tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00The Dividist Papersmwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger938125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-82948868199018271622018-03-05T09:38:35.004-08:002018-03-05T09:38:35.004-08:00My faith in humanity is restored. My faith in humanity is restored. Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-33619273095243393932018-03-05T03:33:45.086-08:002018-03-05T03:33:45.086-08:00I found the lede.I found the lede.Uniters Centrist Voter Networkhttps://uniters.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-29586080581399222452016-09-19T13:53:04.808-07:002016-09-19T13:53:04.808-07:00Thank you visiting my humble blog and for you insi...Thank you visiting my humble blog and for you insightful analysis Mr. Trump - I mean - <i>"<a href="http://www.dividist.com/2016/09/trump-or-clinton-you-wont-believe-who_6.html?showComment=1474156758561#c3903335997067175265" rel="nofollow">Keith Waters</a>"</i>. <br /><br />Apparently you missed this part of my post:<br /><i>"CPD arguments are, of course pointless, unresolvable, and a complete waste of time.</i><br /><br />In any case, I appreciate you contributing a comment which I can point to as EXHIBIT A in support of my point.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-52105778177067601502016-09-17T23:17:17.244-07:002016-09-17T23:17:17.244-07:00Thank you Michael. I only suggest that before yo...Thank you <a href="http://www.dividist.com/2016/09/trump-or-clinton-you-wont-believe-who_6.html?showComment=1473223649548#c772923067335814086" rel="nofollow"> Michael</a>. I only suggest that before you share this piece with your liberal friends, you edit out the part where I explain that while Clinton is indeed lying, she is primarily lying to the Prog community. Just sayin' - the argument may be more effective to the left-of-center audience without that bit.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-39033359970671752652016-09-17T16:59:18.561-07:002016-09-17T16:59:18.561-07:00This "analysis" belongs in the Onion. Yo...This "analysis" belongs in the Onion. You must want the progressives to control the Supreme Court and federal bureaucracy until Jesus comes. Trump is a buffoon but Hillary is the Devil'S concubine. What a steaming pile.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04078239342499775772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-7729230673358140862016-09-06T21:47:29.548-07:002016-09-06T21:47:29.548-07:00Really good piece. I'll be sharing it at the p...Really good piece. I'll be sharing it at the proper moment on the leftwing dial when I hear/read one of my idiot acquaintances proclaiming, "There's no difference between Clinton and Trump, we need to start a real revolution." And yes, I'm voting Hilary loud and proud, without any blinkers on about the corruptions of the empire she aspires to lead.Civic Centerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12362422142667230626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-39520748556504643722016-06-05T19:46:43.298-07:002016-06-05T19:46:43.298-07:00Thanks for the comment.
I go back and forth on t...Thanks for the comment. <br /><br />I go back and forth on the likelihood of Trump getting blown out in this election. With some current national polls and general lack of backbone among GOP leadership, I'll admit to some doubt creeping in. But, at some point you just have to believe in the common sense wisdom of the American electorate at large. <br /><br />This is what I still believe: It's a blowout for Clinton. There is - at most - 20 to 25% of the electorate that are hardcore "cult of personality" supporters of Trump. Basically, the same percentage that supported Perot at his peak. Beyond that, the balance of his voters will come from the 35% hardcore GOP partisan voters (similar to the percentage of hardcore Democratic Party Partisans). They don't like Trump, but will vote the party line regardless. They also overlap to a significant extent with the Cultists. Net...net... he can't have more that 40-45% of the popular vote, and possibly less. It'll be a landslide. But many moderate GOP and Independent American voters can and will seperate the man and the party. They'll vote against Trump, and vote for their GOP representative. I just can't see how it can turn out any other way.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-8841357302301241502016-06-05T19:07:07.543-07:002016-06-05T19:07:07.543-07:00Thanks for posting this. I'm getting pretty sc...Thanks for posting this. I'm getting pretty scared about a Trump presidency (and it's even worse because he would have a GOP Congress). I think your post provides a good argument to get Republicans to refuse to fall into line behind him.Ricketsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579799843541826447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-61958666079230509842016-03-13T15:35:46.586-07:002016-03-13T15:35:46.586-07:00I am not covering anything up. As I've said re...I am not covering anything up. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, The Bush43 spending, deficits and debt were extremely bad. <a href="http://www.dividist.com/2006/08/big-spending-big-deficit-big.html" rel="nofollow">At the time, I didn't think it could be worse.