John McCain RIP.......

[coracle]

You got the accolades yesterday Maof, from the bitter sibling to the pompous ex-President. They were all there; the people that has made it unnecessary to MAGA, in Meaghan’s opinion [[maybe she should swap notes with Cuomo!).

I didn’t see much of it; but what I did see, was an uncomfortable swamp audience who’s prime pleasure was to hear the person that was not in the room smeared while he MAGA, before they celebrated the life of an American Hero.

[jcole]

Trump's name was never mentioned throughout the service yesterday; his supporters must have known who they meant by the truths being told by Meghan, Barack, George and Joe.

[Richard]

Yep, nothing like stellar pillars of America to use as examples.

[coracle]

It was interesting over the last few days being inundated with TV excerpts from two large funerals.

There was Aretha Franklins run by and presided over by a black “KKK” and was upbeat, positive, happy people and some of it viewable. One clergyman even gripped a chick in an unholy embrace.

Then there was John Mcain’s, run by the swamp; sober, solemn, orchestrated by the departed, tinged in bitterness and administered by a bunch of mumbo-jumbo religious ministers.

I couldn’t help but feel overall that Religion has had its day [[particularly the Catholic faith) and needs to be replaced with something more logic and sensible. Do we really believe we pass into some sort of infinity??? Do we want to be stuck with “obamas” for ever and ever? [[or John McCain for the matter), on the other hand, the chick....

Isn’t she the one that licked a donut in a donut shop and put it back on the for sale tray? She apologized for it though.

[Zacha341]

Open funerals of well known individuals are subject to a rather broad swath of attendees -- spectators too!! Eh, would you care to identify the black KKK member attending Franklin's funeral?

Oh yes, the Grande Lick Donut 'Hate America' thing. Hah, that's as novel as hating ones parents per her age group...... *sarc*

https://www.today.com/popculture/ari...america-t31006

[Pam]

Reposting after the outage:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/2...f-john-McCain/

There were few figures in recent American life who dedicated themselves so personally to the perpetuation of war and empire as McCain. But in Washington, the most defining aspect of his career was studiously overlooked, or waved away as the trivial idiosyncrasy of a noble servant who nonetheless deserved everyone’s reverence. McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention of the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor, while pushing for sanctions and assorted campaigns of subterfuge on the side. He was uniquely ruthless when it came to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far-right fanatics as American proxies.

[Honky Tonk]

Reposting after the outage:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/2...f-john-McCain/

Thanx, Pam. An interesting read.

[aj3647]

Both are M.D.'s. Rand is also anti war, anti police state, and a supporter of the Constitution. He is better than Trump on those issues. As such, most Democrats and half of Republicans abhor him. Some times, he holds up or blocks Trump.

Bullshit. Name ONE time Rand Paul has blocked Trump on anything. Just one. Rand Paul talks a good game and he's really good at pretending to be a libertarian, but when push comes to shove, he's another rubber stamp for the GOP's corporatist agenda.

You want an example? I'll give you a future one: Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. Kavanaugh once wrote an opinion and ruled in favor of the constitutionality of George W Bush's "warrantless wiretapping" program wherein the NSA secretly collected metadata on tens of millions of Americans, saying that privacy concerns were "outweighed" by national security interests. Rand Paul said he was "worried" and "concerned" by Kavanaugh's staunchly anti-privacy judicial stance, as an opinion such as Kavanaugh's should be anathema to any true libertarian [[that it's OK for the government to spy on you without your knowledge and without a warrant and indeed even without reasonable suspicion). And how will Rand Paul vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation? He's going to vote "yes", take that prediction to the bank. Rubber Stamp Rand.

Rand Paul is a bullshit phony libertarian. When the choice is bucking his party for the sake of his libertarian principles, or toeing the party line, he toes the party line 99% of the time. At least his pappy had the stones to ACTUALLY buck his party, Rand Paul is the neutered version of Ron Paul.

[oladub]

aj, Mentioning Rand Paul to cheerleaders of the corporatist status quo elicits something like what happens when silver crosses are waved at exorcisms. Your new found interest in liberty, libertarianism being the opposite of authoritarianism, is encouraging though improbable. Given the choices of Kavanaugh over any future Democratic candidate, Rand probably did the right thing. Kavenaugh hasn't been good on privacy issues but then neither was Obama, who expanded Bush's spy state, or Hillary. Is Kavanaugh more likely than any Democratic judge to uphold, for instance, the First, Second, and 10th Amendment or property rights? The answer is yes.

Rand votes against defense spending unlike your murderous buddies McCain, Obama, Kerry, and Hillary. Rand consistently opposes wars and interventionist foreign policies in places like Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He laid out a plan to pay off the federal debt although Democrats probably fear that idea more than the 10th. Amendment being invoked. Rand once filibustered for 13 hours trying to head off the nomination of civil liberties enemy Brennan as CIA director. Rand joined with Democrats to try to block Trump's Saudi arms deal. Rand "blocked the nomination of John Demers to be Assistant Attorney General over his past work with NSA surveillance."

