Friday Tabs
Cabinet appointments edition.
Steven L. Taylor
·
Friday, November 15, 2024
·
71 comments
- Tom Nichols in The Atlantic is correct: Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk. Spoiler alert: a serious country doesn’t put security risks at the pinnacle of the intelligence apparatus.
- Via The Atlantic: Either Way, Matt Gaetz Wins.
- Meanwhile, via ABC News: Woman testified to House Ethics Committee that Gaetz had sex with her when she was 17: Sources. Part of me thinks there is no way he get the votes in the Senate. And part of me thinks that he will.
- Via Mediaite: Steve Bannon Threatens Ari Melber, Says Matt Gaetz’s DOJ Is Coming For Him And ‘All The Producers of MSNBC’.
- Via Vanity Fair: Trump’s Defense Secretary Pick Pete Hegseth Said to Face Previous Sexual Misconduct Allegation. Given Hegseth’s history of marital infidelity, this is not hard to believe. And maybe this, or something like it, will give some Republican Senators a pretext to not vote to confirm Hegseth, but these days I won’t be holding my breath.
- Via The Atlantic: The Real Reason Trump Picked Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel. The short answer, “it is a transaction meant to reward evangelical Christians.”
- Via The Atlantic: The Sanewashing of RFK Jr. Is Under Way. Just because the guy talk about eating health doesn’t mean he isn’t a dangerous crank who should in charge of nothing, let alone HHS.
- Via Mother Jones: How RFK Jr. Falsely Denied His Connection to a Deadly Measles Outbreak in Samoa.
- And then there’s this. Now, given that a lot of Senators won’t face primaries for four or six years, such tactics will not be as effective. But the threats are in the air.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
But, despite the threats, security risks, incompetence to deal with crises, and criminality, we should just wait and see what happens. At least that’s the sage advice from one regular commenter.
The Tom Nichols article on Gabbard is terrific.
Traveling so missed yesterday’s post. RFK believes too many things for which there is no evidence and too many conspiracy theories to ever hold a position of power, especially when it is related to the research or practice of medicine. It’s actually pretty simple.
Steve
@steve:
Two words: Avian Influenza.
Sexual misconduct most likely counts as a plus for the felon.
There’s no honor among thieves. There seems to be solidarity among sexual predators. See the felon’s relationship with Epstein.
I’m down to hoping someone will leak 1) the house ethics report on Gatze, 2) Jack Smith’s accumulated evidence.
Looking through the ashes, Democrats are left with their old (65+), white, college-matriculated constituency intact(ish)
Said the sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, quoted in David Brooks’s new column, “Why We Got It So Wrong” (NYT).
@JKB: Yes, because the one thing we all know is true is that however things are at this very moment are exactly as they will be for eternity.
@Michael Reynolds: Why is it every time we elect this man we get a plague? It’s like a message from god or something.
@JKB:
Sort of like how everyone thought beating Trump in 2020 would be his end.
It’s a tempting story to tell yourself.
@Joe:
I do wonder whether he did something to Apollo*.
I’m not too worried about H5N1 avian flu yet. I do recommend getting a flu shot this season. Protection against a related pathogen is better than nothing. I also fervently hope someone has a plan for making H5N1 specific shots. It shouldn’t be hard at all. mRNA aside, flu vaccines for specific strains area a yearly routine for the pharmaceutical companies.
I wonder if antiviral drugs for flu will work. that’s the other big difference between flu and the trump virus. When H1N1 hit in 2009, Tamiflu was rather effective against it.
*I think Apollo was involved when the felon’s spiritual ancestor, king Laomedon, stiffed Poseidon after he built Troy’s impenetrable walls. That could be all there is, though Apollo later backed the Trojans more than the Greeks.
@Michael Reynolds: Why is it every time we elect this man we get a plague? It’s like a message from god or something.
@wr:
Well, we know that’s not true because in 2012, Democrats were excited about the “rising American electorate” that they thought they already owned and operated while the old, working white people died off leaving only the Democratic party.
The question arises is what can Democrats do to stem the tide of the 18-44 as well as black and Hispanic moves toward Trump without alienating the white college-matriculated, mostly women and activists, they now depend on?
