Chicago 1968... Cleveland 2016?
The Republican National Convention will be held in Cleveland later this year. Already it is shaping up to be one of the most contentious party meetings in American history, even months ahead of time. Pretty much no matter what happens, there are going to be some seriously disappointed people (and that's putting it mildly), both within the convention hall and out in the surrounding streets. That much, at this point, seems almost guaranteed. The real question is whether this will boil over into anything other than the usual disgruntled muttering of the supporters of a losing candidate or not.
Salon ran an article today from Digby which details some of the behind-the-scenes planning by supporters of Donald Trump. Some are already using the phrase "days of rage" for what they want to see happen if Trump is somehow denied the GOP nomination. This, of course, harkens back to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which saw waves of rioting in the streets (and also gave birth to the cry: "The whole world is watching!" since the television cameras were rolling during some of the worst of it). Could this be the year when Republicans see some sort of replay of what the Democrats went through in 1968?
Normally that would be an incredibly provocative question to even ask. It might even border on incitement -- again, if these were normal times. But these are anything but normal times, obviously. Donald Trump himself pondered whether there would be riots in the streets at the convention, in an interview earlier this year. Most of the media tried to portray this as Trump instructing his followers to riot, but that's not precisely what he said. He was asked what he thought would happen if he were to be denied the nomination, and he gave an honest answer: "I think there'd be riots." The reason I defend his use of the word "riot" is because that is exactly what I had been thinking as well: "Trump denied? Riots in the streets."
Further proof, should any be required, comes from major Trump supporter Roger Stone, who sounded this clarion call last week:
Go to Cleveland. Come to Cleveland. Don't let the big steal go forward without massive protest. Peaceful, nonviolent protest.
So, as they used to say, don't wait for orders from headquarters. Ride to the sound of the guns.
I don't mean to imply violence on that. I mean: Ride to where the action will be.
We have to let the Republican bosses and the kingmakers and the insiders and the lobbyists know that we're not going to stand for the big steal. So if you are a Trump supporter, make plans now.
Take a bus! Hitchhike! Carpool! Take a train! Fly, if you can afford it.
We need you in Cleveland!
Even without that "days of rage" phrase, the parallels to the Democrats in 1968 are pretty stark. The people think the political system is rigged against them and their cause, and they intend to let everyone know about it, in as big a way as possible.
The speculation about an "open" or "brokered" convention is currently at a fever pitch. It was already a hot topic among the pundits, but Ted Cruz's victory in Wisconsin has shoved it into overdrive. Normally merely a "what if" scenario that nobody but political wonks love to dream about, this year the chances of it becoming reality are greater than they have been in the past four decades. But there's a big question that almost all the pundits fail to ask themselves, in the midst of all this rampant open convention speculation.
That question is: What happens next? Say the wonky dreams come true and Donald Trump does not have a simple majority of delegates -- the amount necessary to win on the first ballot. Say also that somehow the party manages to nominate someone else on a second, third, or eighty-seventh ballot. What then? What happens next? Nobody really wants to contemplate this aspect of their predictions -- the pundits and party insiders all prefer to then pivot immediately to the general election, as in: "Paul Ryan could be a white knight candidate who rides in and saves the party from Trump and Cruz, and then goes on to wage a successful campaign against Hillary Clinton." Perhaps that might happen, but it completely ignores what the immediate (and visceral) reaction from the Republican base would surely be.
There are only, really, three scenarios to contemplate for the Republican National Convention. Either Trump wins, Cruz wins, or someone else wins. Trump could win outright, on the first ballot. Trump could actually win on a subsequent ballot, by picking up delegates from non-Cruz candidates (especially if he's only a handful of delegates away from winning). Either way, the outcome is the same: the candidate who won the most support from the Republican electorate wins the Republican nomination. This would actually, at this point, be the best possible outcome for those Republicans who care about party unity. That sounds counterintuitive, but when stacked up against the other possible outcomes, this would indeed be the best for holding the party together.
The Republicans are divided into three factions. There are the legions of Trump supporters, there are those who truly love Ted Cruz for his conservatism, and then there are the party establishment types. Both the Cruz and the establishment factions might consider launching some sort of third-party run against Trump if he wins the nomination, but in the end this effort will likely fizzle in one way or another. The problem is that there really isn't anyone for them to rally around -- that's been the party's problem all along, in trying to stop Trump. The establishment types are rallying around Cruz at the moment, but this is merely a marriage of convenience -- they are attempting to use Cruz as a means to an end (denying Trump the nomination), pure and simple. The establishment types have no love for Cruz at all, and would not leave their party if he launched a third-party bid. Remember, at heart the establishment types are the "party above all else" people. Some of them might announce they could never support Donald Trump, but the vast majority of them will eventually fall in line and dutifully "support the nominee of the Republican Party." It is in their nature to do so, since (after all) they are establishment types. Even many of the voters who have been supporting Ted Cruz would likely fall into line behind Trump eventually, rather than follow Cruz off into the third-party wilderness. Trump winning the nomination would actually give the Republican Party the best chance to heal their internal wounds before the general election, as strange as it may seem.
Consider the two other alternatives the party could take in Cleveland. Ted Cruz could masterfully play the delegate-choosing game, and -- after the first ballot denies Trump his victory -- Cruz could emerge with enough delegates to grab the nomination. He's really the only other viable candidate who has proven he's able to get a large amount of voter support, so he'd be the natural alternative to Trump. If Cruz emerges as the party's nominee, then of course his conservative supporters would be happy. The establishment Republicans would also consider this an acceptable outcome, and would fall in line behind Cruz (indeed, most of them already have). But the Trump supporters are not going to go quietly into the night, to put it mildly. More on this in a moment.
The third scenario would actually be the worst, for those who care about party unity. Say a miracle happens, and the party rejects both Trump and Cruz after the initial round of balloting. Say it turns into a real "brokered" convention, with party bigwigs in smoke-filled back rooms (well, "smoke-free," these days, but that is still the correct historical term to use). The party elite would plot and scheme and eventually emerge with a "consensus" candidate -- Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, the ghost of Ronald Reagan, or whomever they came up with. Ironically, this choice would be intended to heal the rifts in the party so they can present a unified front in the general election fight. This would not happen, however. Far from it.
