"I shouldn't have said 'tapes' ": the Rudy Giuliani of Rudy Giuliani fuckups

RG: But I can tell you, from the moment I read the story, I knew the story was false.

NYR: Because?

RG: Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails, and I knew none existed. And then, basically, when the special counsel said that, just in case there are any others I might not know about, they probably went through others and found the same thing.

NYR: Wait, what tapes have you gone through?

RG: I shouldn’t have said tapes.

I'm the social studies equivalent of a grammar nazi. And I'm Beto-curious.

I don't like it when people propose who they want nominated for President and Vice President. I'm the political science equivalent of a grammar nazi. You might as well tell me "Your going to love this soup" or "I would of preferred less salt on my margarita."

I assume when people tell me their opinion, it's because they at some level want me to consider joining their opinion on who we should nominate. But when you say "I want a Biden-Beto ticket" or "I want a Warren-Harris ticket" or "If we don't nominate Clooney-Gottfried I'm moving to Sweden," you're pretty much announcing you don't know how the system works. I'm not going to respect that much your opinion now. I would of preferred you stuck to just one name if your trying to persuade me.

Here's how it actually works: We vote (or caucus) for who we want for president and then whoever gets the nomination nominates a VP nominee. We've been doing it like this since 1960 in the Democratic Party. But when people say "This time we need to nominate X and Y," they're expressing an opinion on a topic over which they literally will have no say or sway.

I came to this topic because I keep seeing articles like this: "Biden and Beto May Team Up for a 2020 Presidential Run" (spoiler: no serious person is actually talking about this) as well as comments in different forums where people make this speculation. I assume the thinking behind this is someone thinking either "I think this would be a good balance" or "Dems should nominate the candidate I want, plus this other person who'll plug the appeal hole my candidate lacks." It could be a "I like both of these candidate" but I doubt that's true, since a clear primary preference is being expressed.

The Biden-Beto suggestion is particularly irksome. And I say this as an enthusiastic fan of Joe Biden. I love the man. I still look at old Barack and Joe memes and give a little wistful sigh after my giggles die down, pining for what could have been. I supported him wholeheartedly in 1988 and again in 2008 until he left the field. But when people say "I want Biden-Beto" they're saying "I want Joe in his prime" or "I want a Joe who appeals to the kids." They're pining for the past. I may be old, but I'm not so old that I've forgotten that this party only leads when we look to the future (and this party only wins when nominate fresh young faces).

But as a Beto O'Rourke fan too, I don't like it. Yall don't know what a cool breeze of excitement he brought down here to Texas. He got so many crossover votes and newcomer votes and independent votes because he seems so hopeful and incorruptible and so much his own man. He gave off the cuff speeches; he refused PAC dollars; he called for universal healthcare and defended kneeling for the Pledge in the most conservative counties in Texas. His appeal is of a man who can't be bought. So it strikes me as irksome if someone hints that his freshness and appeal can be at least rented out through the next election. The second you put Beto in the number two slot, he loses his Betoness. As an understudy, he'd need to tow someone else's line. This works against his strength as a leader.

And I probably sound like I'm saying I'm supporting Robert Francis O'Rourke for the nomination. But I'm not; not yet. I'm torn between two other candidates right now, but I will confess to being Beto-curious. I can't quantify it yet, but he has an "it" factor that both my other leading maybes have had in the past. If I'm feeling flush I may even donate a bit to all three.

Still, don't appeal to me by naming your preference as number one and my candidate as number two. That never works. Besides, I don't really see the advantage of naming Beto O'Rourke for a VP nomination to any candidate. His cross-the-lines appeal worked when he was running at the top of the ticket here in Texas last year. He may have lost statewide, but across many purple counties he had incredible coattails, kicking across straight Democratic sweeps for county offices and US House seats. People follow him; people raise record fund-drives for him; this is what makes him different. But all that goes away when he moves into the #2 slot.

Traditionally the VP nomination goes to someone who can shore up the main candidate's vulnerabilities--geographically, demographically, or experientially. But Beto is from an unwinnable state (spoiler alert: I still cry a little bit when I think about this). He has far less traditional experience in his CV than many other white males he'd be contending with for the VP slot. If our nominee needs a white male (spoiler: she won't; objections to having two women on the ticket are ignorant) there are many more better known white senatormen and governormen to plug in. If our nominee needs to swing Texas, our nominee won't really need any help winning at all. Plus Julian Castro can get you there with a lot more executive experience to boot.

The "hole" Beto patches for Democrats is youth and enthusiasm. Beyond that, there's no compelling logic for him to be included on the national ticket. He's shy on experience, as it should be with any young candidate (think Bubba and Barack). He doesn't have a unique economic message like Elizabeth Warren, nor a compelling law and reform record like Kamala Harris, nor does he swing a critical state like Sherrod Brown, nor does he rescue people from burning buildings like Cory fuckin Booker. So if anyone of these contenders nominated Beto, it would be a tacit admission that "I don't appeal to young voters." This would be one hell of an admission of unpopularity--a vulnerability we absolutely don't want our nominee to have.

