One thought that I had after send that in:
First, I've been thinking about the oddities of the presidential election process, and the way in which it now serves a couple of different roles. It is both a way of selecting a president, and also the context for the closest thing to a national conversation about politics. It seems like part of what frustrates people about Clinton's campaigning style is that it is well suited to the first purpose -- making the case that the is competent and qualified for the job -- but less so for the second, providing grist for the mill of a weird fragmented discussion about, "what do we want and expect from our political leaders."
I don't think that's just another way of saying, "Clinton isn't inspiring enough." I'm thinking specifically of this paragraph in the article
Given where both candidates began, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders proved the more effective talker. His speeches attracted larger audiences, his debate performances led to big gains in the polls, his sound bites went more viral on Facebook.
I think there is a value to that which is somewhat separate from the process of nominating a candidate. On the other hand, the reason I included the link to the DeLong post is that I think the media has a bias in favor of politicians who talk about big issues even when they do so in ways that are deceptive and self-serving*. If Clinton isn't good at that particular form of political kabuki I don't know that's a problem.
* The coverage of Paul Ryan's budgets (including several positive articles by Klein) seems like a good example.
Goshdarnit, if she's not a pretty likable after all.
I think she's great, but apparently I'm probably a class enemy.
That article by Klein pretty aggressively supported one of my negative perceptions of Clinton, whether or not he intended to, and only made me hope she picks someone like Warren for VP more than I already had been hoping. Listening to people and building coalitions is a good and effective thing, but it's hard to miss how, in a lot of those anecdotes, the moral of the story could easily be "Clinton is very, very easily influenced by what people around her are saying at that moment". And the people that, historically, she has been closest to are pretty awful little shits. But if that changes and she ends up spending more time with progressives then that's not as problematic a trait (and especially if, say, Kissinger happens to kick the bucket and she ends up spending a lot of time listening to people talk about foreign policy who aren't war criminals).
My main reaction is amazement that Ezra is still so naïve. Or maybe I'm naïve to believe that he's sincere? Is anybody going to tell you the truth now about Hillary Clinton? Why would they?
Eventually there won't be any more American war criminals because no one bothers to prosecute them any more. Problem solved.
I'd like to read a piece someday that compares and contrasts Clinton with other major female politicians. I mean, this article spends a lot of time on how Clinton's core trait is listening and that's a stereotypically female thing. Women in office are a minority, but there are still enough to make comparisons. Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Susan Collins, Nancy Pelosi - are they unusually good listeners too? Do they maintain unusually large networks of courtiers, like Hillary Clinton and unlike Bill? If so, then that's actually interesting. That's the kind of thing that will probably lead to different management styles, on generalizable patterns.
9: Was Margaret Thatcher like that? I'm thinking not.
Does anybody else remember that back when Bill Clinton was President the pundits would always criticize his speeches for lacking inspiration and just being overly long laundry lists?
My main reaction is amazement that Ezra is still so naïve. Or maybe I'm naïve to believe that he's sincere? Is anybody going to tell you the truth now about Hillary Clinton? Why would they?
Even with the expectation that everybody is going to spin, to some degree, the paragraph that struck me as going beyond standard praise was this one:
Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win -- there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt.
11: I still remember the supposedly career-ending snore-fest in 1988.
Now I don't remember where I saw it, but I read something that had a similar "revelation" at the heart of it: not the listening part, but the coalition/relationship-builkding part, and that it was/is a quintessentially female* approach. It's not unique in and of itself--plenty of candidates have risen due to decades of relationship-building, not stirring oratory--but the purity of it, that she's good at it in the same way her husband was at oratory and communicating empathy and charisma to huge crowds and through TV cameras.
*not comfortable with this term, can't find a better one
Is anybody going to tell you the truth now about Hillary Clinton? Why would they?
TBH, this criticism strikes me as so cynical as to be utterly circular: it essentially declares that it's impossible to learn any true fact about anyone with power. Is this your approach to every politician anywhere? That the public can know literally nothing beyond what's contained in their roster of votes and some limited set of documented biographical facts? Or is HRC uniquely unknowable?
11: There's really no mystery there: pundits hate wonks, and Bill and Hillary were and are wonks. That's why they hated Gore, too. People who spend time and energy on problem-solving? Ugh. You know what real leaders do? Give out nicknames and cut brush. Swoon.
I wish Dems would give up their love for wonkish-ness. They just make things unnecessarily complicated like here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/06/why-clintons-new-tuition-free-higher-ed-plan-matters/
people don't like complicated things.
I think the important word is "now", 15. It is possible to learn facts about people with power by asking questions. But you won't learn anything by interviewing the people who are trying to help someone get elected president, 4 months before the election!
it essentially declares that it's impossible to learn any true fact about anyone with power
I'm tempted to say this doesn't go quite far enough -- it's actually impossible to learn any true fact about anyone.
But 17 is a much better answer.
Take those great stories that Greenstein tells Ezra. In each case, Hillary does something great, and it's all because she listened to Greenstein! Can we believe something so perfectly flattering and self-serving?
Of course, I don't know --- they could be completely true. But I'm skeptical.
16: While I appreciate Atrios' KISS post today, good policy is actually really complicated. While it's true that wonkery needs to be in the service of higher goals, not an end to itself, the idea that real world, national-scale problems could easily be solved without wonkery is, frankly, delusional. Implementing bike lanes in a mid-size city is extremely complicated; why would you think that e.g. solving the retirement crisis would be simple?
Indeed, today Drum has a good example of a simple solution to said crisis that's dumb and counterproductive, because it's grounded in a simplistic understanding of the problem and offers a simplistic (but surely high-polling!) approach that costs 5X what it would need to if it were smartly designed by wonks.
Of course, I don't know --- they could be completely true. But I'm skeptical.
So ask Ezra if he checked the stories. All three contain independently verifiable facts. Nothing in any of them is out of line with 30 years of reportage on the Clintons (except that it doesn't make them look evil, I guess).
Or be a nihilist. Whichever seems easier.
I'd like to read a piece someday that compares and contrasts Clinton with other major female politicians. I mean, this article spends a lot of time on how Clinton's core trait is listening and that's a stereotypically female thing.
I think that Klein is correct to say that Clinton's strengths and weaknesses are gendered, but I have to say that I don't think he's very good at teasing out and writing about the ways in which gender is involved. It doesn't feel like he brings much subtlety to his gender analysis. Which is fine; the point he's making is still interesting, but other people could do a better job with that particular element.
it's hard to miss how, in a lot of those anecdotes, the moral of the story could easily be "Clinton is very, very easily influenced by what people around her are saying at that moment". And the people that, historically, she has been closest to are pretty awful little shits.
I think that's unfair (and it's interesting to read that now, because that's very similar to the criticism that's being directed at Kevin Durant at the moment -- which makes me think that's something which is easy to say any time somebody publicly changes their mind).
I do recognize what you're saying there, but I think your summary above is way too facile.
Bad policy is usually also very complicated. Something that starts out looking like good policy seems to often turn into some sort of tax deduction that requires filling out 35 pages of forms and is only used by people who don't need it.
20: I don't think the Clintons are evil, and I'm sure there is some truth to the stories. But he is telling them in a particular way that gives all the credit to Hillary and himself, and I suspect that part would be hard to verify.
Am I the only one who recalls that the "listening tour" was a device (not an especially nefarious one, but still) to postpone having to comply with campaign finance disclosure laws?
Off-topic: Neuro-socio-linguo-etc. theoretical explanation ("rapport communications," dude?) is the new century's Freudianism, right?
24.1: Just like a man to remember a paltry detail like that!
In each case, Hillary does something great, and it's all because she listened to Greenstein!
But it's only "something great" in the context of an article like this one. None of them are the sort of thing which would draw attention to her as a politician, or win much good press at the time.
Or consider her plan for addressing opiate addiction, another example mentioned in the article. I remember seeing that mentioned in the campaign coverage, but I really doubt that is the sort of thing that would win her many votes -- in part because it's not a voting issue for most people; and in part because it feels like a classically "feminine" issue.
I don't know how unfair it is of a reading given how many times the article describes her confusing her staff by coming in with a new idea or strategy based on something someone told her recently. I mean, I'm not saying that she's empty headed or anything, but a lot of stories tend to follow that basic pattern*, whether for good or for bad.
Clinton strikes me as a decent example of the sort of person who holds strongly to certain values, understood generally, but who tends to think about things in the terms that are being used by the people around her, and to tend to see things as being or not being examples of those values largely to the extent that they seem that way to the people around her. It doesn't mean she's not very very smart - I'm not sure anyone has ever disputed that claim about her. But it is absolutely a kind of way that very smart people can be. (For example, I think she didn't see the problem with getting paid exorbitant amounts of money to give those talks because everyone in her social/professional circles at the time saw that as the normal thing you do when you're famous: it didn't stick out as something that would look bad to her because for the people around her it wouldn't have stuck out as something that would look like anything.)
*I mean, that anecdote, for good or bad, could easily have gone right into Klein's piece as well - it hits pretty much every single note only it's being told by someone a lot more ambivalent about it. I tend to think the way they're describing Clinton's shift as depending on political calculation is probably overstating it: I don't know if we have to assume that she was deliberately choosing to vote for something that she knew was bad as opposed to having been swayed back the other direction, at least far enough that it seemed like a small thing when before she'd thought of it as something serious.
your summary above is way too facile
Fair, but the impression I got was of a lot of haphazardness and a lot of contingency, especially contingency on Clinton personally reading something/getting contacted by someone. It doesn't sound like a system. Like the card table thing: it's great she takes notes and follows up on things, but wouldn't it be better to feed that stuff into a staffer research pipeline daily?
not sure that that article's proposal is all that bad. He wants to tax the well off people to expand Social Security for all.
Like the card table thing: it's great she takes notes and follows up on things, but wouldn't it be better to feed that stuff into a staffer research pipeline daily?
I honestly don't know, but you think you might be making the perfect the enemy of the good here?
I don't know how unfair it is of a reading given how many times the article describes her confusing her staff by coming in with a new idea or strategy based on something someone told her recently.
Right, I think the paragraph that most strongly hits the negative side of that is this one:
This is, in general, one of the frustrations you hear from Clintonites: Her network is massive, and particularly when her poll numbers flag, or she feels under attack, she reaches out into that vast, strange ecosystem. The stories of Clinton receiving a midnight email from an old friend and throwing her campaign into chaos are legion, and it was all the worse because she often wouldn't admit that's what was happening, and so her staff ended up arguing against a ghost.
That sounds like a genuinely bad habit. I just don't know that the greenstein stories fit that pattern -- because they aren't sudden changes of direction, they're fixing a specific policy so that it will do what it's supposed to do. I think it's worth distinguishing those two cases, even if they're two sides of the same coin. There is a difference between making necessary and unnecessary changes.
*I mean, that anecdote, for good or bad, could easily have gone right into Klein's piece as well - it hits pretty much every single note only it's being told by someone a lot more ambivalent about it. I tend to think the way they're describing Clinton's shift as depending on political calculation is probably overstating it: I don't know if we have to assume that she was deliberately choosing to vote for something that she knew was bad as opposed to having been swayed back the other direction, at least far enough that it seemed like a small thing when before she'd thought of it as something serious.
I mostly agree, but would note that the excerpts from Warrens book may not tell the complete story.
Clinton warned that without these provisions, her vote on final passage was in doubt.
"Let me be very clear -- I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing," Clinton said. "I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform."
But in the endnotes of Warren's book, she was dismissive of Clinton's argument that she had improved the bill.
...
In light of subsequent events, Warren's comments from 2004 at this point appear out of date. We would be curious to know if Warren's experience as senator has changed her perspective on Clinton's actions in 2001.
coming in with a new idea or strategy based on something someone told her recently.
That sounds like the caricature boss in Dilbert. But Scott Adams is a dick so I refuse to believe he has any actual insight here.
30: More the better the enemy of the better-than-Republicans, but yeah.
As this thread shows, the fundamental pointlessness of articles like this isn't that they are or aren't true (like all journalism, my view based on experience is that the individual reporting is likely correct but that the big picture and context are almost certainly wrong, even if not in knowable ways), but that people are incapable of reading them without reference to their own already-constructed narratives, so it either becomes a data point in favor of a story you are already telling yourself or something you can reject or disqualify based on your own (likely equally unsupported) existing set of beliefs. Ultimately who gives a shit.