If some "consensus" nominee emerges, it is going to absolutely enrage a majority of the party's voters. The establishment Republicans, of course, will not see this coming, and instead be left wondering why their "consensus" candidate cannot achieve any sort of consensus. The Trump supporters would be just as enraged as if Cruz had won -- but so would the Cruz supporters. Cruz commands the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, to a large extent -- those whose complaint for the past few decades has been: "Why doesn't the party nominate a true conservative instead of losing so many elections with the centrist candidate the establishment types love?" Ted Cruz would be the perfect conservative experiment, since he is about as pure a conservative as you could even imagine. Denying him the nomination -- after supporting him to dethrone Trump -- is going to enrage all of his true conservative supporters. Paul Ryan (or any other "consensus" candidate) would be seen as a traitor to the cause, a betrayal of the grand "true conservative nominee" experiment. So nominating a "consensus" candidate would actually result in the least amount of party unity of any of these choices, since doing so would anger not only the Trump supporters but also the Cruz supporters -- which, added up, roughly equal at least two-thirds of the Republican base who voted in the primaries.
Nominating Trump would avoid more party disunity than the other two options, in other words. Strange but true, but then it's been that sort of year. Not nominating Trump would lead to utter disarray -- and that's at best. At worst, it could lead to rage in the streets. If the party took the "consensus" candidate route, there might not just be Trump rage in the streets, there might be competing Trump and Cruz supporters incensed at what was happening inside the convention hall.
That's a pretty ugly thing to contemplate, admittedly. Even inside the convention, if Trump is denied the nomination there are going to be a whole lot of seriously annoyed pro-Trump delegates (Cruz won't be able to totally pack the house). Even the best case is pretty ugly -- the party calls the delegate roll and announces someone other than Trump as the nominee, accompanied by loud booing and catcalls. Picture it: "Paul Ryan, Republican nominee... BOOOOOOO!!!" That's a spectacle just made for the television cameras, and not exactly the best "party unity" message to send to the public. And remember, that's the best case. Slightly worse would be if all the Trump supporters stood up together and marched out of the convention in unison, angrily screaming all the way. In this case, it wouldn't match the Democratic National Convention of 1968, but instead that of 1948, when the Dixiecrats stormed out to create their own party and nominate Strom Thurmond. Again, this would be tailor-made for television, the spectacle of incensed delegates streaming out of the hall while the congratulatory balloons are supposed to be dropping. The worst case scenario would be not just fistfights and rioting outside the convention, but fistfights and rioting inside the convention, as well. This is a real possibility, at this point. Sad, but true.
If Donald Trump is not guaranteed the nomination on the first ballot, the math will be clear weeks before the convention convenes. If there is a movement to steal the nomination away from Trump, it will take place out in the open. It is already openly being discussed by all kinds of Republicans, so if it becomes a real possibility I seriously doubt it'll suddenly become a secret plot or anything. It'll play out on cable television, instead.
This will give the most fervent Trump supporters time to heed the call of those who see "days of rage" as a good thing. It'll give them time to travel and gather in Cleveland in preparation for the convention. In 1968, the protests and riots occurred right outside the convention hall. This won't happen in 2016, because security zones are a lot wider these days. But even a few blocks away, the cameras will still be rolling. My guess is that if Donald Trump isn't nominated as the Republican presidential candidate this year, there are going to be some mighty disappointed people loudly letting the world know what they think. Which is the real answer to the mostly-unasked question of what happens after a brokered convention comes up with some way to stop Donald Trump. What happens next might indeed be rage in the streets.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Apropos this column: today's anecdote!
White, male, mid-fifties librarian. What does he think of the election season to date?
"Entertaining!…and a little scary. I think something will happen at the convention in Cleveland and neither Trump or Cruz will be chosen. Then there will be a Democrat in the white house for the next four years."
He added, "I don't get involved in politics other than to vote. I'll be here at 5:30 am on election day."
I asked if it had been busy on primary day -- he said it had been. He said, for the first time in his experience, people were waiting in the parking lot for the doors to be opened. We vote at this branch, but we got there mid-afternoon. It was busy but not crazy at that point in the day.
I do think the Repubs are between a rock and a hard place on this one. And the potential for some level of violence is concerning. If you get Press Credentials, aren't you a bit worried about that?
CW -
I think that the worst case scenario is a little over the top...
Having worked in the planning and project management for both DNC and RNC (DNC pays a better wage BTW, and spends more money where it matters)...Once the decision has been made to nominate someone other than the two people voters have been selecting you can expect to see two things happen to telegraph this (it will also prevent some of the protesting and "riots").
You can expect to see the main nomination session closed to any public attendance, the only people who will be allowed within the "ring" for the convention center will be holders of fully named credentials. In other-words the party elite, delegates, and media. This happened in Charlotte, weather was going to impact the open air session at the Panthers stadium (BofA stadium)and there was serious intel to indicate a large amount of protesters attempting to buy tickets and infiltrate. The executive committee made the decision to close the session and as a result about 10k seats were vacant in the convention center.
The other thing you can expect to see is strict security entering the "outer ring". On the nominating session evening the entire downtown core was swept and flushed, if you were on the street and didn't have a good reason to be there you got chased out of the perimeter. Access into the secure zone was then limited to those who could prove a reason for being their or were arriving on the secure transport network.
Those two things alone will certainly tamp down the "riot" potentials, although I do certainly think that we will have plenty of opportunity for good TV imagery, but that it will be limited to the "weeping and wailing, with the gnashing of teeth".
So...at the end of the day I expect to see the repubs do a repeat of Tampa and make sure the area is on lock down for the whole time (dems tried to do this as well). I certainly expect the authorities to be hyper vigilant in "guiding" groups to the free speech interment zones...err I mean the designated free speech zones.
While I think that at the end of the day we can expect to see some limited shenanigans, just enough to satisfy the populace, I think that overall we can expect to see the establishment do what it takes to prevent anything from being viewed as "rage in the streets".
