ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [381] -- Is Trump Bigger Than Liam Neeson?

[ Posted Friday, March 4th, 2016 – 17:09 PST ]

It's been a wild and crazy week -- so much so, in fact, that we're going to start with a quote we never thought would become appropriate to use in a column about politics. It's from the movie Taken, where Liam Neeson's character utters the classic line: "Now's not the time for dick-measuring."

Yes, that was exactly the type of week it was. The campaign trail on the Republican side is now indistinguishable from a 5th-grade schoolyard yelling match between a group of belligerent little boys. First, Donald Trump mocks Marco Rubio's ears. Then they both mock each other's makeup (OK, well, admittedly, it's hard to picture that subject ever coming up in an actual 5th-grade throwdown). Rubio mocks Trump for possibly wetting his pants, and makes a joke about how small Trump's hands are (and we all know what that means...). Trump shot back in last night's debate, and assured the world that he had no problems in that department. He didn't quite whip out a ruler or anything, but it will definitely go down in history as the most bizarre debate moment of all time (unless Trump finds a way to top it, of course).

Which led us straight to that Liam Neeson quote, of course. A nationally-televised presidential debate stage is, indeed, neither the time nor the place, one would think. This year, however, all the rules have been thrown out and we've got Donald Trump and Marco Rubio comparing relative penis sizes in their effort to become the so-called leader of the free world. That faint sound you hear is our Founding Fathers (well, maybe except Benjamin Franklin...) whirling in their graves.

We even found ourselves actually missing Carly Fiorina in last night's debate, if only to see her smack down the testosterone-fest emanating from the stage. That's how low the Republican debates have sunk.

It's not just us, either. Plenty of rock-ribbed conservatives were downright horrified by last night's spectacle. Frank Luntz, famed conservative pollster, tweeted last night: "22 out of my 25 focus group members said tonight’s #GOPDebate will hurt Republicans in the general election. This has to stop. Seriously."

Ross Douthat tweeted his own disappointment last night: "You know which prominent Republican managed to sound like a president today? Not one of these guys." But the most brutal tweet of the night (remember, these are all from conservatives) came from Jamie Johnson, senior advisor to Rick Perry: "My party is committing suicide on national television."

Wow, tell us how you really feel, guys. But this doesn't even really scratch the surface of the roiling angst among some Republicans right now. In fact, there's so much free-floating fear and loathing that we're going to devote the entire talking points section to nasty things Republicans are now saying about Donald Trump and each other. So there's that to look forward to.

Of course, the debate wasn't the only political news of the week. This was Super Tuesday week, when over ten states voted on both the Democratic and Republican sides. Watching the returns filter in Tuesday led to one amusing moment on Fox, which Salon helpfully pointed out: Karl Rove being told he was wrong, once again. Rove was expounding on how well Rubio was doing in Virginia when he got interrupted with the call that Trump had taken the state. Ah, memories of his infamous 2012 meltdown over Ohio! Good times....

But, to us, the most interesting news to emerge from all this Republican chaos was the reintroduction of a man who we've long thought would be the perfect Trump vice presidential candidate. No, really. We know Trump's not going to give the second place on his ticket to any of the people who ran against him, because he loves to hold grudges. So he's going to have to make a selection beyond the expected field. What would make the most sense for him would be to get some retired general (Petraeus, perhaps?) on the ticket, to give his candidacy some much-needed seriousness and foreign policy skills. But Trump hasn't gotten to where he is by doing the sensible thing.

Which leaves one possible candidate, in our eyes. A man who has military experience and has also already been a state governor. A man who is even more politically-independent than Trump. A man who is just as good as Trump at playing to the cameras in a big way. And now, a man who is already considering throwing his hat back into the political ring.

Jesse Ventura truly is the most fitting choice to run with Donald Trump. A Trump/Ventura ticket would indeed be one for the ages.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

President Obama had a pretty good week, as he saw yet another good jobs report (unemployment stayed at 4.9 percent and 242,000 jobs were created last month). He also made a splash on PBS, who aired one of those private concerts inside the White House (this one a tribute to Ray Charles). Obama even got up and sang at the end of it, with all the other performers on the stage. He looked relaxed and happy, which is always good to see in our president. Also, little-noticed by everyone, his job approval numbers have gotten noticeably better this week, to the point where the average of job approval is about to become greater than the average of people who don't approve of the job he's doing. If it happens, this will be the first time these two lines have crossed since the middle of 2013, so Obama deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both had a relatively good Super Tuesday, but neither one outperformed expectations enough to win them the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. In fact, we're not going to give out the MIDOTW award at all this week, because instead we're going to mint a brand-new "Most Impressive International Statesman Of The Week" award, and hand it to the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.

The United Nations is about to convene a big meeting on the global War On Drugs. They may use this venue to chart an entirely different direction than the one pushed by the United States for the past 30 or 40 years. Annan helped this effort along by penning an extraordinary article titled: "Why It's Time To Legalize Drugs."

In it, he lays out a very rational case for the nations of the world to drastically change directions and stop throwing so much money down the rathole of treating drugs as a criminal problem instead of as a health problem. He makes his case well, and we urge everyone to read what he has to say.

For showing such international leadership, and for utterly rejecting the course the United States has been following (without any appreciable success) for so long, Kofi Annan easily wins our very first Most Impressive International Statesman Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Kofi Annan on his namesake foundation's contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Sadly, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week goes to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Not for anything she's done as chair of the Democratic National Committee, but for what she's been up to in Congress. Huffington Post dug up this disappointing story:

Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.

To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.

The Consumer Financial Protection Board has had to fight Republicans in Congress pretty much every step of the way. That's expected. Republicans are always on the side of the big banks rather than the little guy -- that's all well known. But for a prominent Democrat to aid and abet them in trying to throttle Elizabeth Warren's brainchild truly goes beyond the pale.

For doing precisely that, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wins our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 381 (3/4/16)

Below, we have an incredible collection of Republicans absolutely freaking out over the state of their party's nomination race, as we promised. Seriously, this is a week when Democrats don't even have to phone it in -- the Republicans are doing such a great job of trashing their own party on their own that they really don't even need a helping hand. This rage against Trump is still only building, we hasten to point out -- it's going to get even more vicious as we approach March 15, when Florida and Ohio represent the last-ditch chance to take Trump down.

But before we get to all of that fun, we've got to have an interlude for another column series. We apologize for the delay, but the primary schedule dictates that we'll have a few of these on Fridays throughout the voting season.

This weekend brings another round of primaries and caucuses, so first let me update my stats on calling these races, and then I'll make my picks for this Saturday and Sunday.

I had a pretty good Super Tuesday, calling 11 out of the 12 Democratic contests right (got Minnesota wrong), but didn't do so well on the Republican side, as I called everything but Texas for Trump -- meaning I missed Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Alaska. This brings my overall stats to:

Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 13 for 16 -- 81%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 17 for 23 -- 74%
Total overall correct picks: 30 for 39 -- 77%.

Five states and Puerto Rico will vote this weekend, although only Kentucky's Republicans, Puerto Rico's Republicans, and Nebraska's Democrats will vote (Maine, oddly enough, has Republicans voting on Saturday and then Democrats voting on Sunday).

There is little polling for any of the states voting, meaning calling them is really just throwing a dart at a wall. So here are my darts: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine all go for Donald Trump. Marco Rubio picks up his second win in Puerto Rico. On the Democratic side, Louisiana and Maine go for Clinton, while Sanders picks up Kansas and Nebraska.

OK, that's enough of that -- let's get on with all the delicious Republican-on-Republican violence!

 

1
   Sick to your stomach

Matthew Continetti of the Free Beacon shared his thoughts on watching last night's GOP debate.

The spectacle made me ill. On screen I watched decades of work by conservative institutions, activists, and elected officials being lit aflame not only by the New York demagogue but by his enablers who waited until the last possible moment to try and stop him.

 

2
   The Mitt hits the fan

The 2012 Republican nominee came out of hiding this week, to strongly denounce the man who just might be the 2016 Republican nominee. Mitt didn't endorse anybody else, though, so he too seems to have no idea how to actually defeat Trump.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

 

3
   Another county heard from

A group of "more than 50 conservative foreign policy experts" wrote an extraordinary public letter this week, which itemizes many solid reasons why President Trump would be a disaster for America. After going through an extensive list of Trump's flaws, the letter ends with:

Mr. Trump's own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

 

4
   Kristol chimes in

William Kristol is, famously, wrong about everything. If he says it, it won't happen, to put this another way. So take his new plan with an enormous grain of salt. His answer? For the Republican Party to leave the Republican Party (an idea I examined earlier this week), at least for this year's election. He advocates an "independent Republican" ticket:

That ticket would simply be a one-time, emergency adjustment to the unfortunate circumstance (if it happens) of a Trump nomination. [It] would support other Republicans running for Congress and other offices, and would allow voters to correct the temporary mistake (if they make it) of nominating Trump.

 

5
   Gerson's got a plan, too

Kristol's not the only one, though. Republican Senator Ben Sasse is ready to vote for "some third candidate -- a conservative option, a constitutionalist." Michael Gerson had a similar idea to Kristol's, although he wants Condi Rice to head his mythical ticket. But before he gets to this idea, he has his own choice words to describe the state his party finds itself in.

The GOP is not facing a debate over policy, but rather a hostile takeover by a pernicious force. Traditional Republicans are now presented with a series of deeply flawed options. And serving the party's ideals may eventually require leaving it, at least for a season.

Donald Trump is winning the Republican nomination but not sweeping to it. Across the states that have voted so far, he has gotten 34 percent of the vote and is barely on track to get the requisite 1,237 delegates in order to win outright at the Cleveland convention in July.

Under normal circumstances, a clear plurality would begin to gather into a majority, as elements of the GOP internally reconcile to the likely nominee. These are not normal circumstances. A significant group of Republicans -- look at #NeverTrump on Twitter -- cannot support Trump. This is not, as in 1964 or 1980, a clash over ideology. It is a moral objection to the return of nativism, religious prejudice and misogyny to the center stage of American politics.

 

6
   Clinton Republicans?

Could we see the emergence of the Democratic answer to "Reagan Democrats" this time around? Here is what Max Boot, a foreign policy advisor to Marco Rubio, had to say on who he'd pick over Trump:

I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump. There is no way in hell I would ever vote for him. I would far more readily support Hillary Clinton, or Bloomberg if he ran.

