A Post-Truth Presidency
We're approaching the end of the year, so we can all expect to hear lots of "the year that was" items in the news. One of the earliest entries in this news genre came from across the pond:
Oxford Dictionaries has selected "post-truth" as 2016's international word of the year, after the contentious "Brexit" referendum and an equally divisive U.S. presidential election caused usage of the adjective to skyrocket, according to the Oxford University Press.
Now, "post-truth" is just a new spin on an old concept. Stephen Colbert was feeling a bit peeved last week, since "post-truth" is just another way to express Colbert's own famous neologism, "truthiness." But other than coining a new term for it, the idea behind Colbert's (or Oxford's) snappy word certainly isn't new. Back in World War II, it was known as "The Big Lie." The basic idea is an easy one to grasp: believe the hype, not the facts. Repeat a falsehood enough times, and a whole bunch of people start to believe it. Once they do, proving it wrong using facts just doesn't seem to work.
Donald Trump might be called "post-truthiness defined" (with apologies to both Oxford and Colbert). Whatever Donald Trump believes at any given moment is truth, to him. Furthermore, even with mountains of evidence to contradict him, whatever he believes at the moment is always what he believed. Any videotape showing this not to be true is dismissed as the "crooked media" misunderstanding or misrepresenting Trump's true beliefs.
This was on full display this weekend, as Trump took to Twitter to (confusingly) argue both sides of an issue simultaneously. First, he called the recount effort in Wisconsin, launched by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, as a "scam." Then, apparently still miffed that Hillary Clinton beat him in the popular vote by over two million votes, Trump bizarrely tweeted (without a shred of actual proof) that, if the "millions who voted illegally" weren't counted, then he, in fact, had won the popular vote. So in the space of hours, Trump is arguing that recounting votes is a scam, but also that millions voted illegally -- confirming all his bluster in the weeks leading up to the election that it would be "rigged." Trump (and, to be honest, most of the media) doesn't see any contradiction in those stances. He's taking all sides of the issue, so he can later claim to have been right no matter what happens. Post-truthiness at its finest!
Believing the hype rather than the facts, once again, is nothing new in politics. The fact that a leader believes something that is not true also influences everyone around him. Anyone attempting to curry favor with such a leader will have to prove they too fervently believe the hype over the facts. This feedback loop only serves to reinforce the falsehood in the leader himself. This is so well-known we even have a myth available as an example, which is used to warn children about such people. Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" accurately predicts the consequences of a leader believing a lie and forcing all those around him to believe it as well. Trump's not naked, he's just got magic new clothes that nobody can see.
At his core, Donald Trump shows a dangerous instability that could have far-reaching consequences for millions. New York Times reporters who met with Trump last week in an on-the-record interview session revealed part of this instability when they said Trump does actually appear malleable on some core issues, and that whatever he says at the moment, he fully believes for that moment. Trump sitting down with a general who warned that waterboarding and other torture was ineffectual and counterproductive resulted in Trump drastically shifting his own position. Perhaps, though, if Trump sits down with proponents of torture, he'll change his mind again.
The really scary part of this is how Trump expects everyone else to just accept his statements at face value and by doing so to totally ignore all his previous statements to the contrary. If Trump believes it now, then he always must have believed it. Hey, who you gonna believe, Trump or all those lyin' video tapes?
Trump proved himself a master at these mental gymnastics on the campaign trail. Back then, it didn't really matter whether Trump reversed himself on any particular issue, because his supporters would blandly tell you it was Trump's style in speaking rather than what he was actually saying that they admired. They weren't about to believe (or even read) what some pointy-headed media factchecker had to say about things, since the media was so crooked and so anti-Trump. But this will change as president. When Trump makes up his mind about something, then there are going to be real-world consequences. Whatever course of action Trump decides upon will influence a lot of lives. However, if Trump later on decides to abruptly reverse his position, reversing course in the real world will take longer than dashing off a tweet in the middle of the night. Trump loathes ever admitting he was wrong, but when such a reversal means reversing all the real-world consequences of his previous position, it's going to be a lot harder to just pretend it all never happened.
This, too, has a literary reference worth noting: "We've never been at war with Eastasia -- we've always been at war with Eurasia." No matter the changing policy from the top, the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four would scrub the past of any proof that any other policy had ever previously been followed. This may be overstating the case, but the Trump administration will be in charge of all the bureaus and agencies which put out official statistics. Could Trump insist that the Labor Department go back and change all the unemployment numbers from the past eight years to show what Trump believed the rate to be? Could he likewise insist that the unemployment numbers under his reign be calculated in a creative new fashion to show the reality he believes his policies are creating? These would be unimaginable questions to ask of any other incoming president, it's worth pointing out. And the unemployment rate is just one obvious example. Justice Department statistics on civil rights violations is another that easily springs to mind, with Jeff Sessions in control.
Normally, presidents wouldn't be allowed to get away with such things, but these are anything but normal times. Normally, the White House press corps would hold a president accountable for radical shifts in policy direction. But I have to wonder if President Trump is even going to bother holding press conferences. Will he boldly stand before hostile reporters and attempt to brush away inconvenient questions? Or will he decide that just phoning in to Sean Hannity's show every once in a while is sufficient? What happens if Trump just decides to stonewall any reporters (and any media outlets) that write critical stories about him? This could lead directly to more and more critical stories about Trump, which would just reinforce Trump's decision that they'll never give him a fair shake. Will White House press conferences become a thing of the past, swept away by Trump "changing Washington" to suit his needs? These are all -- sadly -- also valid questions to ask, at this point. Trump hasn't held a press conference since the election (indeed, the last one he gave was in July), so maybe it's time for media outlets to create rolling countdown (countup?) clocks showing how long it has been since Trump held a press conference.
If Trump surrounds himself with people who will never point out his contradictory stances (for fear of losing influence) and if Trump refuses to face the press (who might ask him about such contradictions to his face), then he will have created his own post-truth bubble. This will serve to insulate him from any news that his policy ideas either aren't working or are actively making things worse. It will also insulate Trump from having to admit failure, because every new policy idea (even those diametrically opposed to his previous ones) will be treated as singular events unconnected to any inconvenient past failures of his own making.
To conclude, there's a saying in many parts of the country about the weather. "If you don't like the weather here, wait 15 minutes and it'll change." Will this be the operative way to deal with Trump's presidency? If Trump makes a really bad decision, will we all just have to wait for a spell before Trump reverses himself and insists that he never believed otherwise? If he is indeed open to hearing reality from his advisors, this might be the best thing to hope for. Of course, this shows the instability of Trump's core persona. But if Trump can navigate being post-truthy (so he can sleep at night, or whatever) in order to change his mind on things that aren't working as advertised, perhaps it's something most people will accept in a president. Perhaps a post-truth president might be better than a stone-cold ideologue who would never reverse course, even when things weren't working out as planned. Perhaps we'll all forgive a bit of post-truthiness in Donald Trump if it means it'll be easier for him to scrap ideas which just don't work. It's an optimistic way to look at it, to be sure, but for now it seems the best thing to hope for in a Trump presidency: if you don't like his policies, just wait a few months until they change.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Live by the truth, die by the truth... :D
That's why "truth" means very little to me..
