... or making smart asses look bad. :)

I resemble that remark.

I guess "not necessarily" is as good as I'm going to get.
"Israel, you see, is an exception, a special case, if you will. A very special case" is really the point I was making from the beginning, so that's almost as good as a "yes".

And it keeps you in the "maybe" file.

I'm in the "do not admit" file.
But I wouldn't spend a penny to maintain the status quo there, so it doesn't matter.

I didn't mean I'd drop the subject forever... just this round.

But look, if our policies were in sync with world opinion, the veto's would not be necessary.
If, as many claim, it's about favoring a diplomatic approach, then the wildly lopsided votes suggest world opinion doesn't favor a diplomatic approach.
The world seems to want action on at least certain issues... and I would say that many of the resolutions we've nixed weren't contrary to a diplomatic approach, just wanting to exert some pressure to encourage a diplomatic solution.

But even that is too much for the special case to tolerate.

But whatever.

I specifically excluded the Iran deal from my comments because I know we are in agreement on the topic, and I was looking for other areas where we might find common ground.
It's no fun picking the low hanging fruit either.

Yes, smart ass in, smart ass out was an acknowledgement of a shared trait.

Sure beats being a dumb ass.

A

OH!!!! OH!!! I know this one!!! OH!!! Pick Me!! Pick Me!!! I know!!!! I know!!!!

:D

Michale

Wouldn't you say that our policies towards Israel would be different if we did value opinions from the global community?

Not necessarily. Not all policies, anyway. Israel, you see, is an exception, a special case, if you will. A very special case, lately, if you know what I mean and I have an inkling that you do. :)

Don't ever drop the subject of Israel, not while I'm still around here! It's a fascinating topic and always worthy of discussion.

The Iran nuclear negotiations are a prime example of the US FINALLY going its own way in a big way against the wishes of the Netanyahu government (but for the very arguable benefit of Israel and the rest of us) and US policy has always been opposed to illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian territories, even under Republican administrations.

The UN vetoes you speak of have to do with favouring a diplomatic solution and negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Personally, I believe that particular scenario is no longer in the cards. Which is a great shame ... for Israel and for the Palestinians not to mention a great stain on the US for its failure to facilitate such an agreement.

Truth be told, I can be a pretty good smart ass, myself, as you and everyone else around here know full well. :)

(91)
Don't take kindly to misrepresentations.

Smart ass in, smart ass out.
And it's effortless.

But I have a predisposition to it anyway... if you somehow missed it these many months.

(92)
No, the vast majority of Americans don't care about world opinion.
Many do, including myself.
Many more say they do, but when push comes to shove, they actually don't.

But, if we're going to talk about Americans caring what the rest of the world thinks, it would seem like US veto's to shield Israel from world opinion would be proof positive that the majority in the US, including Obama, don't care what the world thinks... along with other US policies toward Israel... and thus my comments were within the realm of the topic.
Maybe asking for acknowledgement is too much?

(93)
Thanks.
I wish our country was that better place.
I don't do this for my health. I'm trying to push us in that direction and have been doing so for over 30 years.

Wouldn't you say that our policies towards Israel would be different if we did value opinions from the global community?

Yes, I'm harping on the subject.
What can I say... I hold grudges.

Slip me a little yes under the table, and I promise to drop it.

A

Our country would be a better place if we did value opinions from the global community, because a lot of our policies would be different.

Now, there is a basis for a continuing and ongoing discussion. :)

I'm sure you have an opinion on that, Al - care to share it with us or do you just not feel the need to engage.

Do you put a lot of effort into coming across here as a smart ass or does it just come naturally for you?

None coming to mind is rather different than what you claim, but since you offered none either, I'm just going to laugh it off.

But, no.
The topic at hand was putting America first.
Not the I/P conflict.
Blind support for Israeli policies that harm US interests at home and in the global community is not putting America first.

You asked for examples.
I gave some.

I find it a bit funny that you seem to be invoking the Israel exception to bow out of the discussion... by claiming it's a different discussion when it's not.

And average American voters in both parties seem quite comfortable or indifferent to the Israel exception... and the harmful effects at home and abroad.

I fully support the idea of taking world opinion into account... including on what people think about the policies of the Repub candidates... which includes their positions on Israel.