</a> I was wrong. The simple fact is the Obama spending, deficits and debt have been far worse. Particularly in the first two years of the administration until the GOP won the House, divided the government, and started to apply the brakes. Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-68659725356221878752016-03-03T02:26:32.832-08:002016-03-03T02:26:32.832-08:00Nearly all the economic success is due to the fed....Nearly all the economic success is due to the fed. <br /> And taking fsr too many soldiers out of Afghanistan is nothing to be proud of. It caused the formation of Isis. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-84287692387848768802015-06-19T11:21:16.873-07:002015-06-19T11:21:16.873-07:00the last budget that Bush signed gave the USA the ...the last budget that Bush signed gave the USA the largest deficit in our history. You seem to hae tried to cover that up. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-32017771465137057042015-05-04T08:28:10.303-07:002015-05-04T08:28:10.303-07:00Nonsense. The definition of disingenuous:
"d...Nonsense. The definition of disingenuous:<br /><br /><i>"dis·in·gen·u·ous<br />ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/<br />adjective<br />not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."</i><br /><br />I am being candid and completely sincere with that title for this blog. It is a succinct and accurate description of my political philosophy and how I vote as <a href="http://www.dividist.com/p/voting-by-objective.html" rel="nofollow">explained in detail here</a>. <br /><br />Moreover, although he was making a different but complementary point about religious freedom, the phrase itself is a 100% accurate quote from Thomas Jefferson, which you can see written in his own hand <a href="http://www.dividist.com/2008/03/maxim-of-civil-government-being.html" rel="nofollow">linked here</a>.<br /><br />Thank you for your comment.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-57709695180485266942015-05-04T00:45:39.379-07:002015-05-04T00:45:39.379-07:00Misquoting 'united we stand, divided we fall&#...Misquoting 'united we stand, divided we fall' to read instead divided we stand, united we fall is extremely disingenuous. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-36667469999237256822014-04-10T14:46:45.966-07:002014-04-10T14:46:45.966-07:00Latinos have been very loyal Democratic Party vote...Latinos have been very loyal Democratic Party voters for over 50 years. The idea that the Republicans can appeal to them in the future is naive and laughable. <br /><br />Does anyone really believe that a demographic group that is poor, remains poor generations after immigrating to the U.S., and where more than 50% of the children are born to single mothers will ever vote for the more conservative party. <br /><br />Living in a neighborhood where one does not live next to poor people is becoming more expensive. Open borders, amnesty, and increased legal immigration just increase the cost of living in the good neighborhoods with the good schools. <br /><br />Why do not many people want to lower the living standards of American citizens so that so many third world immigrants can try to reestablish their home countries inside the U.S.?superdestroyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-675295933566930022014-02-17T11:49:53.888-08:002014-02-17T11:49:53.888-08:00Oh. Forgive me.
I didn't realize a minor qui...Oh. Forgive me.<br /><br />I didn't realize a minor quibble on a tiny area of process was a serious criticism of the entire Obama administration. If that's the kind of "proof" you find for GG being a heroic critic, no wonder you think you "can't help me." You can't even help yourself!<br /><br />So let's recap.<br /><br />I ask you to prove GG is a staunch critic of Obama and the Democrats prior to 2013. <br /><br />You offer a tepid wishy-washy statement in which GG says Obama could have chosen a different procedural bit of rhetorical gamesmanship. <br /><br />So in your world, "criticizing" Obama can be as mild as saying his shoes didn't match his belt.<br /><br />Gotcha.<br /><br />For a satirist, you sure do lack satirical chops and for a political analyst, you sure do lack analytic chops.<br /><br />But I am sure you amuse yourself with this blog, and that's really all that matters. Keep smiling at that guy in the mirror!Hugh Fuller Schittenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-66665422367363338112014-02-17T00:07:25.089-08:002014-02-17T00:07:25.089-08:00Let' replay the tape HSF. You posted a comment...Let' replay the tape HSF. You posted a comment saying <i>"He didn't start criticizing Democrats until Jan 2013"</i> I posted two links showing that you are factually wrong, that he was very critical of Obama on civil rights issues within two months of Obama taking office in 2009 and explained how you could find many more examples since. <br /><br />Now, you are complaining that he is not critical enough, only "85%" as critical of Obama as <i>you</i> think he should be. That's kind of ridiculous, and if you actually read his quotes - inaccurate: <br /><br /><b>GG on Obama's Libya War Action 2011:</b><br /><i>"..what is undeniable is that Obama could have easily obtained Congressional approval for this war -- just as Bush could have for his warrantless eavesdropping program -- but consciously chose not to, even to the point of acting contrary to his own lawyers' conclusions about what is illegal. Other than the same hubris -- and a desire to establish his power to act without constraints -- it's very hard to see what motivated this behavior."