Nonsense Vs Common Sense

Some years ago I used to comment on a particular blog – I eventually stopped because the owner of the blog got mad at a comment I made and put me on a sort of suspension…which I wasn’t about to put up with, so I just stopped going there. The issue at hand was that in a discussion of the French Revolution, I had pointed out that a great deal of what brought it about was not so much a desire for liberté, égalité, fraternité but, instead, a desire on the part of French bankers to get repaid for loans they had made to the government. Trouble was, the government really didn’t have the money to repay…but sitting just over there, helping to prop up the overall government and social system of France, was the French Catholic Church, owning at least 10% of all wealth in France. Too big a target to pass up – but getting that money required a major change in how France was governed.

To be sure, there were a lot of things needing deep reform in French government – and this was readily conceded by just about everyone from the King on down…and so the calling of the états généraux precisely to get reform done. But the King felt he could not alter the fundamental structure of French society – which included the French Church being largely outside the control of the government and continuing to possess it’s wealth and property. In the end, no one was going to go to the barricades under a slogan to despoil the Church so that the bankers could get repaid – and, so, liberté, égalité, fraternité. All quickly hijacked by people like Robespierre who did have definite ideas of what they wanted – even if a lot of people had to be killed to get there. As it was, the people of France didn’t really want that, either…but they got both (despoiled Church and guillotines); mostly because someone who wasn’t The People (experts, as it were) decided it should be so. At all events, by speaking the apparent heresy that it wasn’t, perhaps, just a spontaneous revolt of the people, I got into trouble. I had, it would seem, questioned the wisdom of experts on the matter. I don’t know what makes a person an expert on the French Revolution – after all, the only thing we can do is read about it and then decide for ourselves what it all meant. I had read about it for a long, long time from a wide variety of sources and it just suddenly struck me one day that in addition to helping to finance the Parisian mobs, the bankers were quick to get the National Assembly to nationalize Church property and pass the cash along to the bankers.

I bring this up because over the course of this year I’ve been hearing again and again that the problem with the Trumpsters is that they simply don’t know what they are talking about. They don’t realize that easy immigration and free trade are good for America. They don’t realize that their little communities are doomed and so they’ll just have to suck it up, move away and find something else to do. They don’t realize, most importantly, that those who have expertise simply know better and thus they should just accept leadership from the experts. I’d like to point out at this juncture that the experts have one thing in common pretty much across all human societies – they are almost invariably wrong when they step outside their area of expertise.

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of common sense. – Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess Salisbury, Prime Minister of Great Britain

Experts do have their place. When I want a tooth out, I go to a dentist – an expert in removing teeth. When I want the sink fixed, I go to a plumber – an expert in plumbing. If I want a war fought, I go to a general – an expert in moving men and material around. If I want to decide whether or not I should go to the dentist, get a plumber or fight a war, then I go to myself. I think it over and make the decision that appears best to me. I’d no more allow someone to decide for me how I should view such matters than I’d allow someone to decide for me if I should get married.

The trouble with our experts is that they presume their expertise in a narrow field means they have a general expertise applying to all facets of human life. A really good example is Noam Chomsky, winner of the Nobel Prize in Linguistics. Clearly a brilliant man (though some of his ideas have come into question of late). If I wanted some advice on linguistics, I’d be at the man’s feet, waiting for his wisdom. But Chomsky doesn’t seem to do much in linguistics of late – but he does seem to spend a great deal of time commenting on every subject under the sun. That, itself, wouldn’t be a bad thing, but we are told we are to hold his views on non-linguistic matters in awe because he’s a brilliant linguist. Sorry, ain’t happening. At least not as far as I’m concerned. His views on foreign policy are no better than mine – Nobel Prize notwithstanding. If he says something on that subject, I’ll listen to it and give it as much consideration as any other view…and if it doesn’t fit in with what I believe to be correct, I’ll discard his views.

And here’s the kicker – you really can’t get expertise on things which are not of some sort of mechanic art. Once again, we know a good dentist because the actions of his dentistry have good results. No matter how many degrees a person has in economics, foreign policy, etc. we can’t be sure that the person has got it right – even if it appears right for a while, later events still might falsify his views and actions. You can’t falsify the fact that after the drilling and filling my cavity is cured. Well educated, brave, dedicated and experienced commanders still managed to allow the Battle of the Bulge to happen. Because even being an expert soldier is not the same as being an expert dentist. It isn’t purely mechanical – it is something subject to an unlimited number of variables which cannot all be foreseen even in the best of circumstances. To flat out assert to me, for instance, that free trade is always a good thing is to assert impossible knowledge – you can’t possibly know all the variables involved and thus while these three free trade deals worked out just fine, the fourth one might be an utter disaster.

Other than mechanic arts, each thing has to be taken or rejected on it’s apparent merits or demerits. And in deciding if it’s good or bad, the yokel in a barbecue joint in Akron might be right while the professor in the Ivy League is wrong. The only difference is that, hopefully, the professor has some additional knowledge to provide which might help the yokel make a better decision…but the yokel must be consulted and must participate in the decision-making process. To exclude him on the grounds that he lacks specialized knowledge is to pretty much ensure that the wrong decisions will be made – because the decision will be made without that “very large admixture of common sense”. At the end of the day, additionally, it is better to go with the yokel’s views than the expert’s because yokel has at least a shot at understanding how the decision might effect him and those like him…the common run of humanity who ultimately pay all the bills – in blood and treasure – for a nation’s decisions. This is especially true as the professor, in his rarefied atmosphere, might have got his head stuffed with a lot of nonsense…for instance, he might have a Marxist view of things, and this would pretty much ensure that anything he believes is at 180 degrees variance from reality (how a guy who never worked a day in his life gets to be the arbiter of what working people want is just beyond my understanding).

The revolt of the Trumpsters – and the revolt of the BLMers – is not a revolt of the stupid against the smart, but of common sense against nonsense. It is people who, while inarticulate and uninformed on many matters (and thus getting some things wrong), yet understand that what is happening to them in their daily lives just isn’t right. To try and tell them that things will get right if they just shut up and do as they’re told is probably not going to move them. In fact, it will probably just make them more angry.

We do live in an age of experts – set up that way by experts. It all started, really, back during the Woodrow Wilson Administration but didn’t get set in stone until FDR…when the government proposed to manage the economy for the benefit of all. Experts would do it – people who had gone to college and got degrees in economics and such would take over and make sure things worked. That they failed utterly didn’t seem to dismay them, at all. They lucked out – World War Two happened and then the post-WWII population boom, which allowed for a massive increase in global wealth which made it appear that the experts were on to something. Vietnam started to disabuse people of this notion – that was the experts war from start to finish. They were going to manage that war so that we’d get victory quickly and on the cheap and without having to disturb people in their daily lives here at home. It didn’t work out that way and the first doubts among regular folks appeared…but so embedded in power were the experts that they’ve managed to keep it going, now apparently joined even by some on the right who also got college degrees and a growing mistrust of the people.

It is a mistrust I don’t share. I don’t dislike the unwashed masses. Even when I hear what are massively mis-informed views being expressed, I’m not dismayed. The Trumpsters and the BLMers get some things very wrong. I don’t think the way to deal with this is to read them out of the community of people. They are our people, folks – our fellow Americans. And they have a right to speak their minds, and we have a responsibility to listen to them. And I think by listening to them we might find that we, ourselves, are corrected. This nation is in a gigantic mess – it took us more than 100 years to get into this mess and all of us bear some responsibility for making the mess. It will take the efforts of all of us to get us out of the mess…and anyone who is absolutely dismissive of others simply won’t be able to participate. Even the most obtuse – whether a Marxist professor or a pub-patriot – must be allowed to participate. It is the only way we can do this. But one very necessary step will be for the “experts” to climb off their high horse and start listening…once a bit of listening has gone on, then there will be a better ability to explain to those who do know less, and perhaps do need some guidance to the correct path.

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “Nonsense Vs Common Sense

  1. Amazona October 25, 2016 / 1:14 am

    Sorry, but I just don’t agree with your take on the Trumpsters. At least I haven’t heard anyone say they are stupid because of what is important to them. I’ve been highly critical of the hard-core Trumpsters, and I happen to share most if not all of their concerns. For example, I am much more of a hard-liner on illegal immigration than you, Mark, and many others. I’m just smart enough to know that (1) it is impossible to just deport all of them (2) it is not desirable to just deport all of them and (3) talking about this is so divisive it will only hurt anyone who is associated with the stupid idea in the first place.

    My complaint about the Trumpsters is not what they believe or what they want, but their conviction, which I have always admitted is completely incomprehensible to me, that Donald Trump is the best way to accomplish what they want. It is that they simply dismissed concerns about his electability, saying in so many words that if they, themselves, didn’t care about his sordid past then that past simply did not matter and would not, could not, cause him to lose the election.

    You say “The Trumpsters and the BLMers get some things very wrong. I don’t think the way to deal with this is to read them out of the community of people. They are our people, folks – our fellow Americans. And they have a right to speak their minds, and we have a responsibility to listen to them.”

    First, the ones who have not been listened to, regarding Trump, are those of us who took the time to look at him objectively, study him and his past, and make decisions not about his basic messages but about how likely it was that he could overcome that past to get elected. We constantly get these condescending lectures about how we just don’t UNDERSTAND this or that or the other about what motivates Trumpsters. Bull. I understand exactly what motivates them. It is what motivates ME. So spare me a lecture about how I should “listen to” Trumpsters. It’s starting to look a lot more like they should listen to me, and people like me. It has been the Trumpsters who have refused to listen to anyone who tried to point out that there were other people out there with much the same agenda and much the same messages, but without the radioactive baggage. Our voices were ignored, outshouted, and then at the convention they were silenced. I watched an entire party blindsided and hijacked, tiptoeing around in fear that if the precious Trumpsters didn’t get their own way they would sabotage the whole election out of spite. I’ve been watching an entire party and an entire movement smeared by implications that Trump’s vulgarity, immorality and shady business ethics represents us. After all, he’s our nominee, right?

    What people don’t seem to get is that resentment of Trumpsters has absolutely NOTHING to do with some failure to get it, some inability to understand them and their frustrations and their angst, boo hoo hoo. Bull. No, it’s the bully-boy tactics and the recklessness and the arrogance that are behind a certain level of disgust with them. So it seems to me that we don’t need any more lectures on how we should LISTEN TO, and then try to UNDERSTAND, them. They have had their way, and it has created conflict and stress and quite likely a failure with consequences that will be played out for decades. So, having proved that they were wrong and we were right, it’s time to lecture THEM about doing some listening for a change.

    The way I see it, if we are just starting out, I should listen to you and you should listen to me. But when one side is proven wrong, there isn’t much reason to keep listening to it, especially when all it can say is how I just don’t understand how they feel. It’s not rocket science, folks. We’re not stupid. We live in the same country, with the same problems. We can read, we can hear, we can think. When some people became so convinced that they, and only they, could grasp the obvious it quickly became very annoying. I am so tired of having Trumpsters EXPLAINED to me, and now I am being told I should “listen to them”?

    “The revolt of the Trumpsters – and the revolt of the BLMers – is not a revolt of the stupid against the smart, but of common sense against nonsense. “ This makes no sense to me. The only “revolt” I saw in the Trump hysteria was a stampede toward demagoguery, and to call it a “revolt” gives it far more status than it deserves. These people didn’t “revolt” against anything. They had vague feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction and they latched onto the first talking head that appealed to those emotions. Hardly a “revolt”. And the whole BLM thing is the farthest thing from a revolution. It is a temper tantrum. A true revolution has a new idea to replace a bad old idea, and is more than a mob blindly striking out. “Common sense against nonsense”? Well, if you can see common sense in the whole Trump movement, or the BLM thugs, you see a lot that I don’t. To me, both defy common sense. What I see is poorly thought out spasms of blind knee-jerk reactions to poorly understood irritants, making the problems worse instead of better. Hardly how I would define “common sense”.

