NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

So I appreciate reminders of NRO's previous battshittery:

Tomorrow is the only trial Hillary Clinton will ever face for her crimes.

She will never be dragged into a court of law. Not just for the reason Andy McCarthy spelled out regarding her classified e-mail crimes – because a trial would expose the president’s own misdeeds. Even on the pay-for-play foundation, some minions might – someday – face legal consequences, but Hillary herself will skate. She’s protected, in the mafia sense.

Nor would a Senate trial convict her, if it were to come to that, rendering impeachment pointless. So long as the Democrats hold at least one-third of the Senate, it will never vote for her removal from office, no matter what she’s done in the past or does in the future. Literally, no matter what real-world action she takes – arresting David Bossie, shutting down Breitbart, closing churches that won’t perform gay marriages. I’d still like to think she wouldn’t try any of that – or at least that she wouldn’t be able to find anyone willing to do it on her order. But if she did, it is a metaphysical certitude that she would get at least 34 Democratic senators to vote against her removal from office. After seeing what’s happened over the past eight years, to suggest otherwise is delusional.

At least that post is somewhat within the bounds of reality - author recognizes that a) impeachment is futile and b) she probably wouldn't try to do those things

No posts!

Do Conservative Intellectuals Have More Fun?

by PETER AUGUSTINE LAWLER

December 6, 2016 11:33 AM So conservative public intellectuals — such as our good friend Yuval Levin — are thrilled that an article in the New York Times (not written by Ross Douthat) actually said that liberals have something to learn from conservatives. Liberals, in their programs for students, are all about progressive activism. Conservatives are all about Great Books — usually the greatest hits of our tradition of political philosophy. That might mean, as Damon Linker puts it, that conservatives are actually winning on the intellectual front. Liberals have to counter by getting their students to spend their quality time reading real books together.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Manning isn’t a woman in need of rescue. He’s a soldier who committed serious crimes. He wasn’t a “whistleblower,” as many of his defenders claim. He just dumped hundreds of thousands of classified documents into the public domain for the purposes of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms” without the slightest regard for the lives of others. There is no excuse. Manning is a traitor who pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid the full penalty for his crimes. He has received too much mercy already. Obama’s commutation of his sentence is a disgrace.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Barfing in my mouth

it's no surprise that conservatives would lean heavily against pardoning her, because conservatives tend to side with the state whenever it uses its war powers and police powers, regardless of the details of the case. they would reflexively discount any argument that conscience and one's duties as a citizen gave manning enough authority to override the orders of a superior officer. as a liberal, I give more weight to the authority of conscience than anyone at NRO ever would.

still, it seems to me that whether or not manning committed a crime of sufficient weight as not to deserve clemency is something reasonable people could disagree about. NRO takes much worse positions upon far weaker grounds. this opinion, at least, can be respected as having a leg to stand on, even if vehemently objecting to an act of mercy is nagl for half a dozen reasons.

Reasonable people don't misgender trans women in print tho

of the recent intelligence breaches chelsea's situation is for sure the easiest to empathize w/ - from the leak to the conditions she was treated etc - i think i'm more skeptical re leaks than ilx in general and i think obama did the right think commuting her sentence. less sure that snowden should be pardoned and def think assange is a pos. NRO weirdly doesn't see that these things rest on a continuum - all violations of national security are equal in both damage done to the US and sympathy for the motivation. i guess bc violations of trust immediately put one outside the communal SELF + mark you as an outsider whom conservatives fastidiously ostracize (if not worse), no matter how and why they occurred; there's no comprehension of "patriotic criticism" (unless the criticism is of the 'we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!' type)

I'm a bit conflicted about the Manning case, in part b/c of the barbarism of the sentence handed to her in relation to her crimes. David French, floated as a Trump alternative last summer, you might recall, is a former armed forces guy, thus less, ah, able to appreciate the quality of mercy.

there's nothing to pardon Snowden of, he hasn't been convicted of anything, much less sentenced. sorry if this is the 100th time somebody pointed this out, I'm catching up.