FACTS are the only thing that matters.
Then, apparently still miffed that Hillary Clinton beat him in the popular vote by over two million votes, Trump bizarrely tweeted (without a shred of actual proof) t
The whole recount initiated by Stein and joined by Clinton ALSO has not a "shred of actual proof"...
I'm just sayin'...
Anyone attempting to curry favor with such a leader will have to prove they too fervently believe the hype over the facts. This feedback loop only serves to reinforce the falsehood in the leader himself. This is so well-known we even have a myth available as an example, which is used to warn children about such people. Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" accurately predicts the consequences of a leader believing a lie and forcing all those around him to believe it as well. Trump's not naked, he's just got magic new clothes that nobody can see.
We know all about that. It was a staple of the Obama Administration.
I just don't see it in the Trump administration..
Oh wait. There IS no Trump administration yet.. :D
Your entire commentary describes the Obama administration to a 'T'....
Time will tell if the Trump administration follows suit...
I honestly don't think it will go down that way..
The Donald Trump you describe could not have possibly be the successful business man he is today..
The Donald Trump you describe could not have possibly beat 16 ...er... 'fine' political candidates for the GOP nomination..
And the Donald Trump you describe CERTAINLY could NEVER have defeated the biggest political campaign juggernaut in the history of the world...
In short, if Donald Trump were the kind of guy you describe, we wouldn't even be TALKING about him because he would be a complete unknown.. Some pauper living on the streets of New York City...
That's what it all boils down to...
The whole recount initiated by Stein and joined by Clinton ALSO has not a "shred of actual proof"...
There is proof. Most people don't think that the proof implies that there is voting fraud however.
The proof is the statistical discrepancy between the pattern of voting in counties that have paper ballots and those that used voting machines. The claim, which the democratic party don't agree with, is that this is due to hacking of the voting machines. Jill Stein can do what she wants, and certainly has the money to do so (she hoped to raise $2M and is at over $6M). The democratic party is doing what the republican party should do if they think Trump is right about voter fraud, and monitor the process.
If Stein initiates a recount in PA and MI, democratic lawyers will monitor that as well. In the unlikely event Stein turns up evidence of Russian hacking the democrats lawyers will be able to evaluate the scale to determine if it is worth while challenging the results.
I think it is all nonsense, but there is one other piece of evidence - the polling in these areas also differed from the results. Again most people think this is just statistical noise.
What the hell, it is fun to "keep everybody in suspense" ;)
Live by the truth, die by the truth... :D
That's why "truth" means very little to me..
FACTS are the only thing that matters.
Michale, relax, you don't seen to grasp the concepts of either truth or facts. You live in the happy bubble where everything is black and white and cars and guns are the same thing.
Be happy in your delusion my friend.
The proof is the statistical discrepancy between the pattern of voting in
Bull...
That "proof" was also evident in the 2012 election when Obama did better than polling suggests..
That is not "proof" of anything beyond the moronic'ness on relying on cherry picked polling...
Michale, relax, you don't seen to grasp the concepts of either truth or facts.
Considering recent history, it would appear that I am the *ONLY* one who DOES grasp those concepts.. :D
and cars and guns are the same thing.
In the context of our discussion ("causing" deaths) they are no different... If you want to ban guns because they are, allegedly, the "cause" of so many deaths then logic dictates that you ALSO must want to ban cars because cars are, allegedly, the "cause" of so many deaths...
Be happy in your delusion my friend.
In other words, follow your example.. :D heh..
What the hell, it is fun to "keep everybody in suspense" ;)
Thank you, Donald Trump.. heh :D
I think it is all nonsense
Agreed...
Many Democrats feel the same way..
Annoyed Dems dismiss recount as ‘waste of time’
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307787-annoyed-dems-dismiss-recount-as-waste-of-time
In the context of our discussion ("causing" deaths) they are no different... If you want to ban guns because they are, allegedly, the "cause" of so many deaths then logic dictates that you ALSO must want to ban cars because cars are, allegedly, the "cause" of so many deaths...
OK, if cars and guns are the same thing, let's treat them the same:
1. You need to pass a proficiency test to get a license to use a gun
2. You need to insure your gun for third party liability
3. If you demonstrate that you can't properly operate your gun, your license is revoked
4. If you are impaired you are not allowed to use your gun (e.g. after a few beers)
5. Your gun must pass safety checks
6. Your gun must be registered
Happy to accept that guns and cars are the same if you agree to the above.
BTW, I'd also have no limits on access to guns, just as anybody can buy a car, so long as it is registered and insured, even if they can't drive. No clip limits, no assault gun weapons, etc. I think these are all useless laws. The simple requirement that all guns are registered and insured (no limits on ownership so completely within the second amendment) would be enough.
no assault gun weapons, -> no assault gun weapons bans,
And you could take your gun anywhere, so long as your insurance covers it. Let the market do its job, instead of government. If you can afford the insurance to cover you walking about an elementary school with a firearm, good luck to you, if you can find an insurance company that will cover you. You can have as many firearms as you want, so long as you can afford to pay for insurance for them all.
Registration and insurance would solve all our problems with guns overnight.
Registration and insurance would solve all our problems with guns overnight.
And it works for everybody except those who want to overthrow the government and claim that they need their gun to be a secret from our legitimately elected leaders. If somebody tries to take over the government, that is what we have a military for. Soldiers swear allegiance to the constitution, not the President (despite Trump's confusion on the matter).
Happy to accept that guns and cars are the same if you agree to the above.
So, we're no longer talking about how guns and cars kill people totally and completely on their own??
The simple requirement that all guns are registered and insured (no limits on ownership so completely within the second amendment) would be enough.
OK, I'll agree to those, if you agree to the exact same requirements for another constitutional right..
The right to vote..
Insurance to be carried or you can't vote..
Proficiency exams or you can't vote..
You need to insure you can vote properly or you can't vote...
I am game if you are.. :D
Registration and insurance would solve all our problems with guns overnight.
And registration and insurance would solve all of our crappy voter problems overnight :D
You would have a logical and rational argument for insurance and registration if gun ownership was not a constitutional right...
So what you propose WOULD work anywhere else but the US...
Can you imagine how fast the NRA would try to change the second amendment to remove the words "well regulated" if registration and insurance were required. It would be hilarious, all the gun nuts would be the ones trying to change our second amendment.
Gun registration to 2nd Amendment supporters is the same as Illegal Immigrant registration is to illegal immigrants..
I would also point out that gun registration would have absolutely NO EFFECT on violent gun crimes or gun deaths..
It would only have a detrimental effect on gun ownership...