</i><br /><b>GG on Obama's claims to supercede judicial review of classified documents:</b><br /><i>"The brief filed by Obama on Friday afternoon has to be read to believed. It is literally arguing that no court has the power to order that classified documents be used in a judicial proceeding; instead, it is the President -- and the President alone -- who possesses that decision-making power... That's about as clear as it gets. There is only one branch with the power to decide if these documents can be used in this Article III court proceeding: The Executive. What the President decides is final. His decision is unreviewable. It's beyond the reach of the law. No court has the authority to second-guess it or to direct the President to comply with a disclosure order. That's the mentality"</i><br />His more recent comments are even more critical. If that's "85%" I'm good with 85%. <br /><br />Regarding my "GG fanclub", please note I am also citing/linking Rand Paul and Freedomworks (Koch Bros)lawsuit/criticism which is presumably more to your liking. <br /><br />Bottom line, Greenwald is constitutional lawyer and a progressive. That makes his critique of Obama executive overreach far more effective, credible and damaging than criticism levied by those whose motivation can be painted as partisan hackery or Obama Derangement Syndrome. <br /><br />If you can't see that because your personal animus for Greewald overrides your rational faculties, I can't help you.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-83567349153342488712014-02-16T08:52:30.178-08:002014-02-16T08:52:30.178-08:00These "pointed criticisms" you reference...These "pointed criticisms" you reference are where he goes 85% of the way to criticism, then holds back 15% and it's the most crucial 15% he withholds -- but you're not going to see that if you firmly believe he's a heroic critic.<br /><br />Maybe you could remove your GG Fanclub buttons and baseball cap before you read his writing next time?<br /><br />If you're satirizing his fans, I probably can't see that through the weak attempt, and failing one, at satire.<br /><br />If you can list one thing he's said that was both insightful, and thoroughly critical, well shit -- I might have to give you a slender bit of footing on which to stand.Hugh Fuller Schittenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-90372131629832383832014-02-14T18:34:54.182-08:002014-02-14T18:34:54.182-08:00@HFS
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment...@HFS<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. <br /><br />If you are arguing that Glenn Greenwald is a progressive democrat and not a conservative republican. Stipulated. But at no point did I say anything different in this post. So I don't know who you are arguing with. It's not me.<br /><br />But if you are arguing that Greenwald has not been a consistent defender of civil liberties, constitutional protection, and executive restraint against overreach by both Bush and Obama administrations, you are flat out wrong. <br /><br />Yes he attacked Bush and the Republicans about executive overreach, surveillance without warrants or probable cause, indefinite detentions without trial, and war power claims without congressional approval. All with good reason. <br /><br />Within two months of Obama taking office in 2009 Greenwald was taking the Obama administration to task for embracing and expanding the Bush/Cheney unitary executive. <br />I was quoting him in my posts at the time:<br /><br /><b><i><a href="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-endorses-bushcheney-unitary.html" rel="nofollow">Obama Endorses the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive. Again and again and again.</a></i> -2/19/09"<br /><br /><i><a href="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2009/03/meet-new-unitary-executive-same-as-old.html" rel="nofollow">Meet the new unitary executive -<br />Same as the old unitary executive"</a></i> - 03-03-09</b><br /><br />He has made many more similarly pointed criticisms of the Obama administration in particular and democrats in general for failing to uphold constitutional principles and protections over the years. You can find many more of his quotes along these lines by clicking on the "Unitary Executive" tag at the end of the post. <br /><br />There are hypocritical conservatives who have defended Bush but attacked Obama for the same violations of constitutional protections and executive overreach. I am not one of those.<br /><br />There are hypocritical liberals who have attacked Bush but defended Obama for the same violations of constitutional protections and executive overreach. Greenwald is not one of those.<br /><br />He has been a consistent defender of constitutional protections and executive restraint regardless of which party controls the White House. <br /><br />On these issues I'd rather align with a principled progressive (and/or conservative) with a passion for civil liberties over hypocritical partisan republicans or democrats every time. <br /><br />Not sure what camp you are in.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-5956350175659723162014-02-14T09:17:11.608-08:002014-02-14T09:17:11.608-08:00Six year ago - Many of the same people and organiz...