    I’m willing to put this behind me and move on. I’m not committed to beating up Trumpsters. But I do think they need to step back and look at what led them down their own little garden path, and evaluate where they went wrong. And where they went wrong is not in what they wanted, what was important to them. It was their inability or refusal to see the big picture, to see the negatives because they were so blinded by whatever it was that got them thrilled about Trump in the first place.

    As for the BLM, I have listened, and not heard a word that makes sense or goes beyond blind surly hatred and resentment and carefully nurtured victimhood. Interesting that you think they only get SOME things wrong. I usually give some radical group at least a little credit for decent motives even when their methods suck, but as far as I can see the motives of BLM are completely toxic, vicious, violent and dangerous. It’s kind of like being told we should have been kinder and more open to the frustrations of the brownshirts on Kristallnacht. What is there to “listen to” when someone wears a T shirt that says “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”? Listen to him explain that he is too hate-driven, or too blind or just too stupid to bother to find out the truth about something, and instead has chosen to feed his bigotry?

    I did listen, to poor bewildered Brandon Marshall of the Broncos, trying to explain that he won’t stand for the national anthem because it is just so hard to be a minority and people need to know how hard it is to be a minority. I listened to him, and decided he was dumb as dirt. Now if he had talked about how hard it is to be part of a minority that has chosen to have 70% of its children born out of wedlock, has chosen to be associated with violence and mayhem and dependence and illiteracy and victimhood, and said his goal is to change his culture for the better, I would have had some respect for him. But just whining about how hard it is to be a minority? Garbage.

    • M. Noonan October 25, 2016 / 1:58 am

      The common sense is the correct sense that the whole, “with liberty and justice for all” just isn’t happening. It happens very noticeably for us on the right when Hillary is allowed to skate when everyone can see she should be indicted…but it also happens, less noticeably for us, when a kid is sent to jail for a crime that had he committed it as an upper class kid, he would have got probation. Things just aren’t working right – and people sense this. Now, their reaction to it can often manifest itself in rather bizarre ways…but the reaction is to the injustice. The leadership of both parties hasn’t been admitting to the problems…and so we got Trump. The Democrats got Hillary only because they simply fixed things up so there could be no other outcome…and a lot of Progressives are still quite steaming about that.

      People can perceive very swiftly when things aren’t right – especially when things aren’t equitable. The American people has always desired a sort of rough equality between all. No special privileges…getting rich isn’t a problem, but being protected from mistakes because of wealth and influence is seen and abhorred. Small wonder, though, that some fall for anti-rich propaganda…if all you see is the rich and powerful getting a free ride because of wealth and power, it provides a fertile ground for class warfare agitators. My view is that what is required of us is to go and listen to the people who are angry – show that we actually give a darn about whether they live or die. Then they’ll be ready to listen to us when we suggest a course of action.

      • Amazona October 25, 2016 / 11:10 am

        Well, I don’t think just being angry excuses everything. There are consequences, even to righteous anger, if it is not coupled with common sense. Anger, even righteous anger, is only the first step, and it has to be followed by thought, consideration of factors, and solutions. Plain old temper tantrum anger doesn’t call for a whole lot of respect. And anger based on the ugliness of racism deserves no respect at all.

        The Trump Phenomenon might have been an emotionally gratifying “Up Yours!” response to feeling ignored, but it was shortsighted and foolish because it didn’t go beyond that level. Besides, I am talking about being told I should, I must, LISTEN to these Trump people. I am saying I not only have been, I have simply rejected 90% of their rationale for making the decisions they did. That doesn’t mean I’m not listening, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean I don’t understand. I do understand and I am sick and tired of this condescending tone of the lecture on why, if I only give it some thought and listen to what they have to say I will then, finally, overcome my ignorance and UNDERSTAND where they are coming from.

        And then what? Then I will suddenly, miraculously, see the wisdom in nominating a man with such a distasteful past haunting him, with such a sordid history of behaviors ranging from serial adultery to unethical business practices to public declarations of vulgarity that exposing it and focusing on it is likely to disgust more than half of the voters in the country? That I will suddenly, miraculously, see the wisdom in nominating a man whose ego will simply not let him take responsibility for his actions, admit he was wrong, and move on, but who is driven to defend everything he has said and done?

        Why are we still pretending that the problem is that not enough people understand, identify with, commiserate with, agree with, COMPREHEND the emotional component of Trumpism? Haven’t we covered that enough? It’s been explained, dissected, explained again, explained some more, examined in detail and then explained again. Enough already. So now isn’t it time for some other explaining, such as the conviction that none of the ugliness of Trump would make a difference?

        I get the appeal of retreating into the position of “It’s not that I am wrong, it’s just that you don’t understand why I am right”. It’s a lot more appealing that taking responsibility for being wrong, looking into yourself to see where you went wrong and why, and figuring out how to avoid doing it again. It’s really just another form of victimhood, the poor misunderstood Trumpist completely skipping over the core of the matter, which is that the man has a long and sordid history that would keep him from pretty much any position where he doesn’t already own the company or be in a position to buy it and which any reasonable person could see would be a possibly insurmountable obstacle to his being elected.

        The reasons for liking what Trump has to say? I DON’T CARE

        If you want to pare it down to its most basic core level, it comes down to a final, lethal, decision made for the flimsiest and most petty of reasons: (1) The other guy who represents the same basic message that Trump does is a politician and I have decided I don’t want a politician handling politics. (2) I don’t like the way Cruz looks.

        They did have every right to make those decisions, and after seeing the dire predictions about the foolishness of those decisions being proved accurate I have every right to think they were very very woefully and dangerously wrong. And none of the pious lectures on how I just need to try to UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAND !!!!!! are worth a whit unless someone finally comes up with something new instead of the same old same old.

        Ditto for listening to people who are angry. It’s not as if we don’t understand why people are angry. We really don’t need to spend years of agonizing contemplation to understand why, and we really don’t need any lectures on how we just don’t UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAND ! Yeah, we do. We get it. It, whatever “it” may be, is a problem. A serious problem. Got it. Need to go over it again in case I don’t really get it? Fine, go over it again. But for God’s sake at some point we need to get past the conviction that the problem is that people don’t understand the problem, and start working on the problem itself.

        With BLM this is not going to happen, because the core problems in the black community are only solvable by the black community. And the black community doesn’t want to look at itself and the role its bigotry has played in creating what they are howling about right now.

    • Retired Spook October 25, 2016 / 12:06 pm

      It’s funny, and yet it’s not, if you know what I mean. I’m not sure I would have the patience or composure to deal with it the way he did.

  2. satakar October 25, 2016 / 4:32 pm

    Amazona,

    we can continue our discussion here. for some reason the post I made in response to you was posted in a weird format. it’s still there, so if you want to pick up where I left off there, I am ok with that.

  3. rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 4:34 pm

    Strange, I tried posting something but it didn’t take. Any ideas moderators?

    YOUR COMMENT GOT MARKED AS SPAM — NOT SURE WHY. IT’S BEEN RESTORED//MODERATOR

    WELL, I TRIED TO RESTORE IT – TWICE. IT JUST DISAPPEARED INTO CYBER SPACE. SORRY.//MODERATOR

    • rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 6:21 pm

      No problem.

  4. rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 5:02 pm

    Mark,

    Nice post but I’m with Ama on this one, Trumpsters and BLM should not be mentioned in the same sentence. One has legitimate concerns, the other thinks that the police wake up every morning and plan their day around how many blacks they can kill. Have you looked at the stated demands of BLM? It’s embarrassing. To compare that kind of incoherence and innumeracy with Trump supporters is flat out wrong.

    • satakar October 25, 2016 / 5:26 pm

      Rusty,

      I was asking you a question earlier, but it was scattered and now I will pose it again. I am wondering how you went from a democrat, or liberal, to a trump supporter. I am curious to know what made you switch, that didn’t make you switch all these previous years.

      • rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 5:40 pm

        Hi Satakar,

        Here, I’ll post this again without the link, maybe that will work. The link had a reference to a naughty word so maybe a filter flagged it.

        I kind of went over this a while ago when I started posting here again and you can read my conversion reasonings fleshed out a bit in the posts, “Barack Obama and the History Books” from Sept. 5th and “Weekend Open Thread” from Sept. 16th (among others), but the main things that attract me to Trump are his strong “America First” stances on immigration, foreign relations, and trade. I also see him as the safer candidate when it comes to costly foreign wars as Hillary has a lamentable track record in that regard. The animosity between Clinton and Putin should not be overlooked. And the fact that Trump’s an outsider who’s despised by virtually all of the elite ruling class is immensely appealing to me. I am also appalled by the cultural Marxism that’s overtaking this country, from the idiotic racism of BLM to the endless sjw shenanigans being played out in our colleges. The ethnomasochism and self-flagelating white guilt expressed by “good whites” is embarrassing and stupid and obviously a Trump administration would go a long way in righting that ship.

        Mostly, I see this election as less about right and left than right and wrong. Anybody who’s paid a lick of attention to the royal screwing your average American has had to endure over the last several decades by both parties should be taking a very close look at Donald Trump; he represents a major change from business as usual.

      • M. Noonan October 25, 2016 / 6:30 pm

        Our new friend Satakar is, of course, a Progressive – and he honestly states what he thinks is best, and that is admirable. He wants what he wants, he puts it out there and fights for his cause. Good.

        What I don’t get is non-Progressives this year – taking all things bad about Trump into consideration, the bottom line is that if one is non-Progressive there is only one option: voting for Trump. Sure, McMullin and Johnson might be better on this or that point, but neither of them can win. The only way a non-Progressive can have any effect on American politics is to vote for the one non-Progressive candidate running with a chance to win (who does, of course, have some Progressive coloration to his views…but his overall plan is distinctly non-Progressive).

        We are very much letting the perfect be the enemy of the good – and we can take some instruction from Satakar here. I’m betting there is some dismay over Clinton’s crony-Capitalism; her association with decidedly non-Progressive elements in the United States and around the world…perhaps even some dislike over her dishonesty. But, into the breech – if you want to have any sort of Progressive policy in 2017, there’s only one vote to cast: for Hillary. Warts and all, she’s going to advance the Progressive ball. What matters a few special deals for the Banksters and Big Corporation if that is done? Progressives view this as a long process – eventually, in their view, the Banksters get what’s coming to them…and if you can use the Banksters in the meanwhile, so much the better. We sit over here demanding absolute purity – and the Trumpsters are guilty of this, as well, in their steadfast opposition to amnesty…but, still and all, most Trumpsters I’ve come across do take exception to this or that aspect of Trump…but they are willing to give it a go because he at least represents the chance of some things moving their direction.

      • rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 5:51 pm

        I guess I should also mention that Clinton is a horrible person who represents the most damaging, loathsome aspects of our political system. I used to like her but I think she’s gotten much worse over the years. I’m sure there’s a painting of her in an attic somewhere that looks more like the Wicked Witch of the West every passing day.

      • rustybrown2014 October 25, 2016 / 9:46 pm

        “We sit over here demanding absolute purity – and the Trumpsters are guilty of this, as well, in their steadfast opposition to amnesty…but, still and all, most Trumpsters I’ve come across do take exception to this or that aspect of Trump…but they are willing to give it a go because he at least represents the chance of some things moving their direction.”