And THAT is the goal of the anti-gun crowd.. To make it harder and harder to own a gun...
A gun ban without actually banning guns...
The right to vote..
Insurance to be carried or you can't vote..
Proficiency exams or you can't vote..
You need to insure you can vote properly or you can't vote...
I am game if you are.. :D
I'm definitely up for that one. Sign me up.
I would also point out that gun registration would have absolutely NO EFFECT on violent gun crimes or gun deaths..
It works everywhere else.
I would also point out that gun registration would have absolutely NO EFFECT on violent gun crimes or gun deaths..
And if it doesn't make any difference, what is the problem?
OK, I'll agree to those, if you agree to the exact same requirements for another constitutional right..
The right to vote..
Let's go even one further..
Let's require registration and insurance to practice a particular religion...
Let's require registration and insurance to exercise freedom of speech...
You see where such a slippery slope leads??
Once you start requirements for constitutional rights, where do you stop???
And if it doesn't make any difference, what is the problem?
Because it would make the constitutional right of gun ownership more onerous to law abiding citizens who have committed no crime....
All registration and insurance does is make it more difficult to be a gun owner..
Which is why the Left pushes it..
There is absolutely NO LOGICAL REASON to require registration and insurance from a public safety point of view...
It's only to push an anti-gun agenda...
And THAT is the goal of the anti-gun crowd.. To make it harder and harder to own a gun...
A gun ban without actually banning guns...
No. It is to stop the carnage of unregulated ownership. Remember, the second amendment calls for a well regulated militia, not an irresponsible ragtag of anybody with a pulse and a few bucks in their wallet.
Registration and insurance have been looked at by constitutional scholars and are not in violation of the second amendment.
There is absolutely NO LOGICAL REASON to NOT require registration and insurance from a public safety point of view...
It's only to push an pro-gun agenda...
It is constitutional and it would work. You claim it won't work. You also claim all the current gun laws don't work and I agree, so we have nothing to lose by trying something new and market, rather than government, driven.
Why are you worried? Insurance for a responsible owner would be very cheap. Registration is simply the documentation of the background checks already in place, so there is no new system required.
Responsible gun owners would be subject to fewer government regulations, and criminals would have to have illegal guns that could be taken away.
No. It is to stop the carnage of unregulated ownership.
There is no carnage of "unregulated ownership"...
Guns are already well regulated..
Registration and insurance have been looked at by ANTI-GUN constitutional scholars and are not in violation of the second amendment.
There... Fixed it for you.. :D
Anything that CAN be permissibly done to regulate guns under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment HAS been done..
And we know that President Trump's first priority with regards to the SCOTUS (and mine as well) is to protect the 2nd Amendment..
No more anti-gun laws will be passed in this country in my lifetime...
You see where such a slippery slope leads??
Let's go one further - why can't I have a tank. Why can't I buy a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier if I can afford it. Why can't I have a nuke?
You see where such a slippery slope leads??
Why are you worried? Insurance for a responsible owner would be very cheap. Registration is simply the documentation of the background checks already in place, so there is no new system required.
Why are you worried?? Insurance for responsible voting would be very cheap... Registration for voting is already done.. We'll just institute a photo-ID to insure that the registration is valid...
and criminals would have to have illegal guns that could be taken away.
Yea??? Howz that work in Chicago, exactly?? DC???
Like I said, what you propose would have NO EFFECT on the very thing it claims is designed to prevent.
"Carnage"...
Guns are already well regulated..
Describe to me the firearm laws you think constitute good regulation?
Remember I can dig into your past comments and pull out multiple times where you complain all gun laws are useless - citing the laws in Chicago and how ineffective they are.
Let's go one further - why can't I have a tank. Why can't I buy a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier if I can afford it. Why can't I have a nuke?
Because reasonable gun regulations say you can't...
You prove my point for me.
There already ARE reasonable gun regulations in place...
Nothing else can be done without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment...
You are running around in circles trying to tell me this wont work.
Comment [26] Guns are already well regulated..
Comment [28]Yea??? Howz that work in Chicago, exactly?? DC???
This is hilarious.
Why don't we try it? You say it won't work. I say it will. Let's test it.
Nothing else can be done without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment...
You aren't a constitutional lawyer, and frankly, everybody else is just guessing until it goes to the Supreme Court.
Remember "well regulated". And I want to remove impediments to ownership, like clip laws and assault weapon bans.
Remember I can dig into your past comments and pull out multiple times where you complain all gun laws are useless - citing the laws in Chicago and how ineffective they are.
No.. You can cite my complaints that all the NEW gun laws that the Anti-Gun Left Wingery proposes are useless.. Like registration and insurance...
Nothing that Democrats have proposed in the last 8 years would have prevented Sandy Hook or San Bernardino or Orlando or any other crowd-based mass shooting...
ALL they are are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" laws that doesn't address the very incident that prompted the proposal of these new laws..
Our current gun laws are reasonable and logical. I would like to see more open carry laws, but that's my personal preference..
An armed society is a polite society...
We need to aggressively enforce the existing gun laws..
But you know the impediment to that??
Left Wingery bleeding hearts who are soft on criminals that use guns because a lot of them are black...
There already ARE reasonable gun regulations in place...
How are they working out for you? Chicago!!! DC!!!
I can't believe you are so messed up about registration and insurance that you claim the laws in place are great.
You aren't a constitutional lawyer, and frankly, everybody else is just guessing until it goes to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps.. But some guesses are more well informed than others.. :D
And it's a bona-fide fact that gun ownership has enjoyed unprecedented support by the SCOTUS for the last 8 years.. That support can only grow stronger...
So, it's a pretty safe bet that we won't see any more anti-gun laws that will pass constitutional muster...
No.. You can cite my complaints that all the NEW gun laws that the Anti-Gun Left Wingery proposes are useless.. Like registration and insurance...
Evidence? They haven't been tried in this country, but we can see that registration and limits on purchase work in the U.K. - even the police don't have guns there by default.
I don't want limitations, I want personal responsibility via insurance instead.
I can't believe you are so messed up about registration and insurance that you claim the laws in place are great.
The laws themselves are great..
The (surprise) lack of enforcement is what sucks...
{{cough}} Fast Furious{cough}{cough}
So, it's a pretty safe bet that we won't see any more anti-gun laws that will pass constitutional muster...
Yup, and 10 years ago if you told me the court would legalize gay marriage we would probably both have agreed that it wouldn't pass.
Surprises happen, remember November 8th?
The (surprise) lack of enforcement is what sucks...
I agree, that is why I want the market to act, not government.
You cannot prove it isn't constitutional because nobody knows that until it goes to the Supreme Court.
You cannot prove it doesn't work because we haven't tried, and in fact the evidence says part of it works in other places.
What are you scared of? Do you own a lot of stock in gun manufacturers?
Evidence? They haven't been tried in this country,
Actually, many local municipalities have gun registration..