With that said, it's been clear for a very long time that H. Clinton is very good at winning affection and support from (a) other Democratic politicians and stakeholders and (b) people who've worked for her leading one to think that (c) she would be a reasonably effective executive officer. Whether that's a sign of basic competence or underlying deep corruption because she's bought into the system depends 100% on whatever bullshit story you've already constructed for yourself about her.
I would say that fact that her staffers do generally seem to think she's great suggests that her habit of pulling in ideas from random places in her network might not be that bad. That's the sort of thing that would be really terrible in a boss if they were bad, irrelevant, or uninformed ideas. But it would still be annoying for the staffers if they were largely good ideas, just annoying in an ultimately productive way. If she's throwing her staff into chaos with stuff she's pulling in from outsiders, but they don't despise her for it? It might actually not be a bad habit.
I am not American and was not conscious in the 1990s, and therefore have no preexisting narrative. As the only available arbiter of truth, I judge Hillary's policy process to be better than Republicans but not good, and declare this thread closed.
24.2: Does this look like the 21st century to you, Flippanter? (Unless by Freudianism you mean "flawed paradigm that takes at least 75 years to be effectively extinguished," in which case maybe.)
OT: office fundraiser. "Without the proper tools, it's extremely difficult for students to success in the classroom," begins the fundraising email.
Hey, I just noticed that both the doge and Trump on Twitter speak in two declarative sentences plus an exclamation. And they're both orange.
Wow. So meme. Such blog. Very commenter.
Having been gone awhile, and without previewing whatever discussion followed 20 etc., I should clarify that of course you can't learn anything about what a famous person "is really like" while they're rising to or holding power. That doesn't matter anyway.
I do think it's ridiculous to suggest that the working methods of a person with a long history of public office are somehow unknowable. Like, what's the claim? That she isn't detail-oriented? That she doesn't make a point of building alliances by referencing touchstones of potential allies? That she didn't develop shockingly productive working relationships in the Senate despite grave doubts about her? That everyone she works with really hates her, which is why she, uh, has neither institutional nor popular support?
Anybody read Joel Klein's (?) Primary Colors. The candidates are debating policy, in wonkish detail, but it is a matter of establishing who is top dog. This is a good thing, more or less, I think.
I do not disagree with Ezra about listening being gendered. But I think I read something similar about FDR. Everybody he talked to would come away thinking he agreed. The conclusion was not necessarily he adopted their ideas. Does anybody recall Sanders being asked about he would get those on Wall Street to agree? And him responding why should he care what they think there?
By the Clinton was my Senator. I'm somewhere upstate. I recall the listening tour of the carpetbagger. I do not recall the bit about campaign finance laws and welcome a link.
Klein makes it a point that he kept hearing the same things, even from Republicans who are committed to shitting on Clinton as a tribal rite.
46.1: Didn't that also feature the viewpoint character having sex with the Hillary Clinton stand-in?
But Clinton is a Republican, so of course they worked with her.
The sleeping around was not the betrayal of the Clinton-like characters. When they get irrelevant but embarrassing details on an opponent, they have no hestitation on acting on it. It's a novel, and interesting (despite the author).
36: It is definitely the source of the campaign-in-chaos stories that we saw earlier in the primary when she was caught off guard by the sudden Sanders support, and through a lot of 2008 though. I suspect that the everyone-pull-together phenomenon combined with the fact that people genuinely do want her to succeed is affecting the way people are talking about it as a virtue - if somehow inexplicably Sanders had been the nominee I'm guessing we would have seen the same basic story told in a "the tragic deadly flaw that prevented Clinton from succeeding...." way rather than a relatively positive one.
if somehow inexplicably Sanders had been the nominee I'm guessing we would have seen the same basic story told in a "the tragic deadly flaw that prevented Clinton from succeeding...." way rather than a relatively positive one.
I think that's true but . . . (1) everybody looks bad when they fail and almost any distinctive trait can play the role of "tragic deadly flaw"* and (2) all sorts of people can make impulse bad decisions when they're flailing it's genuinely rarer to make quick good decisions when presented with data**.
* "they were too rigid / they didn't listen to new ideas / they clung to a narrow circle of advisors who were out of touch" is just as familiar a narrative as "they lacked direction / they kept lunging for new idea / they upset the hierarchy by bringing in random people from outside."
** I remember seeing a comment that one of the good things about google was that, "managers will change their decisions when presented with data supporting the other choice." I doubt that's as distinctive as the person claimed, but I also think that's genuinely positive and not a universal trait.
One of the charming things about Clinton in 2008 as I recall was that she managed both the "too rigid/clung to a narrow circle of advisers who were out of touch" and "lacked direction/kept lunging for new ideas" narratives. What I really mean though is as that even recently - like, in January - there were stories about Clinton's campaign having trouble reacting to anything they hadn't foreseen that looked exactly like that, and well before any losses had happened.
It seemed a very self-indulgent novel, is my point.
It speaks very highly of Clinton that the campaign pivoted away from dreaming up wacky nicknames for Trump.
Clinton was well liked in the state department( more than Kerry who took over for her). Doesn't stop Kerry from being a much better Secretary of State.
34: As this thread shows, the fundamental pointlessness of articles like this isn't that they are or aren't true ... but that people are incapable of reading them without reference to their own already-constructed narratives
Klein's own narrative is very sympathetic to Hillary:
Part of Kamarck's argument is that presidential primaries used to be decided in the proverbial smoke-filled room -- a room filled with political elites who knew the candidates personally, who had worked with them professionally, who had some sense of how they governed. It tested "the ability of one politician to form a coalition of equals in power."
Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination by forming a coalition. And part of how she forms coalitions is by listening to her potential partners -- both to figure out what they need and to build her relationships with them. This is not a skill all politicians possess.
A less sympathetic Klein could have easily framed his narrative in terms of Hillary as an old-fashioned throwback to the smoke-filled rooms, where decisions were made regardless of the will of the people. Certainly the acceptance of large sums from Goldman Sachs would fit neatly into that narrative.
That said, my own pre-established narrative is at least as favorable to Hillary as Klein's. From a purely Hillary-centric perspective, what the fuck does it matter what she does? If Hillary is going to be subject to massive opprobrium for e-mails, Benghazi and whatnot, then as far as the political consequences go, it really doesn't matter much what she does.
The thing about the corruption narrative is that since the US is a global empire and is in decline it would be weird and unexpected for a major contender for power not to be corrupt.
I'm trying not to take that personally.
Sanders has officially endorsed Clinton, in case anyone is under a rock.
Sanders has officially endorsed Clinton, in case anyone is under a rock.
I realize that youtube comments are famously bad, but I am surprised at the level of vitriol directed at Sanders here.
Way to sell out Bernie. You're supporting a woman who is against everything you believe in.
Fuck you Bernie. I want my money back. You fucking deserve to die.
sick of all these videos where hillary stands next to some poor soul who tries to polish a turd while she nods like a robot and makes crazy horse faces.
64: Eh, one percent of Bernie's voters can still write a lot of stupid YouTube comments.
You got your Stein voters, and you've got your Trump voters who like to show how open-minded they are by saying nice things about Bernie (especially relative to Hillary). There aren't a lot of either.
The polls suggest that the vast majority of Bernie voters have already come around to Hillary.
You also have your general-purpose trolls, because hey it's YouTube comments.
64: Eh, one percent of Bernie's voters can still write a lot of stupid YouTube comments.
Sure, they can. Are those 1% of the comments? No, wait, let's assume unhappy people are much more likely to complain than happy people are to praise. Maybe 10x as likely. Are those 10% of the comments?
Or are YouTube commenters themselves not a random sample of the electorate?
I'm pretty sure I've only seen one youtube comment thread that didn't at least come very close to 'bring on the meteor' levels of bad. And even that one has some not so great moments.
The vast, vast majority of those who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary will support Hillary Clinton in the general election, another new poll confirms. The Pew poll shows 85 percent of Sanders backers will support Clinton, while just 9 percent say they'll back Donald Trump. That's a significantly faster rallying effect than Democrats saw after their drawn-out primary in 2008.
That's from four days ago, so presumably before the impact of Bernie's endorsement.
If you think it's possible that YouTube commenters are remotely representative of the general population, you have an even dimmer view of people than I do.
I'm inclined to forgive Youtube their comments sections because they have a ton of Frida Boccara, and mon dieu she's great.
You also have your general-purpose trolls, because hey it's YouTube comments.
Oh, sure, I don't draw any conclusions from it, other than that I'm still convinced that social media makes the primaries more tiring than they would be otherwise (but probably only by a small amount)
I'm pretty sure I've only seen one youtube comment thread that didn't at least come very close to 'bring on the meteor' levels of bad.
I've had the opposite experience, most of what I'm looking up on youtube are old songs, and they tend to have fairly nice comment threads.
The Taylor Swift tribute to Dirk and Duncan is profoundly odd, but makes me genuinely emotional in the context of Duncan announcing his retirement.
75- Interesting, not too bad.
I've been reading some well-thought-through critiques of RBG and her public stance against Trump. My attitude about political norms has become so debased, however, that it all sounds like pearl-clutching nonsense to me. Surely at some point, even a Supreme Court justice is entitled to acknowledge that US politics is seriously fucked.
Speaking of seriously fucked, the convention in Cleveland starts in five days. The summer is just blowing past.
I didn't know that until now Supreme Court justices avoided public political stances. Does that mean Scalia was retired for the last 10 years of his life?
She's 83, this is a genuinely weird political situation, she's Ruth Bader Ginsberg, she should do what she wants. But there is a difference between expressing political views generally, and expressing specific antipathy to an individual person or entity who plausibly might be a litigant before her in the near future. Even though everyone knew Scalia was in the tank for Republicans generally, he didn't announce how he was going to vote on election-related cases before Bush v. Gore.
Tl;dr: Not to judge her, but if we need her on an election-related case with Trump involved this year, he's going to have a strong argument that she should recuse herself.
After the Supreme Court stepped in and decided the 2000 presidential election, conservatives bitching about politicized justices can go piss up a rope. That horse hasn't just left the barn, the entire farm was razed to build a megamall. Speaking out against a major-party candidate running an openly fascist campaign is the duty of every American not already in thrall to it.
Kind of literally every American who isn't a judge?
I mean, you're right that they did it first, but a judge deciding a case on the basis of the identity of the parties rather than the merits of the case isn't important-but-sadly-no-longer-in-operation-social-norms bad, it's war-crimes bad, so I don't think they-did-it-first gets us anywhere. I would be shocked if she didn't recuse herself from Trump v. Clinton, if it comes up. (I think it's pretty safe that it won't; the election won't be close.)
80: My first thought was, the odds of that are pretty slim, aren't they? I mean, as for rulings on the election itself, those come from close elections, which this is shaping up to not be. (Knock on wood and all that.) As for other cases involving the man, I know there's that one high-profile case with a judge Trump has acted racist about, but there's only a few months for a ruling before the election, there's no way it or anything similar could be appealed and go to the SC before November.
But then again, my first thought is often wrong, it's a lot more likely than usual.
I was all set to disagree with 82, but I realized "war-crimes bad" means less than it used to.
I realize "they did it first" is a child's retort, but seriously, Thomas didn't recuse himself from a decision he had a personal monetary stake in. That norm is no longer in operation in the SC.
Related, don't we need a thread to determine just how far off the wagon ol' Dubya has fallen?
Thomas didn't recuse himself from a decision he had a personal monetary stake in.
Remind me? There's so much stuff that I'm not dead sure what you're referring to.
86: I was thinking of his wife. On consideration, "personal monetary stake" may be a bit black and white, but there are multiple very very dark gray incidents. Two examples: she served as the Heritage Foundation's White House liaison during the Bush administration, and she worked for a firm lobbying against Obamacare.
If the narrative does become that Ginsberg should recuse herself from Trump v. Clinton, it would just give Trump incentive to deliberately provoke negative comments from Kagan and Sotomayor.
I think implicit in Ginsburg's decision to speak out is a commitment to honor the precedent set by her best buddy Scalia. She won't be recusing herself from Clinton v. Trump.
I think she crossed a bridge past Scalia. Legal/governmental worlds are small enough that there's nothing all that unusual about positive connections between a judge and a litigant; Scalia's connections with Cheney were extreme, but improper as a matter of degree rather than of kind.
A strong negative position against a litigant is very different.
90: Trump is also very different. Had RBG come out against, say, Romney, I might be more receptive to your argument and that of the concern trolls at American Thinker.
I think LB is right. SC justices have enormous power and that is only practical if they stay out of direct politics as much as possible. I don't care what Scalia did.