        Absolutely, isn’t that what it’s all about? What grownup thinks their candidate is going to be successful enacting 100% of their policies? Who really thinks Trump is going to deport the eleven million, down to the last child? Hell, Trump has indicated that he wouldn’t deport productive, law abiding families who’ve been here for a decade or two. And he’s right, of course we’re not going to kick those cases out. As you say, it’s all about moving the ball down the field.

        What’s striking to me is how uninformed Hillary supporters are. I’ve been in several conversations where it’s obvious they’ve swallowed the media propaganda on Trump and it’s easy to catch them completely wrong on points of fact. They are very committed to the script; progressivism has become like a religion.

      • satakar October 25, 2016 / 11:22 pm

        Rusty,

        Wait a second, you claim to not care about the personality of Trump, just his nationalism, america first stance…and yet you don’t like Clinton because of her personality? Odd.

      • satakar October 25, 2016 / 11:24 pm

        Rusty, I am just curious, you said Hillary supporters, or Democrats are uninformed. Exactly what subjects did you discuss where you found them to be uninformed?

        “What’s striking to me is how uninformed Hillary supporters are. I’ve been in several conversations where it’s obvious they’ve swallowed the media propaganda on Trump and it’s easy to catch them completely wrong on points of fact. They are very committed to the script; progressivism has become like a religion.”

        What facts have they been wrong on? If we could, I will set the record straight with regards to any questions you may have.

      • M. Noonan October 26, 2016 / 1:08 am

        Well, Obamacare, for instance – we said we shouldn’t be passing a 10,000 page law that no one had read…now that it’s in place, it is proving to be entirely unworkable. Even if, as everyone expects, Hillary wins then the whole thing will have to be taken apart next year and completely redone. If Hillary is in, this won’t be called a repeal of Obamacare but that is what it will be…repeal and replace isn’t just a GOP talking point, it is the only way to go.

        One can hold the view that we never should have gone into Iraq, but it was GOPers who were saying that we couldn’t quickly withdraw from Iraq…Obama and the Progressives, merely to have a 2012 talking point, pulled out and left a power vacuum which was filled with all sorts of bad actors, just as everyone non-Progressive said would happen.

        We also said that Russia was an emerging geo-strategic threat – and got ridiculed by Progressives for saying that.

        We advised that far from encouraging liberalization, normalization of relations with Cuba would merely encourage the Cuban government to get more repressive, and this has happened.

        On and on it goes – Progressives are wrong, we’re right.

      • Amazona October 25, 2016 / 11:29 pm

        And here we run into yet another of our many problems. What is “amnesty”?

        The word actually means the waiver of a penalty, and if we go with that I am in favor of amnesty. I think immigration reform will go forward a lot more smoothly if we can drop the idea that illegal immigrants have to pay a fine, or automatically be deported. So with that meaning, I am pragmatic and compassionate and realistic, and think we should not only grant amnesty, we should make a big deal out of it. Republicans should OWN the word.

        However, it gets muddled up with offering citizenship, which is not amnesty for breaking the law, it is a reward for breaking the law. I think here is where we run into some problems. I am one who believes that no one who came here illegally should ever be allowed to be a citizen. For one thing, the people who love and respect our country enough to put citizenship high on their list of priorities came here legally in the first place, so I don’t think being denied something they clearly never valued very much anyway is that much of a big deal for them. For another, to just hand out citizenship to people who have done nothing to earn it is a slap in the face to every person who went through the process, paid the price and showed respect for us and our laws. It would be the United States of America jeering at these people and yelling “So you thought you had to follow the rules? Wrong, SUCKAH!!” And finally, it is just insane to give out a prize for breaking the law.

        So, because the word “amnesty” is not well understood, it basically has no meaning, and is tossed around way too casually.

      • Amazona October 25, 2016 / 11:49 pm

        At the risk of getting Satakar’s panties in a twist again, I would like to point out that I did not read anything of Rusty’s that referred to Hillary’s personality. Or Trump’s, for that matter. What did I miss?

        A couple of Clinton lies about Trump:

        That when he said Mexico was sending us its rapists he really said that Mexicans ARE rapists.

        That when he talked about the incontrovertible fact that when a woman throws herself at a man and makes herself sexually available to him because of his status the man can basically “do anything” and she won’t care, he was really talking about treating all women the way he described and not just groupies, buckle bunnies or, to put it bluntly, prostitutes.

      • Amazona October 25, 2016 / 11:50 pm

        Satakar, do you think you are fully informed about Hillary Clinton?

      • Amazona October 25, 2016 / 11:54 pm

        Yes, Trump does “…represent(s) the chance of some things moving their direction.” Agreed.

        The disagreement with Trumpsters is their zealous conviction that he was the only one with those ideas.

      • satakar October 26, 2016 / 12:00 am

        Amazona,

        I do. More importantly, I agree with her policies. I agree with the direction she wants to take the nation. I agree with her on a majority of issues.

        On the other hand, I don’t agree with Donald Trump’s positions on any issues, or his idea on how to run the nation.

        It’s really that simple.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:08 am

        So Hillary’s series of blunders in Libya, resulting in arming Al Queda with American weapons intended to overthrow the leader of another country, don’t make you question her competence?

        So her decision to send Chris Stevens in to try to recover at least some of those arms (including a cache of Stinger missiles, one of which was used to bring down a U.S. helicopter) doesn’t make you question her honesty?

        So her abandonment of Stevens and the men trying to protect him and other Americans, resulting i the deaths of four brave Americans, doesn’t bother you?

        So her repeated lying about this event, to the American public and the families of those who died, does not make you distrust her?

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:19 am

        Without looking it up, can you name a single one of the 60+ people killed at foreign embassies during George W. Bush’s two terms? Can you explain why all of them are apparently less important than Chris Stevens?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:23 am

        Hillary Clinton engaged in a premeditated effort to stymie access to her communications as Secretary of State by going nearly 2000 miles from Washington DC to find an email server, had it set up and administered by a man who had no security clearance whatsoever, and continued to use this server for highly sensitive government business. Does this make you question her integrity? Or her competence?

        This action showed the intent to hide her communications, which, when linked to her activities as Secretary of State show an intent to use her position of trust and authority for personal gain. Intent and premeditation are the two most important elements when determining the severity of a crime. Do you find this premeditated intent to hide her activities disturbing? How about the actions themselves, the trading of American influence for profit? Does that bother you? Would it bother you even if she had not put national security at risk to try to hide it?

        This action made vast numbers of documents and communications among government officials and heads of state, among other entities, many of which were intended to be secure and even classified, easily accessible to hackers, proved by the existence of these emails in the hands of others. Does this level of reckless disregard for national security bother you when you think of her in a position of even more power and authority?

        Do you find these actions to be those of a competent person?

        Hillary Clinton lied repeatedly, under oath, to Congress and the FBI about her email server, its purpose, and other aspects of the situation. Do you find this lack of honesty something that should disqualify her for the position of leader of the nation?

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:25 am

        The Clinton Foundation certainly seems shady. In an election where there wasn’t an obvious comparison to make to the Trump Foundation, it probably would be a reason to be leery of voting for Clinton.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:27 am

        Without looking it up, can you name a single one of the 60+ people killed at foreign embassies during George W. Bush’s two terms? Can you explain why all of them are apparently less important than Chris Stevens?

        How many of them were killed while being sent into harm’s way in an effort to cover up illegal activities by a Secretary of State?

        Seriously, though—is that how you guys are going to excuse the depravity of sending people into danger and then abandoning them because of a frantic desire to keep the whole mess under the radar? That it really doesn’t mean any more than other people killed by terrorists?

        Boy—-“depravity” is the only word to describe this kind of vile effort to whitewash an inexcusable and craven dereliction of duty and decency. You do illustrate what kind of person it takes to be a Hillary defender, though.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:31 am

        “How many of them were killed while being sent into harm’s way in an effort to cover up illegal activities by a Secretary of State?”

        I don’t know, but Chris Stevens certainly wasn’t.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:31 am

        The Clinton Foundation certainly seems shady. In an election where there wasn’t an obvious comparison to make to the Trump Foundation, it probably would be a reason to be leery of voting for Clinton.

        But in a Leftist world where morality and decency are always relative, I suppose you can find some reason in this nonsense.

        Perhaps you can cite “donations” to the Trump Foundation that were linked to special favors from a government official. You seem to think that a comparison of the two foundations is “obvious” and I wonder what comparison strikes you as so obvious.

        I am not a Trump fan, but even I am smart enough to see the difference between what a man in private life does and what a government official, in a position of trust and authority, does as a representative of her country.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:35 am

        “How many of them were killed while being sent into harm’s way in an effort to cover up illegal activities by a Secretary of State?”

        I don’t know, but Chris Stevens certainly wasn’t.

        You need to pay more attention, son. I had a link to an excellent article that covered this very thing, just a week or so ago.

        Oh, let me guess—you just “skimmed” it, or ignored it altogether, no doubt because of capital letters or commas or something equally compelling.

        Some people are just naturally ignorant, but some, like you, really work at it. Refuse to educate yourself, if you will, but don’t embarrass yourself by flaunting your ignorance this way. I don’t even like you and I am embarrassed for you.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:37 am

        You’re right, there is a pretty big distinction between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation, namely what sort of things they spend money on. The Clinton Foundation appears to actually spend most of its money on charitable causes, while the Trump foundation appears to do things like donate to the Florida Attorney General while she was deciding whether to investigate Trump University.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:38 am

        Satakar says “…I don’t agree with Donald Trump’s positions on any issues, or his idea on how to run the nation.”

        Just what IS his “idea on how to run the nation”? What ARE his “positions on…..issues”?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:40 am

        You’re right, there is a pretty big distinction between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation, namely what sort of things they spend money on. The Clinton Foundation appears to actually spend most of its money on charitable causes, while the Trump foundation appears to do things like donate to the Florida Attorney General while she was deciding whether to investigate Trump University.

        You’re pretty immune to self-humiliation, aren’t you?

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:42 am

        “You need to pay more attention, son. I had a link to an excellent article that covered this very thing, just a week or so ago.”

        You need to spend less time paying attention to articles by people who are entirely willing to make things up. There is no actual verifiable evidence that what you are saying happened. You’re just willing to believe anything bad about Clinton, and are willing to view any “evidence” of any wrongdoing with the minimum possible skepticism.

        Not that there aren’t plenty of bad things to believe about Clinton, mind you. But if there’s more evidence of a faked moon landing than of whatever you’re saying, you probably shouldn’t preach it as gospel.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 12:44 am

        “You’re pretty immune to self-humiliation, aren’t you?”

        Something humiliating would have to happen for us to find out, I suppose.

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 12:52 am

        “Wait a second, you claim to not care about the personality of Trump, just his nationalism, america first stance…and yet you don’t like Clinton because of her personality? Odd.”

        Not so odd if you read my actual words. I never claimed to not care about Trump’s personality and never claimed I disliked Clinton for her personality. We’re just starting off a dialogue and you’re 0-2 in one sentence. Care to try again? Tip: Maybe you could try to engage my positions rather than distort them.

        “Rusty, I am just curious, you said Hillary supporters, or Democrats are uninformed. Exactly what subjects did you discuss where you found them to be uninformed?….What facts have they been wrong on? If we could, I will set the record straight with regards to any questions you may have.”

        I was talking to someone the other day who did not know that 10,000 Syrian “refugees” have already been relocated in the US. They were also unaware that Clinton is advocating a 550% increase on that number next year. One person was unaware that Trump had advocated the use of US tax dollars for refugee camps, safe zones, in the refugees general area of origin. Another person I spoke to was under the assumption that our immigration laws are currently being enforced. These are just a few examples. Would you like to set the record straight on those Satakar, or should I throw out some others?