 

7
   Shot or poisoned

Lindsey Graham gave a hilarious interview late on Super Tuesday. He's getting so amusing he's reminiscent of how funny Bob Dole got after losing his election, in fact. In the same interview, Graham predicted Hillary would beat Trump "like a drum" and suggested "let’s just pick somebody out of the phone book if we have to," rather than nominating Trump. But he had equally scathing words for Ted Cruz becoming the nominee as well:

The only way we lose this election is to nominate somebody who cannot grow this party's vote among minorities, young women, and the coalitions we need to win. If you nominate Trump and Cruz I think you'd get the same outcome. Whether it's death by being shot or poisoning, does it really matter? I don't think the outcome will be substantially different.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

235 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [381] -- Is Trump Bigger Than Liam Neeson?”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 Let's hear it for rock bottom!

    Are we there yet?

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I spoke to a woman that I know on Monday and asked her if she was still a Donald fan. She said yes. I asked her about Long Dong Drumpf again today and she said she is no longer on board. She said that she was ashamed for our country. She feels like ISIS is laughing at us. I don't quite follow that, but it is what she said.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I spoke to a man I don't know at work the other day and he said that if Trump is not the next POTUS then "the US is going to go bankrupt".

    Can't say that I follow that, either. Trump fans appear to be a breed unto their own.

    BTW, I have run into a relatively large number of Canadians who seem quite infatuated with Trump to the point where they think he would be a great American president.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I could go back in time and post this column one year ago, nobody would have ever believed I was from the future.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [4]:

    BTW, I have run into a relatively large number of Canadians who seem quite infatuated with Trump to the point where they think he would be a great American president.

    Only so we will stop with the Rob Ford jokes.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Somehow, I don't think it has anything to do with him.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    If I could go back in time and post this column one year ago, nobody would have ever believed I was from the future.

    I think you'd have to go back quite a bit further than a year before you would be met with that sort of disbelief ...

  8. [8] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Here are my picks for the weekend:

    Trump picks up Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine. A close race in Puerto Rico between Trump and Kasich will give Trump the win. (A couple of days ago I read an article, written by a Puerto Rican, telling Rubio to "stay home" because they can't stand him.)

    On the Democratic side, Louisiana and Kansas go for Clinton, while Sanders picks up Maine and Nebraska.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Jesse Ventura truly is the most fitting choice to run with Donald Trump. A Trump/Ventura ticket would indeed be one for the ages.

    Chris, I guess you didn't hear what Ventura had to say about Trump the other day??

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, a Venture/anybody ticket would be a huge step up from any Trump ticket. I'm just sayin' ...

  11. [11] 
    dsws wrote:

    Much as I think it would be good for the country if the Republican Party finally had to either stop its headlong rush into the fringes or collapse, I still don't think any appreciable number of Republicans are actually going to leave the Party. There may be more than I was thinking there would be who won't vote for President, but I still think it won't be "huge".

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I forget where I heard/read it but sometime in the last week or so Trump mentioned that he would pick "someone who knows how to get stuff done in Washington" as his running mate. I would expect a consummate insider for VP should he get the nomination. Personally, I think Palin is still his best bet as impeachment insurance...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I think Palin is still his best bet as impeachment insurance...

    You better hope not..

    Because, if she's picked yer gonna have to admit you were wrong about Palin.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's obvious VP pick:

    http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/newly-elected-gop-chair-texas-capitol/

    Note: This is not an 'Onion' article.

    One teaser to get you to click on this:

    Republican National Committee was just a “gay foam party.”
    - Rob Morrow, new Chairman of the Republican Party for the 5th largest county in Texas

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's problems with the Republican establishment have nothing to do with his policies - in fact the suspect he is not crazy enough to be a Republican, their problem is that he is too vulgar for the elites.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    I thought Palin was meant to be Secretary of Education in the Trump administration? Her role was to replay her Governorship by closing down the department then giving up.

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I guess you didn't hear what Ventura had to say about Trump the other day?"

    I hadn't, but I just did. The article also said that The Body is "seriously considering a run for president as a libertarian". It doesn't get much better than this. An election with two performance artists / rasslers. If only Roseanne Barr would run again . . .

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    The lesson from Minnesota:

    Trump finished in the top two in all states but Minnesota - that is because they have already learned their lesson about celebrity politicians with Ventura:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/02/donald-trump-super-tuesday-minnesota-jesse-ventura-column/81225058/

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I just had the (2nd best) thrill of a lifetime.. :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/030516.jpg

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there was a really good guardian article about the sea change in the racist south that started with goldwater and culminated with reagan. i wonder where it's going now...

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/05/trump-reagan-nixon-republican-party-racism

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    NY [20]:

    Excellent article on the dogwhistle politics that lets Trump pretend he isn't appealing to racists, complemented by his pretend uncertainty about the KKK just before Super Tuesday.

    He is even pulling the wool over Michale's eyes, who is still convinced Trump isn't leveraging racism in his appeal. Unless Michale isn't as naive as we think, of course.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    The problem with articles like that is that they start from an unproven and non-factual premise and then go from there...

    In other words, GIGO...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil's response is a perfect example of what I am talking about...

    It's nothing more than red meat for the Left Wingery requiring absolutely NOTHING in the way of facts....

    "EVERYONE KNOWS that all Republicans are racist... Therefore no facts or proof is required.."
    -The Left Wingery

    Sorry guys.. Despite all your claims of fine livery, yer emperor is buck-assed nekkid....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil [21],

    i guess my point was that the comparisons between reagan and trump are significantly more similar than we tend to acknowledge, both for the good AND the bad.

    JL

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who said all Republicans are racist, Michale?

    However you frequently claim that only Democrats are racist.

    Face it, there is a racist element in the U.S., and at the moment these groups migrate towards the Republican Party.

    The vast majority of Republicans are not racist, however it is a tempting, and indeterminately sized voting block. The key is to get their votes without:
    1. Agreeing to do anything, because most of the Republican politicians who benefit are not racist.
    2. Using any language that allows them to appear to be advocating racism, which is why we have codewords like 'states rights', birtherism, etc.

    I've been in bars where the talk has started with code words, and as the anger level rises the blatant racism appears. I'm careful to stay out of these discussions because I was in the middle of a fight with pool cues flying around on one occasion. But don't tell me there are no dog whistles and no racists.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    FYI: I go to some fun biker bars.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    However you frequently claim that only Democrats are racist.

    Nope.. Never made that claim whatsoever..

    I merely stated that the Democrat Party created the KKK.. This is factual...

    2. Using any language that allows them to appear to be advocating racism, which is why we have codewords like 'states rights', birtherism, etc.

    oooooooo "code words"... Do they come with a super-secret agent decoder ring too!!?? :D

    Let's face it. When you say "code words" what you are really saying is that you want to accuse someone of something and you don't care that there are no facts to support the accusation. So you rely on mythical and subjective "code words" that likely have no meaning whatsoever...

    If I call Obama a moron, some hysterical Left Winger COULD claim that "moron" is a code word for racism...

    You see how it works??

    One can make the case for ANYTHING, can "prove" ANYTHING if they rely on mythical and subjective "code words" that have all the substance of my farts......

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me amend that to say...

    Let's face it. When one says "code words" what they are really saying is that they want to accuse someone of something and they don't care that there are no facts to support the accusation. So they rely on mythical and subjective "code words" that likely have no meaning whatsoever...

    There was no reason to personalize it.. My apologies...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    You mean you really don't know the dog-whistles Michale.

    You must live in a world of rainbows and puppies.

    A couple of weeks ago a recent transplant from Georgia was chatting to me in a local sports bar in the People's Republic where I live and for some reason decided I was 'one of us'. I got the standard 'the civil war was about states rights' malarky, then the whole heritage argument about how proud he was to fly the stars and bars. When he left for a leak, his girlfriend started the 'he says these things but doesn't mean them' routine.

    All the code words were there, plus the Trump worship.

    He is new and doesn't know that the owner is an old friend and an ex-cop who doesn't put up with any shit like that - from any side of the spectrum, so I left him to discover that himself.

    As for your 'x is a moron' statement, it isn't a single statement that delivers the message, but a combination.

    I grew up with a different form of bigotry that was a lot 'hotter' than today's racism in the U.S. - the protestant/catholic violence. 80% of the people basically wanted nothing to do with it, but also failed the 'good people being silent' test. Since everybody basically looked alike (pale and white, although if you were a red-headed protestant you were basically f#cked), it was all down to code words, areas of residence, last names, football teams, etc. There were pubs that were definitely off limits, and others that were safe before 9pm, but not afterwards. The teachers, police, etc. had to maintain neutrality but they were human like the rest of us and it was fairly obvious if one of them was in the sectarian 20% from the codewords.

    I'm glad you grew up with puppies and rainbows, but trust me, the hatred is out there and it isn't difficult to spot.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    But don't tell me there are no dog whistles and no racists.

    Of course there are racists..

    But how many times does the Left Wingery have to be WRONG, WRONG, IMPRESSIVELY WRONG about racist accusations before they realize that they hysterically scream racism at the drop of a dime and they are nearly ALWAYS wrong...

    My new friend is a testament to that very point... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    No need for an apology Michale - I'm very difficult to offend, and you seem to be too which is why I argue a bit more freely with you.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK - sorry for the ignorance, but who is your new friend?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad you grew up with puppies and rainbows, but trust me, the hatred is out there and it isn't difficult to spot.

    EXACTLY!

    It's NOT difficult to spot...

    You are dead on ballz accurate..

    And yet, even though it's NOT difficult to spot, the Left Wingery has been WRONG time and time and time and time and time and time again, when it comes to accusations of racism..

    So, how is that possible if it is, as you say, "not to difficult to spot"??

    I'll tell you...

    Because the Left Wingery cries RACISM as a matter of course and then worries about the FACTS afterwards...

    The accusations against Trump is a PERFECT example of it..

    The Left Wingery even CODIFIED the plan of falsely accusing Right Wingery of racism in an effort to shut them up...

    Michale

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK - sorry for the ignorance, but who is your new friend?

    Well, I just had the (2nd best) thrill of a lifetime.. :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/030516.jpg

    :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    I looked at the pic earlier - but I don't recognize him.

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Zimmerman?

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Really? JHC Michale, you can pick 'em.

  38. [38] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I merely stated that the Democrat Party created the KKK.. This is factual...

    Bullshit.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    I thought it was Hillary ;)

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    The KKK was created BY Democrats but not officially by the Democrat Party...

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.."
    -Commander Spock

    And yep.. George is a helluva nice guy.... We have a lot in common...

    Neil,

    JHC???

