2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: MathExtremist

Yet you're still here. What should we take away from that sad state of affairs? That you're a masochist?

You've got three options. You can go somewhere else to a society that embodies your values,<snip>

I can't see this option happening, as most societies that would closest embody AZ's social values are Islamist countries.

Quote: MathExtremist

A forest does not survive when it burns to the ground. It is reborn, but it is made of different trees.

The old ones are dead.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

And you know why NOT "now"? Because in revolutions, people suffer. People die. And the new that replaces the old isn't necessarily better. Sometimes it's far worse. Sometimes it's the new boss is the same as the old boss, as in Putin's Russia, or when the Big Guava replaces the Big Mango after La Revolution.

It may be frustrating to live with slow, incremental change, but ultimately, it's the only kind of change that works. At least the only kind that doesn't produce unacceptable death and misery.

Gentlemen, I can forgive you speaking to me as if I were naive. I can't even say you're that far off. But please don't assume I'm stupid.

Yes, to make way for the future forest, the old forest must die. That is as true for forests as it is just about anything else. But do you deny this applies to us as a people? That we're somehow outside of this requirement because we're USA#1? I don't. I can see that many people feel the same way about many different things. And seeing that I do believe this is necessary, that "the old ones must die", I say let it be me. Whether it's about the wreck of social security, our dependence on foreigners for fuel, the assumed genuine threat of global warming, let it be me that has to suffer through these tumultuous changes that must occur. Dunno about you, but I'm a father. I'm ready to hurt, so that my son can be part of the generation of healing. Because if not me, then who? Him? His kids? Will his kid's kids even have anything left to save?

Everywhere you look, there is a problem being ignored. From a national ill like the aforementioned social security all the way down to a personal ill like smoking, we spend enormous energy on avoiding pain. We fudge some numbers here, borrow from there, take a pill for this, engage in escapism for that. And the problems continue to pile up. Without intervention, without an event, I don't see a fix happening. I see evidence supporting this view every single place I look and in every single facet of life. When do we finally "toughen up"? When do we finally stand as a man ready to fight? When we understand that a change must be made? Or do we wait until there's a shadow on the MRI, or put it off until an entire Too Big To Fail industry finally goes tits up? Always, it's the latter. And I'm f#$%ing tired of it.

Let me fight now while I still have energy, and most importantly, hope. Don't make me wait until we're tumor riddled and on life support, and then beg me back on my feet.

And yes, Jo, it is frustrating to live with slow, incremental changes. No doubt about that. But I don't rail about my own impatience. I rail because I don't believe there is change at all, or worse, that said change is heading in even more a wrong direction. Want evidence? Look who just made it to the finals. Donald f#$%ing Trump. And my only savior from that terror is a f#$%ing Clinton?

Jesus wept.

I might be a bit naive,... no, I'm a lot naive. Many of my beefs you might see as benefits, many of my solutions might be completely assbackwards and make things worse. And I don't understand half of the things I attempt to opine about, which might just up and void any opinion I have. But I don't think you can tell me I'm completely wrong. And really, I'd ask how you can look at things the way they are today, believe in your heart we are on the right path, and tell yourself you only need be patient with the process. I could really use a lesson in that regard, because the only difference between me and some stone chucking jihadist looking for a flight west, is hope.

Quote: SOOPOO

I guess this is me now.... I could have easily voted and supported, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich.

Jenny Howard, 44, an accountant in the Denver suburb of Englewood, is one of those independents. She called herself “a Republican at heart,” but is frightened of Mr. Trump’s temper and shoot-from-the-hip outbursts.

“He spreads more fear than hope,” she said. “I will probably be voting for Hillary. It will be under duress and not something I will be proud of, but I feel a vote for Trump will definitely further divide our country.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/colorado-presidential-race.html

Quote: ams288

Epic Freudian slip by Trump's campaign manager this morning:

Did you see hillarys? I'm going to raise taxes on the middle class.

Wow. If that won't be in commervials i don't know what will.

Quote: Face

Gentlemen, I can forgive you speaking to me as if I were naive. I can't even say you're that far off. But please don't assume I'm stupid.
...
Everywhere you look, there is a problem being ignored. From a national ill like the aforementioned social security all the way down to a personal ill like smoking, we spend enormous energy on avoiding pain.
...
Let me fight now while I still have energy, and most importantly, hope. Don't make me wait until we're tumor riddled and on life support, and then beg me back on my feet.

The last thing you are is stupid. Despair and stupidity are not on the same yardstick.

There is a pretty big difference of opinion on the ideal role of government in the life of society, and of society in the life of the individual.

On the one hand, you have "Don't tread on me / leave me the f**k alone." On the other hand you have the empirical knowledge that a group of individuals can, by working together, individually specialize but pool their talents and achieve greater things than any individual can by themselves. That's how families work, that's how villages work, and that's how corporations work. It's not an either/or decision, but at some point you have to discard "leave me the f**k alone" if you want to achieve anything beyond what you can do by yourself.

Destroying society puts everyone back to square one. We don't need to start over, and certainly not right now when most people already *have* specialized and cannot become generalists. Very few people are Bear Grylls. What we need is either a commitment or a de-commitment. You want to get out, fine, get out. You want to stay in, then get in all the way. The problem is the folks in the middle, who take from society but don't give back (or give enough) in return. And before you go down the path of "the poor on welfare" I would point out that the vast, vast majority of heavily red states are net takers of federal tax dollars. I live in a blue state, and my taxes tend to flow toward the red states. I'm okay with that because we're *supposed* to be in this together.

So if we're going to have a national conversation about changing anything, let's address the level of commitment to the American experiment. The American experiment was never about "leave me the f**k alone," it was about "instituting Governments among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (paraphrased from the Declaration of Independence.) If someone doesn't want to be here, they should stop being here. It's really that simple. There are millions of people willing to take their place.

Seriously, if this country is such a sh*thole, why do we have so many would-be immigrants clamoring to get in? Turns out, our grass really is greener. Maybe it needs a good landscaping, but the last thing we should do is turn it brown and dead by pissing all over it.

Quote: beerseason

Did you see hillarys? I'm going to raise taxes on the middle class.

Wow. If that won't be in commervials i don't know what will.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-raise-taxes/

Quote: Snopes

Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," but either she didn't fully enunciate the ending of the word "aren't" or the word didn't come through clearly on the audio recording (or both). Worst case, she simply misspoke and said "are" when she meant "aren't," because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy.