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 1:05 am

        One more thing Satakar, you asked me for my reasons for voting Trump this year and I was very straightforward with my response, in courtesy to you. Why did you ask? Would you like to engage me on any of the topics that I’ve listed?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 1:10 am

        Oh, Travasty, remember when we had that little chat about the Rule of Holes? Or did you “skim” that, too, what with its capital letters and all?

        Rule # 1—when you’re in a hole, quit digging

        Also, whoever told you cattiness is manly was just messin’ with you.

        Not that there aren’t plenty of bad things to believe about Clinton, mind you. But if there’s more evidence of a faked moon landing than of whatever you’re saying, you probably shouldn’t preach it as gospel.

        Yeah, except for the actual EVIDENCE, such as part of an actual Stinger missile with actual U S of A serial numbers, in the wreckage of a U S Chinook helicopter taken down by said missile. And tracking it back to a CIA cache in Libya. And all sorts of gummint types talking about State handling the weapons transfers, and, well, just a lot of stuff you either “skimmed” or couldn’t understand.

        Here is a little info on the whole Benghazi thing. Just a taste, as I realize you have a very limited attention span.

        In his new book, “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Ben¬ghazi” (Broadside Books), writer Kenneth R. Timmerman explains how the US government’s efforts to arm the Libyan rebels backfired, flooding weapons into Syria, and as he ¬reveals here, Afghanistan:

        The Obama administration isn’t only giving the Taliban back its commanders — it’s giving them weapons.

        Miliary records and sources reveal that on July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.
        They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.

        The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.

        The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.

        Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.
        The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet -jihad.

        Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.

        Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.

        My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the -Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

        They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles.

        Qatar now is expected to hold five Taliban commanders released from Guantanamo for a year before allowing them to go to Afghanistan.

        But if we can’t trust the Qataris not to give our weapons to the Taliban, how can we trust them with this?

        http://nypost.com/2014/06/08/how-the-taliban-got-their-hands-on-modern-us-missiles

        http://investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-arms-dealer-who-supplied-weapons-to-united-states-enemies-on-behalf-of-obama-and-hillary-turns-on-them-in-interview/

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/arms-dealer-says-administration-made-him-scapegoat-on-libya-operation-to-protect-clinton.html

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 1:31 am

        “Oh, Travasty, remember when we had that little chat about the Rule of Holes? ”

        I do. It’s pretty incredible that you think it was such a clever to thing say that you would do it once, much less try to reuse it later. Seriously, you need new material. That’s basically a dad joke.

        “Also, whoever told you cattiness is manly was just messin’ with you.”

        Also, I couldn’t care less if you think I’m manly. Also, pot, meet kettle.

        Just as an FYI, I didn’t say that there weren’t missles that were intended for Libyan rebels that were lost. I contested that there was any evidence that Chris Stevens’s mission had anything to do with them. I mean, that whole thing that you copied and pasted was about a missle that was handed of from Qatar to Afghanistan. What do you figure Stevens was going to do about that all the way in Benghazi?

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 1:38 am

        Tryvasty,

        For my part, what bugs me about Clinton and Libya is not the death of a few ambassadors in a terrorist attack. I’m kinda with you, these things happen all the time in bad places. Shit happens, right? The problem is that she, in her official capacity as SOS helped to destabilize Libya and was unprepared for the consequences. What bugs me was her fervent advocacy for a Libyan overthrow as SOS when she should have known better with the intelligence she was privy to.

        I was willing to give her a pass on the first Iraq vote; she has not shown good judgement since then.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 1:48 am

        Hey, look! Some criticisms I can get behind. I don’t disagree with any of that.

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 2:06 am

        “Hey, look! Some criticisms I can get behind. I don’t disagree with any of that.”

        Hey, look at that! A new Trump supporter!

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 2:22 am

        Nope. I’ll still take “has made substantial foreign policy mistakes” over Trump. At least her idea of foreign policy isn’t going on record saying that we have to “take out their families”.

        Really I’m more of a “I wish our political system weren’t so broken that my options are Clinton and Trump” kind of guy.

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 2:44 am

        At least you’re admitting your candidate is a turd, that’s a start. Maybe try listening to the working class and you’ll be on your way.

  5. Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:46 am

    On the Clinton Foundation:

    The media will try to memory-hole this latest Clinton Foundation scandal, but it can’t be forgotten. Nor can these other Foundation scandals. This is probably not a comprehensive list, but here are the most egregious.

    1. Selling access to the U.S. State Department

    I already briefly mentioned this scandal, as it is the most recent. Of the 154 people who met with or had conference calls scheduled with Hillary, at least 85 donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to an Associated Press analysis. The 85 donors gave a combined total of $156 million to the Clinton Foundation, and at least 40 gave more than $100,000 each. At least 20 gave more than $1 million.

    How could anyone possibly believe these donations didn’t help get a meeting with Clinton? Turns out only Clinton’s staunchest supporters are defending her on this. The LA Times’ Thursday editorial called for Clinton to leave the foundation. The New York Daily News’ Gersh Kuntzman said this scandal was “impossible” to defend.

    2. Sketchy foreign donations from abusive nations

    Clinton purports to be a defender of women and has talked about running coal miners out of business (an extension of the Left’s hatred for “Big Oil”), yet her foundation has taken money from countries that commit human rights abuses against women and make their money from selling oil.

    In February 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Australia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and a Canadian government agency that was trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline built all donated to the Clinton Foundation.

    Obviously, Australia and Germany don’t count as “abusive nations,” but donations from former foreign governments is strange of itself—it had always been clear that Clinton would run for president again. And the donations from Saudi Arabia were especially troubling, since Clinton claims to be a champion of women yet Saudi Arabia bans women from driving or interacting with men to whom they are not related.

    3. Using the State Department to help her husband

    While his wife was the secretary of state, Bill Clinton’s speaking fees magically doubled and tripled, from about $150,000 a speech to $500,000 for a speech in Russia and $750,000 for a speech in China. The State Department approved these speeches.

    How wonderful was it for Bill Clinton to have his wife oversee a department that approved his big-money gigs?

    4. Donations in return for Bill Clinton speeches

    Bill raked in at least $26 million from speaking to organizations that also donated to the Clinton Foundation. Sure, they paid him to speak to him, and he may have spoken to them just for the money, but I’m sure it didn’t hurt that they also donated to the foundation.

    5. Huma Abedin working for State and the Foundation

    For six months in 2012, longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin appeared to be superwoman. She was working for Clinton’s State Department, as well as the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office and a consulting firm tied to the Clintons. How did she do it?

    The Foundation was subpoenaed over Abedin’s work, and was also under investigation by the FBI for ties to the State Department. How it was even legal that Abedin worked for both is astounding.

    6. Helping foreign entities that donated to the Foundation

    Clinton was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while she was secretary of state. The commission was working on a “request to approve the sale of U.S. uranium stock to Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom as part of a transitioned takeover of a company which through an earlier merger had acquired U.S. uranium interests,” Politico reported.

    Surprise, surprise: Rosatom had ties to the Clinton Foundation. Rosatom acquired 17 percent of a South African company called Uranium One in 2009. In 2007, Uranium One merged with UrAsia, which was owned by Frank Giustra. Giustra gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and pledged $100 million more in the following years. Giustra along with Bill Clinton, acquired uranium interests in Kazakhstan in 2005.

    The chairman of Uranium One when it was acquired by Rosatom, Ian Telfer, also gave $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Then there was the UBS deal, in which Hillary Clinton intervened. The IRS was suing Swiss bank UBS AG in order to obtain the identities of Americans who used the bank to set up offshore accounts. Again, unsurprisingly, after Clinton stepped in, UBS increased donations to the Clinton Foundation—from $60,000 to $600,000 by 2014. It lent the foundation $32 million for an inner-city loan program and paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for some speaking gigs with its Wealth Mangement Chief Executive, Bob McCann.

    http://observer.com/2016/08/the-six-clinton-foundation-scandals-everyone-needs-to-know

    • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 1:04 am

      Like I said, there are certainly some suspicious things happening there. But the main question is what Clinton was getting out of it. For there to be a quid pro quo, there has to be a quo. Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton is the Clinton Foundation, there’s no reason I can currently see to believe that either one of them get anything from the foundation besides some trivial amount of its operating budget being spent to pay for travel expenses related to fundraising for the foundation.

      They also spend a pretty reasonable portion of their operating budget on actual charitable causes and are reasonably transparent about that spending (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680).

      So what you’re essentially asking me to believe is that Clinton was peddling our sovereignty for charity. That’s a little hard for me to believe. If you ask me whether it sounds more likely that that happened or that people she would have interacted with in roughly the same way unilaterally donated to the Clinton foundation in hopes of currying favor whether it worked or not, I’d go with the latter.

      It certainly would have been smarter for her political career to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest either way, so it all doesn’t look great for her, but it still comes in somewhat under having an unregistered charity that you use to try to pay off prosecutors to me. Especially given that Trump has avoided any of his potential conflicts of interest come to light by refusing financial disclosure (although I actually still think the more likely cause of that is that they’d show he’s a much crappier business man than he wants people to believe).

      So yeah, like I said, not great, and she’s lucky to be running against Trump. You don’t have to be able to completely outrun the scandals, you just have to be able to outrun the guy getting eating by his own, worse scandals. Or something. That whole running from a bear metaphor got away from me I think.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 1:16 am

        But you are pretending that the only money that changed hands went to the foundation. What about the huge fees paid to Bill, and Hillary, by nations that then got special favors from State? Example from my quote: …..paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for some speaking gigs with its Wealth Management Chief Executive, Bob McCann. What about large “consulting” fees paid to friends and political allies? What about Huma double-triple-quadruple-quintuple dipping, being paid by the foundation and the government at the same time?

        It’s all been covered, quite extensively, and if you haven’t paid attention (or just “skimmed”) then it’s not our job to educate you.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 1:47 am

        It’s just ever so much fun to watch the goal posts move. Remember how when we started talking, it was about the relative problematic behavior of the Clinton foundation vs. Trump foundation? Those were the good old days.

        Bill Clinton was hired to speak all sorts of places during the same time period. That’s what former politicians do.

        Did you know that George W. Bush was on the exact same UBS panels? Do you figure he was also trading favors from the State Department?

        Really, though, I hate spending this long getting trapped into defending either of the Clintons. They both seem like pretty not great people. But sometimes what you do seems less like political discourse and more like pro wrestling.

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 2:04 am

        Tryvasty,

        Really, you’re going in for the Trump/Clinton foundation comparison crap? Can you distinguish between a billionaire’s private foundation (and whatever improprieties you might expect from such an entity) and the pay for play scandals of a foundation that promises a link for any player to the most powerful office in the known universe? If you can’t, you don’t know your ass from your elbow. But I can clear it up in a sentence: Hostile foreign enterprises like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are donating big to the Clinton coffers, and have been for a while.

        I just googled “Trump foundation donors” and the first hit was a Fortune article about some high end ticket scalper. Hmmm, which do you think is more vital to our national interest?

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 2:08 am

        “foundation that promises a link for any player to the most powerful office in the known universe? ”

        What about the Clinton foundation promises that?

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 2:32 am

        “What about the Clinton foundation promises that?”

        Well gee Tryvasty, do you think they list that on their sop? But why do you think entities like the Saudis give millions of dollars? From the good of their hearts? The Saudis are known for their global humanitarian largess? It might sound like a rhetorical question, but I’m really curious about your answer.

      • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 2:59 am

        Here’s a bonus question for you Trav, if Clinton should lose this November what do you think her speeches will be worth?