Remember when Sandra Day O'Conner had to pretend that when she said "this is terrible" to the networks calling Florida for Gore she was really worried about polls still being open in the panhandle?
Yeah, to me it's all about 91. We've spent the last year or more seriously debating whether "fascist" is applicable; unless you think that's obviously, completely hyperbolic, I don't see how you can argue that this sort of norm-breaking is out of line.
"Sure, the US has turned into an autocratic dystopia, but at least the Supreme Court retained its credibility right up until Trump dissolved it."
There are a set of political norms that served this country reasonably well for awhile, but they are all crumbling despite the best efforts of the procedural liberals.
It would be nice if we could have some constraints on behavior, and God knows the liberals tried. But apo gets it right in 81. We're in a different era now, and while I agree that -- all things being equal, which they're not -- duck-hunting with a politician isn't quite as bad as openly denouncing one, it's pretty damn close. And neither of them is anywhere near Bush v. Gore.
As for a nonpolitical Supreme Court, that ship has sailed out the barn door, and there's no point in locking it now.
Looking upthread, I see that LB's concern is almost entirely recusal-, not norm-, related. Which I can't really argue against.
Hey, you know who decides if RBG has to recuse herself? RBG. And you know who Trump can appeal to if he doesn't like it? No one.
97 to 96. Recusal is a norm.
But if we have eight years of Hillary in store, we have a chance, and not a slim one, of much of the Court being repopulated and norms being rebuilt.
That wasn't me. I just need to clarify that.
And I really did mean everything I said about she's RBG, it's a very weird situation, she should do what she wants. Just that to get to 'this is okay' you really do need 'Trump is a literal fascist'. And that gets me to 'this is okay, if she thinks it's worth it' but I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Just that to get to 'this is okay' you really do need 'Trump is a literal fascist'.
That's not self-evident to me, and I'd be interested to see you develop that thought, if you are so inclined. Why draw the line there?
My starting point is that a judge saying or doing anything that gives the impression they have predetermined a case on the basis of the identity of the parties is fundamentally not okay, and not okay in a way that's closer to war crimes than to other social norms. In the abstract, if you replaced 'RBG' with 'a judge' and 'Trump' with 'a presidential candidate', I would think that no question, the judge should recuse themselves from cases involving the candidate.
To move me off that position, you need to convince me that the particular candidate is bad enough that it's worth violating a really, really, really strong ethical principle. And Trump is arguably actually that bad, but ordinary terribleness wouldn't cut it. (NB: RBG hasn't done anything unethical at all yet -- this whole problem only becomes an issue if she has to decide a case about Trump's candidacy.)
I agree that it was a bad idea, and that if a case comes before her concerning the election that it would be sound to recuse.
I can't imagine that she's swayed a single vote towards either candidate, just made herself fodder.
Not liking recent polls. Can we have a Pennexit?
Just that to get to 'this is okay' you really do need 'Trump is a literal fascist'. And that gets me to 'this is okay, if she thinks it's worth it' but I'm not sure it's a good idea.
I'd take a slightly different angle: Trump is, for all practical purposes, a fascist. That is, the entirety of his appeal is fascistic (blood & soil patriotism, hatred of others, authoritarian, corporatist, twisted populism). To the extent that his candidacy is normalized, we are inviting future fascistic candidates. Mere 55-45 defeat is IMO an insufficient response, suggesting that Trump is just a somewhat worse (or less electorally competent) version of Romney or McCain. I want a full-throated denunciation, one that conveys unmistakably to the white nationalists and fascist-curious alike that people don't "really agree" with them behind closed doors.
We give the Never Trump people a hard time, much of it richly deserved, but the truth is that they're doing the right thing, and it's needed, even if it's mostly self-interested and/or petulant. To me the best outcome of this election is HRC modestly surpassing Obama's numbers while Trump is 10-20% below Romney's. I don't care if Republicans hold their noses and vote Hillary; I just want them to view supporting Trump as unacceptable.
107. I thought that the recent polls were from Qunnipiac, which consistently skews right of absolutely everyone else.
Not consistently enough for me to be reassured by it.
109: Some others as well -- McClatchy-Marist, and NBC/Survey Monkey. I don't know about the former, but my sense is that Survey Monkey polls are to be taken with some skepticism.
Can we have a Pennexit?
That's not a very reliable birth control method.
Agreed with 108.1, by the way, particularly that normalization of Trump's candidacy is a bad idea, and that we need a full-throated denunciation on every front.
Should RBG have stayed out of it? Probably. On the other hand, I'd have preferred that the NYT had stayed out of editorializing about her statements as well, unless they were willing to point out that right-leaning SCOTUS justices were just as guilty of advertising their leanings. The NYT editorial's headline "Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg" is bad, for lo and behold, a lot of people don't read past the headline, and Trump is claiming she should resign.
Maybe calls for Pennexit are premature. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll has Clinton leading Trump 45% to 36%.
Averages, averages!
Huffpost's average has dropped from Clinton by as much as 7% (a few weeks ago) to 4.4.% right now. 538's version with adjustment for various factors including polling house effects has done about the same - 6.7% margin on 6/29, 4.7% margin today.
Kilgore on the latest polling results.
I'm chiefly interested in these early-ish polling results because of the remaining Bernie-or-Busters I'm acquainted with. I sort of can't bear to hear what they're thinking right now, as I might become angry. As it stood a week ago, they were confident that nothing bad would come of voting for Jill Stein.
but a judge deciding a case on the basis of the identity of the parties rather than the merits of the case isn't important-but-sadly-no-longer-in-operation-social-norms bad, it's war-crimes bad, so I don't think they-did-it-first gets us anywhere.
a judge saying or doing anything that gives the impression they have predetermined a case on the basis of the identity of the parties is fundamentally not okay
I completely agree with both of these statements and yet fundamentally disagree with you about RBG. What has she done that would lead you to think that she would decide a case based on the identity of the litigant rather than the merits of the case? Judges can give fair hearings to litigants they don't like. (And to litigants they like, for that matter.) As in fact every justice on the Supreme Court would be required to do if a case involving Trump or any other prominent political person were to come before them. The fact that she has made her views on Trump known publicly does not impact her ability to give him a fair hearing.
I think the stuff she said goes well over the appearance of impropriety line.
Whats with the polling? It really shouldn't be this close.
Okay, but then that's a different thing. The concern is not that she would actually decide a case based on the identity of the litigant rather than the merits of the case; the concern is that she may by her words have created a situation where there could be suspicions that she was deciding the case based on identity. But whether or not she or any other justice said anything like what RBG said publicly, those same very strong suspicions would exist in any Trunp case before the Supreme Court.. Especially anything that ended up in a party-line vote split. And I personally do not think it any less likely that RBG would give Trump a fair hearing now than I did before hearing her make those statements. Do you? Does anyone reasonable? If not, then what exactly is the problem?
LB is exactly right on this. It was a dumb thing for a SCT justice to say.
||
FUCK OFF!
[UK politics news]
>
The juxtaposition between the UK and US political conversations here is fantastic.
120: Right, which is one reason one is concerned about the Bernie or Busters. The polling is partly going this way because the reporting on Comey's FBI email investigation conclusion hasn't been very convincing to people.
Okay, be concerned, but there are a lot less Bernie or Busters than there were Hillary or Busters 8 years ago.
I'm guessing the large number of undecideds will never be decided, and we end up with historically low turnout among Republicans. I hope so anyway, since the polling right now says Republicans win the Senate races in PA, OH, and FL while losing those states.
s/b "while Trump loses those states"
Were there any noticeable number of PUMAs at all in '08? I don't remember it being an issue that anyone talked about after the convention.
They were all over the internet! People were freaking out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like, immediately after Hillary conceded, that was happening, but I didn't think later -- I guess I don't remember them being talked about as a group of votes of any size once the general election campaign had started. But this could be my memory being at fault.
Either way, it's hard to imagine that this year the PUMA equivalent will be any bigger than it was last time. Who would these holdouts be? People who also see Obama as a right-wing imperialist, I suppose. So, the people who were going to vote for Jill Stein anyway.
Well, I got an OkCupid message from an independent voter who thinks both candidates have their problems, so that guy.
(In other news, deactivated my account. Probably worthwhile for getting a look around at how the process works, but (a) super depressing, and (b) way too soon. I'll be going back to hiding under my bed for a while now.)
As I recall, events quickly passed all the PUMA talk by - especially the fact that Obama fairly consistently led the general election polls. If that hadn't been the case maybe people would have seized on PUMAs as an explanation.
I think the difference is that PUMAs weren't in our social circles, but the Bernie Busters are. I sure didn't know Lady de Rothschild.
There still were a bunch of people who voted for McCain who said they would have voted for Clinton instead if she'd been running. It seems unlikely to me that the number of people who said that actually would have in that case, but certainly some of them would. If you take it seriously though then the Bernie or bust loons are already a lower percentage of his supporters than the ones who really did act that way in 2008.
Comparisons of BoBs and PUMAs are a silly waste of time. Because Trump isn't McCain. He hasn't picked Palin. The economy isn't collapsing. Clinton isn't Obama. And Obama isn't Bush.
The question is whether Clinton will get enough votes in enough states to win the EC. Trump is attracting a different enough constituency that (a) comparisons to 2008 are not meaningful and (b) complacency is a mistake.
137: Well there's pretty clear (indirect) evidence that Obama ran about 3% behind where you'd have expected due to racism*. I'm not sure that's really the spirit of PUMAs--the premise was that they were HRC-lovers, not Obama-haters--but if you wanted to, you could consider those people PUMAs.
You could certainly posit some fraction of males who won't vote for HRC, and there'd be some overlap with Bernie-or-Busters, but at this point the Kerry electorate is ancient history, so I don't see how you could even create a baseline.
*I don't recall exactly how the effect was distributed; it may have been that the most racist states (OK, Appalachia) voted for him 3% less than you'd expect, but he was fine in less racist states, for a nationwide number well below 3%.
I don't doubt there were a number of people who voted for McCain as a result of not being able to vote for Clinton, but I'm not sure that means very much. So many voters do not fall on the spectrum as typified - they're jumbles of positions, like deport all immigrants and legalize pot, or vote Republican because the Democrats refuse to join the class war, and in the absence of parties channeling those quirks, they often balance each other out, like how in the latest Ipsos poll 7% of self-identified Democrats said they'd vote for Trump, and 8% of Republicans said Clinton. Any PUMA effect in 2008, if significant, was probably well outweighed by fundamentals anyway.
My suspicions about the number have more to do with the fact that they were, ok, racist as all get out just like plenty of other people but also that it's easy to say "Oh, yes I totally would have voted for other rosy-in-hindsight candidate rather than the somewhat embarrassing loser I did vote for" when asked.
There are plenty of good reasons not to be complacent, but Sanders supporters voting for Trump, or not voting at all, isn't really one of them. The numbers of people even objecting are slight and the part of the campaign that pulls people into supporting the nominee hasn't even started yet. I doubt that by the November anyone saying that who would have voted for Sanders in the first place is going to be voting for Trump. (There are certainly people who whether as a result of intentional screwing around or (probably the larger group) people who just kind of want to make a big fuck-the-system noise who supported Sanders, though clearly not as many who voted for Trump. By the end of the general election the ones who won't come to their senses are the ones who wouldn't have if Sanders was the nominee either since he'd have been the sane-policy one of the two.)
Deport all immigrants who don't bring pot with them.
LB is completely right about RBG.
I am weirdly comforted by the Brexit vote in that I think a very small but potentially meaningful percentage of Americans who might otherwise have voted for Trump is a kind of venting are now less likely to. This is admittedly more opinion than anything else, though.
I'm trying not to get too depressed by the fact that I just had coffee with a friend whose classroom full of 7-year-old immigrant students begged to talk about the election on the last day of school and then all said they were supporting Clinton. Why? Because "Trump might make us leave."
Can you imagine? What can you even tell a classroom full of elementary school kids that is genuinely reassuring yet honest? They're already traumatized by the prospect and they're not wrong to be worried. (And fwiw, they're not even Latino.)
back to hiding under my bed for a while now
That's the first place 19-year-olds look, LB.
s/b voted for Trump as a kind of venting.
I doubt that by the November anyone saying that who would have voted for Sanders in the first place is going to be voting for Trump.
I doubt there would be any of those people if the election was tomorrow either. Maybe some elderly white male gun owners in rural New England.
