I found the prime-time demagoguery of Chris Christie a horrifying counterpart to the collapse of democracy in Turkey. While I know we should expect such rubbish, I still find it terrifying. Even more terrifying is the resulting blood-lust incited in the mob that filled the convention center.
The GOP is now emulating Tayyip Erdogan. While I sincerely hope and pray that the American electorate decisively rejects such thuggery, I simultaneously find myself thankful that my wife still holds an EU passport.
If the GOP wins this election in November (I say “the GOP” because the malignancy of hate spreads far wider than just Mr. Trump), then I strongly suspect that my family and I will be on my way there.
Please share widely!
…defeating Hillary Clinton is a legitimate goal; trying to send her to prison is not. Besides, when it comes to Christie why do I have images of stones and glass houses in my head right now?
For Christie to go at the RNC tribune and read off the teleprompters his made-up litany of charges to Clinton, whipping the crowd into a frenzy – where did he think he was? At the Salem witch trial?
Former US attorney for New Jersey… What a fine officer of the court, Chris Christie.
A speech fine tuned not to fight an opponent, but to demonize her. I don’t know what circle in hell is ascribed by Dante for this sin – must be the eight circle, that of panderers, of those bringing false testimony, of sorcerers and sowers of discord.
And more Ukraine.
Remember the pro-Putin Ukrainian PM, Victor Yanukovich? Whose primary goal in running was to imprison his hated rival, Yulia Tymoshenko? He got elected, and she wound up in prison for 4 years. Who was his political advisor? Paul Manafort, the guy now running the Trump campaign.
There has never been a campaign with more Soviet infilitration since Henry Agard Wallace’s “Progressive Party”. Had a Democrat attacked John McCains service, praised Saddam Hussein, blamed Bush for 9/11 or openly associated with Vladimir Putin and his aides they would’ve been driven out on a rail. Not by Fox, but by the whole media and political establishment. It’s insane what rules he has gotten away with.
She was as guilty as sin. Do a little research and learn about how much she and her husband swindled. Ukrainians of all political persuasions will attest to that)))
elect presidents to prosecute their opponents or predecessors, though the latter has deserved such treatment on more than one occasion.
…but I’m pretty sure Edgar meant that Tymoshenko rather than Clinton deserved to go to prison in this context.
I was defending the comparison.
She didn’t deserve to go to jail. It was closer to an accounting error than breaking the law. And if we want to talk about corruption and looting of ones country, Yanukovich is the pot calling the kettle black.
I simply wanted to point out the muddled situation in Ukraine. I actually naively supported Yulia at one time until presented with evidence of her malfeasance by Ukrainian friends. I agree with Mark that this is not the way we conduct politics in the US, nor should it be.
…a NH legislator is the latest to get into the act, but apparently jail isn’t enough for him. Today he told a radio station that HRC should “be put in the firing line and shot for treason.” What did Hillary ever do to these people, and why do some people’s thoughts so readily go to such a dark place?!
… because, deep down, they probably know she’s innocent of most, if not all, charges but to admit they are lying about any one of them means to admit they are lying about all of them..
It’s too late for them to admit she’s not guilty, they’ve gone too far in their calumny and, as the Scottish play says:
“All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er. ”
And, so, a firing squad would save the eight or ten ultimately fruitless Benghazi-style hearings and solve their problem of having to come clean about any of it. Evil is as evil does.
Why can’t they just engage in honest and civil debate about who can better lead the country and if their positions are less popular, either consider revising them or make an all out effort to explain to voters why their plans are best and persuade some of them?
… We had that honest and (mostly) civil debate. They were called “the Nixon and Reagan Administrations.” They lost those debates.
… this, too, they did. It was called “The First Bush Administration.” When that failed they moved to a strategy of full time character assassination and aggressive denial of reality, (aka “The Gingrich revolution” and “the Second Bush Administration”) as it became all to apparent that people liked Bill Clinton and, economically at least, President Clinton was vastly more effective than any three of them… The Obama Administration is just an iteration on the Clinton Administration, with the singular distinction that Obama is a man of character and integrity and with a moral probity Bill Clinton lacks.
You seem to think, Christopher, it hasn’t played out already and that Democrats and Republicans are just endlessly iterating on a constantly more precisely refined set of ‘positions’ when in fact the Conservative ascendency was an enraged response to: first, FDR and the New Deal; second, the civil rights movement and uppity blacks; and finally, the complete collapse of their defenses against the New Deal and civil rights as seen in the relatively smooth, and comprehensive, move to gay rights.
They have lost, utterly and completely. It only remains for them to admit it. Until they admit their defeat, they’re going to continue to act like Macbeth:
“Lay on, MacDuff, And damn’d be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough!'”
…like during the periods to which you refer, I don’t recall Democrats going into all out war with the opposition. Yes, Nixon came close to impeachment for reasons of his own making, but our side worked with Reagan and the two Bushes.
…wouldn’t they look BETTER in the eyes of the public if they say yes, we believed it was worthy of investigation but have ultimately concluded that she did the right things after all? I for one would certainly respect that a lot more than doubling down.
The Secret Service is up Baldasaro’s case for his comments:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-investigating-trump-adviser-al-baldasaro-hillary/story?id=40743979
Aren’t we having enough problems with guns in this country, that we have to start making suggestions for political opponents to be shot? Do we really want to go back to the 1960s, with two Kennedys, one Rev. King assassinated?
…that we must make a real effort to capture the House in this election, assuming Clinton is elected President (or even if not, but for different reasons). I know conventional wisdom says it’s a tall order; I know gerrymandering works against us; I know that Bay Staters have limited influence since our own delegation is already all Democratic. However, given the rhetoric we’ve heard this week and elsewhere I am starting to get seriously concerned that a GOP House will bring articles of impeachment against President Clinton within her first 100 days.
We’re laughing about Erdogan, but our own US House is not representative due to district packing – by political redistricting commissions, by interest of powerful incumbents, even by federal law designed to protect minority rights. In other words, gerrymandering. Here is how it works:
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/10/gerrymandering-101/?singlepage=true
And here are some marvels of political engineering:
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/
What is the solution? The political class has no interest to solve this (powerful incumbents in the party in minority don’t want lose seats; party in majority sees no reason to lose its advantage). The courts have traditionally avoided to be deciders in this mess.
We need to elect state legislators willing to embrace non partisan commission based redistricting, it’s the only way to undo the damage of the 2010 election where ALEC and the RSLC spent a paltry $50 million to take control of 13 state houses in swing states. Gains that have largely been irreversible and ensuring they maintained control over the House until 2020. If just half of Bernie donors gave to a progressive group committed to that goal, you could match the far right dollar for dollar.
…but my point is we can’t wait that long to at least try for the House.
That you are three or four years too late to try for the house. And by worrying only about the house and not the state legislatures that drive it, risk losing the house for the entirety of the 2020s as has already been done for the 2010s
…that no state legislators will be elected this year in any state who will be around to draw the next decade’s districts without first having to face another elections. We will need to look at governorships starting in 2018 as many of them have 4-year terms that will spill over into redistricting season.
In the meanwhile, we don’t elect our representatives as much as our representatives elect us.
Massachusetts is not setting a good example here. Our own state legislators are not interested in embracing non-partisan redistricting commissions.
What leg can we stand on to suggest change to other states?