On the other hand, Trump can cut government interference with getting a business going. And, Trump can take credit for the investments in those nasty industrial jobs as manufacturing moves back to the US where Biden/Harris couldn’t highlight their part in jobs that burly men do and use hydrocarbons to make things.
@JKB: Burly men manufacturing jobs are done by machines and high profit high tech manufacturing jobs are done by people in gowns.
@JKB: Ok, it’s possible that a Trump administration will cut regulations. And that’s something that Republicans traditionally like a lot.
Meanwhile, what do you think of the NatSec situation developing? Would you call Pete Hegseth a good choice for SecDef? What about Tulsi Gabbard as DNI? And what about the concept of firing the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, which has been floated by Trump allies? Do you think CQ Brown is a DEI hire?
If you think it’s good, say so. If you think it’s bad, my next question is, were those reduced regulations worth the damage to the NatSec apparatus? Wouldn’t it be possible to do the one without the other?
@JKB: And what is your defense of his cabinet picks? I notice you have been silent on those threads.
@Scott: It reminds me of a manufacturing plant I toured a few years ago in Troy, AL. They made plastic containers. Almost all the work was automated. The only humans I saw doing actual labor were loading trucks.
@Scott:
First comment deleted for simply being nothing more than a smart ass
This comment was deleted because, as usual, no actual argument or evidence was given. Just assertions
@Jack: Be better or be gone.
Jr. just keeps getting worse the more you find out about him. He’s also an HIV/AIDS denialist.
he doesn’t deny AIDS is real, but that HIV causes it. Seriously? After four decades and some years of studies, and after about as long with effective, lifesaving treatments that target HIV, he still doesn’t believe it?
A South African president and his health minister trialed this notion, cutting back on anti-retorviral medications and treatments, and it did not end well.
There was a brief flurry of studies in the late 80s, or maybe earlier, in the infancy of HIV research, where some serious scientists were skeptical that a tiny virus could cause such a complex syndrome. Most went with the evidence, and today no serious scientist who exercises a modicum of objectivity has any doubt HIV is what causes AIDS. More important, literally millions of people are able to manage AIDS with anti-HIV medications.
You may recall AIDS was a death sentence not that long ago. That people who died of AIDS, however they contracted HIV, hid their diagnoses, even long past their deaths (like Isaac Asimov). Today, and for a whole now, AIDS remains a serious disease, but one that’s chronic and can be managed for a long time. It’s a major PITA to do so, as the various strains of HIV adapt to drugs and the medication mix needs to be adjusted, and there are other complications besides, but it’s no longer a slow death in a few years.
Until Jr. gets his say.
@Jack: Nobody is saying there isn’t a good reason for it. All they are saying is that there just aren’t that many jobs in manufacturing these days, for reasons such as the one you gave.
There appears to be a pattern of mismatch between what we are saying, and what you think we are saying. I find that interesting.
Trump’s policies lost the US over 200k manufacturing jobs during his 4 years.
Biden’s policies gained the US over 800k manufacturing jobs – so far. Final will likely be over 900k after all updates.
Biden is far, far better at both manufacturing and creating jobs than Trump will ever be.
Facts over feelings, Jack.
@Gavin:
That isn’t accurate. Leaving aside COVID, which I think is necessary*, Trump’s policies didn’t appear to do what you are saying. At the most, we could say that his policies might have lead to stagnation in growth in 2019:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
The question remains whether or not the US hit max capacity for jobs under current conditions around that point or not. And the degree to which Trump policies (or Obama era policies Trump didn’t change) had something to do with that.
As part of the recovery, manufacturing jobs did grow under Biden, but also remained flat once they hit their peak (again, see: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001).
I’m no economist (I’m barely a qualitative social scientist), but that pattern of long flat periods suggests there might be other things at play.
—
* – While I think that Trump botched the pandemic response (though for different reasons than out anti-anti-Trump commenters), I don’t think he or his administration should be blamed for the temporary impact it had on jobs. Even if a Democrat had been in the White House and handled things perfectly, I expect the graph wouldn’t have looked much different.
@Kingdaddy: That they’ll burn it all down is a feature, not a bug.
What we are really missing here is that Trump may be insisting upon halfway measures. Let us hope that he completes his Make America Healthy again team. He needs Dr Oz for his miracle pill team. Dr Ben Carson for his miracle brain supplement teams. And since Alex Jones is out of work we can captain the media and advertisements team. Truly a team of MAGA/MAHA all stars!