After all, a Coup D'etat works best, when it is a quiet one....
Everything ya'all have said about the GOP Convention can ALSO apply to the Democrat Party convention..
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-campaign-were-discussing-contested-convention-scenario/
Once again, a fully accurate equivalency...
Michale
Paula,
"the potential for some level of violence is concerning."
Dirty trickster Roger Stone is already organizing the riots.
Dirty trickster Roger Stone is already organizing the riots.
Neil... Fact Check?? :D
Michale
Dirty trickster Roger Stone is already organizing the riots.
Part 1: Is Roger Stone a "dirty trickster"?
In my opinion, yes, and The New Yorker and Sun Sentinel, among others, agree:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster
Note the date (2008) and the Donald Trump quotes in the article:
"Stone worked for Donald Trump as an occasional lobbyist and as an adviser when Trump considered running for President in 2000. “Roger is a stone-cold loser,” Trump told me. “He always tries taking credit for things he never did.”"
and
“They caught Roger red-handed lying,” Donald Trump said. “What he did was ridiculous and stupid. I lost respect for Eliot Spitzer when he didn’t sue Roger Stone for doing that to his father, who is a wonderful man.”
The Sun Sentinal (Aug 10, 2015) also has some poor words for Stone:
"For if you think Donald Trump has been rude, crude and insulting toward women, consider Roger Stone, a notorious dirty trickster who publicly calls women the C-word.
"As the Sun Sentinel has previously reported, Trump's former spokesman called the daughter of a local political consultant a "self-important, nasty c---." He tweeted "DIE B----" to former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, whom he called a "snot-nosed, arrogant, biased liberal — and all around b----" for not reviewing his JFK book. He also called actress Sofia Vergara a "self-centered b----" on Twitter. He formed an anti-Hillary Clinton political action committee called Citizens United Not Timid, whose acronym was designed to send a message. His website also tweeted "C U Next Tuesday" to a Sun Sentinel editor, a message also meant to convey a lewd acronym."
Michale: fact check details getting caught in nanny bot.
Net net:
Is Stone a 'dirty trickster' - yes - check out New Yorker article, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a quote by Donald Trump himself from 2000.
Is Stone inciting riots? He is trying to stay on the right side of the law with some mealy mouthed nonsense, but in my opinion he is. CW has the most damning quote in this article ("sound of guns"? really?), but as usual you see the world very differently from me, so you have to decide that one for yourself.
Michale: the nanny bot is stopping my replies on Stone. Maybe that says enough ;)
In August 2015, Nate Silver wrote an article on the challenges facing Donal Trump. While Trump has blasted through stages 1-4, 5 and 6 are starting to become bigger hurdles.
Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
Stage 5: Delegate accumulation
When it happens: mid-March through final primaries in June
Potential threats to Trump: Poor organization in caucus states, poor understanding of delegate rules, no support from superdelegates.
Stage 6: Endgame
When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.
FYI Michale:
"7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all."
Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
Michale: the nanny bot is stopping my replies on Stone. Maybe that says enough ;)
hehehehehe
"7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all."
Yea, that's why I called Reice a frakin' douche.. :D
Michale
Yea, that's why I called Reice a frakin' douche.. :D
And that's why a candidate like Trump (and to a lesser extent, Sanders) is doing so well..
Because Joe & Jane Sixpack are sick and tired of all the crap from the Establishment...
And THAT is why if the Election comes down to ESTABLISHMENT (Clinton) vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT (Trump) the ESTABLISHMENT will lose. And lose big..
Even without the sure-to-be indictment(s)...
Michale
Michale: the nanny bot is stopping my replies on Stone. Maybe that says enough ;)
hehehehehe
I wouldn't have thought that the NNL filter would kick in for DYOFR
:D
Michale
Everything ya'all have said about the GOP Convention can ALSO apply to the Democrat Party convention..
Bernie's problem are the superdelegates. It is almost mathematically impossible for Bernie to get enough delegates to overcome Hillary's bound delegates plus the current superdelegate pledges she already has.
Bernie hopes that he can start to win over some of the superdelegates, but he has four major problems:
1. Despite Michale's concerns about indictments and establishment vs. anti-establishment forces, most superdelegates think Hillary has the best chance against Trump or Cruz
2. The whole point of superdelegates is to tip the balance when the popular vote is out of adds with the party concensus
3. Superdelegates are typically party insiders and Bernie has been an Independent, Hillary has all the connections and Bill is still regarded as a big time hero within the party
4. Hillary has been campaigning and helping down ticket candidates, and has pointed out, just to make sure everybody is paying attention, that Bernie hasn't. Bernie has been looking out for Bernie. This is not likely to help swing superdelegates to his cause.
I predict (usual caveats) that Hillary sweeps into July with the contest wrapped up, and that Trump, either via 1237 delegates before, or by winning at the convention, will be the nominees.
I think CW's argument above is spot on - only Trump can stop Trump supporters from going rogue. The other groups (establishment, evangelicals, tea-party, etc.) will go for anybody-but-Hillary.
DYOFR? Hint please.
Do your own xxx research. Figured it out ;)
Bernie's problem are the superdelegates. It is almost mathematically impossible for Bernie to get enough delegates to overcome Hillary's bound delegates plus the current superdelegate pledges she already has.
And, as you pointed out, the GOP also is a (kinda) superdelegate issue..
But we're talking a CONTESTED CONVENTION... And Team Bernie is planning for a Contested Convention as well..
1. Despite Michale's concerns about indictments and establishment vs. anti-establishment forces, most superdelegates think Hillary has the best chance against Trump or Cruz
And that's based on what?? Surely not the current polling...
So, the only thing it could be based on is the oodles of $$$ and access that Clinton is promising the SDs to go against the will of the people...
The whole point of superdelegates is to tip the balance when the popular vote is out of adds with the party concensus
In other words, overturn the will of the people... IE disenfranchise the voters.. Hmmmmmm I had thought that THAT was only a Republican crime...