        They’ll be worth something; even as a fatally flawed presidential candidate she’ll still be an influential multimillionaire with powerful contacts, but do you think she’ll still be worth the quarter-of a-million-per speech wall street was offering so recently? Don’t bank on it. My guess is that that money was only available to potential presidential candidates. Pay for play. Business as usual.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 7:57 pm

        Sorry, none of that is remotely compelling until you can explain what Clinton gets out of people donating to the Clinton Foundation.

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 2:13 pm

        Your question was “what (does) Clinton get out of people donating to the Clinton Foundation?” and after literally 3 minutes research I provided an article detailing how donors were “pressed” by the foundations fundraisers to make “lucrative arrangements” for Bill Clinton. Maybe it would bother you more to know that over half of Hillary’s private meetings as SOS were with fat cat donors to the foundation, including foreign governments, but maybe not. There’s plenty of other examples I could provide, but since I’ve already provided you with a detailed link outlining exactly what you were asking for and you’re pretending it doesn’t, that tells me I’m done talking with you about this.

  6. satakar October 26, 2016 / 8:20 am

    Rusty,

    “I was talking to someone the other day who did not know that 10,000 Syrian “refugees” have already been relocated in the US.”

    Ok, so they didn’t know. So what? I agree with the Syrian refugee issue and settling them here.

    “They were also unaware that Clinton is advocating a 550% increase on that number next year.”

    Ok, again, this issue is a non issue. 65k added to our nation of 320 million. I agree with the democrats on this issue.

    “One person was unaware that Trump had advocated the use of US tax dollars for refugee camps, safe zones, in the refugees general area of origin.”

    There already are refugee camps, in Jordan mainly, and other areas of the world close to Syria. I don’t get what the point is here? Trump did make that recommendation, and it’s a good recommendation. doesn’t mean you can’t have some refugees come here as well.

    “Another person I spoke to was under the assumption that our immigration laws are currently being enforced.”

    Can you name the ones that aren’t specifically being enforced or ignored? this myth that our laws are being ignored by law enforcement Is interesting to me. state some and let’s talk about it.

    let’s hear more topics you’ve been hearing where people are misinformed on…

    • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 9:19 am

      Can you name the ones that aren’t specifically being enforced or ignored? this myth that our laws are being ignored by law enforcement Is interesting to me. state some and let’s talk about it.

      let’s hear more topics you’ve been hearing where people are misinformed on…

      Nice try, little blog vandal. Yeah, why NOT be drawn into meaningless rehashings of Obama’s repeated misdeeds?

  7. satakar October 26, 2016 / 8:21 am

    Rusty,

    I hate to break it to you, Clinton won’t lose. She will win, and she will win handily. Trump will go back to his life, and have a great one at that.

    His supporters, the ones who have been told the election is rigged, media is corrupt, and washington is out to get them will keep voting GOP. That’s american politics.

  8. satakar October 26, 2016 / 8:23 am

    Rusty,

    and if all you have to hang your hat on for not voting for clinton is the refugee issue, or her judgment in libya, then that’s fine. I don’t think those reasons are valid, but you get your vote and you should vote how you want.

    • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 9:16 am

      Really, Rusty, if you are basing a decision on who you want as Commander in Chief on the decisions and actions of someone whose total mismanagement of a simple paramilitary operation that quickly disintegrated into creating a home and environment for ISIS, arming our enemies, and destabilizing the Middle East in the process, and then lying to shift the blame to someone else, you can go ahead and do that, but Satakar thinks those reasons invalid.

      Evidently this is exactly the kind of person, and the kind of judgment, he thinks should be in charge of our military. Combine that with his preference for someone totally negligent when it comes to national security, and you have Satakar’s ideal Commander in Chief.

      It’s so much easier to nonchalantly dismiss the chaos, the ensuing wars, the thousands of deaths, the hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees, the political instability, the creation of an incubator for radical jihad, as mere issues of “judgment”—–and how too too silly of you to think that this kind of judgment might disqualify one for the position of Commander In Chief of the most powerful military in the world.

    • rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 11:38 am

      So refugees and immigration is a non issue, eh? Try adding the 65k Syrians (this is just the number Clinton has publicly admitted to btw. Who knows what the real number is going to be to realize her “dream” of “open borders”.) to the millions of other immigrants from the third world we take in annually, more than the rest of the world combined. I don’t think that’s a sustainable or sensible immigration policy. Apparently you do. But all you’re saying is “I don’t agree”. Maybe you could explain why you think a continually expanding emigration from the third world to America is a prudent thing. Maybe you could enlighten us as to how these hordes are benefiting the citizens of this country that are already living here. Maybe you could point to another Western country, say, in Europe, that is a shining example for the unexamined virtues of Middle Eastern migration. I can argue why it’s not a good policy and point to many disastrous examples.

      If you think it’s a myth that immigration laws are currently being ignored and find that topic “interesting”, you might try doing a bit of research. As it stands, you’re apparently an exemplar of the uninformed Clinton supporter I was talking about. Here, I’ll get you started:

      http://cis.org/OpedsandArticles/when-laws-aren't-enforced

      “and if all you have to hang your hat on for not voting for clinton is the refugee issue, or her judgment in libya, then that’s fine. I don’t think those reasons are valid, but you get your vote and you should vote how you want.”

      All I have to hang my hat on? Well for one thing, those are pretty big hat-hangers. For another, you’re completely ignoring the other reasons I provided. Why do ask questions of people and then ignore their responses?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:05 pm

        Why do ask questions of people and then ignore their responses?

        Because he is a Lefty troll and wannabe blog vandal who is not here to engage in political discourse but merely to annoy and hopefully disrupt.

        He reminds me of a lecture I heard early in the upsurge in terrorism, where it was described not as a war of conquest but a war of perturbation. That is, the goal is just to perturb us as much as possible. On a much smaller scale, this describes the efforts of the little foot soldiers and cannon fodder of the Left. They just want to perturb us, and then go back to their basements and titter about how wonderful they are.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 12:10 pm

        Rusty, note the general term “refugees”, which stirs up emotionally laden mental pictures of sad, hungry, confused and scared women and children. The true picture of the Syrian refugees is, to a great extent, very different. When you look at the photos of the tens of thousands of “refugees” surging across European borders, you see few if any women or children, or even old men. What you see is angry, resentful and often violent young men, late teens to early 40s. And we know what effect an influx of this kind of “refugee” has on communities.

        There has to be a reason to insist on forcing large numbers of such people, who seem to have only hatred and disdain for our country and its people, into communities. We can only speculate about what that reason might be.

  9. Amazona October 26, 2016 / 8:51 am

    I see we are back to the Bad Old Days, when radical Liberals decided to try to swamp the blog with Leftist cant. So many words, so very many words, and so little content.

    This is their strategy. For example, one tosses out a couple of lies about the two foundations, then when the lies are disputed he whines that the “goal posts have moved” and now all of a sudden we are talking about foundations.

    There is their picking the fly shit out of the pepper, regarding Benghazi. OK, so the weapons exchange facilitated by Clinton’s State Department got into the hands of the bad guys, and OK, so they used them against us, and OK, so some guys of ours got killed, and OK so Clinton as Secretary of State lied to the American public and lied to the families of the dead—-all they can quibble about is the lack of a written directive from Clinton to Stevens saying “Chris, I need you to go clean up my mess and see if you can get those weapons back before SHF”. What do they ignore?

    1. Congress never approved of arms shipments to try to overthrow a national leader.
    2. Clinton’s State Department is the agency that bungled the arms shipments
    3. Weapons were put into the hands of our enemies
    4. Some of those weapons were used against us
    5. I didn’t even get into the general mess Clinton made in Benghazi—–the hundreds of requests for additional security made by Stevens, and ignored, the “security” we did have done by radical jihadists, etc.
    6. I didn’t even get into the fact that those jihadists had access to State Department emails which, no doubt, included info on what we wanted to do, were doing, planned to do, etc. in Libya
    7. Four Americans died when help was available, and that help was denied to them. This was not like the deaths due to terrorist attacks on embassies—-these attacks went on for more than 12 hours, with American military staged and ready to go, eager to go, begging to go, and ordered to stand down by the government.
    8. HILLARY CLINTON LIED—–to the American people, and to the families of those who died. Lied and lied and lied. Got an innocent man sent to prison, where I believe he is still, to try to cover up her incompetence.

    It happened. The only thing missing from full documentation is whether or not Stevens was sent in to try to cover up her bungling. However, people in the know have said from the beginning that that was why he was there.

    The point of my comments on Clinton and Benghazi is that she is incompetent. When she was given great power and authority, what did she do with it? She used it to make herself rich, she used it to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, she used it to help overthrow the only Middle Eastern leader who was fighting Al Queda, she acted without Congressional approval to do this, and she did it so badly that it was a disaster and people died.

    So what do people like Satakar and Travasty think? They think we should make her president, and give her even more power and authority. What do they care about the accumulation of dishonorable behavior, criminal behavior, incompetence and dishonesty? Not much. It’s fine with them. This is how they want our country to be led, and represented to the world.

    in the meantime they are happily flooding the blog with toxic ravings and insults.

    • satakar October 26, 2016 / 8:55 am

      Amazona,

      Where did I throw out insults?

      Also, elections are a choice. one over the other. I choose someone who I agree with over someone who I often times don’t agree with. I choose the party that I think will best serve the nation, over the one I think won’t.

      what is so hard for you to understand about that?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 9:03 am

        Oh, I understand it. I understand much more about you than you realize. I also understand that when you pick your party, which of course means when you pick your preferred political system, you don’t care that it is headed, represented and guided by immoral people who routinely commit criminal acts, because this is not a concern. You don’t care that it represents an abridgement of individual liberty, or erosion of our rule of law, as stated in our foundational and governing document, our Constitution.

        I find this despicable. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 9:07 am

        BTW, I think it’s time for you to drop that pious claim that you have any concern about what “..will best serve the nation..” When you advocate a system that is moving quickly in the direction of destroying the nation and rebuilding it in a radical Leftist model, you make it clear that you not only have no concern for this country but you actually dislike it, as it was formed, as it has been governed, and want to tear all that down to replace it with the kind of top-down tyranny you prefer.

      • satakar October 26, 2016 / 9:35 am

        Amazona,

        “you don’t care that it is headed, represented and guided by immoral people who routinely commit criminal acts, because this is not a concern.”

        Yes, because criminal activity is and has never happened in both parties. If I based my vote based on that, I wouldn’t be voting.

        “You don’t care that it represents an abridgement of individual liberty,”

        what individual liberties have you lost under President Obama the last 8 years?

        “erosion of our rule of law, as stated in our foundational and governing document, our Constitution.”

        The constitution is great and all, but it needs to be interpreted more liberally. we can agree to disagree on that. you seem to think there is only one way to read the document, yours. Obviously, we will find out at the ballot box who agrees with you, and myself.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 9:53 am

        …what individual liberties have you lost under President Obama the last 8 years?

        Personally? I have lost the right to keep my old doctor and insurance company. But we need to look at the liberties I will lose if you and your kind get your way, and destroy this nation to replace it with the kind of oppressive country that appeals to you.

        I will lose my right to own guns, a right now guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I will lose my right to have most of the decisions about government made closer to home, at the state and local level, where I can have more input and influence. The range of losses that can result from that is incalculable.

        I have lost the right to believe that the immigrant next to me in line has been investigated and approved by my government, and is not a known killer or drug dealer. I have lost the liberty to buy and drive the vehicle of my choice, being restricted now to engines inferior to those I prefer.