Spending money on an attack ad based on that quote would be a bad use of campaign funds and would reflect terrible judgment on behalf of Trump. Especially if, as everyone keeps pointing out, there are so many actual negatives to Hillary's platform.

Included here are transcripts of some of Trump’s more incendiary comments during that fall campaign, along with the responses from some Republican leaders at the time.

*****

“Sure, I got deferments. But — excuse me, Chuck, let me finish. Would you really want a president who was dumb enough to let himself get drafted? I mean, it wasn’t hard to get out of it, believe me. My doctor said I had a bump on my heel or something, I don’t know. I don’t even think he was a doctor, frankly. The government is just very, very stupid, OK? Which is why only I can fix it.” —“Meet the Press,” Aug. 28

House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Let me just be very clear about one thing, which is that we don’t think it’s dumb to wear the uniform of the United States armed forces. But the real issue here is that no one wants to be in a situation where we have to have a draft, period, and we believe that’s much more likely to happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Also, we urge all Americans to have their feet checked regularly by an actual doctor.”

*****

“I know religion better than the pope, believe me! And Romans wouldn’t have crucified anybody on my watch! Weak! Sad!” —Twitter war with Pope Francis, Sept. 5

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Of course Donald didn’t mean the Savior was weak. His choice of words was unfortunate. I think the point Donald was trying to make is that religion has been under attack from liberal, activist judges from the beginning of time, really. You can draw a direct line from Pontius Pilate to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I believe Donald will protect our religious liberties, which is why I support him.”

*****

“Look, all I’m saying, Anderson, is that this hajj, this pilgrimage, is happening right now, and we have not seen the president in public for a couple of days. Do I think Barack Obama is in Mecca running around in circles and planning a terrorist attack right now? I’m not saying I know that for a fact. But we have satellites. It’s something we should look at.” —CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Sept. 9

Sen. Marco Rubio: “Every election is a choice, OK? Would I choose Donald Trump over myself? No, I obviously would not. Would I choose Trump over, say, John Hinckley? Yes, I would. Would I choose Trump in a three-way race with John Hinckley and Charles Manson? That’s a tougher one. Maybe I go with Manson. It depends on what the parole board says. But anyway, this election is a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, and I firmly believe endorsing Trump is critical to my future. So fine, if he insists Obama is a Muslim, let’s just go with that.”

*****

“You want to see a wall that kept a lot of people safe? Go to Berlin! You see all the Muslims streaming in now? You think Putin doesn’t regret tearing down the wall? What kind of idiot gave the Russians that advice? I have German friends calling me up and begging me, ‘Donald, Donald, please, when you get done with your wall, come over here and rebuild ours!’ It’s sad, frankly.” —Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Sept. 30

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus: “Who’s to say that if Ronald Reagan were alive today, he wouldn’t be the first one to demand the Russians ‘rebuild that wall’? I can’t know that. You can’t know that. The only person who would really know is Reagan, and he’s dead. So Donald Trump is the closest thing to Reagan that we have, really, and I continue to believe that he is our party’s nominee.”

*****

“No, I did not call you the devil. What I said — excuse me, let me finish, Hillary — what I said is that Bernie made a deal with the devil, which in this case was you. Frankly, you can’t be the devil, because the devil is great, OK? The devil is in charge of all the suffering in hell, and that’s a position of serious leadership. That takes a winner. You might be some kind of minor demon or something.” —Second presidential debate, Oct. 9

House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Yeah, I saw it. No, the devil is not great. The devil is not a winner. What do you want me to say? I marched out there and I endorsed him, OK? There’s no backsies. I put the sticker on my car already. It’s not one of those magnet deals. It’s really on there. I’d have to repaint the entire bumper. This thing is happening, OK?”

*****

“Happy holidays to my Jewish friends! If only the Book of Life sold as many copies as ‘Art of the Deal’! No. 1 bestseller! Keep trying!” —Yom Kippur tweet, Oct. 11

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Naturally I reject any comparison of Mr. Trump’s work with God’s own. I do appreciate that he doesn’t always bow to this rampant political correctness, but I also think there has to be a line, although I defend his right to say those things. So as I’ve said all along, I respect, renounce, support and disagree with Mr. Trump. That’s as clear as I can be.”

*****

“Frankly, I never wanted the job anyway. Why would I say all this stuff if I wanted to be president? C’mon! This was so great for my family, it’s just amazing. Tiffany’s getting her own show. Barron’s YouTube channel is through the roof! He’s caught so many Pokémons traveling around, you wouldn’t believe. Just an amazing experience.” —Election eve news conference, Nov. 7

House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Oh, for the love of Christ! Seriously? This is why I spent the last six months not talking about poverty and tax reform? And the sticker is on there, man! I tried Goo Gone, the Magic Eraser, all of it! So yeah, I’m not happy. And yeah, I endorse him. What choice do you think I have now?”

View Comments (4,243)

I *almost* wish JohnCena (and his subsequent sock puppet accounts) weren't nuked, so I could rub this poll in his face:

Clinton +15 over Trump in new national poll

Quote: MathExtremist

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-raise-taxes/

Spending money on an attack ad based on that quote would be a bad use of campaign funds and would reflect terrible judgment on behalf of Trump. Especially if, as everyone keeps pointing out, there are so many actual negatives to Hillary's platform.

Then that is a terrible speech delivery, I would argue then speech writer should have put are not instead of aren't at a key point in the speech. I was merely pointing out that everyone makes mistakes, Freudian slip or terrible enunciation.

And a good ad team could work that very well into a highly effective ad whether they choose to or not is a different story. I would argue that combining quotes from several different areas of supposed weakness however out of context they are. Would in fact reinforce each idea if they otherwise stood alone.

Quote: ams288

I *almost* wish JohnCena (and his subsequent sock puppet accounts) weren't nuked, so I could rub this poll in his face:

Clinton +15 over Trump in new national poll

Trump better deliver his master stroke soon.

Perhaps several of them.

Maybe just a chop-a-matic would help.

Quote: beerseason

Then that is a terrible speech delivery, I would argue then speech writer should have put are not instead of aren't at a key point in the speech. I was merely pointing out that everyone makes mistakes, Freudian slip or terrible enunciation.

