BACK TO THE STONE AGE: Grim scenes out of Afghanistan this week, where, three years after toppling the nation’s U.S.-backed democratic government, the Taliban-run government has announced their most radical yet set of “vice” laws yet. Under the new laws, women must veil their bodies and faces at all times while in public, may not look at men not in their families, and may not be heard “singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public.”
And there is no accountability for W or The Conservative Movement for this outcome, only their tearful hand-wringing about how terrible our exit was. Am important lesson that religion as government will always produce human suffering. Maybe the most dangerous part of MAGA.
Bill: Just wondering if you thought republicans were criticizing the DNC convention for it’s “focus on Trump rather than policy” as a hope that they would not have to get defensive about how dangerous Trump is? This certainly makes sense, especially since there was more policy in her acceptance speech than any 3 hour rant by Trump. Ever.
I find it puzzling that this recap on the DNC completely ignored the fact that the DNC allowed an Israeli parent to speak at the convention, while offering no similar opportunity for a Palestinian.
In so doing the DMC was literally communicating that Palestian lives matter less than Israeli lives.
If you hear the support at the DNC for recognizing the plight of Palestians in Gaza you'll realize that the DNC is out of step with its constituents.
Why would you not mention this at all? I know the Bulwark has a strong bias for Israel but this is getting fucking absurd for a media entity that CLAIMS to be committed to just reporting the facts, without bias.
“ n so doing the DMC was literally communicating that Palestian lives matter less than Israeli lives.”
No.
That statement is not a valid criticism.
The “DNC” (not DMC) allowed peaceful demonstrations supporting the Palestinians criticism Re GAZA, and the Israeli couple who spoke to the Convention about the humanitarian crisis referred to the terrible loss of life suffered by Palestinians as well as Israelis.
Your complaint appears to be that the DNC didn’t allow promoters of the Palestinian cause to degrade the DNC Convention.
I absolutely agree that "the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again." I hope that The Bulwark considers itself among the "other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism". On the podcast today, Tim said, "Imagine what this guy will do now that the SC has given him carte blanche essentially, now that he will have an entire staff [loyal to him and not the Constitution]". You must SPELL OUT what he will do, not just ask us to imagine it. And it must be in terms that the undecided voters will relate to, like what will happen to their regular, monthly social security check when incompetent loyalists replace, experienced, competent civil servants in HHS? Or their IRS refund? Or FDA approval of experimental drugs that could cure a loved one's illness? Or what happens to their cleaning lady's native-born children when she and her husband are hauled off and deported?
And you must tear down this "the guardrails will hold" delusion. I wrote this in The Triad comments, and I'm going to repeat it here:
The guardrails are not self-executing. As Liz Cheney said last December, “The framers explicitly warned us that the checks and balances are only as effective as the people responsible for carrying them out. Those who try to dismiss the risk of a second Trump term do our country a grave disservice" [WSJ].
They held last time only because individuals did the right thing. Those include GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his COO Brad Sterling, all the judges who ruled against Trump in his 62 post-election lawsuits, and, of course, Judge Luttig's advice to Mike Pence, which he followed.
Vance has already said "If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020." He also said Trump should ignore "illegitimate" court rulings [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jd-vance-defends-trump-claims-invoking-jean-carroll/story?id=106925954].
That is NOT our system. The president doesn't get to decide which SC decisions are legitimate or not. That's not our checks and balances. You need to explain to the undecideds why the Framers built that into our federal system and how not having Constitutional checks and balances will hurt them.
We need to build houses for the palestinians as a way of getting around the system the isreali government imposed on the palastinians to get them to revolt so far those in the west bank have not risen up despite constantlty being treated as the enemy.
what is lacking is a counter narrative to the Trumpian one. Illegal Immigrants are A. causing crime statistic be damned, B. bringing in Hard Drugs, C. swelling the ranks of job seeker driving down wages, shrinking the middle class and expanding the working class. and D. getting social security checks. until you create a viable alternative narrative that can be reduced to a sound bite "Illegals cause all your suffering and problems" will be the momentum.
if it was really about abortion they would have tried to lower the infant mortality rate, they did not. or create the tech to keep the baby alive outside the womb. they did not. A lot of what passes for investing now is done not by the companies but by the Federal Government ( I am very livid that the Pax Lovid pill that costs 19 dollars a pill to make is sold for $700 dollars a pill after we the american people funded the research) I also like when the conservative accuse the left of somethe our response is " every accusation is an Admission "
Quite right! And please identify less well recognized groups that are fellow travelers in the MAGA movement, including Christian Nationalists, and their agendas. They aim not simply to defeat Democrats' policies but to tear down our democratic republic. What would it be like to live in a bronze age kingdom? It may be hard to imagine, but it would be very beneficial to our future to face our fears and consider the serious consequences. The Bulwark could help us to avoid the consequences of a reactionary victory.