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought it was Hillary ;)

    Oh com'on.. There no need to be nasty!! :D heh

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.."
    -Commander Spock

    Unless it does, as in this case.

    Plus is it really canon if it came from a novel and not the show or movie?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless it does, as in this case.

    It wouldn't make a difference if we were talking about the Republican Party.. As JL's original article clearly indicates.. :D

    Plus is it really canon if it came from a novel and not the show or movie?

    Never been a real big fan of canon... So I just ignore it..

    Which allows me to validate my conclusion that STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE is actually a MIRROR UNIVERSE show.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow... Cruz won Kansas and looks to take Maine..

    I would NOT have thought that...

    Cruz must be cheating.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like Edmund Hillary to me!

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale [43],

    huh? the article is about the migration of racist whites from the democrats to the republican side, exploited by goldwater, nixon and later by reagan. the author posits that it was a conscious strategy both on the part of nixon and reagan, and the argument is supported by direct quotes from lee atwater, kevin phillips and reagan himself.

    there's no knowing whether trump is courting the white racist vote intentionally or unintentionally, but demographically that does seem to be a significant portion of his constituency.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/AmyKNelson/status/705886599196778497/photo/1

    Hillary doesn't stand a chance... :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's no knowing whether trump is courting the white racist vote intentionally or unintentionally, but demographically that does seem to be a significant portion of his constituency.

    I'll believe it when there are actually FACTS to support it..

    You see, I lost my super-secret agent decoder ring so I can't decode "code words"... I also lost my super-secret dog whistle receiver so I can't hear the alleged dog whistles..

    But, I am always amiable to FACTS that can be examined... :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maybe Romney is going to get his contested convention.

    My guess is they will twist Paul Ryan's arm to run.

    He would be a very difficult nominee for Hillary (not Edmund, Clinton) to beat, unless of course The Donald went rogue.

    Michale: if the first vote was inconclusive - say Trump got 45%, then Ryan was put forward and won 51% to 49% on a later vote, would you:

    1. Vote for Ryan, or would you
    2. Want Trump to run third party and hand it to Hillary?

    Prediction: The Republicans will have super delegates in 2020, plus some very different rules for who gets into debates, etc.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Edmund Hillary to me!

    Cruz looks like Edmund Hillary?? :D heh

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [44] -

    I recall Cruz going to Kansas in 2014 and campaigning on behalf of Thom Tillis. He must have made a big splash with the locals. But to win by such a huge margin... yeah, surprises me as well.

    I'm stunned that he's so far ahead in Maine as well...

    I thought Trump would comfortably take all four states today.

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    PredictIt Market:

    Trump: Down 15 from 70 to 55
    Cruz: Up 6 from 16 to 26

    Other big climber: Mitt Romney - up 50% (sounds more impressive than 4 to 6, but since Marco is at 7 and Kasich at 9, for somebody who isn't even running, Mitt is doing pretty well.

    What a rollercoaster!

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry - Cruz up 9 from 16 to 25 - my bad - typo

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale [48],

    the following are factual quotes cited in the article that demonstrate the southern strategy of nixon and reagan:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger’. By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger’.
    ~lee atwater

    From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that … but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
    ~kevin phillips

    i got yer decoder ring right here.

    JL

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought Trump would comfortably take all four states today.

    Really? What made you think that?

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kansas does not like Trump - it can't be blamed on tactical voting because he is only getting 25% of the vote.

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kansas does not like Trump - it can't be blamed on tactical voting because he is only getting 25% of the vote.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's the matter with Kansas?

  59. [59] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    neilm [56] -

    Yes I should have remembered that Cruz campaigned in Kansas in 2014. That year he also campaigned for Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Dan Sullivan (Alaska). He's won all three of those states plus his own state and Oklahoma. I should look up and see who else he campaigned for in 2014 because it seems to be influencing this year's caucus/primary results in those same states.

  60. [60] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Just looking at the 2014 results and trying to recall where else Cruz campaigned... Louisiana (for Bill Cassidy) so if the connection with his 2014 campaigning holds true, he may come away with two wins today.

    Cruz is ahead still in Maine but Trump is whittling away at his lead.

    CORRECTION to [51]: Pat Roberts won in Kansas and Cruz did turn up there to support him when he appeared to be in danger. Thom Tillis won in North Carolina and Cruz was very visible there during his campaign.

    Cruz also campaigned for Ben Sasse in Nebraska which caucuses on May 10.

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[34]

    is that a quote from don quijote tattooed on zim's arm?

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Sanders has won Kansas -- well done, CW! It looks like you'll score a 3 for 3 for Democrats today, Chris. :-)

    Nothing from Louisiana so far.

    Trump is leading in Kentucky.

    Results are really really slow coming in from everywhere except the Kansas caucus results for Republicans.

  63. [63] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Bernie takes Nebraska -- you're 2 for 2, Chris!

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I just had the (2nd best) thrill of a lifetime.. :D

    Did you tell him about CW's place?

  65. [65] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Mixed results for CW.

    Democratic results: 3 for 3 - 100%

    Republican results: 2 out of 4 - 50%

    Average: 75%

    Your Republican results will improve to 60% if Rubio can pull off a win in Puerto Rico. He's there now, addressing what looks to be a very small crowd.

  66. [66] 
    dsws wrote:

    "Out of the 33 Kansas delegates, Senator Bernie Sanders took 23, while Secretary Hillary Clinton walked away with 10."
    http://www.ksdp.org/2016/03/kansas-democratic-caucus-results/

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    Louis C.K. viewpoint on Trump. Sadly the people who need to read this either won't, or will metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/03/louis-c-k-goes-off-on-trump-calls-him-an-insane-bigot

  68. [68] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  69. [69] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [3] -

    Really? Trump is infiltrating Canuckistan? Man, things have gotten worse than I thought...

    Heh.

    Here's a story for you. When I lived in Paris, I listened to the BBC on the radio, for news in English. Occasionally, this led to misunderstandings with all their Britishisms.

    I remember drowsing, barely awake, hearing a story about how Britain was proposing to ban "dummies." This was in the 1990s, during the rave era, I should mention. I snapped awake, thinking: "Man, what a great idea! The US should ban dummies too!" But then I thought: "But where are we going to put them all? I mean, we could find an island somewhere, but it'd fill up pretty quick, even from just the British crop."

    This is what happens when you listen to the news before drinking caffeine, I should mention.

    Well, later on, my wife (girlfriend, at the time) explained that "dummies" were what we Amurricans call "pacifiers" and that they were talking about mini ones that people took to raves to avoid the clenched-jaw side effects of MDMA and all the rave drugs.

    I have no idea where I was going with this story, other than "wouldn't it be nice if every country everywhere could just ban all the dummies?"

    Anyway, I'll look at other comments later, SNL's about to start, but had to share that with you.

    What do they call them in Canada, just out of curiousity?

    The only other bizarre story I have from being half-awake and listening to the BBC was the story about "zebra crossings" [in full British accent: "ZEB-ra crossings" not "ZEE-bra"...]

    Couldn't figure that one out, either. Thought the zoo had had a massive outbreak of savannah creatures in London or something...

    Heh.

    -CW

  70. [70] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    One last thing:

    Looks like I did better tonight on the Dem side than on the GOP. 3-for-3 on Dem, only 2-for-4 on GOP. Overestimated Trump, underestimated Cruz. I may get Maine wrong tomorrow (could go to Bernie), but I just can't see Puerto Rico going for Trump...

    -CW

  71. [71] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    I'm so sorry this is belated but I almost forgot:

    ?????H?A?P?P?Y??A?N?N?I?V?E?R?S?A?R?Y?????

  72. [72] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    Oh dear! all the pretties I'd put into that greeting came out as question marks! Grrrrrrrr! Anyway, imagine those letters separated by stars and hearts. :-)

  73. [73] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    Let's see if this works a little better:

    ****H**A**P**P**Y****A**N**N**I**V**E**R**S**A**R**Y**!!****

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    i got yer decoder ring right here.

    hehehehehe

    Obviously lee atwater and kevin phillips are racist...

    But does that mean the Republican Party is racist..

    Maybe I read too much into your article, but it seemed to me that it was trying to make the case that racism migrated from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party...

    But you can't make the leap from one or two or even one thousand or two thousand Republicans being racist to the idea that the entirety of the Republican Party is a racist Party...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    @m[34]

    is that a quote from don quijote tattooed on zim's arm?

    Dunno... Not too familiar with Don Quixote, except for what I saw on QUANTUM LEAP :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Did you tell him about CW's place?

    hehehe I did mention how I blogged incessantly about the incident but didn't get into specifics as to where exactly... :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Thank you very much. All the credit goes to my wife.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Michale [28] -

    Happy anniversary!

    Give my best to Betina!
    (hope I remembered to spell that right)

    Yes you did and thank you much. Much appreciated from both of us.. :D

    Anyone who could put up with you for (shudder) 34 years deserves a freakin' medal or something...

    :-)

    I know, right!?? :D heh

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Louis C.K. viewpoint on Trump. Sadly the people who need to read this either won't, or will metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/03/louis-c-k-goes-off-on-trump-calls-him-an-insane-bigot

    I actually tried to read that... But as soon as this guy compared Trump to Hitler, he lost all sense of reality...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way.. How seriously would you take an opinion piece that compared Hillary or Obama to Hitler??

    Basically, the Left Wingery is stricken with the same Derangement Syndrome over Trump that afflicted the Right Wingery over Obama..

    The play's the same, only the names have changed...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    John M wrote:

    In a nutshell, here is what seems to be happening to me on the Republican side. Cruz Has basically been winning in caucus states, while Trump has been winning in states that hold primaries. Cruz is well organized on the ground, while Trump has been a master at garnering a lot of free media coverage. The problem for Cruz is that, going forward, only two remaining states, Hawaii and Utah, hold caucuses rather than primaries. While Trump's advantage is that more and more primary states, like Florida, tend to be winner take all in the delegate count. On the Democratic side, Sanders seems to win mostly the white, younger electorate, while Clinton seems to dominate and has a lock among the older crowd and minorities, who tend to show up and vote more in the primaries. I would say, barring any unforeseen circumstances, it is going to be Trump vs Clinton in the general election.

  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    Also, No matter what, Rubio seems to be consistently running third to both Trump and Cruz, which does not bode well for him going forward, since he is failing to hit the 20 percent level need to get any delegates at all in these contests.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [79]: You do know who Louis C.K. is, right? ;)

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Rubio can't take Florida, it's likely over for him..

