not a shitbag.  YMMV, natch, and we can argue about where the line is drawn, but IMO Frum is so far from the line that he is still just a stopped clock.

The fundamental fact about Frum ilks is that they have actively enabled in all categories of the national corruption and idiocy we are in now, and that includes economic, environmental, religious, political, gender, racial -- you name it.  That very occasionally they might get scared enough at what they've wrought to wring their hands in public does not absolve them for what they've already done.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Mueller is cranking up the heat:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.08114eaaa7c9

FOUR house Manafort's got, including the one in confederate D.C.'s Alexandria, which was raided (it split off from D.C. at secession to go with the Davis folks).  FOUR!  These are all located in the most costly and exclusive places to live, including in Manhattan, the Hamptons and up river New York.  Plus he owns other properties in Manhattan.  All of them bought for CASH!  He really made out like just like his Russian kleptyoligarch bandit buddies.

There was deep speculation in NYC that these purchases in the city at least, like so many Russia deals, are all about laundering the Russian kleptyoligarch stolen trillions.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Sen. Ron Johnston is saying that a Republican needs to have brain cancer to have empathy:

Quote

"We did get a call from Paul (Ryan) and he assured us that skinny repeal was not going to pass the House it would have to go to conference," said the Wisconsin senator on AM560 "Chicago's Morning Answer."

"Again, I'm not gonna speak for John McCain -- he has a brain tumor right now -- that vote occurred at 1:30 in the morning, some of that might have factored in," he continued.

Seemingly shocked, a radio host responded "really?" to Johnson's comments and asked if he really believed McCain's brain tumor might have factored into his judgment.

"Again, I-I-I don't know exactly what -- we really thought -- and again I don't want speak for any senator," Johnson responded. "I really thought he was going to vote yes to send that to conference at 10:30 at night. By about 1, 1:30, he voted no. So you have talk to John in terms what was on his mind."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/kfile-ron-johnson-john-mccain/index.html

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

(it split off from D.C. at secession to go with the Davis folks). 

Not quite. Alexandria, and all of Arlington (where I live, which is why I know a bit about it), was retroceded from DC to Virginia in 1846/47. There are a lot of reasons why the retrocession happened, and slavery was absolutely one of them, but it really wasn't the only one. There were a lot of concerns from Alexandria residents that sound almost identical to the concerns of DC residents today, about a lack of representation in Congress and concern that the area was doing poorly economically compared to neighboring towns because of meddling by Representatives and Senators from Virginia and Maryland.

It's still unclear if the retrocession was constitutional, but its never been tested. The Supreme Court only got involved once, in the 1870s, and only to say that the plaintiff in that case lacked standing.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

they are just sycophants for different shitty regimes. jfc, give me one solid reason to concede david frum is good, as opposed to not quite as shitty. is that really so much to ask?

Never said he was good. I said he is far more intelligent and reasonable than the two hacks he buried in Trisky's video. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not quite. Alexandria, and all of Arlington (where I live, which is why I know a bit about it), was retroceded from DC to Virginia in 1846/47. There are a lot of reasons why the retrocession happened, and slavery was absolutely one of them, but it really wasn't the only one. There were a lot of concerns from Alexandria residents that sound almost identical to the concerns of DC residents today, about a lack of representation in Congress and concern that the area was doing poorly economically compared to neighboring towns because of meddling by Representatives and Senators from Virginia and Maryland.

It's still unclear if the retrocession was constitutional, but its never been tested. The Supreme Court only got involved once, in the 1870s, and only to say that the plaintiff in that case lacked standing.

Interesting.  I wonder if someone could attempt to challenge and force Arlington and Alexandra back into DC?

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Not quite. Alexandria, and all of Arlington (where I live, which is why I know a bit about it), was retroceded from DC to Virginia in 1846/47. There are a lot of reasons why the retrocession happened, and slavery was absolutely one of them, but it really wasn't the only one. There were a lot of concerns from Alexandria residents that sound almost identical to the concerns of DC residents today, about a lack of representation in Congress and concern that the area was doing poorly economically compared to neighboring towns because of meddling by Representatives and Senators from Virginia and Maryland.

It's still unclear if the retrocession was constitutional, but its never been tested. The Supreme Court only got involved once, in the 1870s, and only to say that the plaintiff in that case lacked standing.

Ah -- thanks for the correction!  It was secessionist and CSA though -- which is why Boothe had to get across the bridge after shooting Lincoln.  It was where he hatched the plot.  It was also where the slave trade went after D.C. abolished it and the markets in D.C. as part of the 1850 debates over bringing California into the Union (the so-called Compromise of 1850).  Until then there was a slave market directly in front of the White House which everyone from every other nation in the world marveled at in a non-admiring manner, and which, then, mortified many of the denizens of D.C.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Ah -- thanks for the correction!  It was secessionist and CSA though -- which is why Boothe had to get across the bridge after shooting Lincoln.  It was where he hatched the plot.  It was also where the slave trade went after D.C. abolished it and the markets in D.C. as part of the 1850 debates over bringing California into the Union (the so-called Compromise of 1850).  Until then there was a slave market directly in front of the White House which everyone from every other nation in the world marveled at in a non-admiring manner, and which, then, mortified many of the denizens of D.C.

True. One of the slavery-related concerns was that slavery would be abolished in the District, which did happen just a few years after they left. And they did follow the rest of Virginia in secession from the Union; they were almost immediately occupied by the Union army for the duration of the war.

Also interesting, after West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1863, Alexandria became the capital of the Union rump government of Virginia (the Restored Government of Virginia). Prior to that, it had been meeting in Wheeling and governing most of the counties that became West Virginia. Because of the rump government and the Union army, and all their support staff, and a huge influx of escaped slaves settling down there, the population of Alexandria became very different than what it had been before the war.

[Zorral]

Quote

... they were almost immediately occupied by the Union army for the duration of the war.

No kidding were they immediately occupied!

There's a great big monument in the middle of Alexandria in loving memory of all the residents who died fighting for the CSA . . . .

BTW, Wheeling is where the National Road began, and over which 10s of thousands of slaves  bought in Maryland and Virginia were coerced in coffles to markets in the west and the Cotton Kingdom, many ending in that greatest of retail only emporiums  of Natchez (New Orleans was the largest slave market, but a lot of it was also wholesale for retail resale -- Natchez was the end point for retail; planters were the only buyers, not other slave traders). 

The American Slave Coast has a substantial section on the National Road slave coffles narrated through eye witnesses of them, including participant-prisoners.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

NPR had a really good podcast today about cyber bots push fake news with amazing success. It's definitely worth checking out:

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/08/09/fake-news-bots-are-here

[ThinkerX]

Perhaps there is hope for the ACA after all...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-administration-shifts-tone-on-obamacare-signals-openness-to-bipartisan-fix/ar-AApN4Za?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

 

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — The Trump administration, thwarted in several attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, notably shifted tone Wednesday, opening the door for a bipartisan plan to "fix" the law.