There are Republicans that do not support Trump which would include most if not everyone on Bulwark as well as others like Liz Cheney so they are not the same.
I think he hopes that he can start the project (which will last entire term) and it will encourage some families to leave so they can stay together. This is similar to deterrent effect of family separation in his first term.
#2. I expect him to start construction of a camp in Texas for effect but he can round up people in cities using empty commercial property. He will then brag about cleaning up cities and helping the real estate and construction situations. Potentially less impact on farmers.
Concentration on MAGA robs the successful individual identity issue and its attention factor that worked very well for Trump. Focusing on MAGA changes the game. It will now prioritize the resulting issues to policies, not personality. I also suggest the Blue give rest to the many, many pejoratlive adjectives (mainly variations where "orange" is employed). This name calling is in response to their game, and becomes an unintentional support to their focus on Trump, inadvertentively participatory. Get serious to the shift and now concentrate on the issues, dangerous and potentially lethal, that MAGA portends.
*****WILL THE TRUMP CABINET PLEASE STAND UP? We were all heartened to see so much space made for Democrat-agnostic anti-Trump voters at the DNC last week. But as Tim wonders in a piece up at the site today: Where are all the ex-Trump officials who have told the world that they think he’s a raving lunatic? Why aren’t they endorsing Harris? No offense to the former lieutenant governor of Georgia, but were these really the most high-profile Republicans willing to step up at the convention?*****
.
Of all the absences of high profile Republicans from the Democratic National Convention, the most surprising is that of Liz Cheney. Cheney has repeatedly (and in her 2023 book Oath and Honor, at great length) proclaimed that she will do whatever she can to prevent the 45th president from becoming the 47th. She created the Our Great Task PAC to advance this cause. I do not readily attribute her non-appearance to cowardice or bad faith. Perhaps we will yet see more from her personally.
In my own most recent essay I shared the views of most of the non-Democrats who spoke at the convention.
People who are fully decent and sensible agree with Adam Kinzinger “that we have to defend truth, defend democracy and decency” and that “any policy disagreements one may have with the Democratic nominee “pale in comparison with those fundamental matters of principle, of decency, and of fidelity to this nation.”
They nod along with Stephanie Grisham when she explains that she supports the Democratic ticket “because I love America more than my party.”
They understand Olivia Troye being “proud to support Kamala Harris not because we agree on every issue but because we agree on the most important issue” and that in voting for Harris, “You aren't betraying our party. You’re standing up for our country.”
They look askance at people they know who thus far have failed to recognize, as Geoff Duncan put it, that “If Republicans are being intellectually honest with ourselves, our party is not civil or conservative” and “If you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024, you are not a Democrat. You are a patriot.”
And they are right there with Oprah, who observed that “more than anything…decency and respect are on the ballot in 2024. And just plain common sense.”
Decency and sense together are the north star of “this sometimes awkward alliance.”
Read fuller excerpts and navigate to the video of each of these convention speakers via the link below.
Methinks that Liz Cheney (whom I have great respect for) is simply hedging toward whatever Conservative Party may blossom as MAGA goes to its political grave.
Cheney would enjoy the cat bird seat upon the formation of such new Party.
If I understand you correctly, her avowed commitment to ensure the 45th president's defeat is not sufficiently robust to include activity directly in support of the only candidate who can defeat the 45th president.
Which is to say, she will continue to make the case that Republican nominee must NOT win, but will not embrace the inescapable corollary.
BACK TO THE STONE AGE: Grim scenes out of Afghanistan this week, where, three years after toppling the nation’s U.S.-backed democratic government, the Taliban-run government has announced their most radical yet set of “vice” laws yet. Under the new laws, women must veil their bodies and faces at all times while in public, may not look at men not in their families, and may not be heard “singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public.”
And there is no accountability for W or The Conservative Movement for this outcome, only their tearful hand-wringing about how terrible our exit was. Am important lesson that religion as government will always produce human suffering. Maybe the most dangerous part of MAGA.