        But what we need to remember is that the attacks on personal liberty are insidious, and building upon each other. One of the biggest looming attacks, telegraphed and in play in some areas, is the loss of liberty in how I can worship. Right now, I am not personally affected by the infringements upon the liberty of doctors, nurses and other health care provider to practice their religious beliefs, but this is an always-expanding restriction. I may not own the property where a cross has been removed, due to anti-religion zealots, but its absence is a loss to me. I may not have erected a roadside cross to commemorate the loss of a loved one in a traffic accident, but those who have now face challenges and threats to have these crosses removed.

        The issue is not what HAS been lost, but what WILL be lost as the radical Leftist agenda you prefer continues to undermine this nation and what it has stood for. Obama merely nudged the process along and set the stage. The next battle will be single payer health care, which is looming on the horizon as the strategy of forcing insurance companies to increase their rates will push the sheeple into thinking maybe it would be better to get rid of the insurance companies completely.

        All I have to do is look at nations which have been run by massive and powerful Central Authorities to see what our future holds for us, if we don’t stop this Progressive surge backward.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 10:08 am

        The constitution is great and all, but it needs to be interpreted more liberally.

        And by this you mean “change”—but not formally, legally, through the process established to do so. No, you mean by the weasel word “interpretation” which, used as it has been, is really invention and distortion.

        Roe v Wade is based on an alleged “emanation” from a guessed-at “penumbra” of an unstated and invented “right”. And you people call that kind of thing “interpretation”.

        You people claim there is a Constitutional demand of separation of church and state. There is none, but this doesn’t slow you down. It’s an invention, what you coyly call an “interpretation” yet there is nothing in the Constitution regarding this alleged “wall” that even lends itself to being interpreted. It says the country may not ESTABLISH a religion. It also says the country may not interfere in the way a person chooses to worship. You people call it mere “interpretation” when you claim it really means no form or hint of any religion may brush up against any form or level of any government, federal or state, even to the extent of having memorials on the lawn outside a courthouse. You claim it means no symbol of any religion can be present on any land owned by a government entity. And you hide behind the word “interpret” when you impose your will upon others, so it is really just “interpretation” when you blatantly stomp on the rights of individuals to worship according to their beliefs and live according to those beliefs.

        No, the Constitution does not need to be “interpreted”. It says what it says. It means what it means. When there is any confusion, it is due to changes in language usage and vocabulary over the years, and when this happens —– and it is rare—–the only true way to determine the original meaning is to examine the contemporaneous writings of the men who wrote the thing in the first place, to learn what they intended to say.

        If for any reason any element of the Constitution needs to be CHANGED there is a process for doing so. It has been used 27 times. It works, And you people don’t like that process. For one thing, it makes people think, and it reminds them that this is a nation based on the concept of a government FOR the people and BY the people. Your Central Authority spits in the face of that BY the people thing and isn’t too crazy about the FOR the people part either, and doesn’t want anyone thinking about that. You just want to insinuate Constitutional termites into our system where they can nibble away at it from the inside, while you stand on the steps telling everyone that what is going on is not destruction but really, folks, just interpretation.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 11:02 am

        “you don’t care that it is headed, represented and guided by immoral people who routinely commit criminal acts, because this is not a concern.”

        Yes, because criminal activity is and has never happened in both parties.

        Aside from the internal contradiction in your sentence, it appears that what you are really saying is “In other words, I’m fine with voting for a criminal to be the president of the United States because I use my assertion that there has been some kind, extent or degree of criminal behavior in both parties in the past to justify the fact that I now have no standards of decency, honesty, or legal behavior. Any time anyone breaks the law, I can refrain from judging that person because somewhere, at some time, some other person has done the same thing.”

        I think that pretty much sums up your moral code.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 26, 2016 / 1:53 pm

      It is odd that as this election gets closer to it’s very obvious conclusion, the discussions here become more unhinged.

      Why all the fuss? You KNOW how this election will wind up. You’ve KNOWN it for a while.

      You think the GOP will clean itself through, what, the midterm election process? We need to start mobilizing away from that boat anchor, post-haste.

    • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 8:46 pm

      “So many words, so very many words, and so little content.”

      It’s always fun to see people accuse other others of their own behavior. You’ve even complimented me for my concise writing before! That’s like, the opposite of verbose, man.

      Plus, you can pretty well scroll through any comment page on this blog and see which usernames show up at the top of the novellas you come across.

      “For example, one tosses out a couple of lies about the two foundations, then when the lies are disputed he whines that the “goal posts have moved” and now all of a sudden we are talking about foundations.”

      We were talking about the Clinton Foundation, I pointed out why your copied and pasted arguments weren’t compelling, and then you started talking about Bill Clinton speaking engagements. We weren’t suddenly talking about foundations, that’s what the whole conversation was about. You were just trying to skitter off (I think there’s some simile here about some sort of insect on a hot skillet that you like to use. Remember that thing about accusing other people of your own behavior?)

      “The only thing missing from full documentation is whether or not Stevens was sent in to try to cover up her bungling. However, people in the know have said from the beginning that that was why he was there.”

      The definition of “people in the know”: people who are saying things Amazona wants to believe. Doesn’t matter if they have any particular reason to have any insight or whether they have any proof. Nope, if it is something you want to be true, that’s all you really need.

      “So what do people like Satakar and Travasty think?”

      I don’t know about Satakar, but I think that she’s the less bad option.

      “What do they care about the accumulation of dishonorable behavior, criminal behavior, incompetence and dishonesty”

      You’re right, Trump seems like a paragon of virtue. He’s never done anything dishonorable, and he’s certainly never been dishonest.

      Oh wait, no, the opposite of those things. It’s just that when we decide to vote for somebody despite those things, we’re horrible people, but when you do it, there’s no problem at all.

      “I also understand that when you pick your party, which of course means when you pick your preferred political system, you don’t care that it is headed, represented and guided by immoral people who routinely commit criminal acts, because this is not a concern.”

      Okay, you’ve completely lost me. Is the election about candidates or political systems? Because you literally bounced back and forth inside of the space of a sentence. It’s like we’ve hit the event horizon of your cognitive dissonance.

      “I find this despicable.”

      I find your need to demonize anybody who does not see the world the same way you do despicable.

      “When you advocate a system that is moving quickly in the direction of destroying the nation and rebuilding it in a radical Leftist model, you make it clear that you not only have no concern for this country but you actually dislike it, as it was formed, as it has been governed, and want to tear all that down to replace it with the kind of top-down tyranny you prefer.”

      See, this is ridiculous. Nobody who wants a more liberal government is doing it because they think it is going to destroy the nation or result in tyranny. Well, maybe not nobody, but close enough if your sample is American voters. To assume millions of people have weighed the merits of freedom and prosperity versus tyranny and the fall of the USA and decided that they just want to see the world burn is straight up delusional. Real talk, if that’s what you actually think, you should visit a mental health professional.

      “It says the country may not ESTABLISH a religion. It also says the country may not interfere in the way a person chooses to worship.”

      I think you’ll find that it says none of those things. That’s just your interpretation of it. There’s no such thing as a Constitutional literalist, just people who want to sound like their interpretation is unimpeachable. Natural language is ambiguous. There’s nothing you can do to change that.

      I get it. You like your interpretation better. That doesn’t mean you have any special power to declare your interpretation to be not an interpretation, just the facts. Unless you want to claim you wrote it yourself.

      “And none of this would bother you, because after all the Clintons did not invent graft, corruption or dishonesty, right? Once someone else has done it, it’s off the board, as far as making judgments about it?”

      Don’t worry, Trump didn’t invent dishonesty either, so you can still vote for him.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 10:06 pm

        As usual, your post temper tantrum really doesn’t deserve a response at all, but you said one thing that is so brilliant it should not be ignored or overlooked in your torrent of spite and malice.

        It encapsulates your political illiteracy and superficiality in 8 words: Is the election about candidates or political systems?

        The fact that you can even ask this question, which I assume is quite serious, tells us all we need to know about your credibility as one who tries to post on a politically oriented blog.

        Thank you for making it so clear. I have used a lot of words to bring this out, and you just served it up on a silver platter.

      • tryvasty October 27, 2016 / 7:59 pm

        For real, though, I’m out. It’s actually not that rewarding to debate with people who are too stupid to follow a conversation.

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 8:31 pm

        I have no idea what you are talking about. I think it is funny that you trolls are so sure I run the blog, but I don’t, and I have been gone all afternoon and haven’t seen anything till I just started to catch up. If you got something “moderated” I am sure it was for a good reason but I didn’t see it, I didn’t do it, but I appreciate the promotion. And just think, Sat said I am the most potent poster. Aww, guys, you are sooooo sweet.

        I do see that you couldn’t manage to stay away, not even after your drama queen exit and “ciao”.

        BTW, you need to get some new material. All the old troll routine was to get outargued, be left without a leg to stand on, and then sneer that the same people who just thumped you are too stupid to bother with. Same old same old, and as full of crap now as it ever was.

  10. satakar October 26, 2016 / 12:06 pm

    Amazona,

    you’re obviously upset about the impending defeat and the repudiation of the GOP by our evolving society. That’s something I won’t be able to relate to.

    As far as the rest of your rant….I want an oppressive country? really? you are really good at extrapolating a sentence into a whole belief system.

    either way, the best and most efficient way to resolve these pressing issues in our nation that you’re so concerned with, is to have elections. In 14 days, when you’ve lost. I would hope you accept the fact that your views, your beliefs, and your way of looking at the nation, and the constitution is no longer a majority in our country.

    best of luck with your political beliefs.

    • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 11:21 pm

      Nothing is being “repudiated” in this election except the individual who loses. Dream on. It is now pretty much acknowledged, as Hillary’s defects become more and more public and pronounced, that any of the other 16 Republican hopefuls would be beating her by double digits—-and that includes George Pataki!

      If Hillary wins, it will not be a mandate for the political system she represents. When someone so enthralled by his party and the political process he is driven to spend hours on political blogs is still so ignorant that he actually thinks the election is about candidates and not political systems, we can be sure that the average voter doesn’t have a better grasp of reality. No, Hillary won the electoral lottery when the GOP nominated Donald Trump, and if she wins it will not mean most of the nation loves her and what she stands for, it will just mean that they don’t like Trump. Sadly for the nation, that is probably the way it will work out.

      There is a medical theory that sometimes to cure a chronic condition it must be exacerbated to make it acute, so the body will recognize the threat and heal itself. That may be true of nations as well.

  11. Retired Spook October 26, 2016 / 12:28 pm

    This is something that I have always wondered about.

    A newly released email from WikiLeaks is showing that progressives worked to “scare” Chief Justice John Roberts into his vote to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate provision in 2012’s National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision.

    The June 2015 email from Neera Tanden, the President of Center for American Progress, discusses strategies for the forthcoming King v. Burwell decision for Hillary’s campaign.

    “It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it’s possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before),” Tanden wrote to Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta. “As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.”

    In the email, Tanden suggests that Hillary Clinton employ similar scare-tactics in the case of King v. Burwell in which the court eventually decided to ignore the plain language of the law in favor of an interpretation “that is compatible with the rest of the law.”

    • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 1:11 pm

      And that’s how it goes. Instead of simply following the “plain language of the law” a handful, as few as five, unelected political appointees essentially rewrite the law by issuing …an interpretation “that is compatible with the rest of the law.” Yeah, kinda, maybe, but still different. Still changed from the original “plain language” of the law, kinda maybe similar enough to be “compatible” but not the same.

      • Retired Spook October 26, 2016 / 1:50 pm

        By the time a critical issue gets to the Supreme Court we ought to be able to do better than “kinda, maybe.”

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 1:53 pm

        That seems like a reasonable goal.

