Post New

I’ve known the woman and her husband for decades. Her husband was active duty navy during the Vietnam era, and in the reserves for the next sixteen, retiring as a chief petty officer.

His wife knew he did something in “intelligence”, but that was about it. Every year, he would fly to Japan as part of his reserve commitment, and return- tight-lipped. I can remember gatherings of friends in which some of us would pester him, “C’mon,<insert name>, you can tell us. You work for the NSA, don’t you?”.

And he would just smile.

He retired from the navy in 1987. His wife said he never did say a word about what he did on those trips to Japan. And after a few years, she stopped asking him.

Fast forward to 2017. <Insert name> is in an assisted living facility. In just a few months, Parkinson’s would take his life. His wife came to visit.


A few weeks ago, his widow told me about that visit.


“He smiled and said “Remember those trips to Japan? It was the NSA’.”

That’s all he said. He died soon after.

Perhaps he felt he had to square that one dishonesty with his wife; I don’t know…… or that after thirty years of being out of the service, it was a secret that just didn’t matter anymore. Who can tell?


But when I look at the care this anonymous chief petty officer displayed to honor the vow he took in 1967, I can’t help comparing it to the casual disregard shown by today’s guardians of the nation’s secrets.

I can’t help comparing it to the casual disregard shown by today’s guardians of the nation’s secrets.

Agree. Hosting an entre server where the nation's classified material was just passed around like a cheap doobie is something I never thought I'd see.

Dope1: Agree. Hosting an entre server where the nation's classified material was just passed around like a cheap doobie is something I never thought I'd see.

Yeah, never happened.

Here's the question, though: How many times does Hegseth have to share classified information in unauthorized unsecure chats with friends without security clearances before you grow a pair and demand he resign or be fired?

Sign at a https://www.fiftyfifty.one demonstration last Saturday.

WHICH
RESTROOM
DO
CASTRATED
REPUBLICANS
USE?

Sign at a https://www.fiftyfifty.one demonstration last Saturday.

The saddest sign (to me) that I saw in photos of one of the rallies said, "If Not Now, When?"

The answer to that, of course, is "Fall of 2024." Not now. Then. All of this energy, all of this activism, all of this engagement - the time to do all that is before an election is taking place, not after you've lost.

Tepid engagement before the election followed by motivated outrage after the election doesn't accomplish much. Hopefully the folks most enraged, most scared, most appalled by the current depredations committed by the Administration will hold onto that energy in 2028 if they have to deal with yet another Democrat who isn't their Manic Pixie Dream Candidate, but still presents a significant choice compared to the alternative.

if they have to deal with yet another Democrat who isn't their Manic Pixie Dream Candidate, but still presents a significant choice compared to the alternative.

Who might that be?
Not Shpiro or Beshear. Bob Ferguson is a "who?" to 99% of the democrats.
Gavin Newsom? That's not a record I'd want to defend.

The crop of Senators includes Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar...wow.

A thin bench.

Who might that be?

Short list right now is Whitmer, Moore, Pritzker, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Booker, Newsom, Beshear, Klobuchar. Maybe Polis, maybe Booker. Probably not Emmanuel, though he's sniffing around it. Probably at least one non-politician gets enough traction to be talked about, to be this cycle's Andrew Yang (whether that's Smith or someone else who's hitting the zeitgeist in two years). At least one other Rep that manages to catch fundraising juice.

Whoever it is, some non-trivial chunk of the Democratic party will be disappointed that it's them and not one of the other candidates. And for the Democrats to win, that non-trivial chunk will need to manage that disappointment and strive with enthusiasm to get the candidate they are disappointed with elected - being mindful of the difference.

The GOP was able to do this with their sizable pro-life faction. They were deeply disappointed with Trump last cycle. He basically stripped their hard-won language on abortion out of the platform, signaled he would appoint a pro-life person to head HHS, all-but-turned the party into a pro-choice party for blue states, and indicated he would not under any circumstances stand up for abortion restrictions during the campaign. But they swallowed that disappointment, didn't stray with alternative candidates, and didn't punish him to try to force him to move on their issues. They let him win the election.

BTW, they have to be enormously disappointed with the early days of the Trump Administration. He has blown every norm out of the water, smashed every Overton Window he can find, pulled every single lever of power no matter how outlandish....but has done virtually nothing to restrict abortion. He's been blasting in every direction one every issue except that one.

But they swallowed that disappointment, didn't stray with alternative candidates, and didn't punish him to try to force him to move on their issues. They let him win the election.

And yet….they got Dobbs. I don’t think they’re unhappy with Trump.

But back to the Dems in 2028. Nate Silver is saying AOC is a top choice. That’s where your party is right now.

But back to the Dems in 2028. Nate Silver is saying AOC is a top choice. That’s where your party is right now.

