Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2016, 05:11:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96074 Posts in 2315 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 276
201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The end result of war on the rule of law on: May 23, 2016, 08:22:59 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/22/government-corruption-law-abiding-society-trust-irs-hillary-clinton-column/84744432/

Glenn Reynolds: When leaders cheat, followers ... follow
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 4:14 p.m. EDT May 22, 2016
The trust that underlies a law-abiding society is rotting away thanks to double-dealing in Washington.


The state is “a gang of thieves writ large,” economist Murray Rothbard is said to have remarked. I’ve always viewed that sort of comment with a bit of skepticism. But now I’m beginning to wonder.

I wonder more when I read things like this report from the Washington Examiner: “The CIA's inspector general is claiming it inadvertently destroyed its only copy of a classified, three-volume Senate report on torture, prompting a leading senator to ask for reassurance that it was in fact ‘an accident.’”

Here’s a hint: It very likely wasn’t.

Is that unfair? I mean, it could have been an accident, right? Yeah it could have been. But it wasn’t. Accidents like that just don’t happen — or, when they do, they’re generally not accidents. And it’s right for people who have custody of evidence to know that any convenient “accidents” will give rise to the presumption that they had something pretty awful to hide, and that they hid it.

But, of course, the CIA’s “accident” was only the latest in a long rash of “accidental” losses of incriminating information in this administration. The IRS — whose Tea Party-targeting scandal is now over 1,100 days old without anyone being charged or sent to jail — seems to have a habit of ”accidentally” destroying hard drives containing potentially incriminating evidence. It has done so in spite of court orders, in spite of Congressional inquiries and in spite of pretty much everyone’s belief that these “accidents” were actually the deliberate, illegal destruction of incriminating evidence to protect the guilty.

Then there’s Hillary’s email scandal, in which emails kept on a private unsecure server — presumably to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures — were deleted. Now emails from Hillary’s IT guy, who is believed to have set up the server, have gone poof.

“Destroy the evidence, and you’ve got it made,” said an old frozen dinner commercial. But now that appears to be the motto of the United States government.

So why do the rest of us bother to obey the law? And, yes, that’s an increasingly serious question.

People follow the law for a mix of reasons. First, they may simply fear punishment. That undoubtedly motivates a lot of people, though in fact the risk of punishment is usually pretty low, and people, in general, obey the law even when the risk of being caught is negligible.

People may also obey the law because they agree with it: I don’t need to worry about the likelihood of punishment for torturing kittens because I think that’s wrong, and I wouldn’t do it anyway.

And people may obey the law because they think that being law-abiding is an important part of maintaining a viable society. But that’s the kind of law-abiding behavior that’s at risk when people at the top treat the law with unconcealed contempt.

Being law-abiding for its own sake is a traditional part of bourgeois culture, and our ruling class has lately treated the bourgeoisie with contempt as well. Which raises the risk that this contempt will be returned.

Back in the midst of the financial crisis, Gonzalo Lira looked at how people were responding to the mortgage meltdown and warned of a coming middle-class anarchy. He wrote:

“A terrible sentence, when a law-abiding citizen speaks it: Everybody else is doing it — so why don’t we? ... What’s really important is that law-abiding middle-class citizens are deciding that playing by the rules is nothing but a sucker’s game.”

America has been — and, for the moment, remains — a high-trust society. In high-trust societies, people extend trust to strangers and follow rules for the most part even when nobody is watching. In low-trust societies, trust seldom extends beyond close family, and everybody cheats if they can get away with it.

High-trust societies are much nicer places to live than low-trust ones. But a fish rots from the head and the head of our society is looking pretty rotten. As Lira says, “I’m like Wayne Gretsky: I don’t concern myself with where the puck has been — I look for where the puck is going to be.” Where will our society be in a decade if these trends continue? And what can we do to ensure that they don’t?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: May 23, 2016, 05:08:39 AM
Is Vicente Fox a secret Trump supporter?
203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / In for a rude awakening on: May 22, 2016, 10:41:16 PM


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Gsys-and-Muslims-copy.jpg

Stupid can be fatal.
204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: CA Gun stuff-- immediate action asked for on: May 22, 2016, 10:33:54 PM

Think about how safe California will be once this gets passed!
205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greetings, Slaves on: May 22, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/05/21/greetings-slaves/?singlepage=true

Greetings, Slaves
 BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ MAY 21, 2016

Thomas Lifson argues that Bernie Sanders presents "a mortal danger to not only the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, but the continued viability of the party’s strategy of mouthing populist rhetoric while practicing crony capitalism. Too late, they now realize he actually means what he says."