And a good ad team could work that very well into a highly effective ad whether they choose to or not is a different story. I would argue that combining quotes from several different areas of supposed weakness however out of context they are. Would in fact reinforce each idea if they otherwise stood alone.

Nobody ever accused Hillary Clinton of being a brilliant orator. Compared to Obama, who can not only speak with excellent rhetorical cadence but can even sing (he's a bit pitchy, but still), Hillary's diction is somewhat halting and stilted and I can't imagine her carrying a tune at all. She even admitted this on Rosie O'Donnell a bazillion years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BNMrybHO4

So yes, I agree that the speechwriter messed up. I went to elementary school with a kid who cut off the "T" in words like "lot" and it came out like "lah" (that is, he used a glottal stop instead of pronouncing the final T phoneme). If they know Hillary does the same thing, they should have written it differently. In context, it's pretty obvious what she meant.

If the Trump camp spends their money on an attack ad that is based on a phonetic quirk rather than a Freudian slip-up, I think, that'd be a bad move.

In case anyone was wondering about the power of an American President. (I'd be happy if someone can find a refutation though)

Quote:

In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

Quote:
"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."

Now, there’s a slight wrinkle: The secretary of defense is required to verify the president’s order to launch. But he or she doesn’t have veto power. If the president orders a nuclear launch, the secretary is legally obligated to do it. He or she could theoretically choose to resign rather than carry out the order, but then it would fall to the secretary’s second-in-command to order the strike.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

Quote: MathExtremist

. If they know Hillary does the same thing, they should have written it differently. In context, it's pretty obvious what she meant.

If the Trump camp spends their money on an attack ad that is based on a phonetic quirk rather than a Freudian slip-up, I think, that'd be a bad move.

Excellent points I would very much agree with every thing you said. And I agree it's obvious what she meant. I was just commenting that both sides are capable of gaffes.

On the ad, let's just agree to disagree.

Y'all crazy! All 4 presidents (who are alive), 2 republicans and 2 democrats are against Trump. I think that they know how to be a president and that a human like Donald is not acceptable.

Quote: Cayman012

Y'all crazy! All 4 presidents (who are alive), 2 republicans and 2 democrats are against Trump. I think that they know how to be a president and that a human like Donald is not acceptable.

This is not quite the metric that I would use. All 4 of them are biased for obvious reasons. They can't be counted on for an honest appraisal.

Having said that, both Trump and Clinton suck. Both are bad choices. Heaven help us all.

I have always been math challenged, but Hillary and Trumps the best either party could dig up, in a country of 318.9 million ?
What are the odds on that ?

Bo knows baseball, Trump knows Chapter 11.

For entity with small infrastructure and small number of affected people, “burning down the forest” to start over can provide quick solution. This “burning down the forest” approach is tantamount to the Chapter 11 reorganization and is only carried out as the last resort.

But for entity where a large population and huge infrastructures are involved, for instant the USA with a population about 320M people over a huge land mass with lots of infrastructures, your desired solution of “burning down the forest” is impractical, and if carried out, will make matters much worse.

Yes, there are big & serious problems within the government, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by burning down the forest. Using your cancer analogy, your solution will not only kill the cancerous cells, but it also kills the healthy organs. It is my observation that the unprecedented obstructions and the “my way or the highway” attitude carried out primarily by the GOP of the past 8 years did not result in meaningful change and made the cancer tumor bigger & more deadly.

If it takes us 32 years to build up this huge national debt, and other social/political problems, then don’t expect these problems can be solved in one election cycle. Change must be made, but it must be done gradually to avoid disastrous social disorder, and it requires sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all citizens and their representatives.

The rise in popularity of Trump and Sander could serve as a catalyst for many changes in within the GOP and DEM. It is a good start, but for any changes to materialize or to evolve into some compromised forms, it requires sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all citizens and their representatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/us/politics/as-trump-rises-reformocons-see-chance-to-update-gops-economic-views.html?_r=0

Trump, with his inexperience & lack of knowledge, his divisiveness, bad temper, authoritarian/dictatorial, my way or the highway, and childish behaviors are not suitable to be an agent of change where compromise and cooperation are absolutely necessary in a democracy. My fear is Trump will “burn down the forest” and nuke the world if given the power, and it is not the risk our nation should take.

Hillary on the other hand, despite her imperfection, has experience, knowledge and political skills, will be a good agent of change. But Hillary cannot do it alone, she needs sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all of us.

Let’s give Hillary a chance.

Neither of them deserve a chance. Trump is unstable and Hillary is a dumbass liar who probably doesn't even know what a computer is.

Quote: 777

Hillary on the other hand, despite her imperfection, has experience, knowledge and political skills, will be a good agent of change. But Hillary cannot do it alone, she needs sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all of us.

Let’s give Hillary a chance.

Agreed. I'm not optimistic that the obstructionist Congress will cooperate or compromise, at least not unless it changes hands in the coming election cycle.

Merrick Garland is sitting on a record 142 days without a confirmation vote and counting...

Quote: steeldco

Neither of them deserve a chance. Trump is unstable and Hillary is a dumbass liar who probably doesn't even know what a computer is.

As a matter of fact, I would rather start a write in campaign for Bozo. A dead clown would make for a far better candidate than either one of those two.

Quote: steeldco

Neither of them deserve a chance. Trump is unstable and Hillary is a dumbass liar who probably doesn't even know what a computer is.

Hillary might be many things, but dumbass is hardly one of them. That much will become eminently clear during the first debate.

Quote: MathExtremist

Hillary might be many things, but dumbass is hardly one of them. That much will become eminently clear during the first debate.

Will it?

It will be hard to debate if Trump chickens out and doesn't show up...

Quote: MathExtremist

Hillary might be many things, but dumbass is hardly one of them. That much will become eminently clear during the first debate.

She has already proven herself to be one. A debate isn't going to add to her IQ.

Quote: steeldco

She has already proven herself to be one. A debate isn't going to add to her IQ.

According to the Christian Post, her IQ is 140.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/iq-scores-of-famous-people-76779/

That puts her roughly in the top 0.5% for intelligence, about 1 in 200. Not quite a candidate for the Triple Nine Society, but certainly not a dumbass.

Quote: ams288

Will it?

It will be hard to debate if Trump chickens out and doesn't show up...

Oh, man. Does anyone have a line on that? Yes/no on "will Trump participate in the presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2016?"