There are always a certain amount of people who are just nuts, and are doing things for their own random, idiosyncratic reasons.
Like the card table thing: it's great she takes notes and follows up on things, but wouldn't it be better to feed that stuff into a staffer research pipeline daily?
I honestly don't know, but you think you might be making the perfect the enemy of the good here?
I thought of this reading MY's note about Congressional staffing.
In the decade after this encounter, I've had the opportunity to learn that the policy ignorance on Pence's part that shocked me is actually rather typical.
What now surprises me is when I come across a member of Congress who really does understand a particular issue in detail. And this sometimes does happen. Little pockets of expertise are scattered hither and yon all throughout Capitol Hill -- especially when members dig in to work on idiosyncratic pieces of legislation that are off the radar of big-time partisan conflict. ...
And the problem here isn't that the members are dumb, as I used to think. It's that Congress hasn't set itself up for individual members to be well-informed. Staff budgets are generally low, and a decent share of staff effort has to be put into constituent service and answering the mail. Senators, who have larger staffs, are generally competent to discuss a wider range of issues. ... But typical members have little chance to build in-house knowledge on policy issues, and as matter of economic necessity skilled staffers have to be looking for their next job.
That description makes it sound like what you're imagining (" a staffer research pipeline" which operates in a careful and structured way) more or less doesn't exist. Obviously Clinton has money to hire staff; but it sounds like there isn't much of a model to work from (think tanks and interest groups, obviously, both have research arms but that's different).
Hillary has a large staff full of very smart people, whom she gives projects to including after meeting with other people. Stunning! Also, sometimes these people are imperfect. These things are knowable and learnable! We don't have to do political institutional analysis by hypothesis.
That description makes it sound like what you're imagining (" a staffer research pipeline" which operates in a careful and structured way) more or less doesn't exist.
You cut out the part about committee staffers, who are more focused on subject matter. I'm sure that's imperfect too, but that's probably closest to a "pipeline".
I'm sure that policy people exist (and that Tigre is correct that Clinton has a capable staff). I just thought that was useful context for figuring out what counted as "perfect" and "good" in this case.
150 makes it sound like there's some pretty low hanging fruit there for a pretend-bipartisan-actually-progressive organization to set itself up for various congresspeople as a service (at least for a few years - though there's no reason there couldn't just be a constant organization-hopping funding set up). I mean, I don't know if that's false or not, but if so it really sounds like something a wealthy leftist might want to look into.
154: There's the Congressional Research Service, but that has its own problems.
There's been a movement since the 90s to bring back the OTA.
On RBG this is pretty much how I feel too.
124: someone on FB was joking about "May as prime minister, Hammond as chancellor... Top Gear fans are very interested to see who's the foreign secretary". Ho ho ho! Clarkson would be comically bad as foreign secretary!
But, ironically, he'd still be a lot better than Johnson. Clarkson is at least not a lying lecherous alcoholic.
154-155: this is pretty much exactly what CRS and legislative reference bureaus at state levels are supposed to help with, but they seem to be caught up in the same trends towards defunding useful public services.
So last night at dinner my with my parents and my brother and his kids my mom dropped the political bomb I'd been successfully avoiding. HRC is evil and they're all voting for Trump. I'd been meaning to send a guest post in before I came back for my leave asking the Mineshaft for advice on how to deal with this and how to avoid a shouting match in which I all but accused them of voting for a fascist Nazi grifter clownstick. I succeeded by merely raising my voice a few fractions below a shout. Ugh. And they'd have no problem with me being detained at the border and brought in for questioning because of my current region of residence and past history of studying Islam. At least I succeeded in not saying fuck you to their face and going off to the city to rent an expensive hotel for the week and watch movies all day long.
Besides I love my nephews and I've been waiting all year to see them. And I do love the rest of my family, fascist sympathizers though they are. Ugh.
You could try to convince them to vote for Jill Stein.
Oh, wow. That's awful, I'm so sorry.
160: That's what my mother, who thinks Hillary's evil, is doing.
157: If there must have a noxious Tory, it should be Clarkson. He's much more likely to start diplomatic incidents with fisticuffs, and if nothing else he'd arrive in style.
Of course, New York isn't exactly a swing state.
I did try to talk up the libertarian candidate a bit, what's his face?
No not a swing vote state, but what if you had a time machine and could go back in time and shoot not cast a vote for Hitler? Here's your chance to do that.
165 So I don't have to. Thanks Walt, I'm outsourcing my hate to you.
My brother is a pilot for Delta, a union shop, and the reason why he gets paid so well with really good benefits is down to his being in a union. My mother was a public school special ed teacher, also union, and was in the highest (or one of the highest) paid school districts in the nation.
Take a wild guess as to what they think of unions?
I've been reading, as one does, about the Night of the Long Knives. I think it's only fair to note in Hitler's defense that he not only killed Hitler, but also von Schleicher.
159- That's rough, most of the people I know who think HRC is evil are voting for Stein, I sympathize.
My own family is very much not in a swing state, but I wonder if it isn't possible for Clinton to get a single electoral college vote (Nebraska gives one for each congressional district) because the 2nd district is becoming less farmers and more college-town and because Sen. Sasse has been particularly anti-Trump.
I guess Obama got that EC vote in 2008. I'd forgotten that this has happened before.
156: Yeah, Pierce nails it. There is a convention among lawyers and journalists that it's reasonable and necessary to have knowledge, but a scandal to admit having knowledge. Pierce's first sentence:
So, it appears that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sent the flying monkeys aloft because, upon being asked about the possibility of a He, Trump presidency, she told the truth.
She told the truth. Whether or not Trump wins the election (SPOILER ALERT: He won't), it's more important for posterity that people publicly stand against him than it is to preserve some fiction about judicial impartiality.
I mean, have you ever actually read a Scalia opinion? That guy was the living embodiement* of derp, as defined by Noah Smith:
English has no word for "the constant, repetitive reiteration of strong priors". ... On Twitter, we call it "derp".
*before he became the dead embodiment.
Okay, but that really is the rule, and everyone knows it, including RBG.
It also used to be the rule that you don't quote right-wing talk radio in judicial opinions or from the bench. If judicial dignity can survive Scalia using the broccoli "fascism" talking point, it can survive Ginsberg giving her opinion about a real-life fascist.
Always remember- whatever the right-wing accuses the left of doing is what the right is actually planning or already doing.
So our system requires literally no norms to function?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ginsburg-trump-apology
173: Sure, but it's not a judicial rule that applies to the Supreme Court. It's a liberal rule that applies to liberal justices on the Supreme Court. One of the satisfying things about RBG's comments was that she (no doubt unintentionally) smacked down clueless liberals who don't want to face up to how the Court actually works.
Justice Alito, on the other hand, knows the score:
He quoted from Reich's bestselling "The Greening of America," in which the author painted a frightening picture of a disintegrating society and called the era a "moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril."
Here, Alito paused and, to the delight of a crowd dismayed by President Obama's re-election, added, "So our current situation is nothing new."
175: Thomas, Scalia, Alito et al are the ones who created the norms of the Supreme Court.
I mean, yeah, there are advantages to, say, not filibustering at every single opportunity. But that ain't a norm any more, and I'll be pissed if the Democrats don't adopt the new norm.
172: It's a fiction that judges do decide cases impartially in all cases. It's not a fiction that they should decide cases impartially, and that they should speak and behave in such a way that reasonable people would believe that they will decide cases impartially. To the extent Scalia deviated from this ideal of impartiality (lots!), he was a terrible awful judge. Ginsberg hasn't been a terrible awful judge in the past, and I don't want her to start being a terrible awful judge now, outside of a true emergency.
There's a reason I keep saying war crimes (sorry, analogy ban!). Obviously, deviations from judicial impartiality aren't as bad as torture, and I don't mean to suggest that they are. What I wanted to convey was that there are two kinds of bad behavior. Some contexts, you start out nice, and then if the opposition escalates, you escalate to match, and that's maybe regrettable if it happens, nicer if everyone could have stayed civilized, but it's fundamentally okay. Other situations, it doesn't matter what the other side does: whether or not ISIS is murdering civilians has literally no bearing on whether we should.
Evangelical megachurch pastor in Dallas says he would vote for Trump over Jesus himself. Because Jesus is too weak to govern modern America.
that they should speak and behave in such a way that reasonable people would believe that they will decide cases impartially
I don't think you responded to 121. Do you honestly think any reasonable person would think RBG less likely to decide a Trump case impartially now than they would have before hearing her remarks? Does it affect your personal evaluation of her likely ability to be impartial and decide a case on the merits?
Yes.
There's a strong norm that judges should decide cases impartially. There's also a strong norm (as well as explicit rules) that they should not speak in such a way as to give the impression that they will not decide cases impartially. RBG violated the second norm, hard. That's a statement that she thinks this is enough of an emergency to violate norms. At which point I'm not certain that she wouldn't decide a case involving Trump impartially, but I'm not sure that she would: her words changed my opinion about her intention to be impartial.
Huh. Okay. I completely disagree with that, but I see where you're coming from.
In a vacuum, the "sound impartial" norm sounds logical enough, but I want to go back to 90. You're saying that "sound impartial" is a much stronger and much more important norm than "avoid conflicts of interest". Really, it sounds like "avoid conflicts of interest" isn't even a norm at all. This seems pretty stupid.
183: Both the explicit rules and the strong norm do not apply to Supreme Court justices.
Anyway, I think that with her pseudo-apology, Ginsburg has threaded the needle nicely on this. Since the norm for liberal justices involves a pretense of impartiality, she has now committed to maintaining that pretense.
I'm fine with her pseudo-apology also, but I wish she never said anything.
179- So us savvies know the truth (impartiality in all cases is a fiction), but by speaking out she let the rubes know how things actually are, so that's war-crimes bad?
"impartiality in all cases is a fiction"- I mean that they are usually but not always impartial, not that they are never impartial.
There's a big difference between "judges are human and as such are incapable of being always impartial" and explicitly saying "This guy is a shithead".
Honestly a lot of the legal system is (necessarily) held together by norms of practice among lawyers and judges, two of which are (a) you don't make statements that critical of a potential litigant or else you recuse (b) justices, especially Supreme Court justices, aren't publically politically partisan in that manner. There is admittedly hypocrisy there (can we guess what all the liberal justices think of Trump in their heart of hearts? Probably) but it's a hypocrisy that's useful and necessary to maintain law as independent of politics and judges as not having pre-judged individual cases based on bias, both of which are absolutely necessary for the system to function. It's *unprofessional* in the sense of harming law as an institution and the rule of law as a concept, both of which are really important to maintain even if we all understand that people are human and biased and know how flawed things are in the execution. Maintaining the principle of rule of law is your primary job as a judge and especially a Supreme Court justice. If you don't like that constraint, get another job.
I'm getting the sense this argument is splitting up lawyers vs. non-lawyers.
I'm with the lawyers. I think I need to reconsider my life choices.
189: It is a fiction that all judges are impartial at all times. It is not a fiction that most judges are impartial a lot of the time, and good judges are impartial either all the time or really close to it, and they're trying to be impartial even if they fail. What RBG said came pretty close to implying that she wasn't going to try to be impartial with respect to Trump, and that's saying that she's not going to do her job right.
Or what El Tigre said.
193: I'm not an lawyer and urple is. I am perhaps socialized to lawyery norms for family reasons.
What RBG said came pretty close to implying that she wasn't going to try to be impartial with respect to Trump
This statement requires your chain of reasoning in 183, which may be right or wrong (I think it's wrong), but either way it is a long way from self-evident.
What she said was just that she didn't like Trump and doesn't want to see him President. She did not say anything in any way even close to implying that she wouldn't be impartial if a case came before her.
I agree with LB and RT on this, and I don't buy the "But it's Trump, so that makes it OK!" theory.
Dumping longstanding norms that allow various systems to function is something that republicans have been actively doing for 25+ years, and it's partly why they've ended up as the party of Trump today. I'm not sure liberals should be in a hurry to follow them down that road.
Again, why is the "sound impartial" norm so much more important than the "don't rule on cases when it would bring more money into your household" norm? I'm going to take a bold stand and say that that's stupid.
I don't think it is more important, but conflicts of interests in couples where both hold some position of power are a complicated topic. On the one hand, you have conflicts of interest that don't sound good. On the other hand, you don't want to make it so that to be in high office, you can't have a spouse who does anything important because feminism (mostly).
Also, I don't see why I have to have a hierarchy as opposed to a "this is important enough to matter" dichotomy. Plus, sounding impartial is free.