Apparently, I was wrong... :D
Superdelegates are typically party insiders and Bernie has been an Independent, Hillary has all the connections and Bill is still regarded as a big time hero within the party
So it's not only who you know, but who you ... well you can finish that...
Apropos, considering Slick Willy.. :D
4. Hillary has been campaigning and helping down ticket candidates, and has pointed out, just to make sure everybody is paying attention, that Bernie hasn't. Bernie has been looking out for Bernie.
One could easily make the case that Bernie is looking out for Americans...
This is not likely to help swing superdelegates to his cause.
Yer right about THAT.... :^/
I predict (usual caveats) that Hillary sweeps into July with the contest wrapped up, and that Trump, either via 1237 delegates before, or by winning at the convention, will be the nominees.
I agree on Trump, but am not so sure about Clinton..
Just go with me on this.. What will happen when Clinton and/or senior staff is either indicted or recommended to be indicted by Director Comey...
What would your realistic prediction be for that???
I am sincerely curious...
Do your own xxx research. Figured it out ;)
"Yer soo smart..."
-Billy Madison
:D
Michale
As a participant in the Anti-War and Nixon Impeachment Protests (Washington D.C.) I can tell you that genuine street protest is very much a young person's game. The key factors are 1) physical fitness and 2) a poorly developed sense of your own mortality. As an individual crests 30 years of age, factor 1 is nosing over, while factor 2 is just beginning soar, largely because of cues from factor 1.
The heartwood of Trump support seems to be 50-ish.
http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/trump-supporters.php
Cardio, feet and bladder/prostate are going to be critical issues for a 50 y.o. street fighter. A look at the income distribution suggests few will have access to agile and compact mobility aids like Segway scooters and hover boards.
It might be possible to structure protests as an automotive demonstration, preferably in convertibles, but this is likely to mistaken for, and dismissed by the media as, oldster car enthusiasts cruising. Boosting troop capacity by use of pickup trucks, flat beds and trailers is going to look like Grapes of Wrath or the intro the Beverly Hillbillies, which come to think of it might make the desired political statement, so hell, go with that.
Other weak points that need to be addressed:
Poor hitch hiking skills-
Poor heat tolerance-
Poor cold tolerance-
General crankiness-
Inability to sleep on hard surfaces in cramped spaces, some of them moving-
Weak tolerance for awful food or no food at all.
Medical needs must be addressed. Back in the day, we had aid tents. These will need to upgraded to MASH like ICUs. A lot of these folks will be packing 4 X 7 pill packs, which do not travel well, and are hard to keep up with on the road. Smart phone reminders can help participants stay on track. Please turn off your ring tones. "Attention, attention, the saw tooth palmetto capsules are bad."
Porto Potties. For God's sake, lots and lots of them.
The Nannybot is strong today.
goode trickle - 3
Your post supports my intuitions. Crowd control is a very well developed art in the USA. Sports events and rock concerts!
"After all, a Coup D'etat works best, when it is a quiet one...." My feelings exactly.
Do Americans, beyond President Obama and his cabinet, care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating?
Do (should??) Americans care what the rest of the so-called "civilized" world cares about??
"We're Americans, we're a simple people. But if you piss us off, we bomb your cities!"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
:D
Michale
Just go with me on this.. What will happen when Clinton and/or senior staff is either indicted or recommended to be indicted by Director Comey...
You mean newly labeled right-wing extremist Comey? Thankfully the DoJ will override his ridiculous overreach, and Hillary will have a field day re-running her role for "Benghazi!!! 2 - the Email Sequel" to increasingly vicious men attacking her for the temerity to want to be the first female president. (If you don't think this is how it will play out in the left-wing-sphere, you are more delusional than usual ;)
You know the Republicans won't be able to help themselves and grandstand to their base. With Trump pissing off women on one side and Republican congressmen attacking Hillary on the other, the Republicans may as well concede:
1. Majority of women (53% of voters)
2. Vast majority of latinos (10% of voters)
3. Vast majority of African-Americans (12% of voters)
Given that there are ~50% overlaps between 1 & 2 and 1 & 3, you have 64% of the electorate being insulted on a regular basis.
That should work out great for Donald.
With apologies to Crosby Stills etc.
Though your mother's bound and gagged
And they've chained her to her chair
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
Bring a sling!
If you think your Class is special
and that Trump will treat you fair.
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
For the yelp that He might bring?
Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!
Politicians, sit yourselves down
There's nothing for you here
Won't you just give up in Cleveland
Take a ride.
Don't ask Cruz to help you
'Cause we'll smack you up the ear
Won't you get your ass to Cleveland
Let us bring our guns inside.
Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!
If you believe in justice
If you believe in freedom
Let a man live his own life
Rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door, oh yeah
From the bottom of the food chain
To the Towers of The Trump
Won't you get your ass to Chicago?
Where I live is such a dump!
Can't we change the world?
Rearrange the world?
We're high and dry and bitter!
We need a Mussolini
And we will wink at freedom.
Let a strongman guide our lives.
Rules and regulations for who needs 'em,
But for us to just ignore.
You mean newly labeled right-wing extremist Comey?
Since when???
Are we talking about the same Comey who Democrats gushed over lovingly when he slapped down the Bush Administration over warrantless wire-tapping???
THAT Comey??
You know the Republicans won't be able to help themselves and grandstand to their base.
What part of THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FBI's INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY'S ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER do you not understand???
With Trump pissing off women on one side
Have you checked Hillary's approval with women?? It's barely above Trump's.. :D
Michale
Your post supports my intuitions. Crowd control is a very well developed art in the USA. Sports events and rock concerts!
I've always been impressed with the safety at major sporting events in the U.S. I lived in a city with a particularly virulent pair of opposing team supporters, and even went to a few of the 'derby' games - the level of violence is extreme and pitch invasions, police horse charges, flying bottles, etc. were fairly common. The atmosphere was electric - it literally felt like a constant buzzing in your body for 90 minutes.
I've always wondered if the violence would be more extreme here is you had intra-city rivalries like Man City vs. Man U, Liverpool vs. Everton, Celtic vs. Rangers, etc
Do the Yankees and the Mets fans fight? The Giants and the A's?