Wikipedia disagrees with your assessment. It describes Paul as a "libertarian conservative on economic issues". "Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches. He has also proposed eliminating the Transportation Security Administration and opposes the extra judicial killing of American citizens in the United States who are terrorism suspects. He opposes the domestic use of drones as a means of surveillance, deeming it a violation of "the right to privacy that all Americans have", but supports drones being used in response to an imminent threat. Paul voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [[NDAA) and 2013, both of which contain provisions in it that allow the US government to indefinitely detain US citizens without due process." So which Democrat or even Republican Senator has a higher libertarian scorecard rating? Link?

[aj3647]

aj, Mentioning Rand Paul to cheerleaders of the corporatist status quo elicits something like what happens when silver crosses are waved at exorcisms. Your new found interest in liberty, libertarianism being the opposite of authoritarianism, is encouraging though improbable. Given the choices of Kavanaugh over any future Democratic candidate, Rand probably did the right thing. Kavenaugh hasn't been good on privacy issues but then neither was Obama, who expanded Bush's spy state, or Hillary. Is Kavanaugh more likely than any Democratic judge to uphold, for instance, the First, Second, and 10th Amendment or property rights? The answer is yes.

Do you not understand how Supreme Court nominations work? Do you think that if Kavanaugh were to fail to get enough votes for a confirmation, that Democrats somehow get to pick who fills that open seat?

Here, let me educate you Oladub. If Kavanaugh's nomination were to fail, let's say he's torpedoed by Rand Paul and Susan Collins and the Democrats...then Trump gets to nominate someone else. Not the Democrats. See how that works? Do you get that now? And, knowing that Rand Paul would vote "no" on any jurist who has a judicial record that supports violating the privacy rights of Americans, the White House would most likely seek to nominate a conservative jurist who would be more palatable to Rand Paul in order to secure his vote. So you still fill that seat with a conservative, just not one named "Brett Kavanaugh." And by flexing his muscle and bucking his party given the leverage he holds in a Republican razor-thin Senate majority, Paul could actually exert influence over the specific type of conservative jurist who gets to hold that seat. See how that works?

I don't know what kind of bullshit "if-than" logic you're using to try to argue that if the Kavanaugh nomination fails that a liberal will end up in that seat, but it doesn't match reality. When Paul votes for Kavanaugh, a guy who thinks it's OK for the government to spy on you without cause or justification, all Rand Paul will do is to prove that he doesn't actually hold any libertarian values at all. He's full of shit. I don't particularly care for his dad, but I'll give Ron Paul credit, he actually walked the talk. His spineless son does not. Ron Paul would not vote for Brett Kavanaugh, Rand will though because he's not a libertarian, he just claims to be one.

ALSO, I asked you to name one instance where Rand Paul blocked Trump. Did you forget about that? You made the claim after all...

[bust]

Seems as good a time as any to repeat this old favorite....

[oladub]

aj, I did link to at least one example of Rand Paul having blocked a Trump appointee.You must have missed that. Do you not understand how the House of Representatives work? There are 435 House members. Rand Paul, and other members cannot dictate as presidents sometimes do. They each have one vote out of 435 votes. Now you and bust are frothing at the term 'libertarian' and making my previous point that "Mentioning Rand Paul to cheerleaders of the corporatist status quo elicits something like what happens when silver crosses are waved at exorcisms. Your new found interest in liberty, libertarianism being the opposite of authoritarianism is encouraging though improbable."

But to get back to your main non-John McCain digression that Trump could just nominate someone else: We all know that the the mid-term elections are in two months and that the House and possibly the Senate will become Democratic Party cesspools. By the time Trump could nominate someone else and have hearings, the clowns might be in charge and wouldn't support any Trump nomination to the right of Kieth Ellison. No, we aren't so stupid as to believe that time doesn't make a difference or that you suddenly care about government spying on us.

The last paragraph of my previous post #59 laid out a gamut of Paul votes in support of liberty and against our government spying on citizens. My last sentence was, "So which Democrat or even Republican Senator has a higher libertarian scorecard rating? Link?" I did answer your question. You failed to answer mine.

[aj3647]

aj, I did link to at least one example of Rand Paul having blocked a Trump appointee.You must have missed that.

Would that be this link right here, oladub? Concerning Trump's nominee to be Assistant AG for the National Security Division, John Demers?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republ...ation-over-nsa

See, now that's odd to me, because you claimed that Rand Paul "blocked" [[your direct words) his nomination to be assistant AG. And yet, who is the Assistant AG for the National Security Division, right now, today? Why, none other than John Demers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demers

WEIRD because YOU said that Rand Paul blocked his nomination, so how on earth could John Demers hold that very position right now that you claimed was thwarted by Rand Paul??? The answer of course is that you're being deceitful, Rand Paul only temporarily paused Demer's nomination but ultimately he was in fact confirmed and does in fact hold that very position to this day. Nice one Rand! Big success!

o you not understand how the House of Representatives work? There are 435 House members. Rand Paul, and other members cannot dictate as presidents sometimes do. They each have one vote out of 435 votes.