It's not that the differing norms are so much more important, it's the violations we're talking about are of different levels of clarity. 'Bring more money into your household' isn't a good description of the situations you were raising above -- it was more like 'get a result that would make a spouse's employer happy'. Which is, you're right, pretty distinctly dark gray, and there's a fair argument that Thomas should have recused himself. But "Thomas didn't recuse himself when he arguably should have" doesn't get me to thinking that Ginsberg didn't cross a line in what she said.
I don't see why I have to have a hierarchy as opposed to a "this is important enough to matter" dichotomy. M/i>
Yeah, this is what I was going for.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word "norm." I do not think you know what it means.
If people ain't doing it, it ain't a norm.
There used to be a norm about the Senate considering the other party's Supreme Court nominees. With that norm abolished, I'll be pissed if the Democrats try to reinstate it when the next anti-abortion zealot gets nominated.
Sure, I take A. Lurker's point: There also used to be a norm about not nominating open racists for president. That one is gone, too, but I still think the Democrats should honor it.
As norms go, maintaining an implausible pretense of impartiality is okay. But it's not a norm that Democrats should necessarily honor unilaterally.
But it's not a norm that Democrats should necessarily honor unilaterally.
Yeah, that's explicitly what I'm disagreeing with you about (hence the banned analogy above). Some norms, you don't honor unilaterally, but once you let go of judicial impartiality at all, why would anyone abide by a judicial decision?
Maintaining the goal (I won't say "pretense") of impartiality is something the Democrats should do unilaterally (unlike, say, filibustering). It isn't that conceding the norm has died evens the playing field between Democrats and Republicans. It's that the weakening of the norm weakens the institution of the Supreme Court in ways that hurt Democratic constituents far more than Republican ones.
As one would expect, Lithwick has a smart take.
Some norms, you don't honor unilaterally, but once you let go of judicial impartiality at all, why would anyone abide by a judicial decision?
The usual reason - the state's monopoly on force.
But really I agree with LB here.
Yes but Justice Ginsburg is not a "Democrat," she is a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. "Republicans do it too" is not an excuse (and also not exactly true in this case, though Republican judges have done other bad things). Plus it's not *just* a norm, but a codified rule of judicial ethics. She admits she was wrong to make those remarks, and she was.
209 to 205. But 206 is a much better response. The rule of law as an institution is important to maintain as a goal and principle regardless of what you think of Republicans.
The odd thing is that in the past, often elected officials were appointed to the Supreme Court, weren't they? It's only recently that it's been lifelong jurists who can point to a career of never technically being a partisan.
Fine, but I'm still not voting for Trump.
The other lawyers I work with just had a collective tizzy of worry about the polls. I tried to be reassuring, but of course I don't know that everything's okay, I just figure that it's probably okay.
But I think the obvious point is that when one side totally abandons the norm then it's no longer a norm. And basically every interesting-to-not-lawyers case that ends up at the Supreme court these days gets subjected to a discussion that is, very openly, based on the fact that judicial impartiality is not actually a thing anymore. As often as not the question is something like "But what reason will Alito give for voting in a way that is really congenial to Republicans?" And when the cases are really important it's not even remotely subtle - whatever that rule about the aloof gentility of the supreme court was supposed to be it's just not there anymore, at all.*
If Republicans were abandoning norms that governed how they acted towards each other then the Democratic party would do well not to do it when it comes to how they treat each other. But if we're playing chess and I decide that I no longer feel bound by the rule that bishops move in straight lines, and you allow me to do that, then we're no longer playing a game where bishops move in straight lines. Instead we're playing a game where you're making stupid moves because you aren't using your bishops effectively.
*The answer to LB's question is 208, obviously. But the additional answer is "because people will continue to insist that it is that thing that it is very obviously not because recognizing that it is not would undermine all the stuff that the norm was there to support in the first place." And that's actually a bad thing, because it cuts off any chance at all of addressing the problem. I mean, I've heard the "but the court can't openly rule in favor of the Republican party for blatantly spurious nonsense reasons because then that would harm the institution of the court and no one would take their decisions seriously!" claim being made about judicial decisions in which they absolutely 100% went ahead and did that exact thing. If it was going to have that effect it would have already had that effect a whole bunch of times by now, but it didn't.
I was about to post the Lithwick piece as well.
republicans have been actively doing for 25+ years, and it's partly why they've ended up as the party of Trump
It is also why Republicans control both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the state governments. As Charles Pierce says: "Liberals, of course, are supposed to make sure they use the right fork when they sit down to dinner with barbarians."
205: Some norms, you don't honor unilaterally, but once you let go of judicial impartiality at all, why would anyone abide by a judicial decision?
You're conflating judicial impartiality with the superficial appearance of it. But for this purpose, I'm willing to make the stronger claim you impute to me: Americans routinely abide by decisions of an openly impartial court.
When (for example) the court issued its transparently absurd decision that allowed states to deny Obamacare subsidies to low-income folks, that decision was honored, despite it embodying both the appearance and actuality of impartiality.
Two sets of Barbarians is worse than one set that only wins some of the time.
Analogously, I'm sure there will be a bunch of Democrats falling to the fainting couches about eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees because "it might get used against us one day!" And if they win the argument, the GOP will filibuster every single Supreme Court nominee for the next 4 years because what the hell do they care? If Breyer or Ginsburg leaves and can't be replaced, they are back to a majority on the bench.
217 is right, also the decision mentioned in 216 was, while wrong, not legally absurd, and was the position of Justices Kagan and Breyer.
The rule of law is not the same thing as a norm of Congressional practice about the filibuster.
one set that only wins some of the time
At the presidential level. They are eating our lunches at pretty much every level below that.
216- Do you mean partial(ity), not impartial(ity)?
Christ almighty. Expressing an opinion about a presidential candidate is not abandoning the rule of law.
I'm just still getting hung up on the apparent belief that the real harm is not justices having strong political preferences, but saying any of this out loud.
218: You're probably right that there are some people who will fall into that category. I'm not one of them -- mostly, I think escalating to match the other side's bad behavior is regrettable but necessary. Just not on this point specifically.
To some extent this is similar to the Clinton email discussion- the kind of thing that would get you fired if your a low level drone at State is different when done by the Secretary. Low level judges might be sanctioned for saying something like RBG did, but she's at the top of the judicial branch, so some norms and regulations are probably looser for her.
Although I've seen plenty of bullshit political statements from right-wing lower judges, and likewise bullshit decisions- what was the recent case that was an obvious example of venue shopping because Republicans wanted a certain judge, who they got and who ruled as predicted? Guessing he's not facing any sanctions.
233 - Her statements violated a strong rule that judges shouldn't comment about partisan elections because to do so undermines confidence in the rule of law, as well as creating the recusal issue that's equally important for the rule of law. It's not analagous to the filibuster because you're not talking about the practice of a legislature but about the practice of the judiciary, the branch responsible for administering the impartial rule of law.
republicans have been actively doing for 25+ years, and it's partly why they've ended up as the party of Trump
It's also, in addition to what 215 says, not what is responsible for them ending up as the party of Trump in any direct sense. It's what is responsible for the party of Trump getting to exercise a lot of power. The party leaders graduated from playing with fire (Southern Strategy) to just straight up setting fires (Foxification), which helped get them a lot of what they wanted right up until it didn't - but nothing about doing that violated any real political norms. Once they'd done it and locked in the crazy (and assured themselves of a press that didn't feel up to reporting accurately on it) they could go ahead and violate a bunch of norms without any direct electoral consequences because they'd crazied up their voters to the point where they neither knew nor cared what they were. And eventually that started to turn on them in more or less the way that anyone with any knowledge of what historically tends to happen when very rich people use crazy right wing people as tools to get what they want could have predicted, and that's how we get Trump.
224: IIRC, Clarence Thomas claimed during his confirmation hearings that he had never discussed or debated abortion. This seems pretty similar.
221: Since the president picks the Supreme Court, at least that hasn't been as bad as Congress.
Since the president picks the Supreme Court
Also only sorta true any more, as evidenced by the current vacancy.
True. But it is very likely the people who left that vacancy will pay a political price for it. Hopefully, the price includes Toomey.
Let's think through alternate things she could have said:
1. "I hate Trump so much I'm not sure I could be impartial if a case involving him came before the court. I'd have to examine my conscience but I fear I might have to recuse myself from hearing the case." Everyone agrees this would have been an ok, if unusually forward thing to say, I think (?). (It would be unprecedented for a justice to recuse herself just because she didn't think she could be fair (with no other apparent conflict), but that's the standard she should be holding herself to.)
2. "I hate Trump so much that I wouldn't hesitate to rule against him, regardless of the merits of his case. The risk of his becoming president is too great to respect ordinary rule of law." I think everyone can agree this would be a very problematic statement. LB seems to think this is "very close" to what RBG actually said, or at least implied, which is why LB was opposed to RBG's statements.
3. "I hate Trump." What RBG actually said, paraphrased. This should be news to no one in America, and I don't think it comes even close to approaching statements (1) or (2) or implying that either one of those statements is likely to be true.
Color me skeptical that anybody's Senate vote is based on SCOTUS nomination battles. And the two most likely outcomes of that vacancy are it remains empty for the entirety of Clinton's term, or the GOP hurriedly installs Orrin Hatch's recommendation of Merrick Garland before January. What a win.
233: Unparaphrased, what she said were campaign-style talking points.
234: I have no proof, but somebody sure thinks so based on all the "Do your job" campaign ads around here.
Also, just in general, with a normal Republican (which is to say without Trump's breaking of all of the norms about not openly saying certain things), this presidential election was a gimme for the Republicans.
3, what she actually said, is a violation of the Code of Conduct For United States Judges, Canon 5(A)(2): "A judge should not... publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office..."
By making the statements she made, she revealed that her feelings about him were strong enough to get her to break the applicable ethical rules. The implication that she might also break different ethical rules for the same reason is a obvious one.
To be clear, once again I'll note that I think after her apology, it's fine. But she needed to make that apology (or whatever you want to call the "I'm sorry you were offended" thing).
And I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the thought that Trump is a big enough emergency that maybe it's worth breaking the rules. But I think you need the big emergency to make it okay.
239: There would actually have to be a reason to think it would make a difference.
We live in a country where large portions of the judiciary are elected officials, for chrissakes. Is that a system I would recommend? No, it's a terrible system that has all sort of problems, including lots of reasons to think judges may not in all cases be actually impartial. But does the rule of law crumble when those judges express political opinions on the campaign trail? No.
this presidential election was a gimme for the Republicans
I really don't think so. The national EC map is bad for any Republican. Was Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio really going to that much better than Mitt Romney? You're starting with a 332-206 gap.
I'm with MHPH's last couple comments. The idea that Trump is the nominee because the Republicans started filibustering every possible bill in 2009 is... not correct. Trump follows from pandering; norm-violating has been subsequent to, but not even a direct result of, that same pandering.
You can argue that GOP appeals to racism have broken some sort of norm (that existed for maybe 15 minutes in the mid-'60s?), but that's entirely different from governing norms, which are about inter-elite management of power, not broad societal behavior. Republicans are beating up protesters at Trump rallies because of Trump, not because of how Merrick Garland has been treated.
242: It's crazy but the polls show Clinton v. Trump is pretty much generic Democrat v generic Republican.
237- Under the legal standards applied to PACs, who can't officially endorse or oppose candidates but can say, "Call Senator X and tell him that goat molesting assholes like him don't belong in Congress," not even clear she did that.
242, 244: I was mostly thinking of the usual swing against the party of the previous incumbent and the still lethargic economy, but also the polls back during the primary that showed Kaisch could win. Maybe those were conducted by Kaisch's mom.
After Trump started showing the Republican base how much they could openly hate at his rallies I think Bush or Rubio taking the nomination away from him would probably have resulted in a Clinton win. But if he hadn't been in there at all? I'm willing to believe that Clinton is a weak enough candidate to let them scrape through - especially with the combo of "Hitlery!" coming from every right wing outlet and "Gridlock!" coming from the more calm sounding media outlets.
I'd be more sympathetic to 239 if she'd kept the criticism to areas where Trump specifically encouraged violating the law -- that seems (arguably) within the appropriate institutional scope of the Supreme Court. Calling him a "faker" and attacking him for not disclosing tax returns were campaign talking points and clearly way over the line, as well as (as you say) in clear violation of the code of judicial ethics.