(and if you were to go by the policies supported by the Repub establishment rather than the batshit crazy election nonsense, you would also have to note the policies of Hillary Clinton are eerily similar)

Our country would be a better place if we did value opinions from the global community, because a lot of our policies would be different.

A

I'm pretty much in agreement with the main point. The only way Trump would do any harm to the Party is if they don't nominate him. No one who really objects to Trumpism was voting Republican anyway. So if they nominate him, they pick up a few million formerly-apolitical TV fans and lose nobody. They also lose this presidential election (unless there turns out to actually be something to emailgate despite all the times they've cried wolf), but they weren't really planning to win it anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html

Guccifer is probably spilling to the FBI all the juicy National Security secrets that Hillary and Blumenthal tossed back and forth via email...

Considering that the FBI has Guccifer AND Pagliano at their disposal.......

Hillary is toast...

Michale

When you look at the facts and the numbers, Trump is actually in better shape as a candidate than Hillary is..

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/06/hillary-clinton-is-a-weaker-frontrunner-than-donald-trump/

Michale

Uh-oh I'm going to do it again ... Trump is toast ...

Since you were my hero of the day, I am gonna let this one slide.. :D

Michale

If I was addressing you, the comment would have been directed to troll, liar or wingnut.

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your acknowledgement of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant. :D

Michale

It sounds like you wish to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the US has helped or hurt the Middle East Peace Process. Well, that is a serious topic for discussion and a very complicated and convoluted one at that.

Actually, it's not complicated at all.. It's very VERY simple..

As long as the Palestinians resort to terrorism, they have absolutely NO legal, moral or ethical case to make..

Israel has a blank check to deal with the issue up to, but not including, terrorism itself..

What could be simpler??

Michale

Just asking.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-new-magic-number-is-40-percent-of-the-vote/

You are absolutely right, I should have given author Nash top billing. Still, the song was directed at Crosby and Stills (please come play at the benefit) and Crosby Stills and Nash performed it many times, as did CSN&Young. TheStig apologizes to all with a valid claim on the tune.

It sounds like you wish to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the US has helped or hurt the Middle East Peace Process. Well, that is a serious topic for discussion and a very complicated and convoluted one at that.

It's a discussion I'm always open to having with anyone here, at any time ... because I'm a sucker for punishment. That was a little joke.

And, it is surely true that many American politicians and lobbyists care about what Israel thinks about US policy. That was amply demonstrated during the Iran nuclear negotiations - to the detriment of Israel's national security interests, I hasten to add.

But, I was wondering more about whether or not average American voters care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating. And, if they don't care, then do they believe America is the only reigning superpower and leader of the free world? I guess my point is that they can't have it both ways. That is to say that they can't not care about what the rest of the world thinks AND see America as a superpower and global leader.

As for the "America first" argument ... I would suggest that while the first and top priority of any US president and administration is the security of the American people, that security will be far less than optimal in the absence of the cooperation and support of the global community.

Nope.

A

Americans putting the interests of Israel first is a different discussion than putting America first?
Come on.

Do not always coincide?
As if the times they don't are aberrations rather than the rule, right?

Do you want to start with the billions in aid that could be put to some use here?
Maybe the concept of human rights?
How about one person, one vote?
Perhaps UN veto's despite nearly unanimous world opinion?
Or tax deductions for donations for settlements on stolen land?

I could go on, but it might be easier to list the rare instances where our interests align.

Do any come to mind?

A

I heard this stat in 1992, when I applied for my first passport. Glad to hear the numbers have improved!

altohone -

Didn't I say something like "major primaries"?

:-)

Heh. But thanks, I'll call the WY race in tomorrow's column...

-CW

I have long recognized that the national interests of America and Israel do not always coincide and, at times, are even at great odds. You'll have to spell out in more detail which US policies toward Israel are detrimental to America.

But, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

Not sure if you're checking older threads...

But you mentioned a two week dry spell in the Underdog post.

Don't forget Wyoming April 9th.

A

Supporting policies that harm America is not putting America first.

A

If I was addressing you, the comment would have been directed to troll, liar or wingnut.

As usual, you were wrong yet again.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Israel exception" in the context of this discussion.

I hope you'll feel the need to explain ...

Our only neighbors are Canada, which pretty much shares our language and culture, and with apologies, might as well just be another American state ...

You know we won the war of 1812, right?

In any event, that victory came with a plethora of distinguishing features that separate us from our American cousins.