So, Michale, what you're really saying then is that you don't wish America to be viewed and treated as a superpower and leader of the free world.
Well, if that were true, then it would have some very serious consequences.
That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot.
So, Michale, what you're really saying then is that you don't wish America to be viewed and treated as a superpower and leader of the free world
Not at all..
I just don't feel like third world shitholes have any moral foundation to judge Americans OR our leaders...
Take Mexico for example. They cap on and castigate Trump incessantly..
But look at THEIR pissant leaders who are rotten and corrupt to the core...
Do you REALLY think that we should elect leaders that make THOSE corrupt assholes happy???
Not only "NO" but "HELL NO!!!!!"
That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot.
You appear to be saying that Americans should choose their leaders based on the wants and desires of foreign countries..
Once America starts doing that, it will no longer be America...
The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...
Unless you want to start a One World Government (as a prelude to creating the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS :D ) with the US at the top there is absolutely NO REASON to listen to what OTHER countries want in our leaders...
Michale
I just don't feel like third world shitholes have any moral foundation to judge Americans OR our leaders...
Well, thanks very much, I appreciate it.
The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...
America is not an island.
If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores.
Elizabeth wrote:
"Do Americans, beyond President Obama and his cabinet, care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating?"
The simple answer to that. I'm afraid, is not only "NO" But a "HELL NO!" In fact, a lot of Americans who are supporting them, would view it as a good thing or a badge of honor, if the rest of the world HATED their choice. Historically, Americans tend to be a very inward looking people anyway. The worry about ourselves, don't give a damn about the rest of the world mentality. It also goes along with the notion of America being better than everybody else, and the arrogance that we are so much more powerful, and bigger than anybody else, that they need to follow us anyway, regardless.
Elizabeth wrote:
"So, Michale, what you're really saying then is that you don't wish America to be viewed and treated as a superpower and leader of the free world.
Well, if that were true, then it would have some very serious consequences.
That's my way of telling you that Americans SHOULD care what the rest of us think of the way it selects its leaders and how those leaders lead. They should care a lot."
I agree with you Elizabeth. We SHOULD care. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of Americans simply DON'T. Either because of total and complete apathy of what the rest of the world thinks, or because of a "Screw them, we are Americans!" mentality. Most Americans think the USA is a superpower and leads the world because it is a "RIGHT" for us to do so. not a privilege. They also think we would be a superpower and leader of the world regardless of what others think about us. It is better to be feared than liked, etc.
Michale wrote:
"Not only "NO" but "HELL NO!!!!!" The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...
Unless you want to start a One World Government (as a prelude to creating the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS :D ) with the US at the top there is absolutely NO REASON to listen to what OTHER countries want in our leaders..."
Far be it for me to agree with Michale about anything! :-) But on this, I have to say that for once, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Well, thanks very much, I appreciate it.
You HAVE to know I was not referring to Canada....
If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores.
Agreed..
But those priorities MUST be lower than the priorities towards one's own country..
In other words, we pick our leaders that will do right by AMERICANS first..
NOT do right by Mexicans or Iranians or North Koreans first...
I fail to see what's wrong with AMERICA FIRST...
Michale
Far be it for me to agree with Michale about anything! :-) But on this, I have to say that for once, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Hold on!! You can't just......er.. hay now ....whatsahosits???
:D
Michale
Elizabeth wrote:
"America is not an island.
If America wishes to retain its global leadership position, then it must have priorities beyond its shores."
AGREED. But again, it comes down to the fact, that most of the time, most Americans, give very little thought to the rest of the world, if at all. To them, it simply does not impact their daily lives, and they don't really care. This is not Europe, where you can drive for an hour and be in another country with a totally different language and culture. We occupy an entire continent to ourselves, separated by everyone else by two huge oceans. Our only neighbors are Canada, which pretty much shares our language and culture, and with apologies, might as well just be another American state, and Mexico, which is looked down upon, is considered "quaint" and a fun place to visit and party on Spring Break.
I fail to see what's wrong with AMERICA FIRST...
As it pertains to Americans, of course..
I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..
Which is why it is mind-boggling to me when Mexicans demand that Americans choose leaders that are acceptable to Mexicans..
Considering the calibre of Mexican Leaders, that adds a whole new level of chutzpah...
Michale
I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..
Huh?
John,
Far be it for me to agree with Michale about anything! :-) But on this, I have to say that for once, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Michale may be absolutely right but he is ULTIMATELY WRONG on whether Americans do or should care about what the rest of the civilized world (beyond Mexico and especially including America's NATO partners)thinks about American leadership.
Elizabeth wrote:
"I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..
Huh?"
Every country, American included, puts it's own national strategic concerns first, before anything else. It is only natural, in fact, that they do so. Everything else becomes secondary considerations. Including the views of close allies. Not unimportant considerations, just ones that are further down the list in importance, than your own self-interest, which ALWAYS comes first.
That was a little joke, John.
Read again what Michale wrote. :)
I want to continue this discussion with you, John, but I'm out of time until later today.
I would not expect Mexicans to put America first, nor would I expect Canadians to put Canada first..
You know what I meant.. :D
Michale
John[38]
For the record, I didn't write that - I was quoting Michale. :)
I'm not sure what you mean anymore, Michale.
Elizabeth wrote:
"Michale may be absolutely right but he is ULTIMATELY WRONG on whether Americans do or should care about what the rest of the civilized world (beyond Mexico and especially including America's NATO partners)thinks about American leadership."
Oh I agree with you Elizabeth. America should care about what the rest of the world thinks, for a variety of very important reasons and definitely make that an important consideration. Everyone would be better off if they did. I am just saying that most Americans currently don't. And even if they did, what everyone else thinks would not, and should not, be the number one priority anyway.
Michale may be absolutely right but he is ULTIMATELY WRONG on whether Americans do or should care about what the rest of the civilized world (beyond Mexico and especially including America's NATO partners)thinks about American leadership.
When Americans go into their polling booths, nearly the LAST thing they should be thinking is, "Hmmmmm I wonder what Mexicans/Iranians/North Koreans/Syrians/Russians/etc/etc would think of my choice..???"