248 Right, and for no apparent benefit. It's all very well to be able to look back and say 'I spoke out against fascism' but that's really just a vanity when compared to 'I helped stop fascism.' RBG's violation of the canons isn't going to win any votes for either candidate, but if it had any impact at all, it would be pro-Trump, in my view.
The Narrative every day from here to Nov 8 needs to be about how unfit Trump is. In each and every particular. No one should ever read a headline anywhere that says 'Trump is Right' and giving the assholes that run our media an opportunity to write such a thing is always a mistake.
I rejected comparisons to 2008 above, but if one must make comparisons, it seems to me that one can choose between 1988 and 2000, each of which featured an establishment candidate running for the third term of a reasonably popular (but in those cases not scandal free) two term incumbent. The media fucked us in both cases. Message discipline is about minimizing their chances to do it again.
Right, and for no apparent benefit.
Worse than no benefit maybe. Now the tax-return attack will maybe work less well because of the distraction.
The media fucked us in both cases.
The Supreme Court fucked us in 2000.
246: Polls also showed that Bernie would crush in the general election. Kasich and Sanders were never seriously attacked*, and therefore never tested.
247: Moby's invocation of the "normal Republican" in 236 is as outdated as the discussion of "norms" has been in this thread. Had it not been Trump, it probably would have been Cruz, a similarly weak general election candidate.
*There seems to be some feeling that the Sanders/Clinton contest was unusually dirty - or if not that, then typically dirty. This is delusional.
252 It was close enough that they could do so because of a number of factors, each a sine qua non, including media hostility to Gore.
253.2: You're probably right on Cruz, but I think the death of the "normal Republican" applies and explains why Cruz and Trump are on top. Republicans have lost college educated white people over the past several elections. That's new and starts at the time Republicans started blatant norm violations.
Let me throw out a related norms/they did it first question- Trump has been accused of rape under oath by a few different women. If he's elected do the democrats hold hearings on this? Why or why not?
Republicans have lost college educated white people over the past several elections
As much as I'd like to believe this, I don't think it's true. I thought their white support was still strong up and down the educational spectrum. Am I wrong?
256: why wait until he's elected? Can't they hold hearings about a party's official nominee?
257: Just read article addressing this by Jamelle Bouie --
For the first time in modern elections, a majority of college-educated whites are backing the Democratic candidate for president. According to Pew's June survey--a comprehensive look at the electorate--Clinton holds a 12 point advantage among whites with a college degree, 52 percent to 40 percent. If you break that into men and women, she trails among the former--losing college-educated white men by 7 points--but holds a 31 point advantage with the latter, swamping Trump, 62 percent to 31 percent.
Okay, so Trump may break the mold. I get that. But it hasn't been true "0ver the past several elections".
260 was mine. 259 was posted by someone faster and smarter than me.
Not possible. Peep has the brain of Steven Hawking on top of FloJo's body.
261: Look at the chart in the link at 259. You see a big drop in the Republican advantage among the college educated white people that starts in the 90s. It goes up and down a bit, but the decline in there.
College educated whites are exactly the people who get squeamish about things like RBG violating the canons. And Clinton getting away with something some minion would get in trouble for.
Trump doesn't have to win those votes, he just has to send them to Stein/Johnson.
Don't get me wrong. College educated white people are just awful. But dance with them that bring ya.
Not possible. Peep has the brain of Steven Hawking on top of FloJo's body.
Good news for sapiosexuals.
263: Remarkably accurate, except I have better tits.
There would actually have to be a reason to think it would make a difference.
I don't agree with this (although that's partly because I'm less emphatic on the importance of the norm). As I said way up in 108, a mere defeat of Trump is inadequate, because mere defeat will do little or nothing to quell the uprising he is fomenting.
IOW, this isn't a question of instrumentalist*: RGB isn't (under the premise of 239) making a calculation that, but for her anti-Trump statements, he would win, and therefore it's worth breaking the norm. Her decision is/was that Trumpism is dangerous enough that it must be vocally opposed by all of good faith, anathematized, expelled from the body politic.
To paraphrase Lincoln, must all norms be broken so that this one be upheld? A "normal" defeat of Trump will, I feel certain, be followed by Trumpist candidates winning at every level in 2018. That is a dangerous outcome.
*?? Am I using that right?
242: It's crazy but the polls show Clinton v. Trump is pretty much generic Democrat v generic Republican.
Not exactly. The margin is the same but there are a lot more undecideds because both of them are hated so much.
People have seen Trump's new logo, right? It's not good evidence that his campaign is a real one and not an elaborate prank.
Oh my god, I saw an animated version of it that I figured was a joke entirely. But that's the real logo?
It looks like T and the P are attempting the piledriver.
Right. "I"m sexually dominating Mike Pence" is going to be a very popular message.
Mike would like everyone to recognize that the message as stated is highly ambiguous. And has been repeating it in front of his mirror.
If the goal is to encourage people to point and laugh at Trump supporters, mission accomplished.
Am I the only one who thinks the P is fellating the T?
People have seen Trump's new logo, right?
I haven't. Link?
280: The goal is to show that liberals' minds are always in the gutter.
https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/754007849022480384
281: No.
280 might be right about their goal. Having liberals* laughing at their shirts/bumper stickers/whatever is a good way to stoke the sense of victimization they cherish.
*HSSSSSSS
That P should just be thankful that the T is sans-serif.
Is 285 the report that Trump had been calling around, trying to back out of nominating Pence last night? (NBC also reporting the same thing).
291: Yes, but people are making too much of it. He did the same thing with Melania, and see how great that is working out!
Are we sure all this helter-skelter leaking isn't just more semi-artful work to stay in the media spotlight at a more superficial level?
Wait it's Pence for real? I thought it would be Boris Johnson.
There's a recently-released song by Spray called "Fake Controversy Coincidentally Moves Product" where a latter verse currently earworming me is about making it seem like you're too unsophisticated to pursue such strategies:
Gotta play to the crowd
But they're cynical now
Gotta move, double bluff
Put yourself on the back foot
Let 'em think that they've won
Let 'em think that you're done
They won't care who benefits
Now they've seen through the glitz
293: this is on beyond 11-dimensional chess.
281: That's a hand job, not a blowjob. The stem of the P is the thumb, and the fingers curl around the shaft. Apparently Pence is left handed. Also Donald Trump has rectangular balls. Spread the word.
My theory is that Newt's Hail Mary proposal to deport all Sharia-believing Muslims only served to convince Trump hat he needs Newt as his Secretary of State.
It's just one damn thing after another.
Maybe Trump can use this chance to re-postpone the VP announcement, or at least de-unpostpone the previous postponement.
I'm assuming he'll at least tweet something supporting the coup.
According to my wife, Pence had a deadline to drop out of losing the gubernatorial election so he's burned his bridge.
grauniad liveblog of Turkish coup/attempted coup.
Borzou Dragahi and Laura Rozen have informative twitter feeds. Tanks in Ankara, by Istanbul airport. No statement attributable to Erdogan.
Erdogan was apparently on vacation in Bodrum.
Trump seems more likely to be an Erdogan fan (assuming he's even heard of him).
Yeah, I'm not sure where Trump would fall on Erdogan. But a coup is sort of the ultimate example of dominance politics, and we know he loves that.
Does anyone know enough about the politics of Turkey to know what a military(?) coup would mean? Also, what does this do for the larger geopolitics in the region? (Russia, Syria, Iran, etc.). Erdogan is a dictator, but I can imagine there's a worse option.
File this under "comments I will definitely regret making" but I've always been a Kemalist sympathizer and so it's hard to see a coup as ALL bad. Even though it probably is, especially if it fails.
313
Yeah, all things being equal Erdogan out of power seems like a good thing, except military coups are almost always terrible and this doesn't bode well for Turkish democracy (to the extent it existed). Not knowing much of anything, this seems like an "out of the frying pan and into the fire" situation.
I'm reading Erdogan has fled the country and the military has taken over the TV stations.
My sense is that Erdogan shifted over his time in power to more autocratic than democratic on the whole, but a full-scale coup still seems like a turn for the worse.
312, 314: Turkey has a long tradition of military coups against governments that the military viewed as threats to the country's core values, especially secularism. What's surprising about it this time is that Erdogan had made a major effort to break the power of the military so it couldn't do this anymore, which had generally been considered successful.
Erdogan is not a dictator, though he's been heading in that direction. (He had to drum up a civil war with the Kurds to win the last election -- usually dictators don't need to work so hard.) He's been in power so long that he's managed to suborn most of the institutions that could stand against him -- the judiciary, an independent media -- but he could probably still be thrown out in an election. It came pretty close to happening last year, hence the manufactured civil war.
Part of the reason Erdogan is popular is that the economic performance since he's been in office has been amazing. I have no idea what, if anything, he's done to bring this about. So it's hard to say in that regard what would happen post-Erdogan.
Turkey is in a difficult place, because population-wise it's like 45% Europe and 55% the Middle East. So in an election the Islamists have a built-in advantage, but there will be large amounts of unrest. The military is European in outlook. The only reason they let Erdogan into power was because they thought it would increase the chances of EU membership.
Pretty sure the Turkish army is against Islamists, and Erdogan was/is veering Islamist. The 1980 coup leaders left power voluntarily after elections a few years later. 1980 was a long time ago, don't know about today-- but I believe that the army wants a secular Turkey.
Erdogan almost certainly complicit in a porous border to convoys driving Qatari-funded stuff to IS in Syria. He saw Assad as the primary problem in Syria, any enemy of Assad's was OK with him.
Erdogan is apparently blaming the coup on a Gulenist (anti-Erdogan Islamist, essentially) faction within the military. That's an interesting departure from its traditional secularism, if true.
Who wants a hot take?
Erdogan has been pushing the the Kemalist/secularist military to the limit, but they've given him plenty of rope (because he's popular, and maybe because he hates Kurds as much as they do?). But the country is under constant attack, I'd assume his popularity is plunging, and the military is done with him. The extra-hot take is that the military has been allowing some of these attacks in order to weaken Erdogan, but I don't know remotely enough to know whether that's crazy-talk or within the realm of possibility.
Honestly, is there a country in the world with a "healthier" history of military coups? Am I wrong that they've been semi-regular, but consistently followed by fairly long, fairly hands-off periods? I'm not really suggesting it's a good thing, I'm just saying that the primary evil of military coups tends to be the dictatorship and oppression that follows, not the temporary break from democratic norms. Putin never took office in a coup, but that doesn't make him manifestly better than the leader of a junta.
Erdogan was apparently on vacation in Bodrum.
[crosses Bodrum off holiday list]
317: The timing of it is a little mysterious. Most of the previous generation of generals were fired. For the newer generation, why today?
Erdogan is blaming the coup on the Gulenists, in which case it wouldn't be all that secular on either side.
Bodrum itself is kind of crazy but there's a lot of places on the peninsula that are very nice.
320 would obviate 321, if true. Would also make me completely anti-coup, although it's conceivable that the Gulenists could start something they can't finish, and will end up superseded by old Kemalists.
Huh, I didn't realize Bodrum was the same as Halicarnassus.
Yeah, the liveblog linked to above also links to this article about Gulenism and an Erdogan/Gulenist split. Maybe the books I read 10 years ago about Turkish history aren't going to be a roadmap to this situation after all. Or maybe they are. Who knows!
I'm with 310. God I hate Erdogan. Maybe the army will install Krugman as Padishah and peacefully disperse.
Honestly, is there a country in the world with a "healthier" history of military coups? Am I wrong that they've been semi-regular, but consistently followed by fairly long, fairly hands-off periods?
I've heard Thailand described the same way.
I read someone on Twitter dismiss the Gulenist claim as propaganda. Since this is what I want to be true, I will assume it's true.
It certainly makes sense that Erdogan would blame the Gulenists whether or not there's any evidence they were involved.
Huh, I didn't realize Bodrum was the same as Halicarnassus.
I'm surprised that a linguist like yourself wouldn't figure that out.
You need to wait for my overly earnest response before pointing out it was a joke, JRoth.
Erdogan being bad and somewhat subversive of democracy is not a reason to clear away democracy in toto. Many people thought that would be good for Egypt most recently, and it wasn't.
I don't see it as ameliorating the idea of military control that they might quickly hand back the reins. In both Turkey and Thailand when coups were common, didn't that just mean whatever government was elected had to continually strive not to upset the military too much?
One of my Turkish Erdogan-hater friends is now posting on FB. From I learned: FB's Turkish translation is really bad, so I have no idea what she's saying.
