Still have TDS. Still don’t have RDS and DDS.

If I quote Attorney General Barr, who said the report does not “exonerate” Trump, I’ll be accused of having TDS. That’s right, even quoting top Trump officials is now a sign that you are a hater.  But then his own top officials call Trump a “terrible human being”, an idiot, a moron, and much worse. I’ll take the high road today.

Seriously, the report is obviously good news for Trump. If anything it came way too early, which perhaps explains the unusually small bump in his election odds in the betting market. (Why did his advisers keep encouraging an early release–did they assume Trump was guilty?)  If I had to guess, I’d say the betting markets (at around 37%) are still underestimating Trump’s chances, but after 2016 I’ve given up predicting politics. And it’s bad news for CNN and MSNBC, who overhyped the investigation.

You may want to search through my previous posts and look for me saying “My hatred of Trump is unrelated to the things he does publicly every day, and instead is based on the assumption that Mueller will find things about Trump that are not public information.” If you don’t find a sentence like that, you can safely assume that my views on Trump have not changed.

I do recall saying that the GOP was never going to impeach Trump, no matter what they found.  (Although I wish they would.)  I also argued that the Russia collusion and obstruction of justice were out there in plain sight. During the campaign, Trump publicly encouraged Russia to put out dirt on Hillary, and he told a TV reporter that he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. But Mueller’s job was not to look for Russia collusion or obstruction of justice in the everyday sense of the terms, but rather to look for evidence of crimes. And the two specific examples I cited are probably not crimes, at least technically.

That doesn’t mean Trump committed no crimes, but I suspect he didn’t commit many major crimes. Cohen said Trump was careful not to directly tell him to lie, but rather merely hinted at his preferences. Trump does seem careful not to cross any obvious red lines. But if Trump were not President, then aggressive prosecutors could certainly accuse him of conspiring with Cohen to violate election laws, and probably other things as well. To me, that’s not a big deal—my contempt for Trump is not really related to minor legal issues, it’s about his attempt to turn American into a banana republic, with politics like the Philippines, Venezuela or Italy. A clown show. I don’t like banana republic politics. Period. End of story.

Some Republicans tell me that it doesn’t matter that Trump’s a jerk, because he’s doing a good job on policy. Back in the 1990s, Democrats pointed to the booming economy as evidence that Clinton was doing a good job on policy, despite Monica. Republicans were rightly dismissive of those claims, as they understood that Presidents have very little impact on the business cycle. Now these same Republicans cite the booming economy as evidence that Trump is doing a good job. Yes, I still suffer from TDS, but at least I’m not tribal, I dislike both major parties and don’t suffer from Republican derangement syndrome of Democrat derangement syndrome. I’d vote for Sanders over Trump, and Pence over Sanders.

I see the same mistakes being made about Steve Moore–people forming views based on his current policy stance. (Ahem, Ben). Moore thought money should be much tighter when unemployment was 10%—do you really want him on the Fed? Apparently the answer is “yes” if he favors lower rates at the moment. Look, if you ask a 5-year old whether rates should go up or down, they have a 50-50 chance of answering in a way that will look “correct” a year from now. Sorry, but that’s not enough for me. Process matters. Competence matters. Being unbiased matters. Maybe not on every occasion, but the banana republicization of America will eventually be corrosive, if allowed to go on indefinitely. Let’s hope this is just a “phase” we are going through, like the Jackson era.

Fortunately, Moore’s statement that Trump should consider firing Powell will not go unnoticed at the Fed, and he’ll be perhaps the least influential board member in history. Why would you even want to work for an organization where from the very first day you walk in the door you know that everyone, and I mean everyone, is laughing at you behind your back and making sure that you have no impact?

Yes, lots of commenters laugh at me, but I don’t have to walk by them in the hall every day.


Tags:

 
 
 

62 Responses to “Still have TDS. Still don’t have RDS and DDS.”

  1. Gravatar of Kevin A Kevin A
    26. March 2019 at 09:11

    Wow,

    The report exonerates Trump of a Russian conspiracy peddled by the media for two years.

    It doesn’t “exonerate” him on obstruction, and it doesn’t exonerate santa Claus on obstruction either.

    You can break the definition of collusion so that you can say Trump “colluded” with Russians. That’s fine. You are like the MMTers, playing around with words to justify a conclusion without any real meaning.

    Frankly, your admission that you can’t prove conspiracy in court though is enough, because that is the only place it matters.

  2. Gravatar of Kevin A Kevin A
    26. March 2019 at 09:12

    col·lu·sion
    [kəˈlo͞oZHən]

    NOUN
    secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
    “the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers” · [more]
    synonyms:
    conspiracy · connivance · complicity · intrigue · plotting · secret understanding · collaboration · scheming
    law
    illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

  3. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    26. March 2019 at 09:49

    Head of State is part of the job, and Trump is pretty cringey in that role.