I'm just venting here. I've named a fat number of potential nominees in this rant. I'm glad I wrote it down. I think we're unusually blessed this election cycle, candidate wise, and I have ABSOLUTE confidence that whoever we nominate will be a winner. I think the most important thing we can do as Democrats is support positive campaigns and--most importantly--do NOT tolerate any Democrat or "Democrat" sewing discord in our discussions. Whoever we nominate will need a united front behind them because our democratic republican form of government is literally under attack, from within and from outside our shores.

I have nothing negative to say about any candidate. I don't have time or tolerance for the usual 'hit pieces' that crop up every four years. If your posts attack our candidates, you're part of the problem. Don't be. Sell your candidate, but don't tear down the others. We've seen the damage that can do.

Does Trump wear adult diapers?

Cause I wouldn't want to start a thread speculating about that if it wasn't true.

I wish we, as a society, could all just agree that tweets aren't news

I was reading Freud's theories on adults trapped in the anal retentive stage of development

You'll never guess who it kept on reminding me of.

The determination as to the definite sexual behavior does not occur until after puberty and is the result of a series of as yet not observable factors, some of which are of a constitutional, while some are of an accidental nature. Certainly some of these factors can turn out to be so enormous that by their character they influence the result. In general, however, the multiplicity of the determining factors is reflected by the manifoldness of the outcomes in the manifest sexual behavior of the person. In the inversion types it can be ascertained that they are altogether controlled by an archaic constitution and by primitive psychic mechanisms. The importance of the narcissistic object selection and the clinging to the erotic significance of the anal zone seem to be their most essential characteristics.

Children utilizing the erogenous sensitiveness of the anal zone can be recognized by their holding back of fecal masses until through accumulation there result violent muscular contractions; the passage of these masses through the anus is apt to produce a marked irritation of the mucus membrane. Besides the pain this must produce also a sensation of pleasure. One of the surest premonitions of later eccentricity or nervousness is when an infant obstinately refuses to empty his bowel when placed on the chamber by the nurse and reserves this function at its own pleasure. It does not concern him that he will soil his bed; all he cares for is not to lose the subsidiary pleasure while defecating.

1930s "repatriation" of Mexicans was Hoover's response to Depression

I put repatriation in quotes because about 60% of those exiled from the US were citizens of the United States.

I was googling around about Hoover's response to the Great Depression because I was thinking Steve Mnuchin's calling up bankers sounded exactly like what Hoover tried after the stock market crash. And that's how I came across this under reported episode in US history, which today meet the definition of ethnic cleansing.

For God knows what reason, Hoover got it in his Quaker head (which makes him just about the least Quakerish Quaker I've ever met) that the presence of Mexican Americans in the country was a contributor to the depression. As an economics teacher, I can tell you that the depression was caused in part by a lack of consumer power and that young growing families are always a major input into consumer spending. So Hoover, the "sound businessman" was utterly off his nut thinking deporting a million Americans what's going to improve the job market.

Of course the part that saddens me most is the fact that the policy continued under FDR. No wait, the saddest part was of course the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans were racially profiled and thrown out of their own country.

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

The more things change the more they stay the same, folks.

or does it just create a German mystique and lure of them in

Because next they will be wanting Halal marzipan candy and cuckoo clocks with Arabic numbers? It's a slippery schloopenhillenbergplatz.

Meanwhile in Crazyvillle: EuroRight Angry that Toblerones are Halal

Toblerone's halal certification outrages the far right
By Rob Picheta and Tara John, CNN
December 19, 2018

(CNN) — Members of Europe's far right have called for a mass boycott of Toblerone, after discovering that the popular triangular chocolate bar is halal-certified.

.... <von schnippenheimer> ...

Toblerone has not changed its recipe, but some online commentators have taken badly the news that its factory in Bern, Switzerland, achieved a halal certification in April -- with the federal spokesman of Germany's nationalist AfD party claiming it showed the "Islamization" of Europe.

"Islamization does not take place -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," the AfD's Jörg Meuthen wrote sarcastically on social media <probably while holding a comb under his nose> "It is therefore certainly pure coincidence that the depicted, known chocolate variety is now certified as 'HALAL.'"

...<Das Überßchnippage>....

"The certification did not result in any change to our beloved traditional Toblerone original recipe," <Toblerone-maker> Mondelēz said in a statement emailed to CNN. "Due to the inherent nature of Toblerone chocolate its production process essentially meets the halal criteria anyway."

Experiment: I'm gonna zip along the freeway, but then jump into the passenger seat

... you know, just to see what it would be like if, when I'm going at full speed, my car suddenly didn't have a driver and no one's foot was on the brakes.

I mean, first I'll see what the results are like with a similar experiment going on in Washington DC right now. But then I want to see if I can replicate the results.

Trump less trusted than Xi... or Putin (via Newsweek)

DONALD TRUMP AWARDED ‘GOLDEN IDIOT’ PRIZE BY GERMAN TV SHOW AS MUCH OF THE WORLD LAUGHS AT U.S. PRESIDENT

...A Pew Research Center survey found in October that only 27 percent of respondents from various countries trusted Trump, placing him below German Chancellor Angela Merkel (52 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron (46 percent), as well as Chinese President Xi Jinping (34 percent) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (30 percent).