However, we would always find a way to welcome another province or two into confederaton. :)

Looking forward to yours and the others take on the exception to the rule when you have time.

I'll join in if I feel the need.

Taking the concerns of other nations into account seems reasonable, but putting America first makes the Israel exception all the more galling.
Our blind support for them harms America in numerous ways.

A

it comes down to the fact, that most of the time, most Americans, give very little thought to the rest of the world, if at all. To them, it simply does not impact their daily lives, and they don't really care. This is not Europe, where you can drive for an hour and be in another country with a totally different language and culture. We occupy an entire continent to ourselves, separated by everyone else by two huge oceans.

I think it's true that the relative isolation of America, separated as it is from Europe and Asia by two oceans, plays a big part in how average Americans view the outside world and whether or not they care about how others see US policy and its global impacts.

It's also true, as Chris pointed out, that a large chunk of the US population has not traveled extensively outside of North America (Canada/US/Mexico) and are not curious about how the rest of the world lives.

But, in this day and age, when the world has become a much smaller place in many respects, the relative isolation of America is no longer an excuse for ignorance. Though it does go a long way towards explaining why there is such a paucity of courageous and visionary political leadership in the US today, at all levels of government.

If you do, have a look at the chart on the right - in 1989 there were only 7M passports, and now it is 126M - pretty steep rise, from under 5% to over 30% in a couple of decades.

Maybe it was all the Republicans fleeing the country during the Clinton years, then the Democrats in the Bush years ;)

Late 50's white woman on walking/jogging trail -- what does she think of the election season to date? She was very cheerful as she replied:

"I don't watch cablenews. I am 100% for Hillary. My daughter got to shake her hand in Alabama and said Hillary was the first woman who shook her hand 'with no apologies'. She's not afraid of being a powerful woman. I want her in the white house. I support her fully, just as I did Obama."

It isn't as bad as it seems, Chris. There are about 126M valid U.S. passports at the moment, about 35% of the population.

Source:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/statistics.html

Nothing could be further from the facts...

But, that is to be expected... :D

Michale

I'm not sure it is still accurate, but I remember a bit of data from a while back -- only 15% of Americans ever get a passport.

Part of the reason for all the America-centric feeling is we just don't get out all that much and see the rest of the world. So it's no more than an abstract to most.

You can see this in the whole "We're #1!" jingoism. Most Americans think we're the #1 country in the world BY ANY MEASURE. Period. Just because. Show them stats showing us far down the list in this category or that, and most just won't believe it. See my recent column on us upgrading to new chipped credit card technology that is NOT AS GOOD as what I experienced in France in 1992, for an example.

Anyway, TheStig [22] -

Excellent! And you only have to apologize to Graham Nash, it was on his solo album...

I almost included a quote from "Chicago" in this article, but then I just couldn't bring myself to do so...

:-)

-CW

Just a quick in and out to remind that patience is a virtue, as they say, Al ...

The discussion to which you refer has only just begun here. You will understand that we couldn't possibly cover all relevant aspects in just a few short comments.

When the discussion resumes later this evening, be sure to join us!

http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/liberal-hero-james-comey-now-the-enemy-for-telling-the-truth-about-cops/

Neil,

Yer my hero for the day!!! :D

Michale

It would seem that the exception to the "hell no" rule deserves a mention.

Even Trump flip-flopped on his former pronouncements and became just another establishment brownnoser at AIPAC after all.

A

That's why Comey *HAS* to be channeling his inner Captain Picard..

"If I am to be damned, let me be damned for what I really am!"

I trust Director Comey to follow the evidence and the law...

Wherever that may lead...

Michale

if Comey recommends charges he will be vilified in the left wing press.

Who'd want to be running the FBI?

What part of THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FBI's INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY'S ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER do you not understand???

I was talking about the reaction of Republicans after Comey recommends charges (if that happens). The hotheads started off grandstanding on email-gate but the leadership had a quiet word with them that even the idiot brigade could understand:

1. if they make this partisan before Comey comes out with his report and he recommends charges there is little new impact because this will be an ongoing partisan battle just like Benghazi!!! - in fact it will be perceived as a continuation of Benghazi!!! - a battle where the Republicans got their asses handed to them

2. if they make a big stink and Comey says there was nothing wrong, they get even more Benghazi!!! egg on their faces and basically hand the White House to Clinton

3. However if they let the weirdos on AM radio keep the 'scandal' simmering and then Comey comes out with charges, it looks like an FBI led charge, rather than a Republican Congress led charge, and they can start grandstanding with great moral outrage. You will love it.