    But after two years, he’s obviously better than Bush was overall.

    I don’t like the guy, but I don’t hate him. Or anybody really. Do you really hate him? Do you hate a lot of people?

  4. Gravatar of myb6 myb6
    26. March 2019 at 10:31

    I’m neither a Republican nor a Trump voter, but IMO any individual whose main take on this isn’t “I should trust what politicians and liberal media say about Trump a little less than I did before” indeed is showing a little TDS.

    You’re still, and have been for a long time, my main man on money. On that note, I have a question prompted by Midas Touch. Where’s a good place to ask without derailing a thread? Thanks.

  5. Gravatar of Acebojangles Acebojangles
    26. March 2019 at 11:07

    Brian: Better than Bush? That’s the standard now? Marginally better than the worst President in 100 years?

    How would Trump respond to another 9/11 on his watch?

    Kevin: I don’t think Barr’s summary exonerates Trump on collaborating with Russian actors. Barr uses a lot of weasel words to try to give the impression that Trump did nothing wrong, but I sincerely doubt that the report says that.

    If you want to say that lots of people overhyped the possibility of conspiracy with Russia, then maybe that’s fair. I don’t see how anyone can conclude that it’s fine for presidential candidate to have massive undisclosed financial conflicts of interest with a foreign country that he lied about for years, including into his presidency. That’s bad.

  6. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 11:21

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
    As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    This is straight from Muellers report, not Barr using “Weasel words.”

    Honestly, if that doesn’t convince you though, I’m not sure what will. An expansive two year investigation costing millions of dollars and dozens of legal professionals couldn’t find evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination.

    Eventually you have to post facts of collusion, not pure speculation, or a fact about someone meeting someone, and then placing a heavy amount of speculation about what they talked about.

    Of course, if you could, those legal professionals would have a case against Trump. But they don’t, so you can’t.

  7. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    26. March 2019 at 11:53

    Ace,

    Obviously =/= Marginally.

    Make sure to watch Maddow and stay close to the ongoing collusion investigation lol.

  8. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    26. March 2019 at 11:57

    I agree with almost the entire post, except I’d definitely vote Sanders over Pence. Mike Pence has shown himself to be of extremely low character with his brown-nosing Trump and going along with all of the crazy, stupid policies.

    Bernie comes with some nonsense populist left economics, which is unfortunate, but I think he has much more integrity than Pence.

  9. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    26. March 2019 at 12:52

    Scott,

    Trump colluded with the Russians and obstructed justice. He did so publicly, so it’s not really in dispute.

    But Mueller’s job was not to look for Russia collusion or obstruction of justice in the everyday sense of the terms, but rather to look for evidence of crimes.

    What a ridiculous nonsense. Not even the NYT writes something like this. The used terms are not everyday terms, but rather specific legal terminology. Not to mention that they were always used like this in the news reports.

    I asked my Grandma lately if she ever obstructed justice. She answered: “Not in the legal sense, but in the everyday sense!” — This makes no sense at all.

    So it wasn’t collusion and obstruction in the legal sense, but in your subjective opinion it sure “felt” like it in the “everyday sense”. Sure thing, Scott. We won the debate about facts, and you won the consolation prize: the train to touchy-feely town.

    I’d vote for Sanders over Trump

    This doesn’t make so much sense either, even if you hate Trump. As a matter of fact, even you wrote non-TDS entries in which you admitted that Trump could not realize extreme alt-right ideas, but neo-liberal ones. All in all, his negative impact is basically zero.

    I think Sanders could be different, as socialist ideas are much more popular. The socialist myth seems indestructible. Even now that Venezuela is falling apart, there are no corrections, insights and excuses in this camp. No, they even invent more and more new insane economic theories, see MMT.

  10. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    26. March 2019 at 13:09

    A lot of you are missing the point. Trump is doing harm to the country. The constitution doesn’t protect democracy. The institutions and the norms in those institutions surrounding adherence to the constitution is what protects democracy. His actions and the blind support he gets from congressional republicans undermine those norms. It is unclear whether that will lead to lasting harm, but there is reason to be concerned. And I don’t recall Scott every placing collusion high on his reasons for TDS.
    Good post Scott.

  11. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 13:56

    Bob,

    Negative feelings about Trump do not justify any and all speculation against him.

  12. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 14:02

    Believing in conspiracies, and using those conspiracies to justify removing a duly ected president as an end run around voters is actually what harms democracy, not Trump.