Chicago had a gun registry from 1968 until 2013....
And Chicago is a hellhole of gun violence...
It's been tried.. It's been proven to be completely ineffective in curtailing gun violence..
The *ONLY* thing it succeeds at is preventing law abiding citizens from owning weapons by making the process onerous...
Actually, many local municipalities have gun registration..
Chicago had a gun registry from 1968 until 2013....
And Chicago is a hellhole of gun violence..
That is like having a bath with two plug holes and wondering why the water still goes down when you pass a law to close one of them.
This needs to be national.
What are you scared of? Do you own a lot of stock in gun manufacturers?
I am not "scared" of anything because I know it will never happen..
Chicago on Wednesday reluctantly abolished a 45-year-old requirement that gun owners register their weapons with the city, marking a victory for advocates of gun rights such as the National Rifle Association.
The city council voted to end the gun registry in place since 1968 to comply with court rulings against Chicago and Illinois gun control laws, and to bring the city into line with a state concealed carry law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-chicago-idUSBRE98A15220130911
Registration has been tried...
It doesn't work and it is unconstitutional...
Simply OWNING a gun is not grounds for registration..
Now, if you carry, then I would definitely agree that there should be registration..
Oh wait... There already is....
Actually, many local municipalities have gun registration..
So that part is constitutional. Good. The insurance is a personal responsibility requirement, the right wing should be lining up behind that unless all they care about is gun manufacturers profits.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010, in a case challenging Chicago's gun restrictions, that every state and city must adhere to the Second Amendment. The ruling did not strike down the Chicago restrictions directly, but sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for review.
In December 2012, the appeals court ruled that Illinois's ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional and gave the state six months to create a law allowing guns to be carried in public.
A gun registry is unconstitutional. Period...
You have yet to come up with an argument beyond your opinion that it won't work or it is unconstitutional (where you just shot yourself in the foot with by citing registration laws).
C'mon, why won't it work?
In December 2012, the appeals court ruled that Illinois's ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional and gave the state six months to create a law allowing guns to be carried in public.
Yup. And as I stated earlier, if you can get insurance to cover walking around an elementary school with an assault weapon over your shoulder, good luck to you.
Rights aren't free. Where have I heard that before?
Simply OWNING a gun is not grounds for registration..
Under our current laws. But background checks are becoming universal, so there is a record of purchase - all we need to do is not throw that data away.
Simply OWNING a gun is not grounds for registration..
Under our current laws.
No... Under the United States Constitution..
The ruling did not strike down the Chicago restrictions directly, but sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for review.
So you don't know if registration is constitutional or not. You lust want it to be, because, for some reason, you are against free, but responsible, ownership of firearms.
This isn't my idea. Here is the op-ed in the Houston Chronicle where I heard about it:
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/04/gun-control-in-the-ownership-society/
So you don't know if registration is constitutional or not. You lust want it to be, because, for some reason, you are against free, but responsible, ownership of firearms.
As I said, considering the rulings of the SCOTUS in the last 8 years upholding the 2nd Amendment, it's a good bet..
This isn't my idea. Here is the op-ed in the Houston Chronicle where I heard about it:
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/04/gun-control-in-the-ownership-society/
Those ideas would work and be great..... to SOLVE gun crimes after the fact...
But that is not the stated goal of the anti-gun groups.. The "stated" goal is to PREVENT violent gun crimes and crowd-based mass shootings..
The ideas outlined in that link will probably do good things in SOLVING gun crimes..
But it won't do dick for prevention...
Even if you ignore the 2nd Amendment factor, making gun ownership more onerous does nothing to curtail violent gun crimes and crowd-based mass shootings..
As such, they ONLY serve to further the agenda of the anti-gun Left...
Yup. And as I stated earlier, if you can get insurance to cover walking around an elementary school with an assault weapon over your shoulder, good luck to you.
And how, exactly, is having insurance going to prevent someone from going nutso and shooting up an elementary school??
Answer: It won't...
DO you HONESTLY believe someone nuts enough to do that is going to say to hisself, "Self? I better not do this or my insurance rates will go up.."
Or some psycho simply KILLING the owner of the insured guns and using them to shoot up an elementary...
None of your suggestions address PREVENTION... Many would be useful after the fact, if you could get around the 2nd Amendment..
But NOTHING proposed by the Left anti-gun crowd will help in PREVENTION...
DO you HONESTLY believe someone nuts enough to do that is going to say to hisself, "Self? I better not do this or my insurance rates will go up.."
Or some psycho simply KILLING the owner of the insured guns and using them to shoot up an elementary...
I have a lot more trust in the power of the market to identify high risk individuals than the government. What is your alternative to help stop the carnage. If you don't have an alternative then we go with this plan.
On another note..
Ryan faces long odds against Pelosi, the first woman elected Speaker and a juggernaut of Democratic politics whose support in the liberal-heavy caucus runs deep. A group of 50 Democratic women is urging colleagues to back Pelosi, saying her long experience will be vital in the coming fights against the Trump administration. And President Obama took the rare step of entering a leadership debate last week when he endorsed Pelosi as “a remarkable leader” of “extraordinary political skill.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/307799-house-dems-brace-for-wednesdays-secret-ballot
Looks like Pelosi's campaign to be Minority Leader just got the Obama Kiss Of Death.. :D Heh
If Trump surrounds himself with people who will never point out his contradictory stances (for fear of losing influence) and if Trump refuses to face the press (who might ask him about such contradictions to his face), then he will have created his own post-truth bubble.
Sounds like Caligula. If he makes a horse a senator, then we know we are in trouble ;)
I have a lot more trust in the power of the market to identify high risk individuals than the government. What is your alternative to help stop the carnage.
I have already proposed my alternative..
Open carry. LOOSEN gun laws so that more GOOD people get trained in the use of firearms...
Arm the good guys so they outnumber the bad guys....
The Ohio State is a PERFECT example of what can happen when someone trained with a gun is close by an incident such as what occurred..
There could have been MANY deaths in that incident, save for the presence of someone with a gun who was trained in it's use...
THAT is the best solution that has yet to be tried on a national scale... Locally, it's well documented that areas of open carry have less gun violence...
An armed society is a polite society...
Restrictive Gun Laws simply DO NOT WORK...
Shootings spike over Thanksgiving holiday weekend: 8 killed, 62 wounded
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-thanksgiving-holiday-shootings-20161128-story.html
This is documented fact...
So, maybe it's time to try something different...
More good guys with guns....
I have a lot more trust in the power of the market to identify high risk individuals than the government.
And, when the market does that, when the market denies that person insurance..... DO you think that's going to stop the person from committing a gun crime??
Of course it won't.. The person will simply kill someone who HAS guns, who the market said would be fine with gun ownership....
You see the point??
What you propose won't do a damn thing to PREVENT gun violence...
All it would do is keep guns out of GOOD people's hands.. Good people who might have prevented a San Bernardino, a Sandy Hook or an Orlando...