The coup is being attributed to the Gulenists, who are a kind of state-within-a-state in Turkey's security apparatus being led by a right-wing cleric formerly allied with Erdogan. Somehow that doesn't sound promising for improved democracy in Turkey.
337: How do you read them the rest of the time?
I just remembered that my friend just took his Turkish girlfriend to the airport last night for her overnight flight to Istanbul. That has to be extraordinarily bad timing on her part. I wonder if the airport has been shut down.
341: It has.
340: They post in English most of the time.
I'm not thrilled about this turn of events, but if I had to pick one democratically elected leader to get overthrown, Erdogan would be like number two. Three if you count Putin.
This same girlfriend was right about to take a job in London a few days before Brexit, and now that's off the table too. She's not having a great summer.
I'm far from a fan of Erdogan but coups are not good for democracy and less for human rights. This is not something to cheer.
I don't think 336.1 aligns with 336.2. The reason for being sympathetic to military coups in Turkey is that the military (seems to) broadly hold values that I share. The reason the coup in Egypt ended up going badly is that the military there seems perfectly happy taking the Stasi as a role model.
IOW, no one is arguing that occasional military coups are always good, as long as they hand over power soon after; the argument is that the Turkish military, specifically, overthrows governments that want to impose Islamist rule over a once-secular state. I'm not at all convinced that we should be so tender towards democratic institutions that we should prize them when they result in illiberty.
I'm not thrilled about this turn of events, but if I had to pick one democratically elected leader to get overthrown, Erdogan would be like number two. Three if you count Putin.
And four if Trump wins in November.
But seriously, 345.
If it is a Gulenist coup, people are about to get a lot more interested in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania and NBA player Enes Kanter.
345: So the guy who ginned up a war to win an election is now the leader of the forces of democracy and human rights?
The reason for being sympathetic to military coups in Turkey is that the military (seems to) broadly hold values that I share
Does this include killing tens of thousands of Kurds, because that's a key Turkish military value.
I mean, not to go all Godwin or anything, but are you really arguing that the outcome of elections is the highest and only good? That there can literally never be an exception? And, also, that the 20 years after the 1980 Turkish coup were worse than the alternative?
Are you kidding me?
As I wrote I'm far from a fan of Erdogan, he's been terrible on those points. But it is naive wishful thinking in the extreme to think that a military coup is going to somehow improve on that score. Look at Egypt.
350: And Erdogan opposes this? He's been holding them back all these years, but they've been doing it anyway? What's the claim here?
Turks seem to want to kill Kurds no matter who's in charge. There are other issues in dispute, however.
351 I guess it's alright if you're not Kurdish. Conditions reached almost genocidal proportions in the 80s so yeah, I don't reflexively think military coups are a good thing just because I don't like the government.
I echo Barry who knows this much better.
Yeah, in theory, autocracy can on occasion push some things in good directions / combat the right bad forces. They're still bad systemically.
Look at Egypt.
Why am I supposed to look there instead of Turkey 1980?
Look, I'm not at all committed to this stance, and I'm certainly not in favor of a coup by ultra-Islamists. But I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that it is literally impossible for a coup to have a better outcome than an election. Elections have awful outcomes all the time, even if the vast majority have better outcomes than the vast majority of coups.
I never claimed nor would I that Erdogan has been good for the Kurds - far from it - but the 80s and 90s was outright war. Thousands of villages were destroyed. Tens of thousands of people were killed. What the fuck that anyone would reflexively think a military coup against a democratically elected is a good thing no matter how distasteful the government. This is not the way to advance secularism.
357 Military coup against a democratically elected Islamist government. Within the last few years. Thousands dead on the streets. The disappeared. Torture. Erosion of civil society and social norms....
I'm also realizing that I must be misremembering what's happened in Egypt recently, since it was apparently the story of a popularly elected, civil rights-abiding, legitimate democratic government of long standing overthrown by the military. That wasn't the story I remembered.
Conditions reached almost genocidal proportions in the 80s
Oh c'mon, when have Turks ever engaged in genocide?
360 No Morsi sucked too. But the years since the coup have been far worse. And now with no electoral mechanism for change.
Erdogan was less anti-Kurd until the Kurds all voted for the opposition last year. Then Kurd-murdering was back on the agenda!
Turkey and Egypt have basically nothing in common, other than Islam. Turkey is more like Greece or Portugal than it's like Egypt.
I wonder if this would have happened if Turkey had a realistic path to EU membership. I think not.
My point was that it's weird to start the story in 2013, not 2011.
This same girlfriend was right about to take a job in London a few days before Brexit, and now that's off the table too. She's not having a great summer.
Does she have any other travel plans? I'd be interested.
Also, Sisi is effectively a traditional military dictator, even if he doesn't wear the uniform. If the Turkish coup leads to a junta, that would be a bad outcome. I'm just not absolutely opposed to coups always and everywhere, weird as that is to say.
364 is an interesting point.
364: Definitely not. Erdogan was on his best behavior back when Turkey thought it had a serious shot at EU membership. It was plausible for several years that the AKP was the Turkish equivalent of the Christian Democrats. It was only when it became clear that EU membership was a lie that Erdogan turned increasingly Islamist.
366
Heh. She's now considering a job outside of Paris, though I don't know if we can blame the Nice mass murder on her apparent curse.
Erdogan's statement was made via a FaceTime interview with CNN. Like, they literally had someone holding up a phone to the camera.
370 fills me with intense deja vu. Did this happen before in a previous coup?
I don't think so. There haven't been very many coups in the smartphone era.
Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention anything like that, but it does contain this gem:
Protesters then adopted the sandwich as their new anti-coup symbol. They handed out sandwiches, shouting "sandwiches for democracy!".[136] On 22 June 2014, a student eating sandwiches in front of Siam Paragon and a group of students who were to organise a sandwich activity at the same venue were apprehended and were later placed in detention.[137] These students were said by the military to have committed an offence of "possessing sandwiches with ill intent".[138]
Core Halfordismo principles in action in Thailand. It's happening.
Almost all of my Turkish polisci friends currently in Turkey seem to think Erdogan himself staged the coup as an excuse to crack down even harder.
Coups against Sandwiches: The Roberto Tigre Story
How is Foreign Secretary Johnson handing his first crisis?
379: By tweeting his concern, apparently.
Interesting analysis by the Guardian, including a discussion of previous Turkish coups.
I bet you don't get permission to send out James Bond until you've put in a couple of months.
Has anyone seen Boris Johnson and Condorman in the same place at the same time?
And now there's been a bombing at the Parliament building in Ankara. Not clear who's responsible or what, if any, connection there is to the coup.
OT: I just figured out the bad guy in this superman cartoon is voiced by the guy who played Clayton in "Benson". The brain is a mostly useless piece of shit.
There seems to be a fair amount of gunfire in various places.
386: good one-sentence description of the state of the world.
Coup now apparently took CNN's office, but I'm going to bet (but not for money, obviously I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about) that it doesn't succeed. You'd expect some kind of senior general or something to come out in favor if it was going to. It could be more of a "different armed factions spiraling into civil war" kind of thing but I'll guess total coup failure, followed by the Erdogan government getting a lot worse. Just stepping up with making information-free predictions so as to be held accountable later.
Erdogan's plane did finally land in Istanbul, which sounds like a sign that the coup isn't going to succeed.
It looks like it's already failed. All the opposition parties came out against it immediately. No one has an appetite for a coup and the inevitable military dictatorship.
388: I pretty much agree at this point.
One of the weird aspects of this is that it's all happening in the middle of the night.
Now there are reports that a pro-Erdogan group (not clear who exactly they are) has entered the media building and is exchanging fire with the soldiers.
I hope you guys talked about all the right things today. I'm traveling.
It sounds like the coup forces still have a fair amount of military hardware and control at least a few key physical locations, including the Bosphorus bridge, but otherwise the government is basically in control. Lots and lots of fighting still going on.
395: For once I think we actually did!
Moby off-topic counts as on-topic. The alternative is unsettling.
357.last: The list of coups on Wikipedia is depressing/comical(1) in its lengthieness, if not in it's girthieness.
Should we consider the 1963 assassination of Diem as a bad coup or a good coup? It paved the way in part for the eventual liberation of S. Vietnam, but of course lots of pretty bad stuff led up to that, and followed from it too. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
1. Take, for example, the first three coups in the Comoros:
August 3, 1975: Said Mohamed Jaffar and Bob Denard overthrow Ahmed Abdallah
May 23, 1978: Ahmed Abdallah and Bob Denard overthrow Ali Soilih
November 26, 1989: Said Mohamed Djohar and Bob Denard overthrow Ahmed Abdallah
Have you been away or is my brain gone? Or both.
Bob Denard: Don't leave him to watch your stuff while you go swimming.
I haven't really been away, just sick a lot and not feeling up to commenting except late at night.
Ain't no coup like a Bob Denard coup 'cause the Bob Denard coups don't stop
Huh, apparently Denard really was a sort of freelance coup-organizer.
Does buying a drink for a guy with Hep C count as a good deed?
Protesters then adopted the sandwich as their new anti-coup symbol. They handed out sandwiches, shouting "sandwiches for democracy!".[136]
Reminiscent of the classic anti-Ahmadinejad slogan "Death to potatoes!"
That's like the bad hepatitis, isn't it?
Coup update: Soldiers on the Bosphorus bridge are surrendering. Ankara is still a war zone and more details are coming out about the damage there.
Holy crap Bob Denard = new blog icon. 100% happy to have learned about Bob Denard.
If these Turkish guys had had Bob Denard they might have succeeded. Amateurs. Though it is worth noting that Denard's fourth (!) coup attempt in the Comoros failed and he was later tried and convicted for it.
Everybody on the sidewalk is either me or Orthodox Jewish.
Denard did avoid serving his jail time by dying, though. Another win for Bob Denard!
Bob Denard was also Jewish, as well as Catholic, Muslim, and polygamous.
If only we knew someone with connections in the entertainment industry.
I could pen you a badass book of Bob Denard poems, and how. Tell your first billion I sent you.
Seriously though, why push a stroller around at midnight when decent people are trying to get gone from the bar while muttering swear words?
I guess that since I don't have hepatitis or Judaism I should try to be considerate of those who do.
So this coup failed totally in the time between morning coffee and lunchtime. And now Erdogan presumably is dictator for life. You guys just go ahead and elect Trump and I'll call it a day.
Not that I like coups, but Erdogan is bad news all round.
Erdogan is definitely bad news, but it's worth noting that the opposition parties all denounced the coup immediately (as did Gulen), and it seems to have had very little popular support either.
I did note, and I said I didn't like them either. But I don't think dictator-for-life is unrealistic or would be any better than it sounds.
Also, and this isn't really directed at Mossy but more at the tentatively pro-coup comments upthread, "Islamist" and "secularist" have very different meanings in the Turkish context than elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East. Traditional Kemalist secularism is more like French anti-clericalism than American separation of church and state, and it involves an active hostility to public expressions of religion that western left-wing types would not necessarily be on board with. With that as the baseline, both Erdogan and Gulen are considered dangerous radical Islamists by the Kemalists, but that doesn't put them remotely near the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, let alone Al Qaeda or ISIS. Ideologically they're both what would be considered "moderate" Islamism anywhere in the Arab world, and maybe in the West as well. What's really problematic about Erdogan is not his Islamism but his authoritarianism, which is indeed likely to be exacerbated by this coup attempt, so it's not like this outcome is a good thing from our perspective, but the alternative would not necessarily have been better and could well have been worse. After all, we still don't have a clear idea of who was behind the coup attempt and what their motivations and goals were.
427: Does anyone not know what you just said? I'm sure the people who experienced the police crackdown on Istanbul's gay pride are grateful for Erdogan's moderation.
I mean, Pat Robertson is a moderate compared to ISIS, but I feel comfortable calling him a Christianist.
428: I mean, I hope not, but some of the earlier comments made me wonder.
I'm sorry we hurt your tender sensibilities by using words like "Islamist".
That was the weirdest fucking coup. Who was it by? What was the goal?
The bizarre nature of it makes me think 377 might be right.
Could it have been a false-flag operation that got a little out-of-hand? It was rinky-dink, but it was a bit too big for purely theatrical effect.
And if it was a false flag, then I assume it was aimed at the Gulenists, but hasn't Erdogan been pretty effective in dismantling the Gulenist network? He's already purged a bunch of Gulenists. Why does he need a coup to purge more?