  13. Gravatar of Cameron Blank Cameron Blank
    26. March 2019 at 14:02

    Scott,

    I’m always kind of shocked most of your commenters seem mildly pro-Trump, so I just want to say I agree with everything in this post 100%.

    I wonder if so many commenters feel this way because anti-Bush, Clinton, and Obama people were so obviously deranged in the past, so they conclude anti-Trumpers, who sound vaguely similar to them, must be equally deranged.

    This time the “anti” folks have it right.

    Of course there’s more going on than this. Trump is also a blank slate that supporters imprint their own worldview on, without much evidence. Still, it’s strange people are so accepting.

  14. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    26. March 2019 at 14:22

    Cameron Blank,

    This phenomenon is not so strange from the liberal perspective. We thought most Republicans were racist boot lickers of authoritarians for decades and we were right. About 20% of Republicans turned out to be pro-democratic, decent people. The rest are shades of fascist.

    To paraphrase Denny Green, “They are who we thought they were!”

  15. Gravatar of Cameron Blank Cameron Blank
    26. March 2019 at 14:33

    Michael,

    It’s worth noting that Republicans went from nominating the eminently reasonable George H. W. Bush to Trump in only one generation. Many Trump voters went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 as well.

    I think its more complicated than you make it, but that’s part of it.

  16. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    26. March 2019 at 15:20

    Cameron Blank,

    Yes, it’s true that the Bush family is neither fascist nor racist. They’ve always struck me as good people though W. was both incompetent and arrogant. But, for every Bush, Buckley, George Will, etc. there were always the Pat Buchanans and Tom Tancredos. I think the majority of the Republican base has been fascist since at least Nixon.

    They are certainly more open about it today, which is part seems to have been driven by having a black President with a name like Barrack Obama.

  17. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    26. March 2019 at 16:43

    I guess I am “Ben”.

    I was joking, I do not think Stephen Moore should be on the Fed. I hereby stick my tail between my legs on the Moore issue.

    It is an interesting question whether Moore would be any worse or any better than a Charles Plosser or a Richard Fisher.

    And I still say that Donald Trump, the vulgarian talkshow host who became president, has been right on monetary policy for the last year while the Fed, with its 1500 PhD economists, has been wrong.

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. March 2019 at 16:55

    I love seeing pro-Trump people citing a report they haven’t read. I actually said the report was good news for Trump, but it’s absurd to claim it doesn’t provide grounds for impeachment, unless you’ve read the report. And none of you have. So please don’t talk about what the report says.

    Again, even Barr says the report doesn’t exonerate Trump, and Barr is Trump’s own Attorney General.

    Politics is a helluva drug.

  19. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 17:45

    Scott,

    Just absolutely stunning.

    You are so bad at predicting politics because you don’t have a firm grasp of reality.

    I can say what the report says, the report will include this:
    “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Maybe Barr is making it all up while Mueller is passively standing by? Maybe the Russians wrote barrs summary, or the lizard people?

  20. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    26. March 2019 at 17:59

    Scott,

    So please don’t talk about what the report says.

    Not needing the report is your specialty, remember? You wrote collusion and obstruction are not really in dispute. So what do you guys need the report for? Just go for it.

    Not to mention all the journalists who basically admitted: “We don’t need to read the Mueller Report, our judgment is already fixed.” At least those crooks are honest.

    it’s absurd to claim it doesn’t provide grounds for impeachment,

    You clutch at any straw you can get. You still haven’t learn a thing. The story is a nothingburger. The Intelligence Community, the media, and the Democrats should have focused on democratic political methods instead of completely wasting our time and making Trump even stronger.

  21. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    26. March 2019 at 18:20

    Christian List,

    Scott’s absolutely right. Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice on at least two separate occassions on TV. First, he did so during the Lester Holt interview. He did it again while speaking to the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office on camera.

    He also very clearly welcomed Russia’s help in the election against Hillary. Don’t need a report to see that.

    Trump is also obviously guilty of at least one felony campaign finance violation, a la the Cohen trial and conviction.

    Also, let’s not forget that there are other criminal investigations still ongoing. The SDNY and state of New York are investigating matters that may have been beyond Mueller’s mandate. Particularly, the state of New York might not be so shy about indicting Trump and his family.

  22. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 18:32

    Michael Sandifer

    Ah yes, the SDNY. Perhaps they have the contract that Putin and Trump inked in blood.

    I guess I should be happy with you guys, pouring in such enormous energy into a futile endeavor. The opportunity cost is significant and will likely be reflected in the 2020 election.

  23. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    26. March 2019 at 18:37

    Kevin Adolph,

    What do you mean “you guys”? I have nothing to do with the investigations into Trump and neither does the Democratic Party.