The same was true of Nixon, yet he was granted a pardon by Ford.

anyway NRO is a grease fire that is eternally refreshed with rancid oil from the Koch's dog food factories, so why does this thread still exist?

A president's pardoning power isn't dependent on conviction.

VDH, reminding me of NRO's glory days

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444235/donald-trump-challenge-self-control

Who would oppose deporting illegal alien law-breakers or the neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal law inherent in sanctuary cities?

rip states' rights

I also question the constitutionality of sanctuary cities tbh

(guess that's for the uncool conservative beliefs thread)

If Trump continues with these long overdue corrections and can unite with the Congress to push through legislation on economic reform, there will arise a sense among even some of his opponents on the left that the Obama trajectory of tribal polarization, doubling the debt, foreign-policy chaos, anemic growth, rogue federal agencies, climate-change obstructionism, etc. could not go on as it was.

uhhh am i reading this right

did he say the "Obama" trajectory of tribal polarization, doubling the debt, foreign-policy chaos, anemic growth, rogue federal agencies, climate-change obstructionism

this surprises you?

ha been a while since i've read VDH and needed to remember that "the opposite of what you say is true"

oh, i doubt it's constitutional too -- merely struck by how nullification is suddenly a bad thing again

I also question the constitutionality of sanctuary cities tbh

? not sure what's unconstitutional about it, the feds can't dictate how local PDs allocate resources, and it isn't the local PDs jobs to turn over arrestees to immigration. Now, if a federal deportation force is put in place in sanctuary cities and the local PDs don't defer to their authority, *that's* unconstitutional.

By ignoring the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration, the states are in effect ignoring -- I won't use "nullifying," for crissakes -- the law. No? Am I getting something wrong?

they're not ignoring the federal government's jurisdiction, the federal government can come in and take those people any time they want. they just aren't notifying the feds that they have them. cuz who has time for that shit (and who's going to pay for it?)

also it's not states that are doing this, it's municipalities.

our mayor's not having it

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Mayor-Lee-stands-up-to-Trump-says-city-10883956.php

I'm all for a city-led 2017 nullification crisis tbqh

idk i don't see how it's different from some mississippi sheriff saying well, those are some nice federal civil rights laws you got but you're gonna have to come down here and enforce them yourselves

exactly

it is explicitly NOT within municipal police departments jurisdiction to enforce immigration law. Immigration is handled by the feds. It is explicitly within municipal police departments' jurisdiction to follow civil rights laws because that's how those laws were written - they apply to all citizens, regardless of what state or city they are in. I'm Not getting where the confusion is arising from here. Congress has not passed laws mandating that municipalities have to bear the burden and costs of performing the ICE's job. You guys get that immigration law is *completely separate* from criminal law, right...? Someone is arrested for, say, stealing a car. From the local police department's point of view, it's their job to handle the arrest and prosecution of this person for stealing a car. It is NOT their job to check the person's immigration status, notify the feds, hold them until the feds show up, keep database/immigration records on who they arrest etc.

Right, but these men and women who are targeted aren't citizens?

I'm not being snarky -- I'm trying to figure out my position.

the cops don't know that! No one walks around with citizenship papers, what is this Nazi Germany oh wait

I don't carry around my birth certificate, do you? Imagine what it means for a locL PD and the general populace if every single person arrested has to be detained until they prove their citizenship status.

Two, the media-driven, left-wing derangement is unprecedented

One word for you, Victor: Birtherism.

by JAY NORDLINGER January 30, 2017 11:44 AM @JAYNORDLINGER

Earlier this morning, I walked down Memory Lane a little: The Left was always telling conservatives that, thanks to our privileged lives, we could not see how the other half lived. We were blind to their suffering and deaf to their cries.

Of course, the same accusation is heard today. It comes from the Left — but also from the Right. And frankly, I hear it more from the Right, day in, day out.