Of course it won't.. The person will simply kill someone who HAS guns, who the market said would be fine with gun ownership....
Well there is a total ban on personal ownership. That will work - it is pretty effective in the U.K. and Australia, to name a couple of countries. But that would be dubious from a constitutional basis.
While we allow free access to firearms, there will always be a way for a nut case to get a firearm and kill people.
You are the one who says that all the current laws are ineffective. This would be a better option. The insurance isn't going to stop anybody who is determined when we live in a country with 300M firearms, however insurance and registration will help identify people who are starting to build a personal arsenal, and may have mental health problems.
Insurance companies will be on the hook to pay out massive sums when there is a large massacre - so just like dangerous drivers, they will be able to stop the warning signs more frequently than the current system, which has no ability to prevent massacres.
In addition, insurance rates for people who have gun safes, and store their ammo separately will help reduce the number of toddlers getting access to guns accidentally. Again, if you want to pay a higher premium to have your arsenal lying about you can. Your choice.
Since when did the right wing think government and laws work better than the market?
Well there is a total ban on personal ownership. That will work - it is pretty effective in the U.K. and Australia, to name a couple of countries.
I agree.. A total ban on personal ownership is really the ONLY thing that would have any effect..
And we dodged THAT bullet when Hillary lost the election.. :D
But that would be dubious from a constitutional basis.
Ya think?? :D
While we allow free access to firearms, there will always be a way for a nut case to get a firearm and kill people.
Exactly...
You are the one who says that all the current laws are ineffective.
No.. I have said that all the current PROPOSED laws by the anti-gun Left Wingery would be ineffective in stopping the very incidents that brought about the proposals..
The insurance isn't going to stop anybody who is determined when we live in a country with 300M firearms, however insurance and registration will help identify people who are starting to build a personal arsenal, and may have mental health problems.
So a "personal arsenal" equals "mental health problems"??
Since when did the right wing think government and laws work better than the market?
Actually, it's the Left Wing that believes that. Hence all the hysterical cries for government gun control regulation...
The solution is to ease up on gun control laws and make guns more readily accessible to GOOD people...
It has the virtue of never being tried except on a local basis.. And it has worked exceptionally well in that regard...
Much better than overly restrictive laws.. See Chicago...
But hay...
You can have all the registration and insurance requirements you want for gun ownership..
As long as you are willing to accept the EXACT same restrictions and requirements for voting..
After all, they are BOTH rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution...
As long as you are willing to accept the EXACT same restrictions and requirements for voting..
I've already said that I am. Wouldn't it be great if all the people who voted against Bush in 2004 could get compensation from those that did for the $2T he wasted in Iraq? ;)
So a "personal arsenal" equals "mental health problems"??
and may have mental health problems.
People with a personal arsenal and no mental health problems = fine
People with no firearms and a mental health problem = fine (in this context, obviously we want to help them)
People with a personal arsenal and mental health problems = dead kids, churchgoers, movie viewers, murder/suicides etc. etc. etc.
One of the interesting aspects of Trump's approach to believing what he wants to, rather than reality, will be his approach to economic figures.
He routinely claimed that the unemployment rate was a multiple of the BLS 5% number. If he has a similar approach to other numbers (what is the 'Donald Number' for inflation, for instance) then we might be in for some interesting fights between the Neoliberal economists that dominate the center left and the traditional right and the Trump White House.
What happens if Trump triggers a downturn and the unemployment rate goes up? Does he claim the number is now lower than the BLS one?
If this wasn't so potentially disastrous, it could be hilarious.
I've already said that I am. Wouldn't it be great if all the people who voted against Bush in 2004 could get compensation from those that did for the $2T he wasted in Iraq? ;)
Which would, of course, be offset by the trillions that are due those voters who voted against Obama.... :D
Ahhh yes.. Voters insurance... Just as silly as gun owner insurance.. :D
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/trumps-pick-for-hhs-could-be-key-to-dismantling-obamacare.html
TrainWreckCare is toast.... :D
He routinely claimed that the unemployment rate was a multiple of the BLS 5% number.
The TRUE unemployment rate IS a combination of many employment factors...
For example, the 5% touted by the Administration doesn't count those who are not working and not on unemployment..
What happens if Trump triggers a downturn and the unemployment rate goes up? Does he claim the number is now lower than the BLS one?
Which is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration did..
When one set of numbers was better than the unemployment rate, Obama would tout the better number and ignore the unemployment rate...
When the unemployment rate was a better number then other numbers, Obama would tout the unemployment rate...
You're accusing Trump of going to do the EXACT same thing that Obama has done for years....
I have a feeling that is what it's going to be like for the next 8 years...
Ya'all routinely slamming Trump for things that ya'all gave Obama a pass on.... :D
Gonna be a wild ride... :D
(also posted on HuffPo)
"Post-truth", "truthiness", "hype", "spin", and "the Big Lie" all refer to different things. It's worth making the distinctions.
"Post-truth" alludes to "post-modern", and describes the polity as a whole. It says that, in the current way politics works, it no longer matters whether a politician's words convey an empirically meaningful proposition proposition that matches the facts of the outside world. We don't have any key bloc of swing voters who evaluate statements and modulate their degree of support for a politician according to the correctness of the statements.
"Truthiness" refers to a characteristic of speech (in the broad sense). It involves having the trappings that normally (or formerly) would indicate truthfulness, but without any actual connection to truthfulness. If you want truthiness, you put serious-looking people on serious-sounding shows. You publish books. You script some back-and-forth dialogue that superficially resembles the kind of debate that would bring forward the best arguments for each of two or more positions.
"Hype" means wild claims, exciting rhetoric, exaggeration. It isn't necessarily opposed to truth, though: you can use sound epistemology as you develop your position, and then use hype as you publicize it.
"Spin" expresses a metaphor: the facts are where the ball lands, but then which way does it bounce? That depends on the spin. If you're merely using spin, you accept the idea of truth, but you're shaping political discourse in so that the truth doesn't matter in the way one would expect it to.
"The Big Lie" encapsulates an observation: it's easier to tell a big lie convincingly than a small one. If you say that it's 5:30pm when it's actually 8:00am, people can check that. But if you say that ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery, the standards by which they would have checked things have been undermined or replaced outright. You can even say, at 8:00am, that ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, and it's 8:00am. Then people can check the time, and feel as though they've done a spot-check to confirm your reliability.
Ahhh yes.. Voters insurance... Just as silly as gun owner insurance.. :D
No. Voter insurance is silly. But you were the one to compare guns and cars. Third party liability insurance for both is a great idea.
TrainWreckCare is toast.... :D
I read Price's policy, and discussed the larger aspects with my buddy who is one of the country's top healthcare lawyers.
He thinks it is nonsense. Portability will have no impact on prices. Transparency is a joke. HSAs only save money for the rich. MSAs are even dumber because most retirees are below the Federal tax point.