  24. Gravatar of Kevin Adolph Kevin Adolph
    26. March 2019 at 18:41

    Of course the Democratic party is part of the investigative effort against Trump. Instead of pouring energy into making their case to voters, they are instead pouring so much effort into catching him in some sort of malfesence

  25. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. March 2019 at 20:43

    Brian, You asked:

    Do you really hate him? Do you hate a lot of people?”

    Yes. No.

    Trump’s the only American that I can think of at the moment that I hate. There may be others, but they don’t come to mind.

  26. Gravatar of Matthias Görgens Matthias Görgens
    27. March 2019 at 02:48

    Trump seems awful, but he’s also really bad at putting any of his preferred policies into action. If he doesn’t start a war, he might be one of the best presidents you guys had in ages.

    Best in the sense of, did the least damage. That’s assuming very cynically that most actions that your politicians including presidents are damaging.

    Btw, why the Bush hate? Just the wars he started (including the war on terrorism) or anything else he was really bad at?

  27. Gravatar of Scott H. Scott H.
    27. March 2019 at 03:05

    I would argue that taking Sanders over Trump would be a yuuuuge mistake.

    Banana Republic type antics are embarrassing and harmful, yes. But modern Marxist attitudes are what kill a society by whole different order of magnitude.

    What do I consider modern Marxist attitudes? It would have to be centered on a hatred for the rich (and productive), and the view that gov’t policy is the weapon of choice to exact revenge on those people.

  28. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    27. March 2019 at 05:35

    Kevin Adolph,

    Apart from new House investigations, how are the Democrats involved at all? The Mueller probe was begun and led by life-long Republicans.

  29. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    27. March 2019 at 05:41

    It takes a fascist to be so afraid of a socialist like Bernie Sanders. Sure, if he got his way, the economy would be less efficient and there’d be lots of unintended consequences of his policies, to the degree he could even get them passed. And he would make some, if not all of the problems he adresed worse. But, that’s a far cry from electing Hugo Chavez.

    The radicalism of the right knows no bounds.

  30. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    27. March 2019 at 05:43

    Trump supporters have Socialist Derangement Syndrome.

  31. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    27. March 2019 at 06:11

    Scott, I’m more worried about hatred of unpopular minorities and foreigners than hatred of the rich. The argument that Trump won’t actually implement fascist policies (while true) equally applies to Sanders. Sanders isn’t going to send the rich to the countryside, as Mao did.

  32. Gravatar of bob bob
    27. March 2019 at 06:12

    Kevin,
    Again, you are missing the point. And you are making a straw man argument. Neither Scott or I are speculating. Scott references actions that Trump has taken in plain sight. I don’t view whether or not Trump was involved in a conspiracy to be either settled or anywhere near the biggest cause for concern. I’m concerned with a sitting president going after the press, going after private citizens on social media, lying more blatantly than I can ever recall, inciting violence, fostering racism, firing Comey because he refused to kill the Russian investigation, abusing executive power, using the military as a political prop, and saying that both sides were at fault for Charlottesville. Each of these is a violation of norms that protect our democracy in my opinion. I could go on. Where am I engaging in speculation?
    And there is a recording of him bragging about sexual assault.

  33. Gravatar of bob bob
    27. March 2019 at 06:15

    Kevin,
    “Believing in conspiracies, and using those conspiracies to justify removing a duly ected president as an end run around voters is actually what harms democracy, not Trump.”

    The Democratic Speaker of the House made it very clear publicly that she does not intend to pursue impeachment both before and after the release of Barr’s memo. You’re going after a lot of straw men.

  34. Gravatar of bob bob
    27. March 2019 at 06:21

    Scott H,
    Come on. If Bernie was elected, unlikely, and he was able to implement most of his policies, extremely unlikely, we would not become Venezuela. Worst case is that we would become like Germany. His policies would be bad for America, but there is no reason to think his presidency would weaken the republic. Trump presidency is doing harm to the republic. He isn’t Caesar, but he might be one of the Gracchi.

  35. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    27. March 2019 at 07:00

    ‘But then his own top officials call Trump a “terrible human being”, an idiot, a moron, and much worse.’

    And how does that distinguish Trump from every other politician? Say, the rapist Bill and his enabler, Hillary Clinton.

    Or people like Bernie Sanders and AOC whose policies would be what Venezuela has right now.

  36. Gravatar of bill bill
    27. March 2019 at 07:09

    Trump was elected to build a wall to keep out rapists and murderers. He didn’t get that done during the 24 months that his party controlled the House and the Senate. Is he ineffective? Or did he do ignore that issue on purpose so that he could use it again later? I don’t know. How about repealing ObamaCare? No success there either. Is anyone tired of the winning yet? His supporters love him though.