Ahhhh I get it..

Yea, yer right...

Hypocrites that they are, Democrats will scream for Comey's head...

You called it dead on ballz accurate...

I am just surprised to hear you say it.. :D

Michale

Hay Bill.. Don't keep it all bottled up inside..

Tell us how you REALLY feel.... :D

I am guessing that Obama just told the Clintons he is not going to protect them from the DOJ....

Michale

Bill's still got it.

THAT Comey??

Yes, that Comey. And when? Immediately after he recommends Clinton is indicted. That was the point of the post - this will be turned into an extremely partisan fight by both sides and there will be no neutrals. What he did during the Bush administration will be cast aside.

For example:

http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/liberal-hero-james-comey-now-the-enemy-for-telling-the-truth-about-cops/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters-are-defending-murders-and-drug-dealers/article/2001877

BUBBA UNLEASHED!!!!

Never thought I could possibly agree with Bill Clinton... :D

Michale

The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...

The sole priority for Americans is to elect a leader that will produce the best outcomes for Americans. America is part of a much larger global community and marketplace, which must be taken into account.

If we have a leader that picks unnecessary quarrels with other countries, the result is likely to be protectionist barriers being raised. This will almost certainly be worse for Americans as it will raise prices, eliminate markets for our goods, and force other countries to coordinate without America's involvement.

It may even impact the dollar as the trading and reserve currency of the world. If you don't understand the impact on our trading strength that the dollar's position affords us, you might want to do some serious reading before pulling the handle for somebody who wants to start trade wars.

Also, trade wars can lead to military actions. Since nobody in their right mind is going to take on the American military in a straight fight, that means backdoor funding of terrorists attacking our open society, kidnapping of Americans traveling abroad, etc.

So, basically it is in America's interest to have somebody in the White House that is respected and regarded as being a good world leader - not for Mexicans, French, Iranians, Ukrainians, or any other nationality, even Canadians, but for Americans.

"That was a little joke, John."

My apologies, I have a hard time sometimes distinguishing when people are being serious or not.

"Read again what Michale wrote. :)For the record, I didn't write that - I was quoting Michale. :) "

oh ok.

"I want to continue this discussion with you, John, but I'm out of time until later today."

If we get the chance later on to continue the discussion, I look forward to it. :-)

That should go without saying.

When Americans go into their polling booths, nearly the LAST thing they should be thinking is, "Hmmmmm I wonder what Mexicans/Iranians/North Koreans/Syrians/Russians/etc/etc would think of my choice..???"

It simply shouldn't even enter the equation.. or, if it does, it should be one of the LAST considerations...

Michale

"Michale may be absolutely right but he is ULTIMATELY WRONG on whether Americans do or should care about what the rest of the civilized world (beyond Mexico and especially including America's NATO partners)thinks about American leadership."

Oh I agree with you Elizabeth. America should care about what the rest of the world thinks, for a variety of very important reasons and definitely make that an important consideration. Everyone would be better off if they did. I am just saying that most Americans currently don't. And even if they did, what everyone else thinks would not, and should not, be the number one priority anyway.

For the record, I didn't write that - I was quoting Michale. :)

You know what I meant.. :D

Michale

"I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..

Huh?"

Every country, American included, puts it's own national strategic concerns first, before anything else. It is only natural, in fact, that they do so. Everything else becomes secondary considerations. Including the views of close allies. Not unimportant considerations, just ones that are further down the list in importance, than your own self-interest, which ALWAYS comes first.

Far be it for me to agree with Michale about anything! :-) But on this, I have to say that for once, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Michale may be absolutely right but he is ULTIMATELY WRONG on whether Americans do or should care about what the rest of the civilized world (beyond Mexico and especially including America's NATO partners)thinks about American leadership.

Huh?

As it pertains to Americans, of course..

I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..

Which is why it is mind-boggling to me when Mexicans demand that Americans choose leaders that are acceptable to Mexicans..

Considering the calibre of Mexican Leaders, that adds a whole new level of chutzpah...

Michale

"America is not an island.
If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores."