    If Trump takes Florida and Rubio stays in, that's a good indication that he has the backing of the GOP Establishment to stay in the race til the convention and they will attempt to make it a brokered convention..

    I would say, barring any unforeseen circumstances, it is going to be Trump vs Clinton in the general election.

    Word is that the FBI will be handing down it's recommendation to indict Hillary and/or senior staff by the first week of May..

    I am not sure that will give Bernie enough time to mount a come back... Thoughts??

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale [79]: You do know who Louis C.K. is, right? ;)

    I do not.. :D

    But if he is seriously comparing Trump to Hitler, then I would guess he is NOT a rocket scientist.. :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    A more apt comparison, one which I have not seen to date, would be to compare Trump to Greg Stillson..

    But Trump doesn't have the religious fanaticism of Stillson, so it's not a perfect comparison...

    But I could still see it.. :D

    "Mr President, we have come up with a financial solution!!"
    "Never mind, General. The missiles are on their way.. Hallelujah!!"

    :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I always suspected that Trump's campaign would cause a Fuhrer.

  88. [88] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bill Maher showed an old German film clip with subtitles on his show Friday. It was shocking.

    "Look, I love the Jews. Nobody loves the Jews more than me, but folks, either we have a Fatherland or we don’t. So, we’re going to have to build a camp and I will make the Jews pay for it. When I’m done with them they’ll be saying “Merry Christmas”, that I can tell you." - Hilter

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I am sure glad we're not stooping to the GODWIN level around here.. :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    RUT ROH Hillary..

    Pagliano’s immunity deal could indicate grand jury probe into Clinton email server
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/brian-paglianos-immunity-deal-could-indicate-hilla/

    If anyone wants to change the bet, now's the time.. :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris[69]

    Heh. Here, we call them soothers.

    ZEB-ra crossings? Leave it to the British. :) We call those cross-walks. Imagine that.

    Canadians really are a bland lot.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[87]

    Very nice.

  94. [94] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Has anyone seen the new Zac Galifianakis show he created with that Mexican Louis CK guy? It's called "Baskets". It's about an insecure clown. Or maybe it's about Fuhrer Drumpf. I hadn't considered that until now.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/louis-c-k-im-an-accidental-white-person-20130411

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    @NeilM wrote:

    A couple of weeks ago a recent transplant from Georgia was chatting to me in a local sports bar in the People's Republic where I live and for some reason decided I was 'one of us'. I got the standard 'the civil war was about states rights' malarky, then the whole heritage argument about how proud he was to fly the stars and bars.

    I grew up in the Deep South. I was raised to believe that while the wealthy and powerful needed the war to maintain slavery in the South, the men who fought for the Confederacy did so for "State's rights." Most southerners did not own slaves -- they could not afford to own slaves. There was no reason for them to fight so that the rich could keep their slaves. That was why those in power had to use the State's rights argument -- as a way to give the common man a reason to fight.

    As for the "heritage argument", we were raised to take pride in the Confederates willingness to stand up and fight for what they believed in...even if what they believed in turned out to wrong! There was pride in the fact that Southerners can admit that slavery was wrong, and that they would fight for the United States just as hard as they fought for the Confederacy. There were lots of reasons for the Civil War, not just one. Slavery was, and still is, a horrible institution that has no place in our world. But to think that slavery was the only reason for that many lives being lost is ignorance.

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LWYH,

    Specifically speaking, what were the "State's Rights" that the Confederacy fought for?

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [96],

    i think i can field that one. even more than slavery, the biggest question underpinning the civil war was whether states are free to make their own rules, independent of federal control. slavery was obviously the most contentious of those rules on the human level, but the one that in fact led to civil war was not slavery, it was secession. even the emancipation proclamation specifically excepted those states who had not seceded. during and after reconstruction, southern states continued to push back against any efforts by the federal government to enforce federal laws on the states. again, rules of racist segregation were the most obvious and egregious, but in parallel there was also the question of federal overreach.

    JL

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    Serious historians, for very good reasons, do not accept the 'States Rights' argument. The primary cause of the Civil war was slavery, and the rallying cry to non-slave owners was white supremacy and the removal of the potential for wealth creation by owning slaves in the future.

    Racism was far more entrenched in the 1860s all over the world, and white supremacy was a cornerstone of many activities - including empire building - learn about the horrors of the Belgian Congo by sweet little Belgium if you want your stomach turned.

    The appeal to the potential for future riches was also a strong argument at the time. In 1860 75% of the exports of the U.S. were from slave industries and they were absolutely dominant in the Confederate states. Think about the corporate propaganda we got from the oil industry in the 1960s (lead in gasoline), the tobacco industry in the 1990's, and the dirty energy companies today (climate change denial). The powerful had a vested interest in making sure that everybody felt the same way about slavery. This influence was weakest in areas with fewer slaves, and is why West Virginia split from Virginia at the start of the Civil War.

    Revising history isn't new, and even today it isn't unique to ex-Confederate State's school districts. Japan paints over the Rape of Nanking, we have holocaust deniers, the Chinese suppressing Tiananmen Square and so on. Serious historians recognize this problem, and usually over time the truth comes out - but not always - take the 'indecision of Pontias Pilate' that makes it look like the Romans were pushing back on the Jewish authorities over the execution of Jesus - not very likely - Pilate was known for his indifferent brutality and the Romans were especially touchy around Passover when rebels had used the crowds in earlier years to foment discontent.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Reagan just passed away....

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    NY [97]

    The Slave States were very much against States Rights in 1860 - especially laws that granted freedom for slaves and State's laws that blocked the capture and return of slaves who escaped. It is one of the ironies that the revisionists have adopted States Rights of all arguments as the smoke screen for the Civil War. Look up the history of a real guy called Hamlet (James) and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (an act that was dead against States Rights and prosecuted with vigor by the Slave States).

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sad news about Nancy Reagan.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    the biggest question underpinning the civil war was whether states are free to make their own rules, independent of federal control. slavery was obviously the most contentious of those rules on the human level, but the one that in fact led to civil war was not slavery, it was secession.

    I'm trying to understand this from the perspective of African-Americans who lived at the time of the civil war. It is a perspective that always seems to get lost in the conversation, especially when people start speaking solely in terms of "State's rights" and pride in Southern heritage without acknowledging and even dismissing the full meaning of things like the Confederate flag.

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    "states' rights" as a catch-phrase became synonymous with slavery. many states, both northern and southern, made laws in defiance of federal laws regarding slavery. the proximal cause of the war was secession.

    as awful as slavery was, southern states could have held onto the practice for decades (perhaps even indefinitely) if they hadn't decided to secede. maintaining slavery was certainly a large part of their motivation, but the union would not have ended the practice, much less passed the thirteenth amendment anytime in the 19th century, if the confederacy hadn't decided they had the right to quit and form their own country.

    @liz,

    the perspective of african-americans in the pre civil rights era was largely ignored in general, just as much in the north as the south.

    JL

  104. [104] 
    John M wrote:

    I also think the state's rights argument is rather bogus. As far as I know, there was no power denied to the Southern states by the Federal government or Constitution, that was not denied to the Northern states also. Plus, when the Southern states wrote their own Constitution for the Confederacy, they lifted the Supremacy Clause from the U.S. Constitution and inserted it in their own Constitution, exactly word for word. Why would they do that, without making any changes, if the power balance between the states and the Federal government, was such a major concern? In fact, most of the changes they made to their Confederate Constitution from the U.S. Constitution, were done to explicitly make Negroes property. Also, interestingly enough, they considered an amendment to the Confederate Constitution that would have allowed secession. But they turned down granting Confederate states such power, on the idea that it was too dangerous! They denied to their own Confederacy, something they had just said they had a right to do under the USA!

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    (A couple of days ago I read an article, written by a Puerto Rican, telling Rubio to "stay home" because they can't stand him.)

    You might want to stroke that writer off your reading list. Heh.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the Democrat Party had ANY sense at all, they would be very VERY afraid of Donald Trump...

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-dont-underestimate-donald-he-will-win

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Conrad Black, Michale? Really??

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't really care who your sources are, do you, Michale. Just as long as they say what you want to hear. This proves it, I'm sorry to say.

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The National Post?

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, my-my ...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't really care who your sources are, do you, Michale. Just as long as they say what you want to hear. This proves it, I'm sorry to say.

    Do you find anything factual that is in error??

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To those who read the article by Mike Godwin - of the famous 'Godwin's law' - linked above, Godwin included a link in his article to a good analysis by peter bergen, on why trump doesn't quite qualify as a fascist - he only meets three of the four criteria.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/bergen-is-trump-fascist/index.html

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know who Conrad Black is, nor do I really care.. But he is spot on in his analysis as to why Trump will likely win the Presidency...

    The National Post?

    Is that any different than ya'all linking HuffPoo or DailyKos or MediaMatters?? :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    RIP to nancy reagan; her passing signals the end of an era in US politics.

    and she's not even the most important person in world history to pass on this weekend.

    RIP Ray Tomlinson

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/ray-tomlinson-email-inventor-and-selector-of-symbol-dies-aged-74

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here's a piece of free advice ... don't quote sources here when you don't know who they are nor anything about them. It can reflect poorly on you as it does in this case.

    But, here is what I really want to say ... why is it that I love America more than you do?

    If the Democrat Party had ANY sense at all, they would be very VERY afraid of Donald Trump...

    You should think about that for a moment. Why shouldn't all Americans be afraid of a President Donald Trump? In fact, Trump has already begun to reflect poorly on America in the eyes of the international community.

    But, wait, I forgot ... You don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America. Good luck with that attitude.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    To those who read the article by Mike Godwin - of the famous 'Godwin's law' - linked above, Godwin included a link in his article to a good analysis by peter bergen, on why trump doesn't quite qualify as a fascist - he only meets three of the four criteria.

    Ironically, Obama meets ALL FOUR of the criteria.. :D

    "A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of traditional solutions."

    CHECK...

    "The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason."

    CHECK

    The belief of one group that it is the victim, justifying any action.

    CHECK

    "The need for authority by natural leaders (always male) culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny."

    CHECK

    Ironic, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops... Forgot this one:

    In Paxton's checklist of the foundational traits of fascism there is a big one that Trump does not share, which is "the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will when they are devoted to the group's success."

    I could make the case that Obama fits this one as well...

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Foreign diplomats are expressing alarm to U.S. government officials about what they say are inflammatory and insulting public statements by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to senior U.S. officials.