<i>Six year ago - Many of the same people and organizations associated with the events this week, including Greenwald, Paul, the ACLU and EFF, warned of exactly what we are seeing now</i><br /><br />Greenwald was not arguing against this stuff 6 years ago. 6 years ago he was blaming everything on the GOP and Bush/Cheney. His books have blamed everything on the GOP and Bush/Cheney. He didn't start criticizing Democrats until Jan 2013. And then, only tepidly.<br /><br />Good job shilling for one of the infotainment media's biggest liars.Hugh Fuller Schittenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-79590814618453882482014-02-09T12:38:51.863-08:002014-02-09T12:38:51.863-08:00To your point, found this description of how the G...To your point, found this description of how the GOP probably lost a couple of seats in PA due to being too smart by half in "packing" Murtha's PA-12 district. From PJ Media - <b><i><a href="http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/" rel="nofollow">"The Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the United States"</a></i></b><br /><br /><i>PA-12 is a rare example of “packing” (jamming as many opposition voters as possible into one district) that backfired. This district was created to be a Democratic stronghold formerly held by Congressman Jack Murtha, who was assumed to have a lock on the district. At the last redistricting in 2000, the Republicans in charge gave up on the area, which is solidly unionized, and decided to “pack” Murtha’s new district with as many Democrats as possible, to allow the remaining districts in the region a chance to have slim Republican majorities. But in the intervening ten years everything has changed: the area grew more and more conservative, and the locally popular Murtha died, opening up the seat to possible challengers. In the 2010 election, PA-12 barely remained Democratic with Mark Critz winning by a hairsbreadth 50.8%-49.2% margin — while most of the surrounding districts overwhelmingly went Republican. Thus, if the foolish 2000 Republican redistricters had not consciously set out to create a “packed” Democratic district, and had instead just drawn the boundaries at random, they could have easily won all the races in the area, instead of losing this one (and the adjacent PA-4) by the slimmest of margins. Note to gerrymanderers: THINGS CHANGE. What may appear to be a wise gerrymander maneuver today may blow up in your face sometime in the future."</i>Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-85030096290346571862014-02-09T09:05:48.088-08:002014-02-09T09:05:48.088-08:00The problem with gerrymandering is that creating d...The problem with gerrymandering is that creating districts where you have advantage inevitably also creates districts where you don't. The standard strategy is to create districts where you hold an edge, and to lump all the other guys into a few districts where they control utterly. <br /><br />In practice this tends to give you an edge in swing districts while creating some safe districts for the other guys. But swing districts can and will swing. People are mobile. Moods change. <br /><br />If you gerrymander to create safe districts for yourself, you hand the other guys swing districts instead. :) See above re: change.Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03842067230152580405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-2465182222675203952014-01-04T20:52:40.628-08:002014-01-04T20:52:40.628-08:00"some of the rescued consciousness-raising ec...<i>"some of the rescued consciousness-raising eco-tourists are complaining that their return to "civilization" is being somewhat delayed so their Aussie rescue ship can finish the supply delivery to a real Antarctic research station"</i><br /><br />In this case, I agree with them. There is no possible way to overstate the value of their "consciousness raising" on the general population.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-45903918070876069742014-01-04T14:14:35.036-08:002014-01-04T14:14:35.036-08:00Just to tighten the absurdity screws a bit, some o...Just to tighten the absurdity screws a bit, some of the rescued consciousness-raising eco-tourists are complaining that their return to "civilization" is being somewhat delayed so their Aussie rescue ship can finish the supply delivery to a real Antarctic research station that was interrupted by having to go get their butts off of the Russian ship. <br /><br />I think the trip organizers should get the bill for the rescue. The whole thing. Tullynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-48284486321003855872013-03-12T01:01:32.859-07:002013-03-12T01:01:32.859-07:00@Megaman
Well Yeah. I think my post makes my feeli...@Megaman<br />Well Yeah. I think my post makes my feelings about the sequester perfectly clear. I am delighted that the "cuts" went into effect. Obviously they are not enough to solve our debt problem, but at least we have have taken one baby step back from the brink.Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-59043656649062937092013-03-11T23:19:06.063-07:002013-03-11T23:19:06.063-07:00I hope you're happy. Sequestration is what we ...I hope you're happy. Sequestration is what we get when we have bipartisanship and divided government.Megaman_Xnoreply@blogger.com