Bill: Just wondering if you thought republicans were criticizing the DNC convention for it’s “focus on Trump rather than policy” as a hope that they would not have to get defensive about how dangerous Trump is? This certainly makes sense, especially since there was more policy in her acceptance speech than any 3 hour rant by Trump. Ever.
I find it puzzling that this recap on the DNC completely ignored the fact that the DNC allowed an Israeli parent to speak at the convention, while offering no similar opportunity for a Palestinian.
In so doing the DMC was literally communicating that Palestian lives matter less than Israeli lives.
If you hear the support at the DNC for recognizing the plight of Palestians in Gaza you'll realize that the DNC is out of step with its constituents.
Why would you not mention this at all? I know the Bulwark has a strong bias for Israel but this is getting fucking absurd for a media entity that CLAIMS to be committed to just reporting the facts, without bias.
“ n so doing the DMC was literally communicating that Palestian lives matter less than Israeli lives.”
No.
That statement is not a valid criticism.
The “DNC” (not DMC) allowed peaceful demonstrations supporting the Palestinians criticism Re GAZA, and the Israeli couple who spoke to the Convention about the humanitarian crisis referred to the terrible loss of life suffered by Palestinians as well as Israelis.
Your complaint appears to be that the DNC didn’t allow promoters of the Palestinian cause to degrade the DNC Convention.
Expecting the DNC to do that is naive.
I absolutely agree that "the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again." I hope that The Bulwark considers itself among the "other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism". On the podcast today, Tim said, "Imagine what this guy will do now that the SC has given him carte blanche essentially, now that he will have an entire staff [loyal to him and not the Constitution]". You must SPELL OUT what he will do, not just ask us to imagine it. And it must be in terms that the undecided voters will relate to, like what will happen to their regular, monthly social security check when incompetent loyalists replace, experienced, competent civil servants in HHS? Or their IRS refund? Or FDA approval of experimental drugs that could cure a loved one's illness? Or what happens to their cleaning lady's native-born children when she and her husband are hauled off and deported?
And you must tear down this "the guardrails will hold" delusion. I wrote this in The Triad comments, and I'm going to repeat it here:
The guardrails are not self-executing. As Liz Cheney said last December, “The framers explicitly warned us that the checks and balances are only as effective as the people responsible for carrying them out. Those who try to dismiss the risk of a second Trump term do our country a grave disservice" [WSJ].
They held last time only because individuals did the right thing. Those include GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his COO Brad Sterling, all the judges who ruled against Trump in his 62 post-election lawsuits, and, of course, Judge Luttig's advice to Mike Pence, which he followed.
Vance has already said "If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020." He also said Trump should ignore "illegitimate" court rulings [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jd-vance-defends-trump-claims-invoking-jean-carroll/story?id=106925954].
That is NOT our system. The president doesn't get to decide which SC decisions are legitimate or not. That's not our checks and balances. You need to explain to the undecideds why the Framers built that into our federal system and how not having Constitutional checks and balances will hurt them.
We need to build houses for the palestinians as a way of getting around the system the isreali government imposed on the palastinians to get them to revolt so far those in the west bank have not risen up despite constantlty being treated as the enemy.
what is lacking is a counter narrative to the Trumpian one. Illegal Immigrants are A. causing crime statistic be damned, B. bringing in Hard Drugs, C. swelling the ranks of job seeker driving down wages, shrinking the middle class and expanding the working class. and D. getting social security checks. until you create a viable alternative narrative that can be reduced to a sound bite "Illegals cause all your suffering and problems" will be the momentum.
if it was really about abortion they would have tried to lower the infant mortality rate, they did not. or create the tech to keep the baby alive outside the womb. they did not. A lot of what passes for investing now is done not by the companies but by the Federal Government ( I am very livid that the Pax Lovid pill that costs 19 dollars a pill to make is sold for $700 dollars a pill after we the american people funded the research) I also like when the conservative accuse the left of somethe our response is " every accusation is an Admission "
I hope that events prove me wrong, but I very much doubt that we'll see a Gaza ceasefire until Yahya Sinwar is dead. The sooner the better, for both.
This is encouraging: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/8/26/2265841/-More-than-230-former-Bush-McCain-Romney-staffers-sign-letter-endorsing-Harris-Walz-ticket?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Quite right! And please identify less well recognized groups that are fellow travelers in the MAGA movement, including Christian Nationalists, and their agendas. They aim not simply to defeat Democrats' policies but to tear down our democratic republic. What would it be like to live in a bronze age kingdom? It may be hard to imagine, but it would be very beneficial to our future to face our fears and consider the serious consequences. The Bulwark could help us to avoid the consequences of a reactionary victory.