AGREED. But again, it comes down to the fact, that most of the time, most Americans, give very little thought to the rest of the world, if at all. To them, it simply does not impact their daily lives, and they don't really care. This is not Europe, where you can drive for an hour and be in another country with a totally different language and culture. We occupy an entire continent to ourselves, separated by everyone else by two huge oceans. Our only neighbors are Canada, which pretty much shares our language and culture, and with apologies, might as well just be another American state, and Mexico, which is looked down upon, is considered "quaint" and a fun place to visit and party on Spring Break.

Hold on!! You can't just......er.. hay now ....whatsahosits???

:D

Michale

You HAVE to know I was not referring to Canada....

If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores.

Agreed..

But those priorities MUST be lower than the priorities towards one's own country..

In other words, we pick our leaders that will do right by AMERICANS first..

NOT do right by Mexicans or Iranians or North Koreans first...

I fail to see what's wrong with AMERICA FIRST...

Michale

"Not only "NO" but "HELL NO!!!!!" The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...
Unless you want to start a One World Government (as a prelude to creating the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS :D ) with the US at the top there is absolutely NO REASON to listen to what OTHER countries want in our leaders..."

Far be it for me to agree with Michale about anything! :-) But on this, I have to say that for once, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

"So, Michale, what you're really saying then is that you don't wish America to be viewed and treated as a superpower and leader of the free world.
Well, if that were true, then it would have some very serious consequences.
That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot."

I agree with you Elizabeth. We SHOULD care. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of Americans simply DON'T. Either because of total and complete apathy of what the rest of the world thinks, or because of a "Screw them, we are Americans!" mentality. Most Americans think the USA is a superpower and leads the world because it is a "RIGHT" for us to do so. not a privilege. They also think we would be a superpower and leader of the world regardless of what others think about us. It is better to be feared than liked, etc.

"Do Americans, beyond President Obama and his cabinet, care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating?"

The simple answer to that. I'm afraid, is not only "NO" But a "HELL NO!" In fact, a lot of Americans who are supporting them, would view it as a good thing or a badge of honor, if the rest of the world HATED their choice. Historically, Americans tend to be a very inward looking people anyway. The worry about ourselves, don't give a damn about the rest of the world mentality. It also goes along with the notion of America being better than everybody else, and the arrogance that we are so much more powerful, and bigger than anybody else, that they need to follow us anyway, regardless.

America is not an island.

If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores.

Well, thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Not at all..

I just don't feel like third world shitholes have any moral foundation to judge Americans OR our leaders...

Take Mexico for example. They cap on and castigate Trump incessantly..

But look at THEIR pissant leaders who are rotten and corrupt to the core...

Do you REALLY think that we should elect leaders that make THOSE corrupt assholes happy???

Not only "NO" but "HELL NO!!!!!"

That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot.

You appear to be saying that Americans should choose their leaders based on the wants and desires of foreign countries..

Once America starts doing that, it will no longer be America...

The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...

Unless you want to start a One World Government (as a prelude to creating the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS :D ) with the US at the top there is absolutely NO REASON to listen to what OTHER countries want in our leaders...

Michale

Well, if that were true, then it would have some very serious consequences.

That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot.

I've always been impressed with the safety at major sporting events in the U.S. I lived in a city with a particularly virulent pair of opposing team supporters, and even went to a few of the 'derby' games - the level of violence is extreme and pitch invasions, police horse charges, flying bottles, etc. were fairly common. The atmosphere was electric - it literally felt like a constant buzzing in your body for 90 minutes.

I've always wondered if the violence would be more extreme here is you had intra-city rivalries like Man City vs. Man U, Liverpool vs. Everton, Celtic vs. Rangers, etc

Do the Yankees and the Mets fans fight? The Giants and the A's?

Since when???

Are we talking about the same Comey who Democrats gushed over lovingly when he slapped down the Bush Administration over warrantless wire-tapping???

THAT Comey??

You know the Republicans won't be able to help themselves and grandstand to their base.

What part of THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FBI's INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY'S ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER do you not understand???

With Trump pissing off women on one side

Have you checked Hillary's approval with women?? It's barely above Trump's.. :D

Michale

Though your mother's bound and gagged
And they've chained her to her chair
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
Bring a sling!

If you think your Class is special
and that Trump will treat you fair.
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
For the yelp that He might bring?

Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!

Politicians, sit yourselves down
There's nothing for you here
Won't you just give up in Cleveland
Take a ride.

Don't ask Cruz to help you
'Cause we'll smack you up the ear
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
Let us bring our guns inside.

Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!

If you believe in justice
If you believe in freedom
Let a man live his own life
Rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door, oh yeah

From the bottom of the food chain
To the Towers of The Trump
Won't you get your ass to Chicago?
Where I live is such a dump!

Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!

We need a Mussolini
And we will wink at freedom.
Let a strongman guide our lives.
Rules and regulations for who needs 'em,
But for us to just ignore.

You mean newly labeled right-wing extremist Comey? Thankfully the DoJ will override his ridiculous overreach, and Hillary will have a field day re-running her role for "Benghazi!!! 2 - the Email Sequel" to increasingly vicious men attacking her for the temerity to want to be the first female president. (If you don't think this is how it will play out in the left-wing-sphere, you are more delusional than usual ;)

You know the Republicans won't be able to help themselves and grandstand to their base. With Trump pissing off women on one side and Republican congressmen attacking Hillary on the other, the Republicans may as well concede:

1. Majority of women (53% of voters)
2. Vast majority of latinos (10% of voters)
3. Vast majority of African-Americans (12% of voters)

Given that there are ~50% overlaps between 1 & 2 and 1 & 3, you have 64% of the electorate being insulted on a regular basis.

That should work out great for Donald.

"We're Americans, we're a simple people. But if you piss us off, we bomb your cities!"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

:D

Michale

Your post supports my intuitions. Crowd control is a very well developed art in the USA. Sports events and rock concerts!

"After all, a Coup D'etat works best, when it is a quiet one...." My feelings exactly.

The heartwood of Trump support seems to be 50-ish.

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/trump-supporters.php

Cardio, feet and bladder/prostate are going to be critical issues for a 50 y.o. street fighter. A look at the income distribution suggests few will have access to agile and compact mobility aids like Segway scooters and hover boards.

It might be possible to structure protests as an automotive demonstration, preferably in convertibles, but this is likely to mistaken for, and dismissed by the media as, oldster car enthusiasts cruising. Boosting troop capacity by use of pickup trucks, flat beds and trailers is going to look like Grapes of Wrath or the intro the Beverly Hillbillies, which come to think of it might make the desired political statement, so hell, go with that.

Other weak points that need to be addressed:

Poor hitch hiking skills-

Poor heat tolerance-

Poor cold tolerance-

General crankiness-

Inability to sleep on hard surfaces in cramped spaces, some of them moving-

Weak tolerance for awful food or no food at all.

Medical needs must be addressed. Back in the day, we had aid tents. These will need to upgraded to MASH like ICUs. A lot of these folks will be packing 4 X 7 pill packs, which do not travel well, and are hard to keep up with on the road. Smart phone reminders can help participants stay on track. Please turn off your ring tones. "Attention, attention, the saw tooth palmetto capsules are bad."

Porto Potties. For God's sake, lots and lots of them.

And, as you pointed out, the GOP also is a (kinda) superdelegate issue..

But we're talking a CONTESTED CONVENTION... And Team Bernie is planning for a Contested Convention as well..

1. Despite Michale's concerns about indictments and establishment vs. anti-establishment forces, most superdelegates think Hillary has the best chance against Trump or Cruz

And that's based on what?? Surely not the current polling...

So, the only thing it could be based on is the oodles of $$$ and access that Clinton is promising the SDs to go against the will of the people...

The whole point of superdelegates is to tip the balance when the popular vote is out of adds with the party concensus

In other words, overturn the will of the people... IE disenfranchise the voters.. Hmmmmmm I had thought that THAT was only a Republican crime...

Apparently, I was wrong... :D

Superdelegates are typically party insiders and Bernie has been an Independent, Hillary has all the connections and Bill is still regarded as a big time hero within the party

So it's not only who you know, but who you ... well you can finish that...

Apropos, considering Slick Willy.. :D

4. Hillary has been campaigning and helping down ticket candidates, and has pointed out, just to make sure everybody is paying attention, that Bernie hasn't. Bernie has been looking out for Bernie.

One could easily make the case that Bernie is looking out for Americans...

This is not likely to help swing superdelegates to his cause.

Yer right about THAT.... :^/

I predict (usual caveats) that Hillary sweeps into July with the contest wrapped up, and that Trump, either via 1237 delegates before, or by winning at the convention, will be the nominees.

I agree on Trump, but am not so sure about Clinton..