Steve
With the Gaetz nomination, Donald Trump is finally beginning to publicly do what QAnon has been claiming he’s been doing behind the scenes for nearly a decade: bring pedophiles to Justice.
@JKB:
I predict most of the returning industrial jobs will actually end up in Mexico, especially the ones that create new jobs. We’re taking from China and giving to Mexico – they work cheaper and have the experienced labor force we lack.
@JKB: “On the other hand, Trump can cut government interference with getting a business going.”
Uh-huh. And when rivers in Ohio start bursting into flame again because he’s cut government interference in a company’s right to dump toxic chemicals wherever they want to, and when tens of thousands of children get sick and die because he’s cut government interference in a meat-packing company’s right to operate without inspection, and when paychecks get smaller because he’s cut government interference in companies’ right to pay as little as they want and refuse to pay overtime, we’ll see how popular his “freedom” agenda is with actual people and not just the investor class.
@JKB:
Gaslighting with Orwellian lies is a favorite sport of insecure fascists. Meanwhile, over in the real world, the Democratic standard bearer won the votes of:
Black women, 91%-7%
LGBT, 86%-12%
Jews, 78%-22%
Black men, 77%-21%
Latino women, 60%-38%
Asian 54%-39%
White college grad, 52%-45%
Hispanic overall, 52%-46%
Nonwhites overall, 64%-33%
Nonwhites with no college degree, 64%-34%
Union households, 53%-45%
Ages 18-24, 54%-42%
Ages 25-29, 53%-45%
Ages 30-39, 50%-46%
Women, 53%-45%
Income $30k or less, 50%-46%
Income $100k or more, 51%-46%
Bachelor’s degree, 53%-45%
Advanced degree, 59%-38%
Independents, 49%-46%
Moderates, 57%-40%
That’s an impressive diverse, multicultural, multigenrational, multiincome, cross-ideological coalition.
The story here is that this coalition turned out in dramatically fewer numbers from 2020 to 2024. This 10 million vote shrinkage allowed Trump’s overwhelmingly white and middle-aged coalition back into the White House, even while Democrats held on (barely) to key swing state Senate seats while basically nothing changed in the House.
That reality is bad enough for Team Blue. That Trumpers feel the need to push obvious lies instead does not indicate confidence in their ability to hold the line in upcoming years –especially without Trump on the ballot or a global anti-incumbency movement to buoy them.
@DK:
Yeah, but those are just facts. @JKB has no use for your so-called ‘reality’.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Seriously, Dr Taylor?
Just assertions is an offense here? Do you read your commenters comments?
I’m dead serious. Just assertions?
I think this is a moment of intellectual honesty for you.
@Jack:
That’s rich, coming from you. The irony is staggering.
This is the first time since 2004 that a Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote. And that’s after all of Karl Rove’s crowing about a permanent Republican majority. His guy only managed to win any kind of majority once.
So, this kind of seems like hype to me.
AND, I think that Democratic politicians probably have engaged in some poor political strategy, and that is in part driven by rank-and-file Democrats eagerness to oppose everything articulated by Trump.
I think that one could have co-opted the Republican immigration issue completely. There are lots of spending proposals one could make that could, in fact, make a difference. Propose some of them, and some that might make Republican constituencies (People like dairy farmers, etc) squawk a little bit. This is the Bill Clinton playbook. He wasn’t a moral beacon, but he was a very good politician.
As far as inflation goes, the WH could have been out in front, denouncing it. “This is terrible, and we have to stop it NOW!” Yeah, it’s grandstanding, and no, Joe Biden doesn’t have that in him. I love the guy, really. I don’t think he’s great at the campaign part of the job, though.
Thing is, this goes against the instincts of the base, and the conventional wisdom of politics. Which is why it didn’t happen.
@Jack: I am exhausted by your inability to make a positive argument for you positions.
Worse, I find your engagements to be in bad faith. You don’t actually want conversation, debate, or argument.
You are not conversing. You are trying to derail conversation.
And to clarify, it is not just assertions, it is bad faith interjections of various kinds. It is utterly tiresome.
Since you so badly want to be here, and because I really don’t want to ban you, I am pointing out the problems with your posts.