This is a smoke screen to pretend there is something to replace Obamacare with. It will throw millions out of the system and into ER rooms, costing the government buckets more than before, plus it will be responsible for countless thousands of deaths from poor health outcomes.
Obviously this wasn't intended to be consumed by actual experts, just the sheep who say "Obamacare bad, ACA good", and "Keep your government hands off my Medicare".
Enjoy. The poor, lower middle class and much of the middle class will be worse off. The rich will be fine and the savings can mitigate tax cuts for them.
The great con continues with a new ringmaster.
dsws:
"Post-truth", "truthiness", "hype", "spin", and "the Big Lie" all refer to different things. It's worth making the distinctions.
For those of you who remember - was America like with around the time of Nixon? Were big lies pushing reality out of the picture in the late 1960's? Is this a cycle where we forget tat reality matters and have to learn the lesson the hard way?
Or is this a truly new point in American history, where the world of Goebbels and 1984 is coming to our shores?
Is Bannon our Goebbels? Is Richard Spencer our Ernst Röhm (Bannon is on the record as saying that Spenser is "a great thinker".
Spencer coined the term "alt-right" in 2010, and recently ended his speech with a chant of "Hail Victory" (literal translation of "Sieg Heil") with audience members giving him Nazi salutes.
This is a smoke screen to pretend there is something to replace Obamacare with. It will throw millions out of the system and into ER rooms, costing the government buckets more than before, plus it will be responsible for countless thousands of deaths from poor health outcomes.
Yea, that's the claim..
But remember all the "claims" made about TrainWreckCare??
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
Democrats had their chance at health care.. They blew it...
Time to give the GOP a try....
Enjoy. The poor, lower middle class and much of the middle class will be worse off. The rich will be fine and the savings can mitigate tax cuts for them.
Again, that's the claim...
We'll see if the FACTS match the claims...
But let's be frank here... The Left doesn't have much credibility with healthcare...
“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”
Watch the video of Spencer's speech with Nazi salutes at the end.
This is very real and Trump is the alt-right's leader whether he realizes it or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk
We'll see if the FACTS match the claims...
But let's be frank here... The Left doesn't have much credibility with healthcare...
What metrics are you going to judge the plans on?
Here are s few suggestions:
1. Number of people covered
2. Premium inflation
3. # of ER visits by the uninsured
No. Voter insurance is silly.
Just as silly as gun owner insurance...
You don't require insurance for a constitutional right...
It's THAT simple...
. But you were the one to compare guns and cars.
Insofar as the context of the fact that they both kill people... Not in the context that you chose to go..
Third party liability insurance for both is a great idea.
Only insofar as making gun ownership more onerous, which is the goal of the anti gun Left Wingery..
It will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent violent gun crime or crowd-based mass shootings...
As such, it's completely useless except for furthering the Left Wing anti-gun agenda...
What metrics are you going to judge the plans on?
The only metric that matters..
Viability....
This is very real and Trump is the alt-right's leader whether he realizes it or not.
And Trump is responsible exactly how???
Was Bernie Sanders responsible for all the attacks committed in his name??
Of course not..
So, why is Trump responsible for this??
Answer: He isn't.. You are just looking for anything that will stick to the wall...
Was Obama responsible for all of the (O)BLM riots and destruction???
No rational person would think so...
Viability....
Give me a hint as to how you are going to measure "Viability"?
So, why is Trump responsible for this??
Answer: He isn't.. You are just looking for anything that will stick to the wall...
Trump hired Bannon. Bannon stated that Brietbart is the "platform for the alt right". Bannon also stated that Spencer is "the intellectual leader of the alt right"
Here is Glenn Beck on the matter:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/16/glenn_beck_i_know_im_the_most_imperfect_messenger_but_trump_shouldnt_be_able_to_cause_this_much_fear.html
What would you have said of Obama had hired Reverend Wright as his chief strategist?
Give me a hint as to how you are going to measure "Viability"?
Non Death Spiral...
Here is Glenn Beck on the matter:
And you don't find ANYTHING disturbing in the fact that you are quoting Glenn Beck??? :D
And you don't find ANYTHING disturbing in the fact that you are quoting Glenn Beck??? :D
If you have to quote Glenn Beck to make your point..
I would, if I were you, seriously evaluate the validity of your point... :D
I know - Glenn Beck!
I thought you might be more receptive to him than to, e.g. SPLC ;)
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/11/14/splc-bannon-must-go
But I can post a host of links to other sites with the quotes if you want.
Give me a hint as to how you are going to measure "Viability"?
Non Death Spiral...
Dude, you are the personification of the point of CW's article :)
Let's deal with reality here. You have already given Trump a blank check by stating that you'll judge him on how you feel in two years.
You can't convince anybody if at any point you can wave your hands and say "I feel it is so, so it is."
Is that all you have - then let's turn the question around, what metrics did you use to vilify the ACA? How you felt one morning :)
Just a shout-out to dsws for his useful post [72].
Neilm wrote (to Michale): Dude, you are the personification of the point of CW's article
No, there's a difference. Trump isn't sincere. He may be nihilistic and amoral as well. Obama describes it (generously) as 'a type of pragmatism'.
Michale and most of Trump's followers are, if anything, the opposite - just chock-full of opinions about government, economics and social policy.
Thing is, not all of Trump's coalition agree, their primary glue being a desire to defeat the democrats. After that, in every debate there will be losers among them. And Trump has to put his name on every bill that passes. You can't be all things to all people once you start making hard decisions, it just works that way.
Ironically, Obama faced much the same problem when he first came into office. So many liberals sounded then just like Republicans do today, just knowing that when the rubber hit the road, Obama would push their agenda. Of course he couldn't, and didn't, and their disappointment two years later was the cause of the 2010 blow-out that cost the Democrats the House.
Let's deal with reality here. You have already given Trump a blank check by stating that you'll judge him on how you feel in two years.
No.. What I said was that I am giving him a chance to succeed or fail based on what he does when he does it.
What YOU are doing is stating that Trump is a failure based on things he hasn't even done yet..
But a lot of good things have been happening in the world..
Stock market is up, dollar strength is rising... Is it because of an impending Trump administration?? Possibly...
Let's face facts... You just don't like Trump. Because he has a '-R' after his name and because he is Trump...
Your candidate lost so you are going to do your best to make sure Trump is a one-term President...
I get it.. I really do..
But let's just recognize it for what it is.
You hate Trump...
Ironically, Obama faced much the same problem when he first came into office. So many liberals sounded then just like Republicans do today, just knowing that when the rubber hit the road, Obama would push their agenda. Of course he couldn't, and didn't, and their disappointment two years later was the cause of the 2010 blow-out that cost the Democrats the House.
Essentially correct...
But here's the thing.. We don't KNOW that Trump is going to do the same thing as Obama... IE Promise the world and then not deliver...