Just go with me on this.. What will happen when Clinton and/or senior staff is either indicted or recommended to be indicted by Director Comey...

What would your realistic prediction be for that???

I am sincerely curious...

Do your own xxx research. Figured it out ;)

"Yer soo smart..."
-Billy Madison

:D

Michale

Bernie's problem are the superdelegates. It is almost mathematically impossible for Bernie to get enough delegates to overcome Hillary's bound delegates plus the current superdelegate pledges she already has.

Bernie hopes that he can start to win over some of the superdelegates, but he has four major problems:

1. Despite Michale's concerns about indictments and establishment vs. anti-establishment forces, most superdelegates think Hillary has the best chance against Trump or Cruz

2. The whole point of superdelegates is to tip the balance when the popular vote is out of adds with the party concensus

3. Superdelegates are typically party insiders and Bernie has been an Independent, Hillary has all the connections and Bill is still regarded as a big time hero within the party

4. Hillary has been campaigning and helping down ticket candidates, and has pointed out, just to make sure everybody is paying attention, that Bernie hasn't. Bernie has been looking out for Bernie. This is not likely to help swing superdelegates to his cause.

I predict (usual caveats) that Hillary sweeps into July with the contest wrapped up, and that Trump, either via 1237 delegates before, or by winning at the convention, will be the nominees.

I think CW's argument above is spot on - only Trump can stop Trump supporters from going rogue. The other groups (establishment, evangelicals, tea-party, etc.) will go for anybody-but-Hillary.

hehehehehe

I wouldn't have thought that the NNL filter would kick in for DYOFR

:D

Michale

And that's why a candidate like Trump (and to a lesser extent, Sanders) is doing so well..

Because Joe & Jane Sixpack are sick and tired of all the crap from the Establishment...

And THAT is why if the Election comes down to ESTABLISHMENT (Clinton) vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT (Trump) the ESTABLISHMENT will lose. And lose big..

Even without the sure-to-be indictment(s)...

Michale

hehehehehe

"7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all."

Yea, that's why I called Reice a frakin' douche.. :D

Michale

"7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all."

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

Stage 5: Delegate accumulation
When it happens: mid-March through final primaries in June
Potential threats to Trump: Poor organization in caucus states, poor understanding of delegate rules, no support from superdelegates.

Stage 6: Endgame
When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.

Net net:

Is Stone a 'dirty trickster' - yes - check out New Yorker article, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a quote by Donald Trump himself from 2000.

Is Stone inciting riots? He is trying to stay on the right side of the law with some mealy mouthed nonsense, but in my opinion he is. CW has the most damning quote in this article ("sound of guns"? really?), but as usual you see the world very differently from me, so you have to decide that one for yourself.

Part 1: Is Roger Stone a "dirty trickster"?

In my opinion, yes, and The New Yorker and Sun Sentinel, among others, agree:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster

Note the date (2008) and the Donald Trump quotes in the article:

"Stone worked for Donald Trump as an occasional lobbyist and as an adviser when Trump considered running for President in 2000. “Roger is a stone-cold loser,” Trump told me. “He always tries taking credit for things he never did.”"

and

“They caught Roger red-handed lying,” Donald Trump said. “What he did was ridiculous and stupid. I lost respect for Eliot Spitzer when he didn’t sue Roger Stone for doing that to his father, who is a wonderful man.”

The Sun Sentinal (Aug 10, 2015) also has some poor words for Stone:

"For if you think Donald Trump has been rude, crude and insulting toward women, consider Roger Stone, a notorious dirty trickster who publicly calls women the C-word.

"As the Sun Sentinel has previously reported, Trump's former spokesman called the daughter of a local political consultant a "self-important, nasty c---." He tweeted "DIE B----" to former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, whom he called a "snot-nosed, arrogant, biased liberal — and all around b----" for not reviewing his JFK book. He also called actress Sofia Vergara a "self-centered b----" on Twitter. He formed an anti-Hillary Clinton political action committee called Citizens United Not Timid, whose acronym was designed to send a message. His website also tweeted "C U Next Tuesday" to a Sun Sentinel editor, a message also meant to convey a lewd acronym."

Neil... Fact Check?? :D

Michale

"the potential for some level of violence is concerning."

Dirty trickster Roger Stone is already organizing the riots.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-campaign-were-discussing-contested-convention-scenario/

Once again, a fully accurate equivalency...

Michale