Here’s the honest truth: I started to engage in with your smartass comment to provide more details about what I observed at the plant that I noted. But then I stopped because I realized there was no point. You aren’t engaging in good faith.
It isn’t like you really wanted to know what I saw or didn’t see, nor the point I was trying to make.
The weird thing is I care far more about your positions than you do.
@EddieInCA: Indeed.
@Jay L Gischer:
Perhaps, Jay. I’m not sure. US manufacturing is viable, and I’ve devoted my life to it. A shop floor process engineer for years. A financier for most of my life. I believe in it. I detest the mercantilist policies that have lead to demise.
The nature of manufacturing is productivity improvement. But if you grow the base, employment will follow. You may have seen Scotts comment, and my reaction. He is, IMHO, ignorant. I have blood, sweat, and experience – and money, real money – in manufacturing. Its easy to make casual comments like Scott’s. But I take exception. I’m being led to believe that’s not acceptable on this blogsite.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Dr Taylor
In all honesty. I am not interested in derailing debate, or bad faith debate. But I have to tell you, when I do come here I am immediately subjected to a rectal exam. Your commenters just make wild claims all day long. But I’m the guy who has to do a defensive dissertation?
What set this snit off was Scotts claim that manufacturing was just some narrow set of people. Basically, just give up the ghost. Well, (and go and look at my recent reply to Jay G) I find that offensive, and ignorant. Your response? Crickets. Perhaps I should not have invoked authority, but Dr Taylor, I have extensive experience as a shop floor engineer, and am a long time investor/owner. Scott is clueless. I’m not, on this subject. I get told I’m clueless about every other comment. What is going on here?
I honestly desire some good faith debate, even though I know I’m outgunned here. But I can take it. As I noted, this is tame compared to investment committee debates. But I have to tell you, in all honesty and transparency that I think you have two standards, one for those who share your views, and one for those who oppose.
PS
Did you admonish Kingdaddy on his snarkish post about me?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Dr Taylor
I suspect what you saw was a person delivering resin to the machine, although it may have been an overhead tube system, if an efficient operation, and automated packing, and then delivery by pallet to shipping.
Dr Taylor, its a brutal business, a commodity, based upon price. Millions of bottles sold on price. Which is why we have focused on exotic, difficult to make, products, requiring very technical die making expertise. That is where the value add, and the growth and employment comes from.
I’m sorry if sarcasm as a debating device offends. I’ll package that. But I’m an experienced process engineer and investor. I found your comment, and I want to be respectful, unexperienced. But you and I do different things for a living.
Its your blog. You do what you want. But I again ask, do you want an echo chamber, or a debate. Your commenters don’t want a debate. They want to feast.
@Jack:
Debate requires stating a position and defending it with reason and evidence.
You simply don’t do that.
I wish you would.
Your comment to Jay at least lays out some details about where you are coming from. That is a pretty fine contribution.
Yes, Scott’s comment about is overly reductive. But you didn’t rebut it.
I made a fully innocuous observation, and you come back with smartassery. My first impulse was to better explain myself and elaborate. It really was an almost entirely automated plant with few jobs. While, clearly, there are still real jobs that require human labor, it is not incorrect to note that automation is part of the conversation along with off-shoring. If you have the experience you claim to have, I suspect you are aware of this.
Am I being impatient with you at this point? Yes.
But I would note that on every one of the posts about Trump appointees you parachute in, say something snarky, and then disrupt the thread. You never actually say anything of value.
If you think the picks are defensible, say why.
If you think that is too early to say anything, then why say anything?
For example:
I don’t even think you believe this, and hence my claims of bad faith.
If you actually believe that keeping Garland is identical to appointing Gaetz, I highly question your judgment (to put it politely).
Or, if you really don’t see the problem with Gaetz, I likewise question your judgment.
Also on Noem, Gabbard, and Hegseth.
But if we really are just being hysterical, then calm us down by telling us why.
@Jack: Well, ok. I think we are going to have to go through a slow process of understanding one another. Here’s an example:
To me “mercantilist” is a term of art that refers to protectionist measures. Tariffs and duties, and outright bans on trade with other countries. I assure you, I am not making this up. Nor am I trying to mock you and demean you.