  37. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    27. March 2019 at 10:35

    Bob,

    Well said.

  38. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    27. March 2019 at 15:43

    In plain sight:

    1. Trump has continually admired authoritarian leaders, called Tiananmen Square “strong” in comparison to our weak, sissy democracy, has completely opaque financials with significant foreign investments, been married three times, cheated on all three wives, and showed zero remorse for calling for the execution of five teenagers after DNA exonerated them and the real killer was found.

    2. Comey’s contemporaneous memos were almost certainly accurate as to Trump’s actions. Remember Session flatly refused to answer basic questions about if Trump ordered him to stop an investigation.

    3. Trump fired Comey and said on public TV it was about the Russian investigation.

    You can try to define down the Presidency to not finding outright conspiracy. But I also remember Republicans making a huge deal about Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, because it maybe, could have, sort of influenced the investigation. The tarmac meeting was indeed wrong. But Trump outright ordering the DOJ to stop an investigation is okay?

    Your standards for the President are way, way too low for a civil democracy if Trump meets your standards.

  39. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    27. March 2019 at 16:04

    It takes a fascist to be so afraid of a socialist like Bernie Sanders.

    What a very telling sentence. This shows the totalitarian socialist mindset: Anyone who opposes must be a “fascist”, against whom all means are allowed.

    And what’s wrong with Chavez all of a sudden? Your sudden opposition to Chavez is hypocrisy and mendacity at its very best. When Chavez was still in power, he was raised by the liberal and social-democratic press into heaven and praised as THE example of the 21th century.

    Worst case is that we would become like Germany. His policies would be bad for America, but there is no reason to think his presidency would weaken the republic.

    Germany’s social democratic policies look really unstable.

    And this is not a hindsight picking game anyhow. Remember this: Venezuela was presented as THE positive social-democratic example of the 21th century, not as the negative one.

  40. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    27. March 2019 at 16:14

    Christian List,

    You illustrate my point well. What do poltical radicals do? They paint with broad brushes. I’ve never supported Chavez or Maduro. You’re just assuming I have and are attacking me with all the other strawmen you invent. I probably favor much freer markets than you do.

    I didn’t refer to you as a fascist, but I do think most of the Republican base today is fascist. I don’t know if you’re fascist, but you certainly come across as a radical, eaten up with silly fears about little socialist back benchers who don’t even have ill intensions.

    Trump is very obvious about constantly having malevolent intent.

  41. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    27. March 2019 at 16:32

    On the socialist debate, health care and college education are *already* heavily socialized. Except they are socialized in a way which increases public expense and allows unbounded private costs.

    Many times “capitalism” means allowing private companies to charge what they want while protecting both public sources of funds and government barriers to competition.

    Health care also, I think, has huge market failures. Of course emergency care is never a negotiated, willful economic transaction. Even if somebody tries to shop around a natural birth or open-heart surgery, that hospital has to also treat you in case of complications. I’m sorry, but I’m just not libertarian enough to see free pricing in health care. The fact no country has had a truly free market health care market bodes for health care being different. Switzerland and the Netherlands have private insurers but the government sets their reimbursement rates.

    So we’ll probably get some sort of socialist health care. Sorry, supporting expansion of Medicare does not mean supporting Chavez.

  42. Gravatar of Scott H. Scott H.
    27. March 2019 at 19:06

    Scott, Bob, and Michael

    You can hate the rich with impunity in the United States. Meanwhile, you actively hate foreigners at the risk of your livelihood. You don’t have to send the rich to the countryside to have policy centered on hating the rich. Far from it. But hating the rich is what separates societies with successful group projects from Marxist societies — societies that begin to fail.

    Meanwhile, Trump is going to destroy us by cutting taxes and being a bullshitter? I’m not into it personally, but there’s virtually zero precedence for it grinding an economy to a halt. And Trump’s not a leader. Trump’s tolerated not followed. There’s really no comparing the economic destruction potential of those two candidates. Bernie’s a socialist. Socialism’s got true believers.

  43. Gravatar of Ewan Ewan
    28. March 2019 at 04:59

    The former technical director of the NSA has explained from the outset that there was no hack. Physically impossible. It was a download. An internal leak. Nothing to do with the Russians. How “Russia did it!” came to be the battle cry of Clinton and Co and the national security apparatus has been out in the open for many months. A Clinton aide explained (inadvertently?). Clapper and Brennan and Co even told Congress (although I know they have a track record of lying to Congress). The deception of the FISA court is a matter of public record. The mystery is why opponents of corporate trashing of our climate and neo-con trashing of country after country should have devoted two years to supporting this farcical attempted coup against the duly elected (alas! – your electoral system needs fixing) president. At this rate they will help him (G*d help us all) to a second term.