    Officials from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have complained in recent private conversations, mostly about the xenophobic nature of Trump's statements, said three U.S. officials, who all declined to be identified.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-foreign-idUSMTZSAPEC37O1O8W3

    WAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAA Trump is being mean!!!! WAAAAAAAAAA

    Someone call the WAAAAAAAAA-mbulance....

    For DECADES, other countries have been trash-talking the USA and slamming this country at every opportunity...

    And NOW they complain because we have a soon-to-be-POTUS who ain't gonna take any more of their shit??

    To them I say.... Tough... Deal with it...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To them I say.... Tough... Deal with it...

    See, that's what you don't get, Michale ... it will be you and your fellow Americans who will have to deal with it.

  120. [120] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-119

    Well put.

  121. [121] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One of my favorite articles recently was about the increased number of time travelers being sent from the future to stop Donald Trump

    http://newsthump.com/2016/03/03/psychiatric-hospitals-filling-up-with-time-travellers-sent-back-to-kill-donald-trump/

    This made me laugh as I'm watching the Steven King show right now with James De Franco ("11/23/63") where he travels back in time to try to stop JFK's assassination.

    -David

  122. [122] 
    dsws wrote:

    Specifically speaking, what were the "State's Rights" that the Confederacy fought for?

    The right to tell other states they have to allow slaveholders to bring their "property" there. The right to expand slavery into the territories, as needed to maintain at least as many slave-state senators as "free"-state senators. (Quotation marks because there wasn't really any such thing as a free state after Dred Scott.) The right to have any citizen of a "free" state seized without due process on the mere say-so of any Southerner who feels like claiming that the person is a fugitive slave. The right to insist that no "free" state try anything like interposition or nullification when it comes to the fugitive slave laws. And, finally, the right to veto the election of any president suspected of having abolitionist tendencies.

  123. [123] 
    dsws wrote:

    And the right to write entirely in sentence fragments. Noun phrase!

  124. [124] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Just a little reminder, The 4th season of House of Cards is out on NefFlix. To put mildly, it is rather good. I binge watched the whole damn thing (dozen episodes) this weekend. Keep this in mind before you queue it up....you might want to stock up on snacks and beverages.

    Now that the dust has settled from the last batch of primaries and such, here is my take:

    The prediction markets continue to see Trump as the clear favorite to win the Republican nomination, but he has actually slumped a lot since the Great Penis Debate. Trump numbers are always the most volatile in show, but he still rates a 60% of being the Republican nominee. Down from 80% going in, and trading volume is record high. Cruz is bouncing around near 15% the mark, Rubio and Grateful Dead Fan Kasich are see as 7-8% dark horses, with Somebody Else moving into 3rd place at around 10%. My brother thinks Somebody Else is Romney, but my brother is an idiot and mom always liked me best.

    The markets say Clinton has (relatively) quietly wrapped the Democratic nomination up at around 90% Sanders has been a smart and surprisingly successful insurgent, but the markets give an 8% nod. The remaining 2% is presumably the Hillary Goes to Jail probability favored by Fox News commentator Michael, to whom I extend hearty congratulations on his anniversary, you have walloped TheStig is this department!

    The Markets say the rise of Trump is matched by the Decline of the Republican Party winning the Presidency. Going in, The Market saw the Generic Race as 60% D vs 40% R, with little change over many months. Now it looks more like 65% D: 35% R trending to 70%:30%

    As TheStig sees, the market is put off on Trump by head to head national polling data. Clinton consistently trumps Trump. The average difference is only 3%-4%, but holds up, and that is historically a large difference. It's a crude metric, but a pretty good predictor all the same.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    See, that's what you don't get, Michale ... it will be you and your fellow Americans who will have to deal with it.

    We HAVE had to deal with it for the last 7 years..

    Because THAT's been the attitude that Obama and the Democrats have had against the Republicans since 2008...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    This made me laugh as I'm watching the Steven King show right now with James De Franco ("11/23/63") where he travels back in time to try to stop JFK's assassination.

    How do you like it?? My lovely wife and I love the series...

    If you haven't already, you should read the book after you finish the mini-series.. There is a LOT of difference between the book and the mini-series.. All of it awesome...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ironically, Obama meets ALL FOUR of the criteria.. :D

    and you have evidence of any of these?

    Lisa: Would you like me to explain?

    Vinny: I would love to hear this!

    Judge: So would I.

    i would say that obama's problem is the exact opposite of fascist tendencies - he is TOO deferential to the personalities of others, TOO unwilling to accept the role of victim even when it clearly applies, TOO willing to assume that reason will convince people when it obviously won't.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    The remaining 2% is presumably the Hillary Goes to Jail probability favored by Fox News commentator Michael,

    If you look at the facts and ignore partisanship, it's simply impossible that Hillary and/or her senior staff will escape the recommendation of indictment by the FBI..

    This has become an all-but certainty with the news that the DOJ has given immunity to Hillary's IT guy... The DOJ is notoriously stingy about giving immunity so for them to take that step now???

    That doesn't bode well at all for Hillary.. After all, there is no reason to give immunity if a crime has not been committed...

    to whom I extend hearty congratulations on his anniversary, you have walloped TheStig is this department!

    Thanx ya, TS :D Very much appreciated...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    and you have evidence of any of these?

    "A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of traditional solutions."

    His fear mongering on climate change...

    "The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason."

    Won't listen to any experts except those that agree with him...

    The belief of one group that it is the victim, justifying any action.

    His constant playing of the race/victim card.. "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.."

    "The need for authority by natural leaders (always male) culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny."

    Self-evident...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    His fear mongering on climate change...

    such as? that's not evidence, it's argument. what specifically did he say that mongered fear, and how can you establish factually that it did so, "beyond the reach of traditional solutions?"

    Won't listen to any experts except those that agree with him...

    again, that's argument, not evidence. name the experts who tried to talk to him and cite his irrational responses to a specific line of universal reason.

    His constant playing of the race/victim card.. "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.."

    justifying any action? as far as i recall, obama did not propose to have george zimmerman guillotined. or even punched in the face, for that matter.

    Self-evident...

    to you, perhaps. however, if you're going to claim evidence, you have to actually provide some. as yet, you have not.

    JL

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    justifying any action? as far as i recall, obama did not propose to have george zimmerman guillotined. or even punched in the face, for that matter.

    He wanted Zimmerman convicted.. Same thing...

    And I know for a fact from personal experience that George receives death threats on a regular basis...

    Granted, not from Obama... But it was Obama's actions and statements that encouraged such threats...

    My overall point was that the criteria is overly broad and stated in such a way to apply to Donald Trump...

    I was merely pointing out that it's easy to apply the criteria to Democrat heroes as well..

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    to you, perhaps. however, if you're going to claim evidence, you have to actually provide some. as yet, you have not.

    I have provided evidence..

    It's just not evidence you want to accept..

    For example, are you SERIOUSLY questioning Obama's fear mongering on Global Warming??

    Are you REALLY questioning that Obama didn't listen to military experts when it comes to prosecuting war?? Do I REALLY have to re-re-re-point out the words from SEVEREAL Sec-Defs on how Obama micro-manages the Pentagon actions??

    There is plenty of evidence to support my comments.. But it's not evidence that you want to accept...

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    YOUNGSTOWN

    About 1,000 Democrats in Mahoning County so far have switched their party affiliation to Republican with election officials saying several did it to vote for Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner.

    “We are seeing something this election cycle I’ve never seen before to this degree,” said board Chairman Mark Munroe, who’s also the county Republican chairman. “Every day I take phone calls or get voice messages from people saying they’ve been Democrats all their life and they’ve had it. They want to vote for Donald Trump. I’m surprised at the volume of inquiries we’re getting. It’s remarkable.”

    A number of Democrats taking a Republican ballot when voting early at the board “say they want to vote for Trump,” said Joyce Kale-Pesta, Mahoning County Board of Elections director.

    About 7,000 Mahoning County voters have cast early votes. Early voting started Feb. 17 and ends March 14, the day before the primary.

    Of those 7,000, about 14 percent were Democrats who voted Republican, Kale-Pesta said. That’s about 1,000 so far.
    http://www.vindy.com/news/2016/mar/03/mahoning-co-sees-k-voters-defect-to-gop/#sthash.EsIph6ys.dpuf

    A thousand here, a few thousand there, 10 thousand over there...

    Pretty soon, we're talking REAL numbers... :D

    Put another way.. You can bet if we saw these kinds of numbers from the GOP crossing over to vote for Hillary, ya'all would be crowing about it to the high heavens...

    Am I wrong?? :D

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have provided evidence..
    It's just not evidence you want to accept...

    It doesn't matter whether or not I want to accept what passes for evidence in your universe. I'd accept it if it were cited, but it's not. you phrased it as if "everybody knows," when you haven't established anything factual on the matter. if you are going to call something you write evidence for a phenomenon, you have to provide an operational definition of it, and some sort of statement that fits said definition.

    further, you're cutting yourself quite a bit of slack, considering how narrow you've made the target on trump.

    The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station.

    ~admiral dodonna - star wars, episode IV: a new hope

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Am I wrong??

    now THAT is self-evident.

    ;D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    now THAT is self-evident.

    ;D

    "And the ref takes a point away!!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Canada's new Prime Minister says he can work with Trump...

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/justin-trudeau-donald-trump-220380

    I also like how Trudeau is zero'ing in on the WHY and not just belly-aching about the WHAT...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just wait until Trump finds out how many Syrian refugees are here already. And, to be clear, I say that as an extremely proud Canadian.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just wait until Trump finds out how many Syrian refugees are here already. And, to be clear, I say that as an extremely proud Canadian.

    How would you feel about it if Canada gets their own San Bernardino or their own Paris??

    It's easy to be supportive when their are no consequences..

    What happens to that support when innocent people are brutally slaughtered??

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    How would you feel about it if Canada gets their own San Bernardino or their own Paris??

    Neither of which were perpetrated by Syrian Refugees...

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It must be sad to go through life always thinking the very worst about everyone.

    When we have another terrorist incident, and we probably will at some point, we will deal with it in a responsible and effective manner rather than blow it out of all proportion and institute silly and ultimately counterproductive policies.

    And, what we won't do is deny the opportunity for a better life to as many refugees from Syria and the Middle East as we can manage - we are only at 25,000+ at the moment, so we have a lot more to accommodate.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    It must be sad to go through life always thinking the very worst about everyone.

    Only when there is compelling evidence to support the thinking....

    Which would you prefer?? A life cut short because of the bleeding hearts of those who don't have to pay the price??