Trump has a huge advantage over Obama.. With Obama, we elected a Democrat through and through.. There was absolutely NO DOUBT that Obama was a Democrat..
Trump is a Republican in name only.. He is more of an Independent than anything else. And, as such, he might just be able to deliver when Obama couldn't...
Granted, his administration might be just as incompetent as Obama's was... I readily admit that...
But I am willing to give Trump a chance.. That's where I differ with those on the Left...
But, as I said to Neil above, a lot of good things are happening..
Stocks are up, Dollar is up, Carrier is keeping jobs in the US...
So far, things are looking pretty good..
And THAT is driving the Left Wingery batshit crazy.. :D
So, time will tell... I am willing to give Trump that time..
Are you??
But I can post a host of links to other sites with the quotes if you want.
A host of other links that say Bannon is a bad person? I am sure you can..
I don't think Bannon is a Reverend Wright... He hasn't murdered anyone and there is no evidence to suggest he is a racist...
So, once again, I am willing to give him a chance...
Trump won the election. Elections have consequences. I am willing to trust Trump until he gives me just cause NOT to trust him..
For the record, campaign rhetoric and hyperbole is NOT 'just cause'...
You hate Trump...
And yes.. I grew to hate Obama...
But the difference is, I VOTED for Obama, gave him a chance to lead and he failed...
All I am saying is that the Left should give Trump the same chance I gave Obama..
I mean, it's not as if the Left has EVER been right about Trump, eh? :D
They have been consistently wrong about Trump at every juncture.. So, it's more than possible that the Left is wrong about how Trump will govern....
General Patraeus in charge at State??
General Mattis in charge at the Pentagon??
My gods, what a dream team!!
Petraeus? After all the shit that Hillary got for having an email server in her home, to then embrace a guy who was caught giving away top secret information is the very height of hypocrisy.
Politifact: He had given his mistress, Paula Broadwell, access to eight notebooks with top-secret and code information. She had made copies of over 300 documents marked "secret."
FBI director James Comey said:
"In that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information, including special sensitive compartmented information. That's the reference to code words."
"Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus, and I quote, 'Got in trouble for far less,' end of quote? Do you agree with that statement?" asked Rep. Elijah Cummings
False
Trump
Says Hillary Clinton was "let off the hook" for her email scandal while Gen. David Petraeus had his life "destroyed for doing far, far less."
— Donald Trump on Thursday, October 13th, 2016 in a speech
FBI director James Comey says Donald Trump has it flipped; Petraeus case was worse than Clinton's
By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016 at 10:47 a.m.
Donald Trump tweeted early Sunday morning that the show's skit depicting him in the second presidential debate was a "hit job," it's "time to retire" the "boring and unfunny" show, and Alec Baldwin's portrayal of him "stinks."
Donald Trump has declared repeatedly that Hillary Clinton should be imprisoned over her email. Emails on her unsecured personal email server were found to have contained classified information despite her repeated insistence that all the material was unclassified.
His evidence: other public officials, including David Petraeus, a former CIA director and a leading general in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been punished for far less.
During a West Palm Beach, Fla., rally Oct. 13, Trump mentioned FBI Director James Comey, who decided that Clinton's actions did not rise to the level of prosecution. Trump said that Comey "let her off the hook while other lives, including General Petraeus and many others, have been destroyed for doing far, far less. This is a conspiracy against you the American people and we cannot let this happen or continue."
Trump has made similar comments before, which we’ve looked at in another report. But this time there is more information publicly available about the information practices of both Petreaus and Clinton. ?So we decided to compare the two cases for the Truth-O-Meter.
We're relying on Comey's statements because they were made under oath before two congressional committees, and he is one of the few people familiar with the circumstances and the secrets involved in both cases who is able to speak on the record.
Comey’s initial testimony
Petraeus pled guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling confidential materials. He was fined $100,000 and given two years probation. He had given his mistress, Paula Broadwell, access to eight notebooks with top-secret and code information. She had made copies of over 300 documents marked "secret."
In addition, Petraeus lied to FBI agents investigating the case.
In Clinton's case, the FBI found 110 emails with classified information on her server, eight of which were designated top secret. Comey, in a July 5 news conference, said there was no evidence of Clinton or her staff intending to violate the law. But he also said Clinton should have known that her handling of the emails was inappropriate, and that her behavior was "extremely reckless" because outsiders could hack her server.
The FBI director was asked about the Clinton-Petraeus comparison during his July 7 appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus, and I quote, 'Got in trouble for far less,' end of quote? Do you agree with that statement?" asked Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-MD.
"No, it's the reverse," the FBI director said.
"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted. In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this (Clinton) case."
"And General Petraeus did not admit to these facts when the FBI investigators first interviewed him, did he?" Cummings asked.
"No," Comey said, "he lied about it."
Oops. Didn't mean to print the whole article.
Petraeus? After all the shit that Hillary got for having an email server in her home, to then embrace a guy who was caught giving away top secret information is the very height of hypocrisy.
Nope..
Because, as you yourself pointed out, it was completely different. :D
'Sides..... That one minor indiscretion doesn't equate to YEARS of what Hillary did..
Further, it doesn't change the fact that even President Obama sought Patraues' counsel.....
Plus, it all goes away with a Presidential Pardon...
Patraues is the best choice, but Trump will likely go with Romney... :^(
'Sides..
Hillary's intent was to evade FOI laws and evade transparency...
Patraues' intent was to get laid... Hardly mature behavior... But there was no criminal intent...
Unlike Hillary...
Hey Michale, whatever gets you through a day.
Heh Touche' :D
Keep in mind.. I was this excited when Obama won in 2008...
It's entirely possible that, in 8 years I will feel EXACTLY about Trump as I do about Obama right now..
@michale [102],
donald has his chance. i'm trying hard to keep an open mind. considering this is a guy who learned his rhetoric from hitler, i think that's about all one can expect.
Even historians fail to learn from history. They repeat the same mistakes. Let the killing end. Let...
John Gill - Star Trek (s2e21): Patterns of Force
donald has his chance. i'm trying hard to keep an open mind.
That's all anyone can ask...
considering this is a guy who learned his rhetoric from hitler
Only the rhetoric that makes sense and is applicable..
If Hitler had said, at one point in his life, "Be honest and trustworthy" are we to ignore that sound and sage advice SOLELY because a scumbag said it??
They repeat the same mistakes.
Sounds like the Democratic Party in the here and now.. :D
Kudos for the Trek Quote... :D
Only the rhetoric that makes sense and is applicable..
If Hitler had said, at one point in his life, "Be honest and trustworthy" are we to ignore that sound and sage advice SOLELY because a scumbag said it??
I am curious, though...
What rhetoric did Trump lift from Hitler do you find objectionable??
Trump did re-tweet a Mussolini quote once, and it's been shown time and time again that a lot of Trump's fans can't tell the difference between a Trump quote and a Hitler quote. Of course, I can tell: Hitler is better spoken, less crude, and employs a larger vocabulary.