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates

Quote: MathExtremist

Hillary might be many things, but dumbass is hardly one of them. That much will become eminently clear during the first debate.

Ordinarily I'd agree. Hillary plays a good game of chess but Trump kicks the board over. Not sure how they match up.

Quote: MathExtremist

According to the Christian Post, her IQ is 140.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/iq-scores-of-famous-people-76779/

That puts her roughly in the top 0.5% for intelligence, about 1 in 200. Not quite a candidate for the Triple Nine Society, but certainly not a dumbass.

I'll tell you that I'm up there but there are many times I find myself being absolutely, flat out, dumb. In Hilary's case, the test was either rigged (kind of in her nature to do something like that), or she takes dumb pills when she makes decisions.

Quote: MathExtremist

The last thing you are is stupid. Despair and stupidity are not on the same yardstick.

There is a pretty big difference of opinion on the ideal role of government in the life of society, and of society in the life of the individual.

On the one hand, you have "Don't tread on me / leave me the f**k alone." On the other hand you have the empirical knowledge that a group of individuals can, by working together, individually specialize but pool their talents and achieve greater things than any individual can by themselves. That's how families work, that's how villages work, and that's how corporations work. It's not an either/or decision, but at some point you have to discard "leave me the f**k alone" if you want to achieve anything beyond what you can do by yourself.

Destroying society puts everyone back to square one. We don't need to start over, and certainly not right now when most people already *have* specialized and cannot become generalists. Very few people are Bear Grylls. What we need is either a commitment or a de-commitment. You want to get out, fine, get out. You want to stay in, then get in all the way. The problem is the folks in the middle, who take from society but don't give back (or give enough) in return. And before you go down the path of "the poor on welfare" I would point out that the vast, vast majority of heavily red states are net takers of federal tax dollars. I live in a blue state, and my taxes tend to flow toward the red states. I'm okay with that because we're *supposed* to be in this together.

So if we're going to have a national conversation about changing anything, let's address the level of commitment to the American experiment. The American experiment was never about "leave me the f**k alone," it was about "instituting Governments among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (paraphrased from the Declaration of Independence.) If someone doesn't want to be here, they should stop being here. It's really that simple. There are millions of people willing to take their place.

Seriously, if this country is such a sh*thole, why do we have so many would-be immigrants clamoring to get in? Turns out, our grass really is greener. Maybe it needs a good landscaping, but the last thing we should do is turn it brown and dead by pissing all over it.

What you've done was wayyy oversimplify my stance into a throwaway statement of "Leave me the f#$% alone", to where my point has no value. I don't blame you; it's hard to see anything else when all I do is type "Leave me the F#$% alone" ;)

You seem to hold the stance that "A whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Noble, and I would completely agree, believe it or not. The point that I'm trying to make is that with better parts, you can achieve an even greater whole. And I think a focus on the individual is the way to accomplish that, hence "Leave me the f#$% alone".

I don't want to start from scratch. Despite my stance, which I describe a "libertanarchist", I argued plenty with rudeboyoi about anarchy and voluntarism. A society such as that could never exist, and you nailed several reasons why. But... let's take AZD's idea for an example. He described a "Sunset Clause" he wished for our laws to have. In short, laws would have an expiration date. After a certain point, they cease to be unless our legislators put it on the docket to renew. THAT is a perfect example of what I mean when I say "The old must die". One could argue that we have many laws, and having to renew them so often would mean nothing gets done. To that, I say Exactly! It would (hopefully) prevent laws being made for the sake of making laws. It would free ourselves of the "Was a good idea that went bad" policies, such as the War on Drugs and asset forfeiture / seizure. It would turn focus to laws genuinely about the greater good that are necessary for a productive and healthy society, and shed all the bulls#$% we've amassed over the centuries. Or so I envision.

But even that's not my main point. I do talk about destruction, specifically of .gov. I do it often, and usually with much emotion. But it's not... it's not America I want gone. What I'm really wanting is America back.

Back to the individual, what makes an individual great? I'm sure there's no universal recipe, but I can think of some things that are near universal. Hope. Opportunity. Perhaps most importantly, great leadership. I am a leader myself, and in instances I have been asked to lead and in an area that I have the ability to lead, I see what great leadership can do. I've seen a ragtag bunch of hick misfits dethrone inner city superstars. I've been lead by great leaders myself. I've bore witness to how powerful an experience it can be, and through no more effort or cost than simple hope and belief. Just as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and individual can become more than even he could ever imagine with great leadership.

Where is ours? You're a global warming guy. When one of your representatives, a man who you pay to work in our best interests, posits that wind farms = bad because wind is a finite resource and slowing it down will heat up the Earth, what is your reaction? If you just chuckle, you're a better Buddhist than I and I desperately need to spend some time with you. Me, I want to smash his face through the nearest wall. When I hear a lead sponsor in anti gun legislation say something as f#$%ing STUPID as "if you ban (hi-cap mags) in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available”, it's all I can do not to fly into a rage. I really do not care nor can I see how partisanism has a play in this. When you hear something as legit retarded as Guam tipping over due to an influx of soldiers, I do not know how you do not just lose it. Our country, our taxes, our leaders, these are the men and women who take our money and who are responsible for our future. And this is they product they give in return. Ha.

So, destroy? You're goddamned right. And please don't think some minor pockets of secluded ignorance is enough to push me into treason. Where in America can you do a job, have a 20%-30% approval rate, and keep your job? Even pointless, brainless grunt work that makes up most of my employment required success to be well over 90%. Some places even 95% would have you out on your ass before lunch. But these fools just carry on, getting 200+ days off and voting their own pay raises. Is that leadership? Is that how you motivate and inspire a people? Not for this guy. And it damn sure better not be for any of you.

And the worst... bartopbob there made a good point, though it was frighteningly shortened, limiting its value. Without stupid hick me, you and all your intelligence would stay useless on some hard drive. OK, fair. There's a lot to be proud of by having s#$% under your fingernails and an ache in your back, and I liked his point. But what he missed by a country mile is that without your precious little hard drive, s#$% under my fingernails would be all I ever had.