The US has not been practicing *any* mercantilist policies as of late. The typical stance, driven mostly by the Republicans of two decades ago (and more) has been “free trade”, which I would reckon as ‘anti-mercantilist’ or perhaps ‘globalist’. Is that the policy you don’t like?
And this is a great example of how we aren’t on the same page. You can’t have a debate if you don’t agree what words mean.
@Jack:
So, here’s Kindaddy:
And here’s some guy named “Jack”:
In my view, Kingdaddy was accurately characterizing what Jack said.
Am I wrong?
Going to repost my comment in the Friday Forum, as it seems more relevant here:
I have a little thought beginning to bubble up in my nastily suspicious mind.
That these hilariously appalling nominees may actually have a larger political purpose.
Now, Trump himself probably just sees them as his standard mix of pandering, and trolling, “kayfabe, yay baby.”
But a smarter operator (Bannon? Miller? Vance? perm of such) could have a more serious end: by provoking remaining Republican Senators with any integrity into a confirmation fight, you set them up to be primaried.
Thus moving to greater MAGA domination of the GoP.
Not, I also suspect, that populist MAGA is the end to such a play for the real players: merely a means to ensure the ascendancy of the “Project 2025” (and beyond that) true believers.
Trump may not be strategic enough for anything beyond headlines, taunts, and what he thinks give his base their lulzs.
But some others in his circle might be thinking more deeply.
“Oh, John, you’re just being paranoid.”
“Perhaps. But am I being paranoid ENOUGH?”
@Jack:
This is, of course, why your comment to me was about the fact that using human lips to blow plastics was inefficient. Instead of having a conversation, your go to was to be a jerk?
And close, but what’s the point of further discussion?
Did you really not understand the point about the general lack of actual humans needed to run the place?
@Jack:
Sarcasm is not the problem, unless that’s all you’ve got.
@JKB:
@Steven L. Taylor: :
Please believe me when I say I am not inclined to comment directly on US domestic policy that much.
I cannot recall doing so on any of the the first Trump administrations policies.
Policies: as opposed to silly foreign-related things such as the “Burisma/Biden” ploy, or Trump being a generally vulgar fool.
Or in relation to election-denial nuttery.
For that matter, though I rather like President Biden, I have seldom commented to praise or damn his domestic policies.
And his foreign ones are a mixed bag, imo.
Now:
Some of these nominations are quite plainly unsuitable; but ultimately, in most cases, that is a matter for Americans to cure or endure.
But from the perspective of US relations with allies: the Gabbard appointment is utterly bugfuck nuts.
If the incoming administration wishes for a total shut-down of alliance intelligence and military operations information sharing, that’s the way to get it.
Is that what they want?
What you want?
Or is this just a “Hey libs! F’ you! Lolz!” and nothing else matters?
Because treating intel/military relations as such is in itself a blazing red-light that you are not serious people.
@Jack: I didn’t think Kingdaddy’s comment was directed at you; I thought it was aimed at my comment noting that if I were a Democratic Senator, I’d be approving all of Trump’s nominees and that as the winner of both the EC and PV he had the right to the cabinet and government he wants. This was why I also asserted that for people like me, burning it down is a feature, not a bug.
Meanwhile, I’ve commented politely and sincerely to two or three of your post in the past few days and asked you to detail the points where you disagreed with me in some of them. I’ve not heard back. Most people would assume that it’s because the ignantcy of my crackerness (or should that be the ignantness of my crackery?) is so obvious that it doesn’t warrant a reply. But
[Sensitive Feels Trigger Warning!!! Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!]
I’m enough of a flaming asshole still that I’m willing to ascribe it to not wanting to show that you’re another “can’t sell of’n an empty wagon” guy.
@Jack:
So essentially, he was right–most of the “human resource” expenditure was in the grunt labor that loaded the trucks?
(And no, I don’t expect you to reply this time either.)
@JohnSF:
Dunno how the @Steven L. Taylor: link got in that, lol.
Was supposed to be:
@Jack:
Wretched copy and paste!
I blame Microsoft!
@JohnSF:
First, let me note that I question whether there are enough Republican Senators with any integrity to launch a confirmation fight. Especially if Democrats will follow cracker’s advice that a majority election winner is entitled to the government that he wants–though I don’t think they will*.