Trump did re-tweet a Mussolini quote once, and it's been shown time and time again that a lot of Trump's fans can't tell the difference between a Trump quote and a Hitler quote. Of course, I can tell: Hitler is better spoken, less crude, and employs a larger vocabulary.
OK, but what was the quote???
Or, are you saying that ANY quote from Hitler/Mussolini is bad, regardless of what the actual quote says..
I mean, I often state The Ends Justifies The Means....
That's a true and valid concept even though I think Hitler may have said it now and again..
I am sure that, if I dig, I can find a quote from a Democrat that a historical scumbag had said before...
So, what exactly was the quote that ya'all find objectionable??
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again--just watch. He can do much better!
2:47 PM - 17 Oct 2012
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.
11:59 AM - 28 Oct 2012
"I dealt with Gaddafi. I rented him a piece of land. He paid me more for one night than the land was worth for two years, and then I didn't let him use the land. That's what we should be doing. I don't want to use the word "screwed," but I screwed him. That's what we should be doing."
“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you … they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
“[John McCain’s] not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
“I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
So, what exactly was the quote that ya'all find objectionable??
So I honestly couldn't find an um-objectionable quote from Donald Trump on the web.
un-objectionable
Patraues' intent was to get laid... Hardly mature behavior... But there was no criminal intent...
Wow...how breathtakingly ideological. So let me get this straight, for Hilary intent doesn't matter she is guilty because she is guilty (at least in your book), but getting caught having an affair, that caused a lapse in judgement leading to a deliberate felony disclosure of a wide range of classified materials and also then committing felony obstruction of justice in an attempt to avoid having to answer to the charges...bears no criminal intent, despite the fact that he knew he was deliberately breaking the law? Please ,oh, law enforcement osifer explain to me how this works...
Wow...how breathtakingly ideological.
Hardly... Just an acknowledgement of reality, one soldier to another...
So let me get this straight, for Hilary intent doesn't matter she is guilty because she is guilty
You'll have to clarify that.. I have NO CLUE what you are trying to say...
but getting caught having an affair, that caused a lapse in judgement leading to a deliberate felony disclosure of a wide range of classified materials and also then committing felony obstruction of justice in an attempt to avoid having to answer to the charges...bears no criminal intent, despite the fact that he knew he was deliberately breaking the law?
Having an affair is not a crime in the civilian world you are judging Patreaus from...
Please ,oh, law enforcement osifer explain to me how this works...
I would, but since you think Hillary is completely innocent, we have no common frame of reference...
"You mean I have to DIE before you will discuss your insights on death!!!???"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV
:D
Balthasar,
We were discussing Trump quoting Hitler...
I don't think Hitler said ANY of those things..
But I could be wrong.. :^/
It's been known to happen....
I would, but since you think Hillary is completely innocent, we have no common frame of reference...
Contrary to the facts on record regarding my thoughts on HRC innocence.
Having an affair is not a crime in the civilian world you are judging Patreaus from...
How do you know what civilian world I am from? I happen to still hold an active security clearance.
Simple fact of the matter is that Patreaus was having an affair, which is a firing offence and disqualifies you from holding a security clearance, especially when one is the freackin' DIRECTOR OF THE CIA... Depending on how the investigators want to handle the affair it can be classified a crime.
Simple Undisputable fact, Patreaus commited multiple felony violations of handling classified information. Was offered a deal that made multiple felonies one misdemeanor. Was certainly not punished like one of us "normals.
So please explain, why we should now just pardon him and give him another job requiring the handling of sensative material...
Contrary to the facts on record regarding my thoughts on HRC innocence.
I stand corrected.. :D
How do you know what civilian world I am from? I happen to still hold an active security clearance.
Which still doesn't negate the fact that in ANY civilian world, having an affair is not a crime..
But now you have me curious.. :D What civilian world ARE you from?? :D
Simple fact of the matter is that Patreaus was having an affair, which is a firing offence
So, you are saying that Bill Clinton should have been fired???
So please explain, why we should now just pardon him and give him another job requiring the handling of sensative material...
Simple.. One bad judgement does not erase decades of service and experience..
The Obama Administration conceded as much by consulting with Patraeus after his fall from grace...
Neil,
Regarding the gun issue, I had an idea today...
How would you feel about a national Open Carry law that would require registration?? And I might even go so far as to accede to liability insurance as long as it's not overly onerous... IE that the goal is to provide for liability rather than making it too onerous so no one CAN carry...
What you think??
I'd say that it's the basis for negotiation. Glad to see you on the side of regulation.
What civilian world ARE you from?? :D
The one where I deal with things like this...among other things.
https://postimg.org/image/5rcolbg37/
So, you are saying that Bill Clinton should have been fired???
If he was caught divulging nation security secrets...and his job was the management of an intelligence agency... then yes.
Simple.. One bad judgement does not erase decades of service and experience..
Seems a little hypocritical there... What with the witch hunt and need to convict HRC...
The one where I deal with things like this...among other things.
https://postimg.org/image/5rcolbg37/
Kewl.. :D
If he was caught divulging nation security secrets...and his job was the management of an intelligence agency... then yes.
Ahhhh But that's not what you said..
"Simple fact of the matter is that Patreaus was having an affair, which is a firing offence"
We are talking about the affair, not the disclosure of secrets...
Seems a little hypocritical there... What with the witch hunt and need to convict HRC...
No hypocrisy at all.. Once Hillary was actually convicted, then I would be all for tapping into her experience and expertise if it became relevant and necessary..
I'd say that it's the basis for negotiation. Glad to see you on the side of regulation.
If that's how you want to spin it. :D
My goal is to have a good guy with a gun on every street corner, in every grocery store....
There was a movie a while back that posited this very scenario.. Couple scumbags roll into town, looking to hit a grocery store for cash... While they are walking around casing the joint, they notice that mothers shopping are armed, the check cashiers are armed, even the stock boys are armed..
They hightail it out of town..
An armed society is a polite society..
Some might question the wisdom of putting MORE guns into the equation, but think about it.. When you have a bad guy with a gun, what do you do? You call a good guy with... wait for it... a gun...
My scenario is no different..
It puts trained people (mandatory training to carry) on the streets of this country with the capability to stop crowd-based mass shootings before they happen...
Statistics show that, in mass shootings where no civilian is armed, the average death toll is like, 9...
In potential mass shootings where the IS someone carrying, the average death toll is like 2...
The exact numbers elude me, but the proportions (and the point) are accurate..
It makes sense. If the goal is to PREVENT gun violence and crowd-based mass shootings, then flooding the country with good and armed people is the ONLY logical response...
The one where I deal with things like this...among other things.
https://postimg.org/image/5rcolbg37/
Does your security clearance allow you to tell me what that is?? It looks like a sub of some sort...
Drug runner sub???
052
Drug runner sub???
Ding, we have a winner....
Ding, we have a winner....
:D