        Unless you are a Prog, in which case you need “kinda, maybe” so it can be INTERPRETED the way they need it to be the next time around.

      • tryvasty October 26, 2016 / 8:57 pm

        “By the time a critical issue gets to the Supreme Court we ought to be able to do better than “kinda, maybe.””

        A lot of the time you can’t. You’re asking people to take a 200 year old document written by people who live in a world completely different from ours, add to it 200 years of case law and hundreds of years more of common law, and then stir that all together and try to apply that to whatever question is at hand.

        The whole reason we have an adversarial system is that nearly everything is a “kinda, maybe” case, and competition is the best way to suss out the strongest arguments each direction. Most things that aren’t “kinda, maybe” don’t ever make it to a court room much less the Supreme Court.

      • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 11:11 pm

        And once again Travasty makes my point for me.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 26, 2016 / 7:30 pm

      Good luck not electing her. I hate her but she is going to be President.

  12. satakar October 26, 2016 / 9:42 pm

    Amazing that the most potent poster in my short time here claims that others are trolling and spouting trash. I guess if you disagree with anything he/she states, you’re a troll, or a person who wants a tyranny of some sort. she’s essentially claiming that about 50% of the american electorate wants a tyranny and dictatorship.

    I personally don’t demonize the other side, they have different opinions. I want to compete against them in the public arena, and win elections. That’s the best indicator of what people support and believe is best for the nation.

    • Retired Spook October 26, 2016 / 10:51 pm

      Satakar,

      Would it be fair to describe you as a Statist? This is not meant as a slam or a put down; just trying to figure out where you’ve coming from in terms of how you feel is the best way to govern a large, heterogeneous population.

      • satakar October 26, 2016 / 11:48 pm

        Retired Spook,

        Not at all. I want a more efficient government that’s able to implement the policies that I think are important. More importantly, the policy direction that I want / value.

        I also want the states to have less power. Short of literally changing the constitution, which won’t happen, we will have to nominate liberal judges to the SCOTUS in order interpret laws in a liberal way and change the country in that way. With a Clinton presidency, we will have a majority in the courts.

        but I am not a statist. That’s another definition.

        and to govern a large heterogeneous population, we simply have diverse people leading the nation that actually represent the populace. We give states certain powers to enforce certain laws, but take away state power in other instances where national standards are necessary and beneficial.

      • Retired Spook October 27, 2016 / 9:20 am

        Not at all. I want a more efficient government that’s able to implement the policies that I think are important. More importantly, the policy direction that I want / value.

        but I am not a statist. That’s another definition

        So it would be fair to say that you favor the federal government having some degree of control over social and/or economic policy?

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 9:26 am

        Short of literally changing the constitution, which won’t happen, we will have to nominate liberal judges to the SCOTUS in order interpret laws in a liberal way and change the country in that way.

        Finally, an open admission of the intent to “change the country” not through the legal means of amending the Constitution but merely by changing bits and pieces incrementally, calling it “interpretation”. And finally, an open admission that this is the goal of nominating Liberal justices—not to ensure that laws comply with the Constitution. but to nibble away at it, replacing it a little at a time, till it is no longer the Constitution upon which this nation was formed.

        In other words, to subvert the Constitution through the Supreme Court.

    • Amazona October 26, 2016 / 11:10 pm

      Satakar, are you really trying to pass off the fiction that you have had only a “short time here”? As a blog troll you have a signature, so to speak, that transcends your various name changes.

      And your troll status has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me, or I with you. It is what it is, you are what you are.

      • satakar October 26, 2016 / 11:56 pm

        Amazona,

        You must be an omnipotent creature or something. I have been reading this blog for about 3 months. You’ve been by far the most potent poster, and most of the time you insult everyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion.

        You’re the definition of a troll. When your side loses the election, unlike what you say it will be a repudiation of your party, and your nominee. People are voting with their wallets, their fears, and their dreams. You’ve lost that battle. Prepare for the midterms. Or don’t.

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 9:20 am

        You’re the definition of a troll.

        Yet unlike you I am not here to disrupt the blog. Unlike you, I have a history of offering up ideas, responding to ideas, and participating in discussions. Unlike you, I have not searched the internet for a blog that runs counter to my own beliefs and ideology so I can lurch in and attack those there. Unlike you, I am not here just to cause trouble, insult people and take up room.

        And like it or not, there are certain elements of peoples’ writings that are consistent even when they try to write as someone else, and I believe you are a recycled troll who, in his other incarnations, also came here only to attack, sneer and insult, and who has been banned several times.

        I agree that losing this election will be a repudiation of Donald Trump. I already said that. As he has never really represented the Republican Party, and has been running not as a Republican but as Donald Trump, I don’t think voting for Hillary is, for most people, a vote against the GOP. It’s vote that says they have been suckered by the emotional manipulation of the Hillary campaign into being so afraid of him they will vote for her instead. You made the point yourself when you asked Is the election about candidates or political systems? The answer is obvious—-for most people, it is about candidates. Or issues , in complete ignorance of the fact that every candidate, and every issue supported by every candidate, is a front for a political system of government.

        But the thing is, none of this matters to you. You are not here to discuss. If you were, you would have been bringing ideas and participating in discussions. But as a blog vandal/troll, your goal is merely, as I said, to perturb. Fortunately, we have seen not only your kind many times over the years, we have also (as I personally believe) seen you, and the sudden appearance of one or two of you every now and then is pretty predictable.

      • Retired Spook October 27, 2016 / 10:40 am

        Unlike you, I have a history of offering up ideas, responding to ideas, and participating in discussions.

        Well, to be fair, in the previous thread Satakar did say he believed the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-interpreted. I’d be interested in hearing how he thinks it should be re-interpreted. It’s pretty short and to the point, so the only way it can possibly be re-interpreted without changing the language is to say that the only citizens who should be able to keep and bear arms are members of a “well-regulated” militia. Should that re-interpretation ever occur, you will simply see a resurgence of the militia concept.

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 1:01 pm

        He also said he does not think citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

        I believe that the second amendment has to be re-evaluated and redefined to ban personal ownership of firearms. Short of that, the best way is to limit gun sales and guns in circulation through legislation.

        He recommends using legislation to bypass the Constitution, showing a lack of understanding of the process unless he mentally goes to the next step where a Liberal Supreme Court would then “interpret” the 2nd Amendment to allow this. He does admit to wanting to redfine” the Constitution, which I believe goes a lot farther than simply “interpreting” it.

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 1:12 pm

        I do agree that Satakar has broken Liberal tradition here by actually telling us what he thinks about how the nation should be run, so I stand corrected—-he has offered up ideas.

        It’s just that since then it seems to be constant regurgitation of the same themes of “repudiation of the Republican Party” and similar comments, with no actual discussion involved. I admit to a personal bias in thinking that discussion involves presenting an idea, listening to other ideas, then presenting defenses of your idea, supporting it and defending it with examples and reason. I admit to the bias that does not consider just stating a position and then constantly restating it without the rest of that process as not really discussing it, just issuing a manifesto.

      • tryvasty October 27, 2016 / 8:05 pm

        “I admit to a personal bias in thinking that discussion involves presenting an idea, listening to other ideas, then presenting defenses of your idea, supporting it and defending it with examples and reason.”

        Pure comedy gold.

      • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 8:26 pm

        Not only funny to you but obviously an alien concept.

  13. rustybrown2014 October 26, 2016 / 10:46 pm

    Kind of funny how Satakar inquired about the clueless Clinton supporters I was talking about and then quickly proved to be one. Present some facts and ask him to justify his position and he clams up.

    • satakar October 26, 2016 / 11:43 pm

      Rusty,

      You’re the clueless one here. You claimed to have been a democrat for some time ( don’t know how long), and now you flip and support Trump for his stance on immigration, and “america first”.

      I responded with regards to your inquiries that immigration isn’t a deciding factor for the majority of the voters and that’s been proven right by the polls showing Clinton leading. Also, adding 65k people to a nation of 320 million won’t make a difference. I get your fear of immigration, or of syrian immigration let’s just say, but it’s unwarranted.

      I didn’t clam up at all. I just moved on. When you tell me you’re voting for a guy based on his immigration stance, then fine, do so. I don’t care about immigration, and have benefited greatly from cheap labor in my business. It’s great. I want more of them in our country.

      I don’t care about the clinton foundation, or about her email server, just like you don’t care about Trump’s history and litany of lawsuits. You vote based on your values and so will I.

      Next time, instead of making an assumption, just watch your mouth and think a little. That would help you a lot in life.

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 3:54 pm

        Satakar,

        Yawn. It’s glaringly obvious to everybody here that your shtick is to throw out your personal opinions, refuse to substantiate them, then ignore any contrary information provided to you. That’s stupid and lazy.

        You said: “…you flip and support Trump for his stance on immigration, and “america first” No, those weren’t my only reasons, I provided many others. To characterize my flip the way you did is just stupid and lazy. Speaking of which, since this isn’t the first time you’ve done it I’ll point out that America is spelled with a capital “A”.

        You repeated “adding 65k people to a nation of 320 million won’t make a difference” after I already pointed out you should consider the issue in context of the unprecedented millions of other third world immigrants we take in every year added to that 65k. Ama then provided more context and nuance to the refugee issue. I provided an extremely thoughtful article on the question. After all this, no further comment from you aside from “not important to me” and repeating your stupid “65k into 320 million” remark. I guess you’re right, after ignoring so much information handed to you I suppose I can’t characterize you as clueless, you’re just an idiot.

        You say my “fear” of immigration is unwarranted. Why? You don’t say. Just is, I guess, huh? Stupid and lazy.

        And you say you just “moved on”. You can say that again.You stated you were “interested” in information about the flouting of our immigration laws. When provided with examples you clammed up. Oh, sorry, you “moved on”.

        You said: “I don’t care about immigration, I don’t care about the clinton foundation, or about her email server…” You seem to be under the impression that I care about what issues you care about. I don’t. I’m interested in stating my opinions and debating them. You’re something different. And I’ll make any assumptions about you I damn well please.

        But you substantially revealed what you’re all about when you said: “I don’t care about immigration, and have benefited greatly from cheap labor in my business. It’s great. I want more of them in our country.”

        So screw our nations immigration laws. Screw American citizens in the labor force. Screw legal immigrants looking to build a life here. Screw high school and college kids looking for summer or part time jobs to work their way through school and build up working experience, a time honored and valuable American tradition. Screw the extra burden placed on our institutions, from schools to hospitals to social benefit systems. Screw the billions of US dollars being repatriated to foreign countries. That’s all great and you want more of it because it works to your immediate personal benefit. Little wonder the “America first” message doesn’t resonate with you, pal.

      • satakar October 27, 2016 / 5:05 pm

        OK that is enough. You have been escalating the anger and vitriol and now you are calling names in every post. You have not said anything new and you are just picking fights. // Moderator

      • neocon01 October 27, 2016 / 5:14 pm

        satakar sound familiar?……

        The Dissolution of American Culture
        By Patricia McCarthy

        “Today’s millennials actually believe that George Bush killed more people than Stalin! They have purposefully been taught a falsified history of America (thank you, Howard Zinn). They have purposefully been taught that communism was not responsible for a hundred million deaths in the twentieth century. They have been lied to, those who went to school, about countless important events and issues in America’s past and they have been thoroughly indoctrinated to hate everything great about this country. That is how Obama got elected — he hates this country too. He, like so many young people, is not particularly skilled in the art of critical thinking.