    And, what we won't do is deny the opportunity for a better life to as many refugees from Syria and the Middle East as we can manage - we are only at 25,000+ at the moment, so we have a lot more to accommodate.

    And IGNORE the thousands and thousands of CHRISTIANS who are being slaughtered in their homelands and who want to come to the US...

    Ironic that our government only takes those who will reliably vote Democrat..

    So, spare me the "humanitarian" spiel...

    It's all about pushing the Leftist agenda...

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm afraid you have become cynical beyond repair, Michale.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm afraid you have become cynical beyond repair, Michale.

    No... A realist...

    Why is it that 98% of the refugees from the Middle East that are accepted in the west and less than 1% are christian???

    You can't make the claim that there AREN'T any christian refugees... They are tens of thousands who are DYING because they can't get out...

    But THEY aren't welcomed by the west..

    Why???

    Because they are not politically acceptable...

    It's not about doing what's morally right..

    It's about pushing a partisan agenda....

    That's why I can't get worked up over the "poor" muslim refugees...

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is it that 98% of the refugees from the Middle East that are accepted in the west and less than 1% are christian???

    Kinda got ahead of myself.. :D

    Why is it that 98% of the refugees from the Middle East that are accepted in the west are muslim and less than 1% are christian???

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I can't get worked up over the "poor" muslim refugees...

    Especially since it's well documented that some of those "poor" muslim refugees are actually terrorists bent on brutally slaughtering innocent men, women and children...

    When, gods forbid, Canada has a San Bernardino or a Paris, we can re-visit the issue and see if your mind has been changed...

    I doubt it will, though.. Look how many innocent people are brutally murdered and raped by illegal immigrants.. Yet ya'all still support completely open borders..

    It's all about minting fresh new Democrat voters... That's all...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    John M wrote:

    Did anyone notice that Bloomberg has decided NOT to run for President as a Third Party alternative, on the fear that a 3-way race would divide voters too much and lead to a dangerous Trump Presidency?

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why is it that 98% of the refugees from the Middle East that are accepted in the west and less than 1% are christian???

    I don't know what the source is for your stats but, I can surmise that it's not reliable and they certainly don't apply to refugees coming to Canada. We don't track them by religion.

    Under the Harper government, however, critics accused them of discriminating AGAINST muslim refugees, a claim which was, of course, denied.

    You have become so cynical that you can't discriminate between what is reality and what is fantasy.

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I doubt it will, though.. Look how many innocent people are brutally murdered and raped by illegal immigrants.. Yet ya'all still support completely open borders..

    That is one of the most asinine comments I've ever had the displeasure of reading here, sorry to say.

    But, to answer your previous question, another terror attack in Canada will not, IN THE LEAST, change my mind about resettling Syrian refugees throughout my beloved country.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's all about minting fresh new Democrat voters... That's all...

    Just another non-serious comment ... among countless others.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just another non-serious comment ... among countless others.

    You seem to say that about every comment you can't refute.. :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, not at all. I say that about every comment I read that is asinine and/or non-serious. Is that redundant? :)

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, to answer your previous question, another terror attack in Canada will not, IN THE LEAST, change my mind about resettling Syrian refugees throughout my beloved country.

    No matter how many innocent people die as a result..

    Well, I can't fault you for your tenacity.. :D

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I'm not going to start wanting to torture everybody, either. :)

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I have said since the beginning..

    The 25-Year Tide That Gave Us Trump
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/07/the_25-year_tide_that_gave_us_trump_129902.html

    It's all about the WHY...

    Once you understand the WHY, you see how it is IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary Clinton to win..

    Even if she escapes the FBI recommendation unscathed, which is ALSO nearly impossible (ya'all's silence on that is extremely indicative.. :D ), there is simply no way that an Establishment Status Quo candidate will win this election...

    Once the WHY is understood and acknowledged, the future is clear...

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, I'm not going to start wanting to torture everybody, either. :)

    Now look who is being silly.. :D

    I never claimed that torturing everybody is the way to go..

    But letting thousands, tens of thousands or even ONE single innocent person be killed because we were squeamish about getting actionable intel from a scumbag terrorist??

    Well, THAT is asinine... :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    My raison d'etre for being here was a CW Commentary called

    So Is Torturing A Daughter OK?
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/07/07/so-is-torturing-a-daughter-ok-2/

    The question that should be asked is NOT if torturing a daughter is OK...

    The question that must be asked is "is torturing to SAVE *YOUR* daughter is OK"..

    As a father of a daughter, there can only be one response..

    Not only YEA... But HELL YEA!!!!

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    And back to the -Democrats-Will-Scream-RACISM!-At-The-Drop-Of-A-Dime- issue..

    http://tinyurl.com/z975krn

    Seems that a devote Trekker (at least of the TNG series.. No accounting for taste.. :D ) hacked his way into Google Maps and other official designation devices and changed the name of a Portland Bridge to JEAN LUC PICARD WUNDER CROSSING...

    Kudos to the un-named Trekker...

    But, of course, as Left Wingers are wont to do, some Left Winger just HAD to bring RACISM into the issue...

    quinn thereaux
    ?@quinnthereaux
    I grew up loving Picard and TNG, but to replace the bridge's name with a fictitious white sci-fi character is racist and gross.
    6:53 PM - 7 Mar 2016

    Get that???

    Changing a bridge's name to honor a Starship Captain is "racist"... Apparently this Quinn guy doesn't have a CLUE what Star Trek is all about...

    Welcome to this wonderful world of Political Correctness Run Amok where EVERYTHING is racism.. Even when it's not.. ESPECIALLY when it's not...

    President Trump can't get on the job fast enough!! It's going to be nice to see an end to all this fealty by our government on the altar of Political Correctness..

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so... is it ok torturing someone else's innocent daughter to save your innocent daughter? five innocent daughters? twenty? a thousand?

    is there a point at which the utility of torturing innocents outweighs the categorical imperative of not doing it because it's wrong?

    JL

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    is there a point at which the utility of torturing innocents outweighs the categorical imperative of not doing it because it's wrong?

    In my former profession often times it was a position of choosing the wrong that is more right...

    "It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right."
    -Annette Benning, THE SIEGE

    Right and wrong is a gray area...

    Sure, it's wrong to cause another human being immeasurable pain and suffering...

    But if you FAIL to do so, you cause the death of thousands of innocent people???

    How can THAT be morally defensible??

    Put another way... If the price of saving hundreds/thousands/a single innocent lives/life is that I have to have some sleepless nights???

    That's a small price to pay....

    Wouldn't you agree??

    Of course, the reality is I sleep like a baby each and every night... My conscience is completely clear...

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In your former employ, have you ever been involved in what is now called an "enhanced interrogation"? In other words, have you ever hands-on tortured anyone in your official capacity?

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I can neither confirm or deny any specifics of my military and/or civilian activities regarding this particular subject..

    I can, in general terms, state unequivocally that I have experience, training and expertise in the subject matter...

    I can also state unequivocally based on personal experience AND public media reports that torture DOES produce actionable intelligence and HAS been instrumental in stopping terrorist attacks and saving innocent lives..

    That's as far as I can go....

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Any US official who engages in the act of torture or condones and authorizes it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with mitigating circumstances (such as saving innocent life) taken into proper account.

    End of conversation. :)

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    End of conversation. :)

    That was a little joke, of course.

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In my view, there is a very clear and very thick line that separates liberal democracies from Islamist terrorist caliphates. The use of torture is just one important distinguishing feature.

    I might add, that I believe there is a much, much thinner line but clear, nevertheless, between the foundations of Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia, and those of the Islamist terrorists.

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Donald Trump's stance on torture and his clear infatuation with the use of torture - and, an expansive use at that - is one of the most disturbing aspects of his presidential campaign.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    I respect your opinion..

    But it doesn't take into account the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of innocent lives that have been saved...

    In that case, the end clearly justifies the means...

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump's stance on torture and his clear infatuation with the use of torture - and, an expansive use at that - is one of the most disturbing aspects of his presidential campaign.

    He doesn't have an "infatuation" with torture.. He simply acknowledges the reality that even Obama officials have conceded...

    Torture SAVES innocent lives...

    Why are you defending the rights and well-being of scumbags who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you??

    It might sound good in a TOS Star Trek episode, but it is dangerous in the world of the here and now...

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are you defending the rights and well-being of scumbags who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you??

    I don't care about the scumbags. You have completely misunderstood my opinion.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't care about the scumbags. You have completely misunderstood my opinion.

    But it's the scumbags that are being tortured for actionable intel...

    If you don't are about the scumbags, why do you care what happens to them??

    Put another way...

    If a person could save hundreds of innocent lives by simply stepping on a cockroach....

    Would you have a problem with that??

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Stay the course
    Reasonable force
    I believe I serve a greater good
    Smoke and dust
    Enemies are crushed
    Nothing left where a man once stood
    Through this doorway
    What's on the other side?
    Never knowing exactly what I'll find
    Locked and loaded
    Voices screaming
    Let's go!
    I'm just doing what I'm told

    Take a life that ten others may live
    That's just the way it goes
    It's playing over and over in my head
    Where it begins and where it'll end
    Nobody knows

    Bang bang it hammers in my head
    Bang bang it hammers in my head
    Bang bang it hammers in my head
    In my head
    In my head

    Yea though I walk through the valley of the
    shadow of death, I will fear no evil for Thou art with me
    Locked and loaded
    Gonna find my truth
    Now I'm busting through
    All hell breaks loose
    And you can all hide behind your desks now
    And you can cry, 'teacher come help me!'
    Through you all my aim is true

    Offspring

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdbrxHLhOn8

  172. [172] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The old nudge, nudge, wink, wink I'm a professional but can't prove it because "it's classified" BS, eh? Yawn. Every REAL professional will tell you it is an unreliable way to get intel. Great way to terrorize or gain confessions though...

    But it doesn't take into account the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of innocent lives that have been saved...

    You mean the mystical ones you can't seem to ever back up?

    Why are you defending the rights and well-being of scumbags who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you??

    What about the one's who were wrongfully detained because of language mix ups in Arabic names, accused because of local vendetta, or other mistakes then tortured? Were they scumbags too?

    On the other hand it's interesting that lives matter when supporting your political bias but don't seem to when they don't. How many American solders were killed because of increased recruiting by Al-Qaeda and lack of local cooperation due to torture and situations like Abu Ghraib?

    Is the life of your daughter worth the lives of a few of your neighbors sons?