Da fuck? Rand Paul is a SENATOR, not a member of the House of Representatives.

But to get back to your main non-John McCain digression that Trump could just nominate someone else: We all know that the the mid-term elections are in two months and that the House and possibly the Senate will become Democratic Party cesspools.

Let's say Democrats do take the Senate in November. That means that Republicans have two full months after the election to push through nominees before the Democrats take over. More than enough time to push through a replacement nomination. That's not even including the additional six weeks they would have BEFORE the election to do so should Kavanaugh fail to be confirmed next week. That's over three months to decide on a replacement that is more palatable to Rand Paul's sensibilities, should he actually choose to vote based on his own alleged principles.

But it's a moot point. Of course Paul is going to vote for Kavanaugh, even though [[as you pointed out) he opposed a Deputy AG nominee for his involvement in the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, the very thing Kavanaugh ruled was legal. I guess Rand is selective about when he takes a stand, as he seemingly only does so when his opposition would not actually affect the outcome of anything important.

[bust]

Now you and bust are frothing at the term 'libertarian'

Foaming at the mouth, nah. It's just that it's hilarious how so many libertarians are nothing more than rubber stamp republicans with a superiority complex, a compulsion for oversimplification, and a hypocritical willingness to stand for "liberty" only when they perceive it to benefit themselves personally.

[aj3647]

Foaming at the mouth, nah. It's just that it's hilarious how so many libertarians are nothing more than rubber stamp republicans with a superiority complex, a compulsion for oversimplification, and a hypocritical willingness to stand for "liberty" only when they perceive it to benefit themselves personally.

Rand Paul only puts on his "libertarian" hat when his vote is inconsequential to the outcome. Hence why Oladub was completely unable to find even one single example of Rand Paul actually blocking anything Trump did. When there's 55 or 60 or more "yes" votes and the outcome is locked in, that's the time when Rand likes to be a contrarian and go Libertarian Maverick. You will never ever see that on a vote where his vote would be the make-or-break difference. Ever. Why? Because Rand Paul wants to stay in Trump's good graces, and by extension, Trump supporters' good graces, because he has his eye on a 2020 or 2024 Presidential run. If Rand Paul were to ever kill a bill or a nomination Trump wanted by bucking the GOP majority on a party-line vote, he would certainly incur the wrath of the Right Wing pro-Trump media and Trump himself.

[oladub]

aj, In your Oct. 7 post you wrote, "Name one time Rand Paul has blocked Trump on anything. Just One. I responded on Oct. 7 with a linked quote that Rand Paul had "blocked the nomination of John Demers to be Assistant Attorney General over his past work with NSA surveillance." I fulfilled your request. If you had, at the time opened the link, you could have read on, "The conservative firebrand from Kentucky has blocked the nomination of John Demers to be the Assistant Attorney General over his past work with NSA surveillance" The word blocked was both the word you introduced to the conversation and the word the article used. "He has temporarily blocked John Demers." Are you now moving the goalpost to suggest that what you really meant was "permanently blocked" rather than "blocked"? The article goes on to say "Rand Paul has long been one of the Senate’s most vocal critics of a spying program "known as Section 702, part of the FISA Amendments Act." The same couldn't be said of John McCain or other warmongering corporatist champions of the establishment you espouse.

You are correct though that Rand Paul is a Senator as it said in that article. So to clarify that I will reword the paragraph in which I referred to Rand Paul as a Representative. "I did link to at least one example of Rand Paul having blocked a Trump appointee.You must have missed that. Do you not understand how the Senate works? There are 100 Senate members. Rand Paul, and other members cannot dictate as presidents sometimes do. They each have one vote out of 100 votes." My point stands.

Good point on your behalf that the extra time between the election and reseating of new Senate members might be enough time to push through another nominee. Trump nominated Kavenaugh on July 9, 2018. That's over two month ago although it isn't clear when Kavenaugh's nomination will be voted on. USA Today suggests Kavenaugh's vote could happen by October 1. That would work out to almost 3 months from nomination to a vote. First, we have to wait to find out what secret messages Dianne Feinstein has been receiving from anonymous sources regarding to whatever Kavenaugh did or said in high school as a minor. I'm glad I don't have to answer to everything I did as a minor when I look for new work. Thank goodness for the statute of limitations. So, given that approximate same timetable from the beginning of October until early January there would be the same time period. It's a stretch but if Senators decided that they didn't want a break or want to campaign, it is possible but unlikely to nominate and vote on a another nomination."

Kavenaugh, in my opinion, is a superior choice to anyone Obama nominated or anyone a possible future Democratic Senate is likely to support. There are other issues. Kavenaugh's record on privacy is flawed but your new found concern about privacy is still unbelievable given your ongoing advocacy of the coup and your support of enemies of privacy including Obama, Hillary, and McCain.