  44. Gravatar of Tom M Tom M
    28. March 2019 at 05:41

    Sometimes when I try to understand a person’s motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What’s the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do. Then I ask myself: how well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?

  45. Gravatar of Robert Barrett Robert Barrett
    28. March 2019 at 06:43

    Scott H.,
    You’re just making straw man arguments.
    “Trump is going to destroy us by cutting taxes and being a bullshitter?:”
    None of us tried to make that argument. And:
    “But hating the rich is what separates societies with successful group projects from Marxist societies — societies that begin to fail.”
    What? Successful group projects- like a science fair? That sentence is contorted and odd because the argument you are trying to make is contorted and odd. The most common features of Marxist societies, and fascist societies for that matter, is the absence of rule of law, the lack of democratic institutions, lack of liberty and civil rights, state control of the press, no habeus corpus… Not hating the rich. Again, none of us support Bernie. I don’t think any of us hate the rich either.
    I do love a good group project though.

  46. Gravatar of Ewan Ewan
    28. March 2019 at 07:33

    The Philippines, Venezuela or Italy: three countries that long benefited from American tutelage and still feel the effects.

    What should one do about one’s dislike of banana republics? At least, the truly hateful ones? Cripple them with sanctions that starve their people? Block the import of essential medical supplies? Sabotage utilities? Confiscate assets? Arm “freedom fighters” to do some killing? If all else fails, bomb the bejeesus out of them? We in the West do appear to feel duty-bound to do something (in a select few cases, of which Venezuela is (oil!) mysteriously one (oil!)), and these appear to be standard operating procedure – moral condescension and military force. “Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.” Tacitus.

  47. Gravatar of Acebojangles Acebojangles
    28. March 2019 at 11:45

    Barr’s summary has many gaping holes. Did campaign members coordinate with non-Russian government actors, like Wikileaks? Did campaign members coordinate with Russians who aren’t technically government actors? Did campaign members ask cut outs, like Roger Stone after he left the campaign, to coordinate with Russians?

    Ultimately, I never thought Mueller would indict Trump or do anything similar. That would violate (highly questionable) DOJ policy.

    Not being indicted is not a sufficient standard for the President and his advisers (many of whom were indicted for conduct that Trump almost certainly knew about). As I discussed above, it can’t be acceptable for a presidential candidate to hide massive conflicts of interest while making foreign policy.

    I really don’t understand why so many people are eager to be shit on by Trump, a lifelong conman who is so contemptuous of his followers that he doesn’t bother to know what he’s talking about or pretend to put in any work.

  48. Gravatar of Scott H. Scott H.
    28. March 2019 at 13:51

    Robert Barrett,

    You seem to want to equate Fascism and Marxism. I agree in many ways they are similar. However, in one key way they are not the same. Non-Marxist regimes don’t disintegrate economically like Marxist regimes do.

    So when you put out a laundry list of issues with both Fascism and Marxism and then say that this is why the Marxist states failed so spectacularly from an economic standpoint, you are wrong in an important way. You missed the key factor(s).

    I lived in Venezuela. I saw how that place went, and I know how it goes now. It’s as unbelievable as any Ayn Rand novel. Hating the rich, hating the capitalists, hating the businessmen, and how that ends up fueling policy is critical. It’s only as I look back that I can identify hatred of the rich in Venezuela, but that helps me identify it here in the US now. It’s hard for most people because they are so uniformly immersed in it. It’s a bit like trying to get a fish to realize that it’s wet.

  49. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    28. March 2019 at 18:44

    Scott H.,

    Scott Sumner is correct that one of the great danger the fascists pose in America is in their attempts to undermine the rule of law and time-tested processes by which healthy republics govern. Checks and balances are important, and it’s clear most Republicans have no respect for our system of government, because they’ve lost and will continue to lose political battles they consider important. Gay and transgendered people are increasingly accepted, there’s an assault on white privilege that’s gained ground for decades, as white people see a day approaching in which we’re a plurality, not a majority. Abortions will not be made illegal in most of the US through democratic processes. The pace of innovation is quickening, along with creative destruction, with old industries and entire old cultures fading away.

    I think conservatives in the US are making their last desperate stand against all of this change, and hence they’re willing to overthrow democracy to get their way.

    They won’t succeed, and they’re empowering the radical left in the process. In the end, Scott Sumner is right. This will lead to an unnecessarily strong leftist backlash that will finally bury this pathetic sort of fascism forever. In the process, we will all suffer the excesses of the counter-counter revolution.

  50. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    28. March 2019 at 22:06

    Ewan,

    “The former technical director of the NSA has explained from the outset that there was no hack. Physically impossible. It was a download.”