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @bashi,

    if michale says he has personal experience with "enhanced interrogation" of suspects, i think we need to take him at his word.

    perhaps a better scenario would be, imagine a terrorist falls in love with your own innocent daughter. he's the toughest guy alive and feels no pain, but you know you can get him to talk and save thousands of lives by torturing your own daughter in front of him. how far are you willing to go?

    JL

  174. [174] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "We have to play the game the way they’re playing the game." - Fuhrer Drumpf

    I can hardly wait to see Jihadi Trump's Snuff Video Marathon on TLC.

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about the one's who were wrongfully detained because of language mix ups in Arabic names, accused because of local vendetta, or other mistakes then tortured? Were they scumbags too?

    Sure.. Give me their names and addresses and I'll send them a sympathy card..

    The mythical "wrongfully accused"... I think they made a movie about them starring Leslie Neilsen.. :D

    How many American solders were killed because of increased recruiting by Al-Qaeda and lack of local cooperation due to torture and situations like Abu Ghraib?

    As soon as you can give me the FACTS regarding your mythical "increased recruiting" then you might have a point..

    Conversely, you are selling the TOTALLY BS crap that, if there wasn't an Abu Ghraib, then there wouldn't have been any Al Qaeda recruiting..

    Yea... Prove it...

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    The old nudge, nudge, wink, wink I'm a professional but can't prove it because "it's classified" BS, eh? Yawn. Every REAL professional will tell you it is an unreliable way to get intel.

    You mean every REAL politically correct professional...

    The people who have been there and done that know that you are wrong...

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    perhaps a better scenario would be, imagine a terrorist falls in love with your own innocent daughter. he's the toughest guy alive and feels no pain, but you know you can get him to talk and save thousands of lives by torturing your own daughter in front of him. how far are you willing to go?

    If the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people were hanging in the balance, I would hope that I would have the morale courage to do the right thing...

    But, as I stated to CW 10 years ago, when it's family, everything goes out the window...

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    if michale says he has personal experience with "enhanced interrogation" of suspects, i think we need to take him at his word.

    Uh, no. He uses the appeal the authority way too much while lacking knowledge of basic military history. He has also admitted he was basically a grunt. He has hinted at his "experience with enhanced interrogation". It was low level field stuff and not what we are taking about with the CIA. I was not impressed, and will not take him at his word. Sorry.

  179. [179] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    As soon as you can give me the FACTS regarding your mythical "increased recruiting" then you might have a point..

    You first, you brought up the subject...

    Conversely, you are selling the TOTALLY BS crap that, if there wasn't an Abu Ghraib, then there wouldn't have been any Al Qaeda recruiting..

    I did not say that. Try going back and re-reading the post. It's not that hard...

    You mean every REAL politically correct professional...

    As I have mentioned in previous threads, I was talking about the top interrogators for Nazi Germany, WWII Britain, most of the military and clandestine services of the US leading up to 911. Are those all "politically correct professional"?

    If the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people were hanging in the balance, I would hope that I would have the morale courage to do the right thing...

    Oh the hysteria! First it was hundreds, then thousands now hundred of thousands. Come on, go for millions! Billions! Trillions!

  180. [180] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Oh the hysteria! First it was hundreds, then thousands now hundred of thousands. Come on, go for millions! Billions! Trillions!

    My bad. A miss read...

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you don't care about the scumbags, why do you care what happens to them??

    I don't care a whit about what happens to them. And, you are still not understanding what my opinion on this matter is. See comment number 164 again ...

  182. [182] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Between 1946-1948, the IMTFE (better known as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal) convicted 25 Japanese leaders for crimes against humanity, specifically including torture by waterboarding. We put to death enemy combatants as war criminals for committing the same actions Cheney & friends openly admit to using and that the current GOP field are advocating.

    The precedent on this subject matter cannot be denied, nor can there be any justification that would validate the use of torture. Our country has a responsibility to charge these people as war criminals! America must show the world that we will not turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity simply because they are being committed by our countrymen.

  183. [183] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think that most people who say that they support torture in order to save lives are thinking of a scenario that involves an active, "in-progress" terrorist attack where every second counts -- not possible attacks that are months/years away if they ever happen at all! Any plans that were not already in progress would have been altered the moment that a terrorist with knowledge of the plans went missing. Torture does not produce reliable intelligence. It produces Intel that the tortured person believes the torturer wants to hear in order to end their suffering.

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are so many reasons why torture should never be justified or condoned, even in the case where imminent loss of innocent life was averted through the coerced extraction of actionable intel.

    I believe the Bush administration should somehow be sanctioned, at the very least, for condoning and justifying the use of torture by US officials or by persons acting on behalf of US officials, whether they be US citizens or not.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that most people who say that they support torture in order to save lives are thinking of a scenario that involves an active, "in-progress" terrorist attack where every second counts -- not possible attacks that are months/years away if they ever happen at all! Any plans that were not already in progress would have been altered the moment that a terrorist with knowledge of the plans went missing. Torture does not produce reliable intelligence. It produces Intel that the tortured person believes the torturer wants to hear in order to end their suffering.

    You are under the mistaken impression that torture is used to produce intel..

    You are in error in that regard...

    When torture is utilized, the subject is asked for intel that the interrogator already knows...

    So your idea that the subject will say anything to stop the torture is not factual..

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh, no. He uses the appeal the authority way too much while lacking knowledge of basic military history.

    For example...????

    He has also admitted he was basically a grunt. He has hinted at his "experience with enhanced interrogation". It was low level field stuff and not what we are taking about with the CIA.

    Who do you think spent more time with the scumbags?? The CIA interrogators???

    Or the grunts who commanded the grunts who guarded them??

    Think about it..

    I was not impressed, and will not take him at his word. Sorry.

    Fine.. Then display your evidence that proves me wrong...

    {{{chiirrrrrppppp}}} {{chirrrrpppp}}

    Yea, that's what I thought. Let's face it, Bashi.. The ONLY reason you are calling me a liar is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because you don't like what I am saying...

    As I have mentioned in previous threads, I was talking about the top interrogators for Nazi Germany, WWII Britain

    And you don't think the fact that you had to go back over 75 years to make your point colors your position just slightly??

    In other words, if we were back in then 1940s, then you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone involved with the day to day mechanics of counter terrorism can tell you with complete authority that coercive interrogations DO produce actionable intel..

    This has been well documented, even by Obama Administration officials when they were caught speaking candidly and off the record..

    It's only those that want to toe the Politically Correct line who will claim that coercive interrogations do not work...

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    I asked before but everyone must have missed the question..

    Would ya'all hesitate to step on a cockroach if it would save hundreds, thousands or even ONE innocent life??

    Anyone??? Anyone?? Beuhler???

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[186]

    That was a rather interesting comment.

    It begs a question ... by coercive interrogations, do you mean to say torture?

    Some other comments you have made [184-185] clearly suggest that you have not had any involvement, whatsoever, with anything having to do with torture.

    By the way, your cockroach question doesn't make any sense. Which is why I have chosen not to answer it.

    You still don't understand my stance on torture and that it really has nothing to do with any concern for the well-being of terrorists.

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    It begs a question ... by coercive interrogations, do you mean to say torture?

    I do...

    Some other comments you have made [184-185] clearly suggest that you have not had any involvement, whatsoever, with anything having to do with torture.

    It's ambiguous by design...

    By the way, your cockroach question doesn't make any sense. Which is why I have chosen not to answer it.

    It makes PERFECT sense once you take into account my mindset...

    You still don't understand my stance on torture and that it really has nothing to do with any concern for the well-being of terrorists.

    If you don't care about the well-being of terrorists then there is no valid or logical reason to oppose torture that DOES render accurate and actionable intelligence...

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here's a question for you that will help me understand your stance on this issue:

    What is the difference, in general, between torture and coercive interrogation and, in particular, with respect to what each is supposed to achieve?

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is the difference, in general, between torture and coercive interrogation and, in particular, with respect to what each is supposed to achieve?

    Torture is coercive interrogation, but a coercive interrogation need not be torture...

    To be able to answer your question properly, we would have to agree on what constitutes torture..

    In Left Wingery circles simply making a subject uncomfortable (loud music, sleep deprivation, temperature fluctuations) constitutes "torture"..

    All of those are part and parcel to coercive interrogations.. All of those are not "torture" as I define torture...

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you don't care about the well-being of terrorists then there is no valid or logical reason to oppose torture that DOES render accurate and actionable intelligence...

    Oh, really?

    When discussing torture and whether US officials should ever engage in it, condone it or authorize it, it shouldn't make any difference if said torture leads directly to the extraction of actionable intel or not.

    Let me approach it from another angle in the form of another question ... two questions, really:

    What consequences will befall a liberal democracy that chooses to practice the use of torture and what impact does the use of torture have on the practitioners?

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All of those are part and parcel to coercive interrogations.. All of those are not "torture" as I define torture...

    What does the US Army field manual say about what constitutes torture? Or, is that super top secret?

  195. [195] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In response to LWYH, you said,

    You are under the mistaken impression that torture is used to produce intel..

    Let's be crystal clear in this discussion. What do you believe is the purpose of the use of torture?

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    What consequences will befall a liberal democracy that chooses to practice the use of torture

    Apparently, no consequences at all...

    and what impact does the use of torture have on the practitioners?

    Let me answer this question by asking a question of my own..

    What impact does sending young men and women into combat have on said men and women??

    What does the US Army field manual say about what constitutes torture? Or, is that super top secret?

    Not super secret.. Just not relevant to the discussion at hand...

    US military rules and regulations have as much to do with this aspect of Counter Terrorism as Neighborhood Watch Rules and Regulations have to do with T.N.T. Operations..

    It's apples and orangutans...

    Why do you think it's the CIA that does this sort of thing?? They are outside the chain of command and not subject to the UCMJ

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    When discussing torture and whether US officials should ever engage in it, condone it or authorize it, it shouldn't make any difference if said torture leads directly to the extraction of actionable intel or not.

    Are you familiar with the concept of The Ends Justifies The Means

    Do you agree with it??

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What impact does sending young men and women into combat have on said men and women??

    Are you equating combat with torture?

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's be crystal clear in this discussion. What do you believe is the purpose of the use of torture?

    The immediate goal of torture is to illicit co-operation... Once co-operation is established, the actionable intel comes....

    That's why I always have a laugh when someone says, "Oh a terrorist will tell the interrogator what they want to hear, just to get the torture to stop!!"

    Anyone who says that is proving beyond ANY doubt that they are completely ignorant of the subject matter...

    I don't mean that to be insulting to Listen..... It's simply a statement of fact..

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you equating combat with torture?