Additionally, given that for Senators–Republican or otherwise–reelection is job one, the primary goal, I wonder how many will be willing to oppose the will of a newly elected President of their own party who appears, still, to have won election by an absolute majority. Maybe in an era where Republican Senators backchanneled the message to a sitting President that they would vote to convict if a motion for impeachment were presented, but that was loooooooon ago (and oh so far away, h/t Bonnie Brammlet and Leon Russell).
*I’ve heard for Republicans say for so, so, sooooo long, “I don’t believe in safety nets; I believe in consequences” (fwk, I’ve said it myself, fundie neo-Anabaptist Christians lean pretty heavily toward legalism–Seven Mountain Mandated, anyone?) that I’d like just one time for Republicans to receive some consequences rather than only dishing them out. Sadly (or fortunately depending on where you’re from), the Democrats will probably care more for the survival of the country and reject my suggestion. My investment portfolio will thank them even if I may not feel inclined to.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Glory be, Jack hath discovered the basis of modern economics in a free market (a.k.a. capitalist) system.
Which has both massive upsides (see, not being peasants eating mud), and some downsides, various.
If you want to minimise the downsides, that’s where the modern regulatory state comes in (and also unions, imo, but mileage may vary).
Try to do so via a universal tariff policy, given the current trading and supply chain system, and you’ll likely have the same approximate success as fixing a recalcitrant NMC lathe with a sledge-hammer.
The inflationary consequences are massive; as are the likely consequences of retaliatory tariffs on US exports.
The Trump fixation on “foreign trade surplus” = “bad” entirely overlooks the benefit to the US of dollar holdings re-investment etc.
The 1930’s similar naive impulse for positive trade balance ended up with foreign counter-parties not having dollars to purchase US good, or service US debt.
Which produced problems: see entire international economic history of 1920’s/30’s and, arguably, origins of WW2.
The US did NOT construct the post-WW2 Bretton Woods free trade/currency balancing system out of of naive fantasy.
Those people, under Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, were hard-boiled pragmatists with painful experiences of the alternative.
Dealing with China gaming the system is one thing; nuking the whole system that has underpinned the post-1945 US economic/strategic dominance because “feelz” is just idiotic,
@JohnSF:
Don’t hold back, John, tell us what you really think. 😛
And yes, I think that if you are being inadequately paranoid, it’s only by a small amount–margin of error sized.
@Steven L. Taylor: @Jack: Well now, I come back after 7 hours and find all hell has broke loose.
Let me state that I didn’t find Jack’s initial comment offensive in the least. Jack just indicated he disagreed with me. And his comment was not directed at me or personal.
Second, my comment to JKB was, as Steven put it, greatly reductive but directed that the manufacturing stereotype put forward.
Third, at that point, people started getting personal. I go to lengths not to go to the “Steven, you ignorant slut” route. But being called clueless is getting personal. Why? Because people on line know nothing about the person they are conversing with. I could go on about my manufacturing experience of working in a bearing factory (as a parts expeditor) or my AF involvement with factories making C-17s and F-16s or the laser designators that guided bombs in Desert Storm. Or on the other end of working in aircraft depots or flightline intermediate repair. Or supervising the assembly of munitions for loading onto jets.
But I won’t.
Sometimes in the heat of battle (if online banter can be considered the equivalent of battle) Jack is not the only one here who gets personal and insulting. I won’t name names but you know who you are. Let’s do better people. And read one last time before you push that Post Comment button.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Quite possibly correct.
BUT if they can identify and then destroy any hold-outs, that’s a win for the ultra’s.
And if they can cow them into compliance wit such lunacy: also a win.
Like I say, I suspect there’s a more cunning, and more dangerous, political mind(s) at work here than Trump.
And with an agenda that goes a long way beyond Trump’s (because frankly I doubt Trump has the intellect or the time-horizon to have worked this out).
Maybe I’m wrong; maybe the nominations are just Trump being the feces-flinging monkey.
But I’m just thinking what I’d do if I was an evil-minded bastard with influence over nominations.
Trust me, I’m quite good at mental-modelling being an evil-minded bastard.
Because I am. 😉
(Also, history involves a LOT of study of evil minded bastards, which is where I part company with the Marxists. “Economic Forces” 1 – “Evil Bastards” 3 )
@Steven L. Taylor:
Ok Look. Sarcasm is a debating tool. Its not received well here. So be it.