It really does take a village. Bigoted incestual hicks need the pinko commie fags, and vice versa. On this, there is no arguing. But look at us. LOOK AT US!! What do we do instead? We pick a side and declare the other the goddamned enemy. We decry the bias and favoritism of one side while exercising bias and favoritism in the very rant we aim at them. How many here view me as a registered Rep, GOP all the way, rifle in one hand and Bible in the other? How many view YOU as a pro-weed, pro-gay socialist? We jump to all these conclusions, we demonize those opposed to us, and aim to destroy the ways of life that don't mirror our own... and why?

I posit it's because that's been the example given to us by our leadership. Don't dare blame the media; if the media does nothing but spin conflict all day and night, it's your own idiot fault for being a sheep and following along. It is our leaders who have shown that saying one thing yet doing another is business as usual. It is our leaders who show us that it's the destruction of, not cooperation with, your opponent that is how you succeed. It is our leadership that has shown it is OK to be subpar. Hell, you might even get a raise and lifetime bennies for it!

So again, destroy? Would I push the button? No. I have a hammer, and I'd not rob myself the pleasure of dismantling this physically and personally.

This is MY flag...



I don't care that some extremist Teabaggers co-opted it for their cause. It means nothing to me that the Molon Labe crowd has adopted it as their own. This flag represents MY America, which is best explained by Franklin's comments on it...

Quote: Ben Franklin

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

This what I expect of our leaders. How they deal with foreign affairs, how they deal with the public they serve. I expect actions that in any way lean towards corruption to be met with serious inquiry and immediate termination if found even remotely true. I expect warmongering speech such as using the bomb at random to be met with furious opposition and that person removed from any dealings with foreign affairs post haste. I expect promises not made to be taken as failure of duty and that person terminated. You know, very basic concepts learned in 1st and 2nd grade. Instead, we defend the outrageousness because it's "our guy", vilify the oppositions because they're "the enemy", take no notice of failed policy and broken promises because "it is to be expected", and then sit stupified in wonder as we can't figure out why the house is burning down all around us.

That is not my America. And until people want to stand up and demand better, I want no part of this farce. Until we are ready to do the work and make the changes, leave me the f#$% alone =p

The 2 Vice-Presidential candidates are light years better than either of the 2 Presidential candidates. Maybe I can just hope that whoever gets elected, decides to resign.

Quote: steeldco

As a matter of fact, I would rather start a write in campaign for Bozo. A dead clown would make for a far better candidate than either one of those two.

I think we get it--you don't like them. Disliking Trump is kind of "well, duh," but I wonder why people dislike Hillary so much. This internet meme stuff about her being corrupt and crooked blah blah and in the pocket of Wall Street blah blah isn't supported by evidence. I KNOW many folks on both sides have vague itchy feelings about her. But when asked to name specifics, all they can do is squawk, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" and "Emails! Emails! Emails!" over and over (and over, and over, and over...)

In any event, steeldco, one thing she definitely is NOT is "dumbass." I think what you don't see is all the hard work she's done in her various functions and offices. That is never glamorous, and most people don't bother to find out about it. I think that if people were more intelligent, or at least smarter than rocks, they would value her hard work and experience. That is what matters when you're hiring somebody for a job. Not hiring Hillary because of some vague unsubstantiated feeling that she's dishonest is like not hiring a highly qualified candidate for a job because you don't like the color of his socks.

And yes, she has lied on occasion. So has everyone over the age of two. What's relevant is that she has never lied about her goals, worldview, and policies. If you don't like them uppity bitches taking over the world, well, then, you might dislike Hillary for that, as she's a fierce advocate for women's rights. I just wish conservatives would be honest and admit that the reason they don't like Hillary is that she's a woman. They've never up and said that they don't like Obama because he's black, but that's at the core of their dislike for him. For Obama, that dislike manifested itself in the birther nonsense. For Hillary, it's the squawking of the Benghazi/email parrots.

I never bought into the idea of the conservative opposition to Obama was racially motivated. Obviously, for some people in this country, yes, it is.

But Obama was overwhelmingly elected and had a very high approval rating when first getting into office. Doesn't that tell us that at least SOME of the conservatives that think he's the worst thing to happen to America NOW originally approved and were giving him a chance? Before Fox News, AM hate radio, and stupid Facebook memes brainwashed them?

My opinion, is that their opppostion to the President has been politically motivated from the beginning. The Bush Administration brought this country to it's knees, and with the Obama coalition bringing in millions of people voting for the first time, and with the rising demographic challenges the republican party was facing, the LAST thing the party could afford is for the democrats to come in and clean up (again). That would make two wildly successful democratic presidents in a row. Maybe the majority of America would catch on to the FACT that the democrats are just simply better at governing. There's 100 years of historical data to make that conclusion. The numbers don't lie.

So they came in and refused to hand Obama any legislative victories. Heck, they even abandoned their own championed ideas (chained CPI, lowering payroll taxes, raising retirement ages) in efforts to hold this country back. They made a calculation that this was their best shot at sniffing the WH in 2012 and now in 2016. What the republican party has done for the last 8 years is the epitome of party before country, and in my opinion, is borderline treason. They do not deserve the WH. Not. Even. Close.

When you're not anywhere near liberal enough for liberals, and the other party just make believe hates you, you're probably doing a pretty good job as POTUS. Obama has made mistakes. But this country has progressed under his leadership and the sad part about it is, it could've been so much better if we had just a smidgeon of cooperation. We're going to miss him.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

And yes, she has lied on occasion. So has everyone over the age of two. What's relevant is that she has never lied about her goals, worldview, and policies. If you don't like them uppity bitches taking over the world, well, then, you might dislike Hillary for that, as she's a fierce advocate for women's rights. I just wish conservatives would be honest and admit that the reason they don't like Hillary is that she's a woman. They've never up and said that they don't like Obama because he's black, but that's at the core of their dislike for him. For Obama, that dislike manifested itself in the birther nonsense. For Hillary, it's the squawking of the Benghazi/email parrots.

This is sad but true. If Hillary were a man, we'd be looking at a clean sweep, 538-0. Achieving a man's success in a man's world is something that a lot of "manly men" can't deal with when the success is achieved by a woman. If you slapped Hillary's CV on a male who was running for president instead, everyone would be crowing about how he were among the most qualified man ever to seek the position. But here we have 4 years of first lady, 4 years of SoS, 4 years of Federal senator, and somehow she's not qualified. Meanwhile Trump -- who has spent more time in bankruptcy than in public office -- is the right candidate? Give me a break.