Anyway, a further stroll down Memory Lane — to the Democratic convention of 1984. Mario Cuomo was the keynote speaker, and here is a taste of what he said: “A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well.”

I remember burning when I heard Cuomo say that (and everything else). Where to begin? Maybe with this: Reagan was the son of an itinerate, alcoholic shoe salesman. When a kid, Reagan was sent to the butcher to get scraps for the cat. Only the Reagans didn’t have a cat.

Etc.

Moreover, Reagan’s policies helped the poor and struggling above all, because the well-off really didn’t need the help: Economic growth, no economic growth; jobs, no jobs — the well-off were fine. They always are.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

etc.

Reagan’s policies helped the poor and struggling above all

* citation needed

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

no thanks

How is Jay Nordlinger not dead from a fatal wedgie?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4pX3lEVYAASzTp.jpg

smdh

mmm

ewww

nerdlinger surprisingly reasonable here?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444924/six-quick-points-flynn-affair-and-trump-kremlin-allegations

1) A line is developing on the right — it is even embraced by the president himself: General Flynn was the victim of unpatriotic saboteurs within the government. Okay. Why did the president fire him? Why didn’t the president stick with this victim of unpatriotic saboteurs? The president didn’t have to fire him, you know. Flynn could be at his side today — and forever, or as long as the Trump presidency lasts. Oddly, Trump is crying foul play. Almost as though he had nothing to do with Flynn’s ouster. When he was the ouster. Just yesterday, his press secretary, Sean Spicer, said, “We’ve been reviewing and evaluating this issue with respect to General Flynn on a daily basis for a few weeks trying to ascertain the truth. The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable incidents is what led the president to ask General Flynn for his resignation.” “Other questionable incidents.” That is an intriguing phrase. Anyway, the line now is that Flynn is a victim? I find this hard to square. 2) The president has tweeted, “This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign.” Could be. Or could be that there were contacts between Trump officials and Russian officials during the campaign — contacts that warrant an inquiry. 3) Apparently, General Flynn, through his conduct, was made vulnerable to Russian blackmail. This is undesirable, to say the least. 4) The reaction to the Flynn affair, and to Trump-Kremlin allegations, has been extreme, many people say. A “freakout.” It is also true, I think, that, just as you can overreact, you can underreact. (Under-freak?) Going nuts is stupid; so is being blasé. 5) It’s often useful to ask, “What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if it were the other party doing it, not my party? What would I think and say?” If Democrats had an identical relationship to the Putin regime, what would Republicans say? And since when are Democrats so national security–conscious? Bill O’Reilly said to Trump, “Putin’s a killer.” Trump replied, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?” If a Democratic president had said the same — can you imagine the Republican reaction? 6) Campaigning in October, Trump said, “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks.” The crowd cheered. Trump continued, “It’s amazing how nothing is secret today.” He meant that positively.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Yes. that is a reasonable set of statements, based upon a reasonable set of judgments. a person needs to be pretty far gone into fantasy or insanity never to reach a reasonable conclusion.

NRO has been disappointing if not desolate lately, uploading culture war clickbait so they don't have to think about Trump.

first line from Jonah's latest:

"Most informed people understand that this is a remarkably stupid time to be alive."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445307/tonight-really-big-moment-repeal-and-replace-effort

Uh, I think you linked to a different piece. A nice line from the link is:

It is not reassuring to hear President Trump declare, “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.” Er, yes, Mr. President, just about anyone who spent more than ten minutes looking at the issues involved could see that coming.

It appears that Jonah is willing to go down proudly flying the flag of defiance. That's ok by me. Anything that brings confusion upon the enemy is ok by me. Even if it's pouting and face-pulling from the paleo-right.

maybe i misunderstand but afaik paleo-right == nationalists/nativists/isolationists i.e. Trump supporters. jonah == neocon.

sorry. my taxonomy of dreadful people is a bit weak at times.