377 will be the effective result, even if it was a false flag. Thus demonstrating that the only thing worse than a military coup against a shitty but sort-of democratically-elected government is a coup against that government that fails.
That s/b "even if it was not a false flag." My guess is that it was a bunch if older-school army officers who just misjudged their hand.
He's already purged a bunch of Gulenists. Why does he need a coup to purge more?
This is basically Tom Hagen trying to reason with Michael Corleone toward the end of Godfather II. "Do you have to wipe out everyone?"
I really should watch that movie. And they first one.
Ah, if I'd known, I wouldn't have spoiled the ending then...
I think it's been out for long enough that you didn't need to worry.
Yesterday I was watching a show about the Spartan 300 with my son and he kept asking how they were going to get away.
"With their shields, or on them, young Mobyspawn."
Teo's right and I found myself both alarmed and disappointed by the tentative pro-coup sentiments expressed earlier up thread. The fact that all the opposition parties, including the leftist Kurdish HDP (!), came out against the coup within the first hour (as I pointed out in 390 and teo reiterated in 425) should have been all you need to know to opposed it if your reflexive democratic instincts are somewhat wanting.
Yes Erdogan is terrible in a multitude of ways but to think that a military coup would make things better is extremely naive to say the least. And beyond that, you lose all chance of making things better through democratic process. It's worth preserving that because it's very hard to get it back. And in the meantime you can expect renewal of all the terrible shit the military did to Turkey in the 80s and 90s.
The false flag stuff sounds like the kind of conspiracy theorizing you'd hear over there. This was too far gone for anything like that and any officers putting themselves out for a stunt like that were clearly putting their careers, lives, and families on the line. I mean maybe, this doesn't exactly fit the pattern of earlier Turkish coups, but maybe
[Ugh, unfinished sentence in 444.last but whatever...preparing for some big party here at my folks place and I've too much to do right now]
444 I mean I'm putting it a bit mildly, anyone who thinks that a military junta leading Turkey again would be better for Turkish people and what they want should really check themselves because your values suck.
So now Erdogan has purged 2700 Gulenist(?) judges. Kerry says the US will entertain an extradition request for the man himself if presented with evidence that "withstands scrutiny". So all the coup plotters in the Turkish brigs will have to say "It was Gulen what made me do it!", and then what the hell will we do?
Alright, I'm all riled up in anticipation of this family event I have soon, who wants to fight me? Thorn, you around?
I don't actually believe it, but if you want to vent:
I don't see that much difference between a bit of a mild junta and a man who seizes control of the mass media and judiciary, and starts civil wars for political advantage.
Civil wars are something you should only start for enjoyment.
Mild is doing a lot of work there. And what about it promises to be mild? Also it's looking like it was a Gulenist putsch, so what makes you think it'd be any better? And again the fact that all the opposition parties, including those who've suffered most under Erdogan came out against it from the start should be decisive. There's a bit of mansplaining actually all lives matter about this that rankles. The Turkish people seemed pretty united in that they didn't want a military junta.
A coup against a guy who's won like four straight elections, has a huge well-organized party behind him, and also has a lot of friends in the security services is not under any circumstances going to be mild.
449: It seems like nearly everyone in Turkey strongly disagrees with this, but by all means go on telling us how you think they should be governed.
If Erdogan's so damn popular why can't he let anyone else on TV? Why does he need to criminalize the opposition? He almost lost his majority a couple of years ago. As for the Gulenist angle, AFAIK, the only reason to believe Gulenists are involved is that the government says so. Which is not nothing, but hardly dispositive.
448: Bring it, Barry. Except whenever Nia finishes actually washing after a week in the wood, we're going to walk to brunch. I don't disagree with you on any of this, though, so we'll have to find some better fighty topic.
Echo Barry again. The AKP's deep flaws / crimes do not make it comparable to a junta, or mean that any other arrangement is preferable to AKP power. (Starts unnecessary wars for political advantage? Hello there, we haven't met, I'm the United States...)
453: I've already said. Paul Krugman will be installed in the sublime porte, from which he will rule with an iron fist. The people of Turkey will fear him at first, but they will come to love him and revere his wisdom.
457 While the Brits select Thomas Friedman as their new PM. They deserve nothing less.
The aftermath is going to suck mightily as Erdogan tightens his grip on power and uses it to weaken Turkish democracy and respect for human rights. Let's hope the opposition parties are able to use their credibility gained by opposing the coup to put the brakes on Erdogan's post-coup actions.
Also not up for argument: that was a seriously unnecessary and unwise amount of Disney's Frozen Frosted Berry bubble bath. Yikes!
The smell, Barry! It's weird and plasticky. The giant bubble drifts after the bath drained were at least four inches deep.
"I wanted you to take me to Target so I could get something for Mara and Selah. And if I don't have enough money for that, I would just buy myself a foot massager." Apparently we've moved on to the luxury part of the summer.
Erdogan is blaming people in Pennsylvania. But it wasn't me.
In case anyone needed some reassurance after recent jitters, new Reuters/Ipsos poll with Clinton up 45-33.
|| Am I really going to drop $650 on a Criterion half off sale? No, I must discipline myself and take off about half that amount.
|>
Paring it down as I write but Ray's Apu trilogy and the new edition of Ed Yang's A Brighter Summer Day are at the top of the list. Also some Kalazatov, Kurosawa, Ozu, a Fassbinder, etc.
Sadly I just took off Kobayashi's Human Condition trilogy. And I'm about to remove some Ozu but I'm afraid bob will have at me.
Removed a Wallace Shawn/Andre Gregory box set. This is painful.
All That Jazz and Thief may get the axe. Damn.
ax or axe? I feel like Dan Quayle.
I've always felt 'ax' was more aggressive, with vague Viking connotations.
Channel your inner "My Dinner with Andre" Viking rage.
the new edition of Ed Yang's A Brighter Summer Day
Screening at the PFA, but I'll be in Sweden :(
Is this now the movie thread? I saw The Smiling Lieutenant last night and deem it charming.
Damn, there was a box set of Lubitsch musicals I passed on. Are you suggesting I reconsider?
Now at $450. Late Summer just got the ax but I'm keeping Early Spring.
The brothers at my mosque mostly seem to like Erdogan. I am not generally in favor of coups so I am glad it failed. I am unsurprised to find that RT was in favor.
Yeah true. I wouldn't give up a trip to Sweden for a movie.
Are you suggesting I reconsider?
Also getting some Sirk and Don't Look Now for Chani.
Did I say I was in favor if the coup? Fuck off to the worthless remains of your failed life, asshole.0
480 That was a dastardly link.
Fosse got the ax. And it was painful. Not gonna add the Lubitsch.
And typical thay some Putin loving worthless motherfucker failure of a human being would go there. Nice work, shiteater.
You know, this isn't the first, nor will it be the last, Criterion Collection 50% off sale.
And maybe some of this stuff will hit Netflix.
485 I know but now I'm in the US and can take it back with me without paying for shipping.
480 is bewildering, but nonetheless charming as promised.
Sadly I just took off Kobayashi's Human Condition trilogy. And I'm about to remove some Ozu but I'm afraid bob will have at me.
Human Condition >> Ozu if you haven't seen it.
Late Summer just got the ax but I'm keeping Early Spring.
I don't know any "Late Summer" Late Autumn or Early Summer? Early Spring a good choice.
You're right, I meant Early Summer.
The Human Condition moves to the top of the list next time around.
Sorry for italics.
Seen recently and recommended Ordet and Carlos Saura's Cria Cuervos
So a number of years ago I got my nephew into anime and he's here now. Anything you can recommend for a 13 year old?
I'd like to watch Neon Genesis Evangelion with him if I can find it on Netflix or Amazon Prime. This time around we've been watching episodes of Bleach. He really likes Fullmetal Alchemist, Death Note, Maji, Sword Art Online, etc.,
Balls, messed up my ordering and got two of something (Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress). And it's too late to edit or cancel the order. Someone's getting a gift in Arrakis.
480 is bewildering, but nonetheless charming as promised.
It makes more sense in context.
The ekranoplan game is out but has pretty major issues ATM (the "turn" buttons work about 1/5 of the time). Going to wait for an update.
This is the eternal thread now, all-containing.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA THE ISSUES HAVE YOU!
I love both The Smiling Lieutenant and Ordet. Somehow I suspect that may be definitive evidence of derangement.
Everyone should watch or listen to Sol Gabeta's performance at the opening Prom's concert! So awesome for an Argentine to play that piece there/then and it is a great performance. Fabulous Vask encore.
492: I'm a big fan of the Sgt Frog manga for that age group but don't know what the anime is like.
492: Reddit Anime Recommendation Wiki
Let me see, from your list: darkish, fantasy, action/adventure, mainstream, male leads?
In some kind of order: Code Geass, Darker Than Black, Jojo?, Trigun, Cowboy Bebop
Ixion Saga DT was a blast, if a little risque. Not fanservicey, just well, main villain loses both balls in the first episodes, and a co-lead is trans female.
I was wondering why someone would be so excited by a Criterion Collection sale, until I got to the mention of the Apu Trilogy. I would fucking shoplift the Apu Trilogy if I saw it in a store.
Though one thing that no one every seems to acknowledge about the Apu Trilogy: the middle movie sucks. It consists of (spoilers) the mother saying "Apu!" fiftty thousand times, and then dying. The first and third movies are two of the greatest movies ever made, of course. The end of the third movie says more about what it's like to have children than the entire rest of humanities output on the subject.
Bob Denard taught us more than the entire rest of humanity's output on any subject.
Last time I checked, Netflix hadn't bothered replacing the full set of Apu Trilogy discs, which were once available. I think two are available.
I get home tomorrow, regular posting will commence. Until Friday.
501: Bob Denard is in the Apu Trilogy, you ignorant slut. Do you even movie, bro?
Speaking of ignorant sluts, I don't think I even knew of the existence of the Comoros until this thread.
Wow, peep is too old to have played Carmen Sandiego?
Way way too old. Everything I know about African geography I learned in 7th grade social studies, but Mr. Frank left out the Comoros. I think I'm going to sue.
Bob Denard wouldn't sue, he would act.
It's the first name that makes it work, isn't it. If he were "Laurent" it wouldn't be half as funny.
The second 'b' is silent, I assume.
Tailor Industries http://www.Tailorind.com Manufacturer of Mens Motorcycle Leather Jackets Womens
Motorcycle Leather Jackets Men's Leather Motorcycle Vests Women's Leather Motorcycle Vests Motorcycle
Leather Pants/Chaps Motorcycle Leather Racing Suits Motorcycle Bags Motorcycle Gloves Motorcycle Boots
Motorcycle Textile Mens Textile Jackets Ladies Textile Jackets Textile Pants Off Road Gloves Winter
Gloves Rain Suits Mens Motorcycle Jackets Ladies Motorcycle Jackets Motorcycle Vests Motorcycle Pants
Motorcycle Gloves Motorcycle Rain Suits MotorBike Ware Fashion Garments Men Leather Jackets Men Leather
Coats Men Leather Vest Men Leather Pants Women Leather Jackets Women Leather Coats Women Leather Vest
Women Leather Pants Leather Vests Leather Jackets Trachten Garments Men Bavarian Garments Women
Bavarian Garments Children Bavarian Garments Men Bavarian Garments Lederhosen Kniebundhosen Trachten
Shirts Trachten Jackets Trachten Vests Trachten Socks Trachten Shoes Women Bavarian Garments Short
Lederhosen Kniebund lederhosen Mini Dirndl Midi Dirndl Long Dirndl Dirndl Aprons Trachten Shirts
Trachten Blouses Dirndl Blouses Trachten Bag Trachten Shoes Children Bavarian Garments Kinder
Lederhosen Kinder Dirndl Trachten Shirts Trachten Socks Trachten Shoes Western Wears Garments Cowboy
Jackets Cowboy Vests Cowgirl Jackets Cowgirl Vests Cowgirl Poncho Cowgirl Skirts Cowgirl Coats Cowgirl
Bags Cowgirl Belts Western Hats . All Products are Made of Premier Quality Materials By Tailor
Industries Sialkot Pakistan.
Tailor Industries
Haji Pura Bun Road,
Sialkot-51310 Pakistan.
http://www.Tailorind.com
WhatsApp: +92-311-7857727
Email: industriestailor@gmail.com
https://www.twitter.com/_TailorIND
https://www.pinterest.com/TailorIndustries
https://www.facebook.com/TailorIndustries
https://www.plus.google.com/+TailorIndustries
https://www.linkedin.com/company/tailor_industries