Your message is received. But I have to reiterate, look at your commenters comments. They may claim they are fact, or logic based. But many are not. They are opinion based. Period, full stop. I would site a certain M Reynolds. Its just flame throwing. There are others. You dont hold them to standards.
I reiterate. I only come here to hear alternative points of view. I ask you to evaluate your like minded commenters comments, and etiquette.
As an example, I find Jay G to be an excellent commenter. And have you noted how I respond to him?
But you have a lot of flame throwers.
@Scott:
Thank you, and I find your experience intriguing.
So you well know, businesses increase productivity as a matter of survival. If you don’t, you are dead. Its increasing the manufacturing base that counts.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
No, the point is that you want more of the manufacturing base here. If its not here, the employment count is zero. If its here, it will be optimized, or the businesses will perish. The latter is preferred.
I do this for a living.
@Jack:
Dear Jack:
Sarcasm is my mode and modus.
If you wish to employ it against me, feel free.
And I may freely respond in kind.
On the other hand, I usually attempt to reply to a factual critique with a reasoned response.
Leaving aside the sheer silliness of Kennedy, or the sleaziness of Gaetz, which are hardly my primary concerns, do you have any reasonable grounds for arguing that the nomination of Gabbard as DNI is a sensible move?
Because it does not seem to be from the perspective of a lot of serious, and generally pro-American, national security people here in EastPondia.
Also, my experience in trying to uphold the manufacturing base inclines me to suspect you may be letting hope overrule experience.
But then, optimism is surely a virtue.
(Paging Lounsbury. lol)
@JohnSF:
Dealing with China gaming the system is one thing; nuking the whole system that has underpinned the post-1945 US economic/strategic dominance because “feelz” is just idiotic.
But ‘feelz’ is politics. People believe in the past being less precarious than the present. They think that monotonous Taylorized factory jobs in America’s golden age (when the rest of the world was recovering from war) were less monotonous than the monotonous service jobs of the present. For good reason, no doubt.
And all of the talk about college grads obscures the fact that tons of factory workers in 1970 sent their kids to college so they didn’t have to work in factories. That’s also a ‘feelz’ thing, in that we don’t want to talk shit about how bad it was to have some managerial asshole at GM watching over your assembly line in 1960. People wanted their kids to be on the other side of that exchange, but you can’t say that, because the managers of now will be offended.
Honestly, there’s nothing else in this world than ‘feelz’. The big problem happens when you can’t quite identify what they are. Like, I don’t get why the Covid lockdowns and vaccines have traumatized people to the degree we get RFK Jr. I was there. Covid was terrible. But the vaccines and the establishment/deep state worked. And the lockdowns had side effects but they worked as well. Look at NYC.
@Modulo Myself:
I have a certain sympathy for their position.
In the 1980’s I worked for an “engineering support” company at AustinRover Longbridge.
From the 1920’s, one of the UK most effective manufacturing sites.
One of the key WW2 production plants.
For tanks and aircraft, both.
When I was there, still a massive production plant, from forges to final assembly, that employed thousands on good wages, and many thousands more in the supply chain.
I recall nights watching the the forges work, the auto-welding lines, the constant movement of trains in and out.
Now: a tiny Chinese “MG” design facility, and a shopping centre, and apartment blocks on the redeveloped land.
And the neighborhoods around no longer sustained by that; or the British strategic industrial capacity underpinned by that.
I could mourn.
But the thing is: if you want to change that, you need to be honest about the costs, as well.
How many MAGA or UK-Reform people are actually willing to bear the tax burdens and price changes to go back?
How many are actually ready for mass-employment to have to shift to Chinese (or even more, Chinese supplier) incomes? Or else for manufactured goods or components to become an order of magnitude more expensive?
Inflation?
We haz it.
@Jack:
Dude, I engage, you don’t. I never ignore a challenge, you do. I don’t lie or evade, you do. Any statement of fact I make, I back up. If it’s opinion, I label it as opinion. If I’m wrong, I admit that, too. And for shits and giggles I contribute long essays on books, culture, politics, travel, philosophy, history and political tactics.
I fight fair, I don’r run away or pretend to knowledge I don’t have. I’m honest. And while I often disagree with our hosts, I respect them, and I’m grateful for the forum they maintain and the insights they offer.