It simply shouldn't even enter the equation.. or, if it does, it should be one of the LAST considerations...
Michale
And even if they did, what everyone else thinks would not, and should not, be the number one priority anyway.
That should go without saying.
Elizabeth wrote:
"That was a little joke, John."
My apologies, I have a hard time sometimes distinguishing when people are being serious or not.
"Read again what Michale wrote. :)For the record, I didn't write that - I was quoting Michale. :) "
oh ok.
"I want to continue this discussion with you, John, but I'm out of time until later today."
If we get the chance later on to continue the discussion, I look forward to it. :-)
You appear to be saying that Americans should choose their leaders based on the wants and desires of foreign countries..
Once America starts doing that, it will no longer be America...
The SOLE priority for Americans to choose their leaders is that said leaders do right BY Americans and FOR Americans...
The sole priority for Americans is to elect a leader that will produce the best outcomes for Americans. America is part of a much larger global community and marketplace, which must be taken into account.
If we have a leader that picks unnecessary quarrels with other countries, the result is likely to be protectionist barriers being raised. This will almost certainly be worse for Americans as it will raise prices, eliminate markets for our goods, and force other countries to coordinate without America's involvement.
It may even impact the dollar as the trading and reserve currency of the world. If you don't understand the impact on our trading strength that the dollar's position affords us, you might want to do some serious reading before pulling the handle for somebody who wants to start trade wars.
Also, trade wars can lead to military actions. Since nobody in their right mind is going to take on the American military in a straight fight, that means backdoor funding of terrorists attacking our open society, kidnapping of Americans traveling abroad, etc.
So, basically it is in America's interest to have somebody in the White House that is respected and regarded as being a good world leader - not for Mexicans, French, Iranians, Ukrainians, or any other nationality, even Canadians, but for Americans.
Whoaaaa
http://www.weeklystandard.com/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters-are-defending-murders-and-drug-dealers/article/2001877
BUBBA UNLEASHED!!!!
Never thought I could possibly agree with Bill Clinton... :D
Michale
You mean newly labeled right-wing extremist Comey?
Since when???
Are we talking about the same Comey who Democrats gushed over lovingly when he slapped down the Bush Administration over warrantless wire-tapping???
THAT Comey??
Yes, that Comey. And when? Immediately after he recommends Clinton is indicted. That was the point of the post - this will be turned into an extremely partisan fight by both sides and there will be no neutrals. What he did during the Bush administration will be cast aside.
For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/liberal-hero-james-comey-now-the-enemy-for-telling-the-truth-about-cops/
BUBBA UNLEASHED!!!!
Bill's still got it.
“Unlike when I became president, a lot of things are coming apart around the world now.”
-Bill Clinton..
Hay Bill.. Don't keep it all bottled up inside..
Tell us how you REALLY feel.... :D
I am guessing that Obama just told the Clintons he is not going to protect them from the DOJ....
Michale
Yes, that Comey. And when? Immediately after he recommends Clinton is indicted. That was the point of the post - this will be turned into an extremely partisan fight by both sides and there will be no neutrals. What he did during the Bush administration will be cast aside.
Ahhhh I get it..
Yea, yer right...
Hypocrites that they are, Democrats will scream for Comey's head...
You called it dead on ballz accurate...
I am just surprised to hear you say it.. :D
Michale
You know the Republicans won't be able to help themselves and grandstand to their base.
What part of THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FBI's INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY'S ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER do you not understand???
I was talking about the reaction of Republicans after Comey recommends charges (if that happens). The hotheads started off grandstanding on email-gate but the leadership had a quiet word with them that even the idiot brigade could understand:
1. if they make this partisan before Comey comes out with his report and he recommends charges there is little new impact because this will be an ongoing partisan battle just like Benghazi!!! - in fact it will be perceived as a continuation of Benghazi!!! - a battle where the Republicans got their asses handed to them
2. if they make a big stink and Comey says there was nothing wrong, they get even more Benghazi!!! egg on their faces and basically hand the White House to Clinton
3. However if they let the weirdos on AM radio keep the 'scandal' simmering and then Comey comes out with charges, it looks like an FBI led charge, rather than a Republican Congress led charge, and they can start grandstanding with great moral outrage. You will love it.
Prediction of the day: if Comey says 'nothing to see here, move along folks' he will be vilified in the right wing press
if Comey recommends charges he will be vilified in the left wing press.
Who'd want to be running the FBI?
Can't argue with 55 or 56...
That's why Comey *HAS* to be channeling his inner Captain Picard..
"If I am to be damned, let me be damned for what I really am!"
I trust Director Comey to follow the evidence and the law...
Wherever that may lead...
Michale
Is it just a coincidence that Israel got left out of that "do or should care" discussion?
It would seem that the exception to the "hell no" rule deserves a mention.
Even Trump flip-flopped on his former pronouncements and became just another establishment brownnoser at AIPAC after all.
A
For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/liberal-hero-james-comey-now-the-enemy-for-telling-the-truth-about-cops/
Neil,
Yer my hero for the day!!! :D
Michale
Is it just a coincidence that Israel got left out of that "do or should care" discussion?
Just a quick in and out to remind that patience is a virtue, as they say, Al ...
The discussion to which you refer has only just begun here. You will understand that we couldn't possibly cover all relevant aspects in just a few short comments.
When the discussion resumes later this evening, be sure to join us!
Fodder for the debate:
I'm not sure it is still accurate, but I remember a bit of data from a while back -- only 15% of Americans ever get a passport.
Part of the reason for all the America-centric feeling is we just don't get out all that much and see the rest of the world. So it's no more than an abstract to most.
You can see this in the whole "We're #1!" jingoism. Most Americans think we're the #1 country in the world BY ANY MEASURE. Period. Just because. Show them stats showing us far down the list in this category or that, and most just won't believe it. See my recent column on us upgrading to new chipped credit card technology that is NOT AS GOOD as what I experienced in France in 1992, for an example.
Anyway, TheStig [22] -
Excellent! And you only have to apologize to Graham Nash, it was on his solo album...