Quote: Steverinos

My opinion, is that their opppostion to the President has been politically motivated from the beginning. The Bush Administration brought this country to it's knees, and with the Obama coalition bringing in millions of people voting for the first time, and with the rising demographic challenges the republican party was facing, the LAST thing the party could afford is for the democrats to come in and clean up (again). That would make two wildly successful democratic presidents in a row. Maybe the majority of America would catch on to the FACT that the democrats are just simply better at governing. There's 100 years of historical data to make that conclusion. The numbers don't lie.

I think what you're seeing is the culmination of the end of the GOP, and therefore to GOP obstructionism. It's not just Trump's campaign that's imploding, it's the party itself. First came the tea party, then the Trump supporters (who are different, and motivated differently) -- there's no way to be a big tent for those disparate interests. Many of those interests are in opposition. I put the odds at better than 50% of a schism and birth of a new party (or merger into an existing one.) I just can't see everyone ever getting on the same page again.

I think Hillary would do a much better job than her detractors think she will. I also think Trump would do exactly the kind of job his detractors think he will. Only one of those two candidates is actually known for working hard. Can you imagine Trump even putting in the hours? No? Well neither can he:

Quote: Adviser to John Kasich

But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=2

Quote: Face

That is not my America. And until people want to stand up and demand better, I want no part of this farce. Until we are ready to do the work and make the changes, leave me the f#$% alone =p

I think that conflating destruction with progress is a distortion at best. Sure, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are better places now than they were in early 1945. But I doubt that their inhabitants would say that the way that came about was worth it.

While that may be an extreme example, the conservative memes of "MY America" and "I want America back" (which I'm surprised, frankly, to hear you adopt) are thoughts along the same lines. There is no "my America"--if anyone owns the place, it is the body politic, not any one individual. And if you say you want America back, that implies that what exists now isn't America. These are flawed concepts at best, and just plain dumb at worst. In any event, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The changes to America are irreversible.

Is America perfect? No way. Is it exactly the way you or I or anyone else would like it? No way, with the possible exception of Mister Rogers. Do those things mean that we should tear it all down and start over? Do those things mean that what we should do is seek to retreat in time to some pinnacle moment during America's Golden Age, which corresponds, for conservatives, to when they were teenagers? They were strong and powerful and smart and got laid a lot then. Of COURSE they want that America back! But that is an individual, not a societal perspective. Women, minorities, LGBT people, and just about anyone else who isn't male and white might not view the time of Ward, June, Wally and the Beav as the apotheosis of America.

Yeah, you're pissed. We're all pissed. Things aren't the way we want them to be. However, just because I want something done differently doesn't mean ipso facto that it should be changed--and that goes for you, too. If we want something changed, we need to advocate for why that change is needed, and "because this annoys me" is not nearly a strong enough case for such change.

All that aside, I think we should concentrate on modifying attitudes rather than on specific policies. Republicans have for almost a hundred years said that any form of social progress would destroy America. The most recent such progress includes advancements in LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, plus voter rights very recently. Conservative attacks against these initiatives have always been couched in rhetoric that implies--or baldly states--that when we allow those inferior people to have rights, it's no longer the America they knew. Yes! Exactly! We don't WANT the old America, unless we're crazy.

Duff's idea actually has some marginal merit, but there are several fundamental things wrong with it. First is the political warfare that would accompany every law's time for renewal or repeal. The way the Republicans have behaved (reprehensibly) over the last eight years suggests that no laws would be renewed at all. Second, who would determine how long a given law should remain in effect? That would be an additional bone of contention, with each party seeking as long a time window as possible for legislation it likes and as short a window as possible for legislation it doesn't.

The real problem with having sunset laws, though, is that many laws are based on principles. Putting a time limit on a law's effectiveness weakens the premise by which that law was created. You don't craft legislation based on principles and then set a date where we will reconsider those principles. There was no time limit on the Thirteenth Amendment, because those who drafted it considered it to be based on fundamental values which would never go out of effect.

So if you don't like America, build a consensus and work to change it. Don't burn it down.
'

But Obama was overwhelmingly elected and had a very high approval rating when first getting into office. Doesn't that tell us that at least SOME of the conservatives that think he's the worst thing to happen to America NOW originally approved and were giving him a chance? Before Fox News, AM hate radio, and stupid Facebook memes brainwashed them?


What it tells me is that there are a lot fewer conservatives out there then they pretend. The Squeaky Wheel and all of that. Remember when they were going to bring a million people to Washington on September 11th? So few showed up that Faux News had to show video from a Spring time gathering.
Did anyone see today's poll of Millennials? Trump finished fourth in it, with Johnson a distant second.
The Republican Party, as it now stands, is in serious trouble.

Quote: MathExtremist

This is sad but true. If Hillary were a man, we'd be looking at a clean sweep, 538-0. .

While I think that's a factor, unfortunately Hillary has had more in common with John Kerry, McCain and Romney, than her husband, Obama or even Trump.

None of the first group generated any real excitement, not even with their core base. Even that old codger Bernie was able to generate more excitement. Even airhead Palin did it until eventually they couldn't hide her away any longer.

It's not Hillary's fault. It's just not who she is.

So. Today is the 71st anniversary of Hiroshima. Close your eyes for 5 seconds and picture looking up that morning and seeing fat man dropping from the sky onto your home, your family, your life. Then the flash, the sound, the devastation, the radiation burns, your proximity to ground zero determining whether you die in minutes or days. Maybe say a good word for those killed before you resume your day.

Ironic that anyone is considering using another nuke if they were President.No matter your politics, would you really argue that inflicting that on other humans, animals, or nations can be justified? I can't.

Yes, we need term limits in Congress. Recent events have shown that even approval ratings in the 9 to 19% range doesn't force them to work. So it needs to matter that they don't, and that seems the last option left.

It's important to recognize how our Constitution was written. It was meant to preserve individual freedom, not create a government. It's filled with things the government CAN'T do rather than what it can. That was on purpose.

Then legislators over the years have gummed it all up with laws, not restricting what the lawmakers or proposers can do, but what "others" can and cannot do. Nobody pushes a law to stop themselves from something; it's always about taking power, money, action from someone else. Doesn't mean all laws are bad, but many of them are outdated for any of many reasons; technology advances, changing cultural mores, unintended consequences, lack of funding enforcement, unenforceable, etc. So sunset clauses and periodic review seem like useful concepts.