So don’t compare yourself to me. Or to any of the very smart, very interesting regulars here. Take a look at what @Kathy brings daily. Take at look at @Gustopher’s satire, or @DeStijl’s insight on ground-level activism. I could go on. This is not the place for you. I don’t think you have the chops.
You want to prove me wrong, man up and deal with reality because juvenile and unoriginal drive-by snark isn’t the thing here.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Yes, that was my point. It seemed pretty straightforward to me!
@JohnSF:
Agreed. It is arguably the worst one.
@Modulo Myself:
Also, yes: the burning ambition of the south Birmingham working class was that their kids would NOT have to work on the assembly line.
Which is why Longbridge/Northfield etc was such a focus of demand for technical education and A-level academies, and further education, and why the failures of such is still a key point in local politics.
@Scott: Sorry if you got caught up in the crossfire.
My statement about your comment being a bit reductive was an attempt to cede some ground to Jack in a civil way.
My intention in my response to you above was to agree with your basic point.
I did delete two comments Jack made, one directed at me and one at you. The one directed at me came across as smartassery, and I will confess to being annoyed. The one at one struck me as more of him parachuting in and not making any actual argument.
@Jack:
There is sarcasm all over this place, including in my posts quite frequently. But I think you confuse a semi-insulting/nonsensical comment with sarcasm. And, worse, you think that you are making a point. You aren’t.
MR engages far more directly than you do, and does explain himself.
And, FWIW, there have been times I have asked him to tone it down.
All I am really asking is that you say why you think what you think. That’s how you are going to get good interaction.
And, I would note that you are demonstrating that you can actually, engage. But the times you have done it is only after I admonish you.
Quite frankly, I think there is more common ground between you, me, Scott, and several others on this manufacturing issue, but it took a huge brouhaha for you to actually talk about what you thought on the subject.
I wish now that I had not deleted the comments. But can you stop and think, especially in the broader context of the ongoing conversations we have been having, that when I make an innocuous comment about automation that I observed, your response was a (sarcastic?) quip about human lips not being able to blow plastic? How is that productive? What did you want me to take away from that?
Look, here’s the bottom line: when you are consistently disrupting threads, I have to make choices about what to do about the disruption. Just give that some consideration, please?
I will gladly ignore you if you can just not derail things.
I will, further, be happy to engage if you are actually interested in engagement.
Thanks.
@Steven L. Taylor: But I do see now what is triggering him. We were talking about a part of the economic phenomenon that is manufacturing that he seems to be unwilling to address. I’m familiar with that problem. I, and others here, encounter it every time we note that while, in aggregate, the economy is wonderful, in practical terms, the rising tide is not only not lifting all the boats, quite often it’s swamping them. It’s a problem that has been daunting so far, but feigning shock about people noting that the economy isn’t great (ETA) for everyone doesn’t help.
@JohnSF:
Is this really the conventional wisdom, that tariffs are inflationary? Because I have been thinking they might make long bonds attractive. (“Contrary opinion” exists as an investment tactic, too)
@Jay L Gischer:
Jay
No, no, no. It’s China practicing mercantilist policies, not the US. They have discovered that we were willing to eviscerate our manufacturing base. They see the strategic benefits. Control of key raw materials. Control of manufacturing knowledge and capacity. It really is suicidal.
Why would we do that? And since I’m feeling a bit singed here, that’s not me pointing a finger at you. It’s a question for our leadership, and those who vote.
We need a balanced economy, underpinned by strategic necessities. As I have noted, comparative advantage and free markets require, well, free markets. Not Chinas beggar they neighbor approach.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Fair enough. As a guy who has the depth of experience I have, and have spent a lifetime devoted to a certain profession I get emotional. Guilty as charged. But I again ask, read your commenters comments and ask, opinions or reasoned arguments. You brought up Reynolds. IMHO he’s mostly just a flame thrower.
I spent time today just reflecting. I do know I have a fault in that I move through issues I’m deeply familiar with at lights speed, and presume people follow. Read: I presume too much. And yes, use sarcasm.
Switching. Again IMHO I don’t think OTB has distinguished itself in just reflexively criticizing the cabinet picks. It reads like Raw Story.
The real crazy one is Geatz. I wouldn’t dream to defend it. But I think there is something else really going on. Inside baseball stuff.