    I am saying the impact on men and women who perform such tasks is similar...

    Should we stop sending men and women to war because of that impact??

    Of course not.... Why???

    Because The Ends Justifies The Means..

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not super secret.. Just not relevant to the discussion at hand...

    It is relevant to what interrogation tactics amount to torture and how the UCMJ matches up with what you believe constitutes torture.

    So, humour me, what constitutes torture according to the US Army field manual.

    The CIA is a big part of the long war, and its partners in this long war include all branches of the US military and military installations, such as Gitmo. So, I'm not sure how you can say that my question to you is irrelevant. Unless, of course, your intention is to deflect the question.

  202. [202] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you familiar with the concept of The Ends Justifies The Means? Do you agree with it??

    Certainly not with respect to the use of torture.

  203. [203] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ignore [197] and replace with this:

    What impact does sending young men and women into combat have on said men and women??

    Are you equating combat with torture, Michale?

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am saying the impact on men and women who perform such tasks is similar...

    How so?

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is relevant to what interrogation tactics amount to torture and how the UCMJ matches up with what you believe constitutes torture.

    So, humour me, what constitutes torture according to the US Army field manual.

    I'll be happy to indulge you, but the USAFM and the UCMJ has not bearing on this issue because it's a civilian run program...

    Do you want the FM 34-52 INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION MANUAL or the updated FM 2-22.3 HUMAN INTELLIGENCE COLLECTOR OPERATIONS manual??

    Either choice will result in a lengthy post running several pages...

    Perhaps if I just gave you links???

    The CIA is a big part of the long war, and its partners in this long war include all branches of the US military and military installations, such as Gitmo. So, I'm not sure how you can say that my question to you is irrelevant. Unless, of course, your intention is to deflect the question.

    It has no relevance because the UCMJ and the USAFM deal with restrictions on military personnel vis a vis interrogations. The vast majority of interrogations were done by civilians... Therefore the UCMJ and the USAFM have no bearing...

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want the FM 34-52 INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION MANUAL or the updated FM 2-22.3 HUMAN INTELLIGENCE COLLECTOR OPERATIONS manual??

    I'm not looking for specific details, Michale.

    Let me make it easier ... I would just like to know how your definition of torture differs from how those manuals define torture.

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The vast majority of interrogations were done by civilians... Therefore the UCMJ and the USAFM have no bearing...

    Oh, they most certainly do have bearing, Michale.

    Unless, of course, the civilians carrying out the torture are action on their own and not on behalf of US military or intelligence officials.

  208. [208] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The vast majority of interrogations were done by civilians... Therefore the UCMJ and the USAFM have no bearing...

    Oh, they most certainly do have bearing, Michale.

    Unless, of course, the civilians carrying out the torture are acting on their own and not on behalf of US military or intelligence officials.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless, of course, the civilians carrying out the torture are action on their own and not on behalf of US military or intelligence officials.

    Those are two seperate and distinct agencies... Which is my whole point..

    The vast majority of intelligence officials in the CT field are civilians...

    Which is why the UCMJ and the USAFM have no bearing..

    Let me make it easier ... I would just like to know how your definition of torture differs from how those manuals define torture.

    Ahhhh That does make it easier...

    The updated manual believes the same thing that the Left Wingery believes... That being mean and making a subject uncomfortable constitutes "torture"...

    I don't...

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the use of the Military...

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/09/pentagon-admits-has-deployed-military-spy-drones-over-us/81474702/

    And, of course, the entirety of the Left Wingery will rise up and condemn such actions!!!!!

    {{{chiirrrrrpppppppp}}} {{{{chiirrrrrrpppppp}}}}

    You know what's going to be most fun about a Trump Presidency???

    It's to laugh at the Left Wingery when they get batshit hysterical crazy over the actions of President Trump..

    Identical actions that they were COMPLETELY SILENT on during Obama's Presidency..

    It's gonna be a hoot!! :D

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Those are two seperate and distinct agencies... Which is my whole point..The vast majority of intelligence officials in the CT field are civilians... Which is why the UCMJ and the USAFM have no bearing..

    Okay, so now you're just being purposefully obtuse. :)

    Are the vast majority of intel officials in the CT field acting on their own when they engage in torture or are they acting on behalf of US officials. This is a very simple question to answer.

    The UCMJ and the USAFM have complete bearing on the legality and morality of the use of torture by US officials - civilian CT or military or intelligence - or by any individual or individuals on behalf of the US government, inside or outside of the United States.

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are the vast majority of intel officials in the CT field acting on their own when they engage in torture or are they acting on behalf of US officials. This is a very simple question to answer.

    They are acting under orders from the President..

    But, AS CIVILIANS, they are not subject to the UCMJ or the USAFM.....

    The UCMJ and the USAFM have complete bearing on the legality and morality of the use of torture by US officials - civilian CT or military or intelligence - or by any individual or individuals on behalf of the US government, inside or outside of the United States.

    No, it does not... The UCMJ and the USAFM are only applicable to MILITARY members....

    It's why, if a civilian secretary employed by the US Army is arrested for DUI, she is not prosecuted under the auspices of the UCMJ but rather by civilian law...

    The CIA is not subject to the UCMJ or the USAFM...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The updated manual believes the same thing that the Left Wingery believes... That being mean and making a subject uncomfortable constitutes "torture"...I don't...

    That is why I am so glad that you are not in any position to influence what those manuals have to say about the definition and use of torture.

    And, that's all I have to say on this topic, for now, as this discussion has become quite torturous, not to mention frustratingly tortuous. :)

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is why I am so glad that you are not in any position to influence what those manuals have to say about the definition and use of torture.

    Perhaps... But anyone who thinks that loud music constitutes torture???

    Obviously believes that teenage children "tortures" their parents on a daily basis.. :D

    As far as who made that determination??

    " Well, I submit to you that whoever wrote that memo has never faced the working end of a Soviet-made Cuban AK-47 assault rifle. "
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup
    Commander Ground Forces
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
    A FEW GOOD MEN

    Which is EXACTLY why Obama uses the CIA to perform such activities... Since they are not subject to the UCMC and the applicable provisions of the USAFM...

    Michale

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which is EXACTLY why Obama uses the CIA to perform such activities [My emphasis]... Since they are not subject to the UCMC and the applicable provisions of the USAFM...

    For the record, the Obama administration has not authorized the use of torture - by any US official or by any individual acting on behalf of the US government.

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, Colonel Nathen R Jessop wasn't one of the few good men.

    Do you recall what happened to him at the end of the movie?

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, the Obama administration has not authorized the use of torture - by any US official or by any individual acting on behalf of the US government.

    Gotcha... {wink wink} :D

    Do you think Obama would continue and expand ALL of Bush's CT policies except for that one??? :D

    If so, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you...

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't confuse Obama with Bush.

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Btw, Colonel Nathen R Jessop wasn't one of the few good men.

    Do you recall what happened to him at the end of the movie?

    I do.. But it's Leftist Hollywood. I expect nothing less...

    Still one of the all time classic military movies..

    Gave us JAG, NCIS, NCIS LA and NCIS New Orleans... See if you can find Admiral Chegwidden from JAG in A FEW GOOD MEN

    Not a big fan of NOLA.. I love Scott Bakula but his cajun persona is er... uh... torture.. :D

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    For example...????

    Military history or appeal to authority?

    Fine.. Then display your evidence that proves me wrong...

    Again? How many times do I have to post links? How about you back up your pro torture argument with a link before I re-post the ones I have posted before...

    And you don't think the fact that you had to go back over 75 years to make your point colors your position just slightly??

    Well, if you bothered to read the rest of my sentence that you left out of your quote... any reason for that? Hard to take you seriously if you can't even finish reading a sentence.

    Yea, that's what I thought. Let's face it, Bashi.. The ONLY reason you are calling me a liar is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because you don't like what I am saying...

    Well, certainly in your delusional mind. In reality, it's because I have read quite a bit on the subject and disagree with your position.

    In other words, if we were back in then 1940s, then you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    Being dismissive instead of backing up your argument? Typical...

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't confuse Obama with Bush.

    In the field of counter terrorism, it's simply impossible to tell them apart...

    See comment #209...

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if we were back in then 1940s, then you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    Being dismissive instead of backing up your argument? Typical...

    Stating the fact that things are different now than they were 75 years ago is an argument that requires no back-up...

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One says torture is okay and the other does not. For the purposes of this discussion, that's the only distinction that matters.

  224. [224] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In the field of counter terrorism, it's simply impossible to tell them [Bush and Obama] apart...

    Not so!

    Aside from their differing stances on the use of torture - a very distinctive difference - the Obama administration has VASTLY expanded drone warfare far beyond what occurred under the Bush administration. But, that is a very important subject for another informed debate!

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    One says torture is okay and the other does not. For the purposes of this discussion, that's the only distinction that matters.

    Of course the one who says torture is NOT OK is notorious for paying lip service to a thing and then doing it anyways..

    the Obama administration has VASTLY expanded drone warfare far beyond what occurred under the Bush administration.

    "Do you think Obama would continue and expand ALL of Bush's CT policies except for that one??? :D"
    -Michale, [ Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 09:26 PST ]

    :D

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are in agreement that when it comes to CT policies, Obama is Bush on steroids..

    What makes you think this is the case in EVERYTHING except torture???

    Because President If-You-Like-Your-Healthplan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Healthplan Obama says so??

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Disregard [226]

    "Do you think Obama would continue and expand ALL of Bush's CT policies except for that one??? :D"
    -Michale, [ Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 09:26 PST ]

    Yes.

  229. [229] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are in agreement that when it comes to CT policies, Obama is Bush on steroids..What makes you think this is the case in EVERYTHING except torture???

    I have not seen, heard or read anything about torture being authorized or used under the Obama administration - your gut instincts, notwithstanding.

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have not seen, heard or read anything about torture being authorized or used under the Obama administration - your gut instincts, notwithstanding.

    And, of course, you won't....

    Not until there is a Republican President in the White House...

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stating the fact that things are different now than they were 75 years ago is an argument that requires no back-up...

    So, you can't back up your argument...

  232. [232] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not until there is a Republican President in the White House...

    Probably true.

    Indubitably true if Trump moves in there.

    Not a joke!

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Indubitably true if Trump moves in there.

    Exactly...

    You can bet that Trump will RELISH showing the American people how Obama had lied, lied and lied...

    Michale

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He'll be too busy - what was his phrase? - "expanding the laws" regarding torture. Heh.

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    As long as it's the right people being tortured...

    I don't have a problem with it..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.