Where - that one of the most well-known members of the House who is both a prodigious fundraiser and going to get a ton of free press is a strong contender for a Presidential election three years away? That's not really much of a surprise. Needless to say I think it's fairly unlikely that she'll actually be the nominee.

Where

Where? In a place where literally everything it does is a gift to the GOP, that's where. AOC is my dream 2028 candidate :).

AOC is my dream 2028 candidate :).

Of course (although be careful what you wish for - many Democrats felt the same thing about Trump in 2016).

But that's the main reason that I think she won't be the nominee in 2028. She might not even run. She doesn't fit the current state of play very well. It wasn't all that long ago that she was calling for decriminalization of the border and criticizing de Blasio for not defunding the police enough, which were positions that fit the 2020 landscape far better than the current one. I don't think 2028 is the election cycle where Democrats are willing to put someone with those kinds of recent positions up.

I think she keeps her powder dry in case there's a thermostatic reaction back to pre-2024 attitudes on immigration and crime. It's a long way to 2028. But she's so young, and so popular in her part of the party, that she doesn't need to move in 2028 if it's not a really good shot for her.

In the end, if she does run I think she'll probably do better than Silver's early favorite for the 2016 nomination - he predicted Harris, and she didn't even make it to Iowa. She'll have enough money and access to money to stay in the race as long as she wants, and she'll have the progressive lane all to herself. And maybe she decides it's a good year to take a Presidential campaign "L" to raise her national profile even further. But not the nominee.

on AOC.. it depends...on how bad this one gets..... I would not write her off !

But that's the main reason that I think she won't be the nominee in 2028. She might not even run. She doesn't fit the current state of play very well. It wasn't all that long ago that she was calling for decriminalization of the border and criticizing de Blasio for not defunding the police enough, which were positions that fit the 2020 landscape far better than the current one. I don't think 2028 is the election cycle where Democrats are willing to put someone with those kinds of recent positions up.

Heh. Who are these democrats that spoke out in favor of the police during the Floyd riots? They don't exist. Her position quickly became the mainstream on policing and crime in blue states. That's why it was such a remarked on thing when DeSantis and other red state governors stood up for law enforcement and public order.

Now dems are gaslighting anyone who will listen to pretend they never supported defunding anything.

AOC likely thinks of herself as President, for sure. But not from her perch in the House. She needs Schumer or Gillibrand to retire so she can have a far better launching pad in the Senate.

She doesn't fit the current state of play very well.

I agree AOC doesn't. Newsome has low approval ratings to deal with, but I like him. There's just no one outstanding to the left of center. But if AOC is chosen I'll back her play and get out and campaign for her.

Now dems are gaslighting anyone who will listen to pretend they never supported defunding anything</i.

That was a BLM mistake. It took a while to understand they wanted parts of policework, i.e. domestic violence calls to be handled by social worker types, and removed from police. The message was a failure. No gaslighting needed.

Nate Silver is saying AOC is a top choice. That’s where your party is right now.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I can think of a dozen far worse candidates. And they all have (R) after their name. There are a couple of decent choices with that (R) as well, but they'll never survive the primary. Because that is where YOUR party is right now.

--Peter

The saddest sign (to me) that I saw in photos of one of the rallies said, "If Not Now, When?"

I am sure there are Trump supporters who claim that is antisemitic.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

For me and the Republican Party it’s an outstanding thing.

-She’s an idiot. As in, an objectively not intelligent person. At all.
-She’s insanely unlikable. Can’t relate to anyone besides woke people from her district.

And many other things make her the PERFECT person for you. Please nominate her in 2028!

Who are these democrats that spoke out in favor of the police during the Floyd riots? They don't exist. Her position quickly became the mainstream on policing and crime in blue states.

That's certainly the GOP argument. Though surprisingly few governmental bodies actually defunded the police, for it to have been a "mainstream" position. In fact, AOC staked out her position in criticism of New York City, because they didn't defund the police to her satisfaction. Democrats realized very quickly that the position the Groups wanted them to take was political poison, and only ended up doing it in a relatively modest number of cities.

Regardless, that's why politicians like Shapiro and Beshear and Whitmer that didn't get out in front of those issues back in the day will be able to avoid taking the shots that AOC (and some others) would take if they ran.

AOC likely thinks of herself as President, for sure. But not from her perch in the House. She needs Schumer or Gillibrand to retire so she can have a far better launching pad in the Senate.

They say every Senator sees a President when they look in the mirror...but the Senate has not been a particularly auspicious launching pad for Presidential ambitions. It's the nature of the job. You're constantly taking votes. You're often taking votes on bills that were drafted by the opposing party specifically to be painful; also you often have to hold your nose and take a vote on a bill from your side that you'd prefer not to cast. Presidents are rarely elected directly from the Senate.

Being a governor is a better perch to reach for the Presidency. Being the Veep is also good (but has its own challenges).

because they didn't defund the police to her satisfaction.

Heh. Because they didn’t cut enough. Because they didn’t release enough criminals.