    This is completely wrong.

    Well, a former NSA employee did give credence to an analysis of metadata. But the analysis came from ultimately from the Kremlin, not Binney the former NSA technical director. Remove the space to visit the link, as wordpress swallowed a previous comment due to a link.

    ht tps://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links

  51. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    28. March 2019 at 22:21

    All you guys who only fear socialism should look at the list of countries by tax revenue per gdp. Remove the space after ht.

    ht tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    Countries generally have lower living standards, worse democracy, human rights, etc. as they go lower on tax revenue per GDP. However one makes a first-world democracy with freedoms and human rights, it’s NOT through generally lowering taxing and spending.

    Ending authoritarianism, corruption, lack of rule of law, etc. are the main keys to high standards of living. Sorry expanding Medicare will not make us Venezuela. We’ve had significant socialist health care since the 60’s. While the US has had its issues since then, we have not become Venezuela.

  52. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    29. March 2019 at 07:44

    ‘We’ve had significant socialist health care since the 60’s. While the US has had its issues since then, we have not become Venezuela.’

    So, your argument is that, since a little socialism is good, more socialism would be better?

    Ever hear that diminishing returns can turn into negative returns?

  53. Gravatar of Ewan Ewan
    30. March 2019 at 08:06

    Matthew Waters
    Thank you for the Duncan Campbell. I had missed it. It explains William Binney’s recent corrections.

    I don’t think Russia holier than anyone (far from it). I’m sure it interferes all the time, although less wholesale than the US. And I’m sure it has its own “Vault 7”. Where the intelligence services are involved, anything is possible, and nothing is ever proved.

    Wm. Binney, former technical director of the NSA versus Duncan Campbell, investigative journalist with an impressive track record. I can’t adjudicate. My categorical assertion of a hack was presumptuous.

    Hume on miracles: the more incredible the claim, the more extraordinary, but robust, the evidence has to be.

    Download and leak to Wikileaks? Standard procedure. Plausible.

    Campbell’s hacking rigmarole? Possible. It does raise some questions, however, even for the untutored like me.

    One thing confirmed in the last ten years: the Russian military and intelligence services are not more incompetent that the US. The GRU simply did not time and again leave a trail to its Moscow address.

    Russia, and anyone else at all interested, has the dirt on the Clintons. They could get what they wanted with minimal effort from Hilary’s private email accounts. The DNC shenanigans are routine in any political party. So Russia left a trail all the way back to Moscow just to end the career of the chair of the Democratic Party? If Russia has a Vault 7, it could have put dynamite under the Clintons and had it traceable to anyone it pleased. Is it not more likely that some (naive) Democrat got fed up with the sordid little tricks their party was indulging in?

    This Mr. Leonard. He is more cunning than the CIA, FBI and NSA, MI6 and GCHQ, and the GRU itself. But not more cunning than Mr. Campbell?

    Why did the FBI not examine the DNC computers, but rely on analysis paid for by the DNC? Why did the DNC pay for Steele’s unverified gossip (he claims he didn’t realise it was unverified gossip)? What was the CIA doing fishing (as Mr. Brennan described to Congress)? Why… No, let’s not.

    Mr. Campbell unfortunately assumes what he purports to prove, before burrowing into what Mr. Leonard (allegedly) did:

    “GRU hackers caught red-handed by WaPo”? Now WaPo hasn’t done any investigative journalism since Watergate, and that turned out to be an FBI leak. So who pointed WaPo in the required direction?

    “Obama released intelligence confirming that Russia had helped Trump to the presidency”? Well, no he didn’t. He is a lawyer, so in his final press conference he was careful to say as much.

    The indictment of the thirteen GRU officers. Professionals were surprised by the depth of US knowledge? Well, yes, but not in the way Mr. Campbell means (I wish I’d kept chapter and verse on retired agents and users of intelligence and their incredulous splutters). And Mr. Mueller knew his evidence would never be tested in court. And the St. Petersburg click-bait marketing outfit? This is the evidence after two years trawling?

    The end result? The chance of rapprochement with Russia squandered. And President Trump’s reelection chances boosted (G*d help us!). Ironically, Russia has been proposing for years that states cooperate on cyber-security. The US has always refused.

    Sorry to go on. What I wanted Prof. Sumner’s thoughts on was something else altogether.

  54. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    30. March 2019 at 15:16

    Ewan,

    It’s not worth going down every rabbit trail. Fighting conspiracy theories is like whack-a-mole. I put down one wrongful idea you gave and you gave 10 more.

    Each of the new ideas are also wrong or have some kind of non-falsifiability. For example, the FBI got images of all the hard drives at the DNC. Yes, it’s typical for them to work with hard disk images rather than physical drives.