I almost included a quote from "Chicago" in this article, but then I just couldn't bring myself to do so...
:-)
-CW
Biga seems to be implying that I believe Israel is somehow different than the countries listed vis a vis choosing our leaders based on approval from Israel or Israelis...
Nothing could be further from the facts...
But, that is to be expected... :D
Michale
@CW [61]
It isn't as bad as it seems, Chris. There are about 126M valid U.S. passports at the moment, about 35% of the population.
Source:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/statistics.html
Today's Anecdote:
Late 50's white woman on walking/jogging trail -- what does she think of the election season to date? She was very cheerful as she replied:
"I don't watch cablenews. I am 100% for Hillary. My daughter got to shake her hand in Alabama and said Hillary was the first woman who shook her hand 'with no apologies'. She's not afraid of being a powerful woman. I want her in the white house. I support her fully, just as I did Obama."
Note: you may have to change the report to "Valid Passports in Circulation (1989-Present)" to see the total number rather than the number issued per year.
If you do, have a look at the chart on the right - in 1989 there were only 7M passports, and now it is 126M - pretty steep rise, from under 5% to over 30% in a couple of decades.
Maybe it was all the Republicans fleeing the country during the Clinton years, then the Democrats in the Bush years ;)
John,
it comes down to the fact, that most of the time, most Americans, give very little thought to the rest of the world, if at all. To them, it simply does not impact their daily lives, and they don't really care. This is not Europe, where you can drive for an hour and be in another country with a totally different language and culture. We occupy an entire continent to ourselves, separated by everyone else by two huge oceans.
I think it's true that the relative isolation of America, separated as it is from Europe and Asia by two oceans, plays a big part in how average Americans view the outside world and whether or not they care about how others see US policy and its global impacts.
It's also true, as Chris pointed out, that a large chunk of the US population has not traveled extensively outside of North America (Canada/US/Mexico) and are not curious about how the rest of the world lives.
But, in this day and age, when the world has become a much smaller place in many respects, the relative isolation of America is no longer an excuse for ignorance. Though it does go a long way towards explaining why there is such a paucity of courageous and visionary political leadership in the US today, at all levels of government.
Hi Liz
Looking forward to yours and the others take on the exception to the rule when you have time.
I'll join in if I feel the need.
Taking the concerns of other nations into account seems reasonable, but putting America first makes the Israel exception all the more galling.
Our blind support for them harms America in numerous ways.
A
John,
Our only neighbors are Canada, which pretty much shares our language and culture, and with apologies, might as well just be another American state ...
You know we won the war of 1812, right?
In any event, that victory came with a plethora of distinguishing features that separate us from our American cousins.
However, we would always find a way to welcome another province or two into confederaton. :)
Al,
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Israel exception" in the context of this discussion.
I hope you'll feel the need to explain ...
Troll
If I was addressing you, the comment would have been directed to troll, liar or wingnut.
As usual, you were wrong yet again.
Hi Liz
Supporting policies that harm America is not putting America first.
A
Hey CW
Not sure if you're checking older threads...
But you mentioned a two week dry spell in the Underdog post.
Don't forget Wyoming April 9th.
A
Al,
I have long recognized that the national interests of America and Israel do not always coincide and, at times, are even at great odds. You'll have to spell out in more detail which US policies toward Israel are detrimental to America.
But, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?
neilm -
I heard this stat in 1992, when I applied for my first passport. Glad to hear the numbers have improved!
altohone -
Didn't I say something like "major primaries"?
:-)
Heh. But thanks, I'll call the WY race in tomorrow's column...
-CW
Hi Liz
Americans putting the interests of Israel first is a different discussion than putting America first?
Come on.
Do not always coincide?
As if the times they don't are aberrations rather than the rule, right?
Do you want to start with the billions in aid that could be put to some use here?
Maybe the concept of human rights?
How about one person, one vote?
Perhaps UN veto's despite nearly unanimous world opinion?
Or tax deductions for donations for settlements on stolen land?
I could go on, but it might be easier to list the rare instances where our interests align.
Do any come to mind?
A
Hey CW
Nope.
A
So, Al, you think that Israel and the US have no interests that align? That's pretty amazing.
It sounds like you wish to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the US has helped or hurt the Middle East Peace Process. Well, that is a serious topic for discussion and a very complicated and convoluted one at that.
It's a discussion I'm always open to having with anyone here, at any time ... because I'm a sucker for punishment. That was a little joke.
And, it is surely true that many American politicians and lobbyists care about what Israel thinks about US policy. That was amply demonstrated during the Iran nuclear negotiations - to the detriment of Israel's national security interests, I hasten to add.
But, I was wondering more about whether or not average American voters care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating. And, if they don't care, then do they believe America is the only reigning superpower and leader of the free world? I guess my point is that they can't have it both ways. That is to say that they can't not care about what the rest of the world thinks AND see America as a superpower and global leader.
As for the "America first" argument ... I would suggest that while the first and top priority of any US president and administration is the security of the American people, that security will be far less than optimal in the absence of the cooperation and support of the global community.
CW -
You are absolutely right, I should have given author Nash top billing. Still, the song was directed at Crosby and Stills (please come play at the benefit) and Crosby Stills and Nash performed it many times, as did CSN&Young. TheStig apologizes to all with a valid claim on the tune.
Uh-oh I'm going to do it again ... Trump is toast ...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-new-magic-number-is-40-percent-of-the-vote/
@CW: I assume you get to look at the nannybot trapped posts. Given that you screen the first posts for all of us, how many posts posted by pre-screened posters are sufficiently egregious to merit blocking?
Just asking.
Liz,
It sounds like you wish to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the US has helped or hurt the Middle East Peace Process. Well, that is a serious topic for discussion and a very complicated and convoluted one at that.
Actually, it's not complicated at all.. It's very VERY simple..
As long as the Palestinians resort to terrorism, they have absolutely NO legal, moral or ethical case to make..
Israel has a blank check to deal with the issue up to, but not including, terrorism itself..
What could be simpler??