Democrats realized very quickly that the position the Groups wanted them to take was political poison, and only ended up doing it in a relatively modest number of cities.

You mean…most of the major cities on the west coast? Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland to name a few?

Then you had entire states like Oregon making drugs essentially legal and Washington banning police pursuits. No, I think the democrats have lost the Law and Order vote for a generation.

Being a governor is a better perch to reach for the Presidency. Being the Veep is also good (but has its own challenges).

Of the last 6 democrat Presidents (Biden, Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy) 4 were Senators as their main political claim to fame. Contrast that with the GOP where of their last 7 Trump, Bush43, Bush41, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower) only Richard Nixon was a Senator.

The democrat govs in office today not named Newsom or Whitmer don’t have a ton of name recognition. Whitmer won’t be it because she’ll have to credit any auto resurgence to Trump and she’s not skilled enough to have it both ways.

Newsom will fried by the dem base for walking back his transgender stance…plus his record is abysmal.

So the Dems are likely down to Senator of the week. A Klobuchar or Corey Booker (which is the real reason why he did his filibuster to nowhere stunt).

You mean…most of the major cities on the west coast? Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland to name a few?

Then you had entire states like Oregon making drugs essentially legal and Washington banning police pursuits. No, I think the democrats have lost the Law and Order vote for a generation.

Yes, the major cities on the west coast are only a modest number of cities. Most cities didn't defund their police, and most Democrats were iffy about the Defund movement from the get go. Which is exactly how you ended up with a situation where de Blasio was trying to look like he was satisfying the activist left without actually doing much - and AOC calling him out on it. That was the dominant pattern - outside of the furthest left jurisdictions, most Democrats were very wary of what the Defund movement was calling for.

The Democrats haven't had the Law and Order vote for several generations. After all, when do you think the last time was that they were considered the Law and Order party versus the GOP? So I don't think it's much of a stretch to agree with you that they won't have it for a while longer. Democrats always do poorly when law and order issues have high salience with voters. I agree with you that the brief dalliance with "defund the police" as a slogan and policy was especially bad new for Democrats and they will pay for it for a little while, and the politicians that didn't dodge the issue will be especially the worse off. But that hurts AOC's chances in a primary if she decides to run any time soon.

Of the last 6 democrat Presidents (Biden, Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy) 4 were Senators as their main political claim to fame. Contrast that with the GOP where of their last 7 Trump, Bush43, Bush41, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower) only Richard Nixon was a Senator.

LBJ and Biden didn't ascend to the Presidency from the Senate, but rather from the Vice Presidency. Obama was the only person of either party to move from the Senate to the WH without a stop in the Veep spot since Kennedy. If AOC wants to be President, she'd be much better off as Governor AOC than Senator AOC. The Governor's Mansion is the main launching pad for successful Presidential runs (Clinton, Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter). Vice President AOC would also be good (Biden, Bush41, LBJ, Nixon). Only Kennedy and Obama have made the leap straight from Senator to President.

It's interesting that all of you are taking for granted that there will be an election in 2028.

taking for granted that there will be an election in 2028.

Gotta keep a positive attitude. And also have to keep working to make sure that happens.

On the other hand, one of our resident MAGAts seems to be making the same assumption. So that bodes well.

—Peter

It's interesting that all of you are taking for granted that there will be an election in 2028.

Why wouldn't there be?

It's interesting that all of you are taking for granted that there will be an election in 2028.

Why wouldn't there be?

I don’t know, maybe having a president who thinks following the U.S Constitution (which he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend) is, and I quote, “too inconvenient”.

It's interesting that all of you are taking for granted that there will be an election in 2028.

Why wouldn't there be?

Yes, there were elections after Duterte. Bong Bong Marcos made Sarah Duterte his VP, but attacked her after he was elected. Now Duterte is detained in Europe (and will receive due process).

But... we haven't gotten to the point where Trump is attacking the election cycle, which will be defended by his devotees, and we will watch as you defend every bit of destruction of democracy tactics employed by Trump.

I don’t know,

You should have stopped here...

maybe having a president who thinks following the U.S Constitution (which he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend) is, and I quote, “too inconvenient”.

...because this is nonsensical.

But... we haven't gotten to the point where Trump is attacking the election cycle, which will be defended by his devotees, and we will watch as you defend every bit of destruction of democracy tactics employed by Trump.

LOL. The next time you see your psychotherapist, ask him to up the voltage during your treatments. The current levels are way too low.

But... we haven't gotten to the point where Trump is attacking the election cycle,

Ummm ... not to get picky, but what was Jan 6 if not an attack on the election process?

Granted, not the same as eliminating the election altogether, but not far away from it, either.

--Peter

Granted, not the same as eliminating the election altogether, but not far away from it, either.

He gave it his best shot and showed that he was willing to overthrow the government if he could get away with it.

Now he has everything in place to allow him to do just that. We'll see.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.