    On another point, American intel agencies are not flawless either. The NSA hacking tools were themselves hacked and released, for example.

    But I know it would not worth be driving down to each of those avenues.

  55. Gravatar of Steven Kopits Steven Kopits
    30. March 2019 at 15:18

    Does not exonerate means that they have no evidence that he did but, but they are not saying he didn’t.

    It’s the legal standard of ‘non-guilty’. It doesn’t mean you’re innocent, only that you have been found not guilty. Innocent would be a positive statement, ie, they know you didn’t do that. That exceeds the usual legal standard.

  56. Gravatar of Ewan Ewan
    31. March 2019 at 02:39

    Matthew,
    “Conspiracy theories”! Oh dear, oh dear.

    You do know the official version is a conspiracy theory (and none the worse for that). It is conspiracy we are talking about.

    In a world of Vault 7s, I accept that we can never know. We have to rely on plausibility (which, for the ignorant like me, is of little use – plausible to me reflects mainly my ignorance).

    Assume Russia did interfere in the US election as you all appear to believe. The rest of us are bemused. This is exceptionalism run mad: the US can interfere at will, but no-one is to dare return the favour?

    And what has been the consequence: free rein to trash the climate, free rein to trash countries the US doesn’t like, nuclear brinkmanship, trade wars… Put aside this “Russiagate” and focus on an effective alternative to Trump and his opponents.

  57. Gravatar of Ewan Ewan
    31. March 2019 at 04:40

    I’m exaggerating yet again.

    Of course we don’t rely entirely on what seems plausible. On most matters, we rely almost entirely on an appeal to authority – credentials and character. On the “Russian” “hack”: The ex-British diplomat Craig Murray is a man of integrity. Messrs. Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Mueller… In the days when there were journalists, the London Times foreign correspondent Louis Heren, when faced with any representative of state, asked himself a question.

    Anyway, my ranting has taken me far from the subjects I want to learn about from Prof. Sumner, so I will now desist.

  58. Gravatar of Kevin L Adolph Kevin L Adolph
    31. March 2019 at 13:30

    It’s weird how invested in the Russian Trump conspiracy people are: there’s goal post shifting galore and Scott essentially inventing a new definition of collusion to argue that Trump has obviously colluded.

    Some people also believe gmo are cancerous and that 9/11 was an inside job. Such people should be kept far away from power, perhaps another 4 years of Trump is the most preferable option

  59. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    31. March 2019 at 18:56

    Kevin, You said:

    “Scott essentially inventing a new definition of collusion to argue that Trump has obviously colluded.”

    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I merely pointed out that Trump publicly encouraged the Russians to try to interfere in the US election in such a way as to hurt Hillary. Why is that so controversial? I actually saw a video of Trump doing that. Was I hallucinating?

    And I’ve been saying the exact same thing since 2016, so I’m not “inventing” anything new.

  60. Gravatar of P Burgos P Burgos
    1. April 2019 at 16:54

    “Temporary phase”… I guess the boomers are still idealistic. My impression is that Gen X and millennials are planning to do their best to “ride the decline”.

  61. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    1. April 2019 at 22:11

    I personally think the idea that we’re in a very permanent, secular economic decline is possibly incorrect. I think tight money is holding back productivity growth by holding back investment and consumer demand. Yes, population growth is slowing and we have an aging population. However, those aren’t the only trends at work.

    AI has been extremely over-hyped in terms of current technology, but the future is very bright. I think we’re already on a very slight ramp up in what will be a long period, if not permanent period, of hyperbolic productivity growth. AI will allow for more brain power/capita, which, especially when we automate software development, will not only allow for sustained productivity growth above 1 or 2%, but levels much higher than that and accelerating.

    We may remain on a slight ramp up during my lifetime(I’m 43), but we still should see some acceleration in productivity over this shorter-term.

  62. Gravatar of P Burgos P Burgos
    3. April 2019 at 09:36

    @ Michael Sandifer

    I don’t know if you were responding to myself or not, and I also cannot find the comment to which I thought I was replying.

    I don’t think “the decline” is really about economics, although economics may have hastened some long running changes. It is more about the US slowly morphing from a good place to live into being, at best, a good place to make money, though of course as all this is happening, live is arguably improving in some ways for LBGT folks, blacks, and women. But the same is happening in other countries as well, and is happening without the same kind of social disintegration (I don’t think the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, or Germany have anything remotely comparable to the opiate epidemic.) And while some social democratic policies can make the US a better place to live, they will never be successful in “getting the country to Denmark”, as you need both social democratic policies and a special kind of culture to get that sort of a country.

Leave a Reply