I never refer to anyone who supports Trump and his movement as Republican or conservative because they are not. They are MAGA full stop.
The Republicans who chose to reject trump (among them the owners of this forum) have certainly earned their seats at the American democracy table.
Impossible to know where all this is gonna go; a new political party, a blended one?
But whatever it morphs into, we should all be grateful that so many of our former political opponents took the side of democracy.
Actually they are the same.
There are Republicans that do not support Trump which would include most if not everyone on Bulwark as well as others like Liz Cheney so they are not the same.
Unfortunately, they ARE pretty much the same as Republicans. They stopped being "conservative" in any constructive sense a long time ago.
No, Trump could not be further from the conservative movement I grew up in.
I agree with #4.
I think he hopes that he can start the project (which will last entire term) and it will encourage some families to leave so they can stay together. This is similar to deterrent effect of family separation in his first term.
#2. I expect him to start construction of a camp in Texas for effect but he can round up people in cities using empty commercial property. He will then brag about cleaning up cities and helping the real estate and construction situations. Potentially less impact on farmers.
Concentration on MAGA robs the successful individual identity issue and its attention factor that worked very well for Trump. Focusing on MAGA changes the game. It will now prioritize the resulting issues to policies, not personality. I also suggest the Blue give rest to the many, many pejoratlive adjectives (mainly variations where "orange" is employed). This name calling is in response to their game, and becomes an unintentional support to their focus on Trump, inadvertentively participatory. Get serious to the shift and now concentrate on the issues, dangerous and potentially lethal, that MAGA portends.
I was all ready to say something serious but--WHALE JUICE!
Trump is the Steven Seagal of politics. Very dangerous, but not in the ways he wants you to believe. And deeply silly.
Bill, Andrew, and Will Quick Hit (in part):
*****WILL THE TRUMP CABINET PLEASE STAND UP? We were all heartened to see so much space made for Democrat-agnostic anti-Trump voters at the DNC last week. But as Tim wonders in a piece up at the site today: Where are all the ex-Trump officials who have told the world that they think he’s a raving lunatic? Why aren’t they endorsing Harris? No offense to the former lieutenant governor of Georgia, but were these really the most high-profile Republicans willing to step up at the convention?*****
.
Of all the absences of high profile Republicans from the Democratic National Convention, the most surprising is that of Liz Cheney. Cheney has repeatedly (and in her 2023 book Oath and Honor, at great length) proclaimed that she will do whatever she can to prevent the 45th president from becoming the 47th. She created the Our Great Task PAC to advance this cause. I do not readily attribute her non-appearance to cowardice or bad faith. Perhaps we will yet see more from her personally.
In my own most recent essay I shared the views of most of the non-Democrats who spoke at the convention.
People who are fully decent and sensible agree with Adam Kinzinger “that we have to defend truth, defend democracy and decency” and that “any policy disagreements one may have with the Democratic nominee “pale in comparison with those fundamental matters of principle, of decency, and of fidelity to this nation.”
They nod along with Stephanie Grisham when she explains that she supports the Democratic ticket “because I love America more than my party.”
They understand Olivia Troye being “proud to support Kamala Harris not because we agree on every issue but because we agree on the most important issue” and that in voting for Harris, “You aren't betraying our party. You’re standing up for our country.”
They look askance at people they know who thus far have failed to recognize, as Geoff Duncan put it, that “If Republicans are being intellectually honest with ourselves, our party is not civil or conservative” and “If you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024, you are not a Democrat. You are a patriot.”
And they are right there with Oprah, who observed that “more than anything…decency and respect are on the ballot in 2024. And just plain common sense.”
Decency and sense together are the north star of “this sometimes awkward alliance.”
Read fuller excerpts and navigate to the video of each of these convention speakers via the link below.
https://decencyandsense.substack.com/p/this-sometimes-awkward-alliance-of
Methinks that Liz Cheney (whom I have great respect for) is simply hedging toward whatever Conservative Party may blossom as MAGA goes to its political grave.
Cheney would enjoy the cat bird seat upon the formation of such new Party.
Maybe.
If I understand you correctly, her avowed commitment to ensure the 45th president's defeat is not sufficiently robust to include activity directly in support of the only candidate who can defeat the 45th president.
Which is to say, she will continue to make the case that Republican nominee must NOT win, but will not embrace the inescapable corollary.
Perhaps all will become clear – and soon!