Michale
Biga,
If I was addressing you, the comment would have been directed to troll, liar or wingnut.
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your acknowledgement of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant. :D
Michale
Neil,
Uh-oh I'm going to do it again ... Trump is toast ...
Since you were my hero of the day, I am gonna let this one slide.. :D
Michale
Neil,
When you look at the facts and the numbers, Trump is actually in better shape as a candidate than Hillary is..
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/06/hillary-clinton-is-a-weaker-frontrunner-than-donald-trump/
Michale
Adding to Hillary's woes..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html
Guccifer is probably spilling to the FBI all the juicy National Security secrets that Hillary and Blumenthal tossed back and forth via email...
Considering that the FBI has Guccifer AND Pagliano at their disposal.......
Hillary is toast...
Michale
Well, the worst-case scenario is if they start exercising their second-amendment rights on each other.
I'm pretty much in agreement with the main point. The only way Trump would do any harm to the Party is if they don't nominate him. No one who really objects to Trumpism was voting Republican anyway. So if they nominate him, they pick up a few million formerly-apolitical TV fans and lose nobody. They also lose this presidential election (unless there turns out to actually be something to emailgate despite all the times they've cried wolf), but they weren't really planning to win it anyway.
Hi Liz
None coming to mind is rather different than what you claim, but since you offered none either, I'm just going to laugh it off.
But, no.
The topic at hand was putting America first.
Not the I/P conflict.
Blind support for Israeli policies that harm US interests at home and in the global community is not putting America first.
You asked for examples.
I gave some.
I find it a bit funny that you seem to be invoking the Israel exception to bow out of the discussion... by claiming it's a different discussion when it's not.
And average American voters in both parties seem quite comfortable or indifferent to the Israel exception... and the harmful effects at home and abroad.
I fully support the idea of taking world opinion into account... including on what people think about the policies of the Repub candidates... which includes their positions on Israel.
(and if you were to go by the policies supported by the Repub establishment rather than the batshit crazy election nonsense, you would also have to note the policies of Hillary Clinton are eerily similar)
Our country would be a better place if we did value opinions from the global community, because a lot of our policies would be different.
A
Al,
Do you put a lot of effort into coming across here as a smart ass or does it just come naturally for you?
The topic at hand, by the way, is what I asked to begin it all ... do Americans, beyond President Obama and his cabinet, care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about the two top Republican presidential candidates and the policies they are advocating?
I'm sure you have an opinion on that, Al - care to share it with us or do you just not feel the need to engage.
Al,
Our country would be a better place if we did value opinions from the global community, because a lot of our policies would be different.
Now, there is a basis for a continuing and ongoing discussion. :)
Hi Liz
(91)
Don't take kindly to misrepresentations.
Smart ass in, smart ass out.
And it's effortless.
But I have a predisposition to it anyway... if you somehow missed it these many months.
(92)
No, the vast majority of Americans don't care about world opinion.
Many do, including myself.
Many more say they do, but when push comes to shove, they actually don't.
But, if we're going to talk about Americans caring what the rest of the world thinks, it would seem like US veto's to shield Israel from world opinion would be proof positive that the majority in the US, including Obama, don't care what the world thinks... along with other US policies toward Israel... and thus my comments were within the realm of the topic.
Maybe asking for acknowledgement is too much?
(93)
Thanks.
I wish our country was that better place.
I don't do this for my health. I'm trying to push us in that direction and have been doing so for over 30 years.
Wouldn't you say that our policies towards Israel would be different if we did value opinions from the global community?
Yes, I'm harping on the subject.
What can I say... I hold grudges.
Slip me a little yes under the table, and I promise to drop it.
A
Al,
Wouldn't you say that our policies towards Israel would be different if we did value opinions from the global community?
Not necessarily. Not all policies, anyway. Israel, you see, is an exception, a special case, if you will. A very special case, lately, if you know what I mean and I have an inkling that you do. :)
Don't ever drop the subject of Israel, not while I'm still around here! It's a fascinating topic and always worthy of discussion.
The Iran nuclear negotiations are a prime example of the US FINALLY going its own way in a big way against the wishes of the Netanyahu government (but for the very arguable benefit of Israel and the rest of us) and US policy has always been opposed to illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian territories, even under Republican administrations.
The UN vetoes you speak of have to do with favouring a diplomatic solution and negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Personally, I believe that particular scenario is no longer in the cards. Which is a great shame ... for Israel and for the Palestinians not to mention a great stain on the US for its failure to facilitate such an agreement.
Truth be told, I can be a pretty good smart ass, myself, as you and everyone else around here know full well. :)
Do you put a lot of effort into coming across here as a smart ass or does it just come naturally for you?
OH!!!! OH!!! I know this one!!! OH!!! Pick Me!! Pick Me!!! I know!!!! I know!!!!
:D
Michale
Of course, you do. :)
Hi Liz
I guess "not necessarily" is as good as I'm going to get.
"Israel, you see, is an exception, a special case, if you will. A very special case" is really the point I was making from the beginning, so that's almost as good as a "yes".
And it keeps you in the "maybe" file.
I'm in the "do not admit" file.
But I wouldn't spend a penny to maintain the status quo there, so it doesn't matter.
I didn't mean I'd drop the subject forever... just this round.
But look, if our policies were in sync with world opinion, the veto's would not be necessary.
If, as many claim, it's about favoring a diplomatic approach, then the wildly lopsided votes suggest world opinion doesn't favor a diplomatic approach.
The world seems to want action on at least certain issues... and I would say that many of the resolutions we've nixed weren't contrary to a diplomatic approach, just wanting to exert some pressure to encourage a diplomatic solution.
But even that is too much for the special case to tolerate.
But whatever.
I specifically excluded the Iran deal from my comments because I know we are in agreement on the topic, and I was looking for other areas where we might find common ground.
It's no fun picking the low hanging fruit either.
Yes, smart ass in, smart ass out was an acknowledgement of a shared trait.
Sure beats being a dumb ass.
A
It's no fun picking the low hanging fruit either.
I resemble that remark.
Sure beats being a dumb ass ...
... or making smart asses look bad. :)