I do think Hillary is being severely underrated by conservatives. She's not a charismatic personality; she gets things done out of the spotlight. Chances are, she'll be incredibly good at running things if people just leave her to do stuff in office, not constantly being pulled in front of microphones and cameras, not being attacked and defensive. Not having to plan every sentence in advance as she gets parsed, sliced, and diced for every word from "home baking cookies" in 1991 until, well, today.

Is there anyone in American history who's been reviled by so many for so long with so little reason? Yeah, she's unlikable. Yeah, she's made mistakes. Can we move on? There's a lot of common ground among all Americans. Could we start there? And build on that? Please? Hiroshima was a firestorm. Been there, done that. America doesn't need to be burned down; it needs to be recharged with hope, opportunity, and national teamwork.

Tired, so going to stop there for now. More to say.

Nazis + Hiroshima = Trump.

I get it, BBB, but no president ever just gets left alone. Maybe a long time ago, but not now. Just like the Bush family, the Clinton's come with baggage. The baggage may not be all the same, but both families have had positions of power for 20 years or more. Any subsequent advancement of the people in either family will be open to questioning about the entire family's history.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that Hillary has not not lied to us or that she has not been surrounded by controversy for almost the whole time the Clinton family has been nationally known. Not convicted of anything, of course, but even the total deniers (the "vast right-wing conspiracy folks) can't call er squeaky clean. There is a cost to that dirt--real and imagined (some of it is Trumped up). People will look for more. Where there is smoke, there is usual at least a small fire...to deny it is to lie to oneself.

Could she be a good leader? Perhaps. Thing is...she does not get to set the parameter of how it is done. She is going to have to answer the questions (the same each time and truthfully), hold press conferences, be open, speak clearly, etc. and perhaps she will regain some trust. Some will never like her; some will be able to trust her if she presents herself as trustworthy. Parsing words and lying about the emails--that cat is out of the bag--is not the answer.

She'll be under more scrutiny not because I say so or because it is right, but because she is a first. Being first at something is not always the easiest thing. never has been, and there is no pass on that for her.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Yes, we need term limits in Congress. Recent events have shown that even approval ratings in the 9 to 19% range doesn't force them to work. So it needs to matter that they don't, and that seems the last option left.

It's important to recognize how our Constitution was written. It was meant to preserve individual freedom, not create a government. It's filled with things the government CAN'T do rather than what it can. That was on purpose.

And it was also on purpose that there are NOT term limits for the House of Representatives. That's why the two year term. Essentially, the short term IS term limits. What is needed is an informed electorate.

NOT TERM LIMITS!

Quote: beachbumbabs

So. Today is the 71st anniversary of Hiroshima. Close your eyes for 5 seconds and picture looking up that morning and seeing fat man dropping from the sky onto your home, your family, your life.

I'm closing my eyes for 5 seconds and picturing the Japanese trying to surrender months before we dropped the bomb.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

But when asked to name specifics, all they can do is squawk, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" and "Emails! Emails! Emails!" over and over (and over, and over, and over...)

In any event, steeldco, one thing she definitely is NOT is "dumbass." I think what you don't see is all the hard work she's done in her various functions and offices. That is never glamorous, and most people don't bother to find out about it. I think that if people were more intelligent, or at least smarter than rocks, they would value her hard work and experience.
I just wish conservatives would be honest and admit that the reason they don't like Hillary is that she's a woman. They've never up and said that they don't like Obama because he's black, but that's at the core of their dislike for him.

You only hear Benghazi and emails.... There is whitewater, insider deals, pilfering, suppressing Bill's women, giant speaking fees .... But clearly she is very bright, and dumbass is the antithesis of her..... And I agree she is a hard worker. But you are 100% wrong on the woman thing..... SARAH PALIN was a darling of the conservatives, and she has two x chromosomes. And you are some % wrong on Obama, I think if it was Gore or Kerry (or Hillary!) we'd be disliking them as much. But of course there is a small subset that are just racist, but most Republicans/conservatives don't like him because of the trillions he added to the deficit, the ACA, etc....

Someone just wrote that if she was a he, it would be 538-0. If Trump was not in play, we likely would have a President Kasich, Rubio, or Bush up next.

Quote: bobbartop

I'm closing my eyes for 5 seconds and picturing the Japanese trying to surrender months before we dropped the bomb.

Open your eyes, call up Wikipedia, and look up the Potsdam Declaration and how the Japanese reacted to it. They didn't "try to surrender." For that matter, they didn't even "try to surrender" after we dropped the first one on Nagasaki--the ruling military was willing to gamble that we didn't have another one. Ironically, we didn't have a THIRD one after Nagasaki (yet), so they could have fought on.

The morality of what we did to end the war has been endlessly debated. You have to take things in context:

1. We had already incinerated Tokyo and most other Japanese cities. The casualty count was far higher, and the destruction arguably more complete, than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, the atomic bombs were really just more of the same. "Strategic bombing" and the mass slaughter of civilians was old hat by 1945, and we should keep in mind what the Japanese did to civilians in Nanking, Shanghai, and other cities. We didn't cross any moral boundary. While killing civilians from the air is awful, you have to realize that all sides in the war had considered it to be a legitimate tactic. War is horrible whether guns, nuclear weapons, or rocks and sticks are the weapons used.

2. As the bombs did force Japan to surrender, they were spared a Russian invasion and subsequent partition of the country. We allowed Japan to regain its sovereignty in 1954. The Russians released East Germany from captivity in 1989. How long would they have held on to, say Hokkaido and the northern half of Honshu, with the Russians and Americans glaring at each other across the "Tokyo Wall"? Don't forget, the Russians declared war on Japan in August 1945 and were already in the process of occupying Sakhalin.

3. Without the atomic bombs, the Allies would have had to invade the home islands. Casualties were expected to be three-quarters of a million or more, and civilian deaths as high as ten million. There was every indication that the Japanese, who still had plenty of guns, would defend their home islands with the same fanaticism we had just seen at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

There are also those who say we could have done something like tell the Japanese, "Watch this island" and then blown it up--the demonstration of the power of the new weapon might have been enough. Also, we could have simply bombed and starved Japan into submission without the atomic bomb or an invasion. But the Japanese resistance even when the situation was hopeless, and their response to the Potsdam Declaration, suggested that they might not surrender as long as the home islands were intact and the Emperor and government survived.