        The current state of American politics has given us Colin Kaepernicks’ ridiculous and self-serving anti-“Star Spangled Banner” nonsense, Black Lives Matter violence against law enforcement, and the rise of segregation on college campuses demanded by black Americans who are being taught that all whites are racist because they were born white. They are not being assigned to read Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington, Shelby Steele or Thomas Sowell. They are taught to revile Clarence Thomas. The left foments racial animosity. It’s what they do. It serves their purpose. Martin Luther King is spinning in his grave.

        All of which brings us to the current election. Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It’s a long list. “

        full article
        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/the_dissolution_of_american_culture_.html

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 7:25 pm

        Gee, you’re voting for Clinton because you agree with her? You call that substantiating your opinion? Har! Reminds me of my second grader’s paper, “Elephants Are The Best Because I Love Them!” And I already told you I don’t care about who you’re voting for or why.

        My flip was for exactly the reasons I’ve listed above and they have indeed come from years of experience, observation, and reflection. Remember, I’m the one who’s been substantiating his opinions here. You just drop blanket statements like turds, as all shallow thinkers must.

        As for spelling, I personally am not in favor of being picky on a blog. But occasionally, when someone does something as stupid as repeatedly misspelling the name of his own country I’ll point it out just for kicks.

        My statements on immigration were rock solid and supported by the link you’ve provided, thanks. You may not consider 1-2 million immigrants annually “massive”, but I guess we can just disagree on that, especially when you consider the historical record. On that point, notice the trajectories on those charts you provided; that’s what I mean by unprecedented. Seems like we were doing pretty good in the 20th century when we had tighter controls on immigration. So where did I make a false statement? Where was I misinformed? You can’t tell me because in fact you’re the dolt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        But it’s not just a numbers game. It’s also about the source of immigrants and the qualities they bring to this country. You obviously don’t care about this because you’re personally invested in bringing in the lowest quality immigrant whom you can then underpay and exploit while undercutting our nations wages. That’s your right under existing laws, but that doesn’t mean you’re not a shortsighted, selfish asshole.

        What’s also unprecedented about immigration these days is the number of uneducated ones coming from cultures in many ways antithetical to our own. This is unsustainable if traditional Western Democratic values are important to you. It’s unsustainable if you agree with Enlightenment principles. There is a new breed of multiculturalism that emphasizes separate ingroup identity over assimilation to the prevailing culture. That is obviously damaging to the culture. A nation has every right to carefully consider what type of country it wants to be and who gets to live there in what numbers. I would say the same thing about any other country on earth. I believe in the strong nation state model.

        How do you like what’s going on in Germany, France, Brussels, etc? You seem to think it’s peachy because that’s exactly what we’re getting if we don’t start to honestly talk about these issues. And the misery those countries are experiencing is going to get much worse, that’s where fertility rates will be a factor. I guess they’ll just need to “build more schools, expand their communities”, isn’t that how you put it? How’s that working out for them?

        Btw, you’re projection of me is as ham-fisted as your politics. I’m wealthy and self-employed. The only one who’s scared around here is you. Lose this election and you might have to stop screwing your workers and start paying people a decent wage. Oh I forgot, that’s “basic business” to you. It’s just that some of us have figured out how to be successful without f**cking over our fellow countrymen. You seem like a real scumbag to me.

      • satakar October 27, 2016 / 7:56 pm

        OK that is enough. You have been escalating the anger and vitriol and now you are calling names in every post. You have not said anything new and you are just picking fights, using foul language and accusing other posters of things including racism. // Moderator

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 8:12 pm

        Wow, hit a nerve, huh? Don’t have time to post more now but I find it hilarious that you think it’s unacceptably racist for the citizens of a country to express an opinion for what type of people, and therefore traditions and culture, they get to have in their country. Unfreakinbelievable. You think I’m somehow ashamed or masking what I want to say? Here’s a clue idiot, all countries consider population demographics very carefully and always have. It’s only retarded modern globalists like yourself who get triggered over this.

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 8:23 pm

        …“national identity” whatever that means…

        Too much! I’d like to see these cultural Marxist creeps go over to Mexico or Japan or Ghana and criticize them for having a national identity. If it’s wrong for us to have one it must be wrong for them to have one, right?

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 8:34 pm

        You seem to be throwing around the term “fear” to describe me quite a lot. Strange, because I really have no fear about any of this, unless you water down the term substantially–like one fears a tax increase or a crappy trade deal. You really believe the knuckldragging stereotypes you create, don’t you? Yeah, I’m some gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ no hoper afraid of losin’ my jerb to a ferner. Stupid, lazy, and unoriginal.

      • M. Noonan October 28, 2016 / 12:41 am

        I kinda wonder when fear became a bad thing – after all, I’m a definite bear-o-phobe. Don’t want to run into any bears when I’m out camping and I’d be downright shaking in my boots if one wandered into the campground. And this is a healthy thing – bears being these huge, carnivorous creatures who might kill and eat me.

      • rustybrown2014 October 27, 2016 / 8:39 pm

        “I would increase immigration to about 0.5% of total population.

        Good thing you’re not in power but a low-rent house painting contractor, or whatever it is you do.

      • rustybrown2014 October 28, 2016 / 1:32 am

        Satakar is very typical of progressives these days–short on substance and long on labeling, blaming, and shaming. I was talking to a good friend this evening over beers who’s voting Hillary and it was a great conversation because he’s a cool, intelligent guy and neither one of us was looking to demonize or shut down the other. This is inconceivable to people like Satakar.

    • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 9:04 am

      Rusty, your departure from the Left seems to have upset some of its foot soldiers. I’m not going to argue that Clinton supporters are not clueless, but there is something else I always have to consider when reading the kind of stuff Sat and Try post, and that is, do they really believe what they write (which would put them firmly in the clueless category) or do they make these arguments for the sake of argument (which would merely make them dishonest).

      Here’s an example: Talking not about your position on immigration but his “interpretation” of your position on immigration, he writes …adding 65k people to a nation of 320 million won’t make a difference… So, if one is inclined to try to take one of his posts seriously, which I admit doesn’t happen often, one has to believe that to him the entire “immigration” issue is just about what he claims is 65 thousand people. Trying to make sense of this, one would work out that he is only talking about Syrian “refugees”. On the surface, which is where he resides, it sounds reasonable that 65 thousand new people won’t make a difference in a nation of 320 million, but of course most of us look a little deeper than the surface. We ask questions. They seem obvious to us, but then we are not blinded by Leftist ideology.

      One question would be what is the nature of these “refugees”? That is, are they women? Children? Other questions: Do they have some kind of support system in this country or are they just instant additions to our Dependent Class? Do they have job skills or the ability and desire to learn job skills, or are they just instant additions to our Dependent Class? Are they willing to learn English and assimilate, or are they just instant additions to our Dependent Class while remaining outside our culture and society, creating yet another area of divisiveness? Do they want to become Americans, or just ride the gift donkey?

      Are they men? Men of what age? Do they respect this country? Are they violent proponents of anti-American sentiments? Are they criminals? Do they respect our laws? Will they add to America, becoming part of the country and being productive, law abiding, and supportive of her, or will they be a constant irritant and threat from within?

      And this alleged 65 thousand is completely separate from the tens of thousands flooding into our country every day across our porous southern border—-many if not most of whom are not Mexicans.

      His sneering little comment on this one thing alone suggests either a pathetically superficial and ignorant approach to a problem or an inherent dishonesty throwing out ideas he does not share just to argue.

    • rustybrown2014 October 28, 2016 / 1:15 am

      Yes, fear is certainly not a bad thing. Like you say, it’s a beneficial hard-wired system. But progressives like this troll like to trot out fear as a pejorative.

  14. Retired Spook October 27, 2016 / 1:40 pm

    On a lighter note a Twitter war between Lou Dobbs and some Never Trumpers turned out pretty funny.

    A series of tweets by Fox Business anchor Lou Dobbs recently gained attention on Twitter after he used the term “Mormon Mafia” to attack critics of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

    Dobbs, a Trump supporter, took aim at independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin. McMullin, a Mormon, leads Trump in several Utah polls.

    Lou Dobbs ✔ @LouDobbs
    Look Deeper, He’s nothing but a Globalist, Romney and Mormon Mafia Tool #MAGA #AmericaFirst #TrumpPence16 #TrumpTrain #Dobbs

    Dobbs has used the term “Mormon Mafia” before in order to attack Republican lawmakers who he feels have not adequately defended their party’s nominee.

    Lou Dobbs ✔ @LouDobbs
    Billy & Bushes, Ryan, Mormon Mafia attack @realDonaldTrump, ignore HRC’s odious deceit,contempt for Americans http://wpo.st/6Yx32 #MAGA
    8:49 AM – 8 Oct 2016

    Lou Dobbs ✔ @LouDobbs
    GOP Should distance party from Ryan, McConnell, Flakey Mormon Mafia, rally for @realDonaldTrump| http://fxn.ws/2ed8Ium #MAGA #TrumpPence16

    Many Twitter users poked fun at Dobbs’ tweets.

    Follow
    Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger
    If you’re not careful Mormon Mafia will break into your house —- fold the laundry and do the dishes

    Ben Shapiro ✔ @benshapiro
    “You straightened my brother out? Great! He needed a real talking-to!” #MormonMafia

    Jay Caruso ✔ @JayCaruso
    “Never take sides against the Tabernacle Choir again.”#MormonMafia

    Shaun Jex @shaunmjex
    Don’t anger the #MormonMafia. They don’t give a gosh darn.

    jimgeraghty ✔ @jimgeraghty
    “I had the wildest time at that Milk Speakeasy run by the #MormonMafia.”

    Julia Porterfield ✔ @JK_Porterfield
    The #MormonMafia is real.

    Ben Howe ✔ @BenHowe
    Just try to tell a member of the #MormonMafia that you’re not interested in family board game night. See what happens.

    Bigly Shoe @TheOneSoleShoe
    Left some spare blankets in your bed while you were sleeping. #MormonMafia

    JPH #McMullinFinn @jheidmann
    That @LouDobbs exposed us. Time to pay him a visit. Maybe bring a nice bundt cake. #MormonMafia

    • Amazona October 27, 2016 / 2:29 pm

      This is really funny. I am so glad to see conservatives finding something to laugh about this election cycle. I watched a Lou Dobbs video supporting Trump and he got very close to a tipping point of just too much emotion. I didn’t disagree with what he said, but started thinking “Just dial it back a little, Lou. Dial it back.”

      • Retired Spook October 27, 2016 / 2:45 pm

        I would have loved to see some humor injected into the Trump campaign because Lord knows there certainly isn’t any on the Democrat side. Two of the most effective tactics for disarming a political adversary are ridicule and humor. A combination of the two is even more effective.

    • M. Noonan October 27, 2016 / 11:54 pm

      There were some hilarious tweets on that – the one I forgot until today was, “we’re going to make him a casserole he can’t refuse”…

  15. Cluster October 27, 2016 / 3:17 pm

    So this happened in my area yesterday:

    Sheriff Paul Babeu stated, “At 9:28 a.m. the vehicle came to a sudden stop in a residential neighborhood. The driver and two occupants ran from the vehicle. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Helicopter was overhead and as the suspects attempted to run and hide, their location was called out from above by the tactical flight officer. All three suspects were located and arrested. They were identified as Manuel Amador Aispuro (age 19), Ramon Martinez (age 21) and Josue Teran Gandarilea (age 21). At 9:35 a.m. all three suspects admitted they were in the United States illegally from Mexico.” Inside of the suspect vehicle, deputies located 283 pounds of packaged marijuana. The three suspects were booked into the Pinal County Jail for Transportation of Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana for Sale and the driver (Manuel Amador Aispuro) was also charged with Felony Flight.

    I am sure glad that elite politicians are putting Americans first and securing the border. Or is that racist?

Comments are closed.