Yes, one can certainly imagine what it must have been like in Hiroshima that morning, thanks in part to John Hersey's excellent book. But one can also imagine what it must have been like in Nanking in 1936, or Warsaw in 1939 (and again in 1944), or Kharkov in 1942, or Berlin in 1945. To me, those are all tragedies that happen when people don't have any say in their own governance and a ruling kleptocracy comes to power. Fortunately for us, we have a system in place that limits the power of those in charge. That's why Bernie's and the OO's cries to destroy that system frighten me. I don't WANT to be a soldier in a conscripted army, wearing my mandatory orange wig, marching into Mecca or Beijing to slaughter the inhabitants.

We may at some point, as a species, view acts of war like Nanking, Warsaw, and Hiroshima as unthinkable. Are we there yet? No way. All those animals at Trump rallies screaming "KILL! KILL! KILL!" illustrate vividly that we're not.

Quote: SOOPOO

You only hear Benghazi and emails.... There is whitewater, insider deals, pilfering, suppressing Bill's women, giant speaking fees .... But clearly she is very bright, and dumbass is the antithesis of her..... And I agree she is a hard worker. But you are 100% wrong on the woman thing..... SARAH PALIN was a darling of the conservatives, and she has two x chromosomes. And you are some % wrong on Obama, I think if it was Gore or Kerry (or Hillary!) we'd be disliking them as much. But of course there is a small subset that are just racist, but most Republicans/conservatives don't like him because of the trillions he added to the deficit, the ACA, etc....

Someone just wrote that if she was a he, it would be 538-0. If Trump was not in play, we likely would have a President Kasich, Rubio, or Bush up next.

The Whitewater scandal was 20+ years ago, and the Clintons weren't found guilty of anything. Interesting note: the head of the FBI, who spearheaded the Benghazi/email investigation, was the chief prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation. Things like "insider deals and pilfering" are just speculation. "Suppressing Bill's women" ...? And earning really really big speaking fees isn't illegal last time I checked, not is it unique to Hillary--not by a long shot.

The nomination of Sarah Palin, the dumbest person in the universe, wasn't a choice of the Republican Party. In fact, they hated the idea (especially once she opened her mouth). But Presidential nominees can choose anyone they want as their running mate. The Republicans ducked behind a curtain and started retching once they realized that the horrible specter of a possible Palin presidency was going to cost them the White House in 2008. Far from her being a darling of the conservatives, they loathed her. But I don't think that the Republicans didn't want Moose Shooter Lady because she was a woman. I think they didn't want her because she was dumber than a bag of rocks.

You need to do some fact checking re what the economy was like when Obama took over vs. now. Also, some of us view the ACA as a strongly positive public good. I KNOW conservatives hate the idea of the unworthy, society's inferiors who should be hustled off to death camps, getting medical care. But you might feel differently if you were sick and couldn't get medical insurance.

I think that the upcoming electoral rout would be more of an actual contest if Kasich, Rubio or Bush were running against Hillary. However, I suspect that it still wouldn't be all that close. Conservatism is beginning to die out in this country, albeit slowly. Its core premises of xenophobia, bigotry, and fear just don't resonate with as many Americans as they used to. Fifty years ago, the cries of "Kill all the Licorice Jelly Bean people!!!" (I can't use the actual word here) wouldn't have sparked any sense of outrage. Now, people are genuinely disgusted by the Republican messages of hate. I think it's extremely telling that Trump's repeated spew has been criticized so weakly by so few Republicans. Deep down, they agree with him. Kill or at least deport all those inferior not-like-us people. That has almost orgasmic appeal to the mouth-breathers at Trump rallies and the millions of Republicans who watch them in rapt approval.

Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?

Quote: bobbartop

Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?

That's along the order of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. Even if what you say is 100% factual, what makes you think that an unidentified group of "highly placed Japanese officials" would have had the power or authority to actually negotiate a surrender? Japan was a military dictatorship, and they still held the home islands, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, some of the Philippines, Korea, and large portions of China. They weren't beaten yet, and whoever those vague officials were, they wouldn't have been able to convince the ruling military junta to hang it up.

Also, Roosevelt was absolutely correct in that MacArthur was ignoring world politics. Stalin wanted Eastern Europe as war booty, and the Allies weren't in any position to deny that to him. The most we could do was wring a few concessions from him, like promising to declare war on Japan (which he didn't do until long after Germany's surrender) and join the UN (which he only did once the USSR was promised to vote as FIVE separate countries in the General Assembly). We were looking at horrific casualties from having to invade Japan, and if we could get some Russian blood to be spilled instead of that of our soldiers, well, so be it, thought Roosevelt. At that time, we didn't know if the atomic bomb would even work.

It was actually considered to drop the bomb on an uninhabited island and invite the Japanese to watch. But would that have had any effect? They didn't surrender even after the Hiroshima bombing. They waited because they weren't sure if we had another one (we had ONE more). Would that have been the case after our hypothetical demo? MAYBE. In any event, such sensibilities weren't going to fly when the Japanese had already killed tens of millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Malaysians, etc. etc. etc., not to mention several hundred thousand British, Australian, and American soldiers, some dying in horrific prison camps and being subjected to medical torture. So would we have chosen the "humane option"? At that point, probably not. In fact, the Japanese and the Germans (the West Germans, at any rate) were probably lucky that we were the ones to defeat and occupy them. Other enemies, like the Russians and Chinese, would have wiped them off the map. So as awful as it sounds, the atomic bombings were probably the best of a number of pretty horrible alternate scenarios.

Quote: bobbartop

Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?

Care to share your source for this?
The quote you butchered is FDR saying,to MacArthur, "I believe you to be our greatest General, but our worst politician."
That's how it was on my world. I'm coming to believe you live in a world of your own making, where white supremacist thrive alongside manly men, while the rest of society sucks their blood like little ticks.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

That's along the order of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

History is written by the victors. As such, you'll rarely see an accurate portrayal of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower as the criminals that they really were.

Your "tinfoil" remark was enough, we're done. If I were dictator, I'd just have you banished to eastern Oregon.

Quote: billryan

I'm coming to believe you live in a world of your own making,

Yep, I do. Named after the ancient Greek god, Bartopia.

OOOPs Sorry Was looking for the 2016 tread, my bad.