In an age where truth is the worst policy, socialism -- like Santa Claus -- is something no adult should believe in. That Sanders might actually have illusions lies at the heart of his appeal. To a cynical public a politician who doesn't calculate in explicit monetary terms is the nearest thing to secular sainthood. Hans Gruber, the villain in Die Hard, disappointed the industrialist he kidnapped by confessing: "Mr Takagi, ... I am far more interested in the 100 million dollars in negotiable bearer bonds hidden in your vault."

Takagi: You want money? What kind of terrorist are you?


 
We expect revolutionaries to be indifferent to money. Yet in reality the Left thinks about nothing but money as the Venezuelan socialists who have stolen $350 billion from the treasury, according to the Basel Institute on Governance, should have proved to the world. If it's any consolation to the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is not as indifferent to lucre as he seems. Sanders' filings show he's received money from Super PACs and donors with links to Wall Street -- so he may be normal after all.

Perhaps the first major 20th century writer to realize that the ambition of all true Communists should be to become billionaire revolutionaries was Hilaire Belloc. In his 1912 book, The Servile State, Belloc argued the then-burgeoning Communist movement would find more success ditching Leninism in favor of an alliance with Crony Capitalists to reinstate Slavery. "Slavery, or a Servile State in which those who do not own the means of production shall be legally compelled to work for those who do, and shall receive in exchange a security of livelihood."

This modern form of slavery would address not only the concerns of the revolutionaries by fixing job insecurity and guaranteeing retirement on a plantation basis, but also assuage the monopolists, who stay up nights worrying about preserving market share in the face of competition. An alliance between socialists and crony capitalists would solve both problems at once. The only price to pay for this convenience is the loss of public freedom and that is readily paid.

As for the rest, it would be sustainable. The crony capitalists would underwrite the projects of the collectivists. The ant-heaps of each would be so similar to the other that only a few changes in signage would be needed to turn regulated capitalism into the workers' paradise. It was a tremendous insight. Belloc realized Bolshevism was was too obviously destructive to last and anticipated the rise of what we would now call the Blue Model. F.A. Hayek paid tribute: "Hilaire Belloc ... explained that the effects of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters - to wit, the Servile State." Regarding the Servile State, George Orwell realized whatever name it gave itself, such an unholy alliance would be much the same quantity.


Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery ... A good example is Hilaire Belloc's book, The Servile State ...  Jack London, in The Iron Heel ... Wells's The Sleeper Awakes (1900) ... Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1930), all described imaginary worlds in which the special problems of capitalism had been solved without bringing liberty, equality, or true happiness any nearer. More recently, writers like Peter Drucker and F.A. Voigt have argued that Fascism and Communism are substantially the same thing. And indeed, it has always been obvious that a planned and centralized society is liable to develop into an oligarchy or a dictatorship.
The crucial point would be that this proposed Third Way would be more secure than the traditional Leninsim which rested upon the unholy Troika of Party, Army and Cheka. Paychecks would actually be met, courtesy of the crony capitalists. It's not surprising that after the collapse of the Soviets, the next collectivist social project was the much more "responsible" EU. But Larry Elliott, arguing in the Guardian for a British exit from Brussels, realized that distinction was more a matter of degree than substance. He characterized the EU not as "the US without the electric chair; it is the USSR without the gulag."  The correspondence with Belloc's 1912 prediction is eerie.

Belloc argued that the only two exits from the evils of crony capitalism were an expansion of property holdings to the great majority of the people (the classic conservative program) or collectivism. Of the two alternatives, the elites would find collectivism far the easier path. He wrote, "if you are suffering because property is restricted to a few, you can alter that factor in the problem either by putting property in the hands of many or the hands of none ... a trust or monopoly is welcomed because it 'furnishes a mode of transition from private to public ownership.'" Crony capitalism furnishes collectivism so well that the Servile State becomes indistinguishable from the Workers' Paradise and its leaders equally interchangeable. Thus we have billionaires who become men of the people and men of the people who become billionaires. Who could have foreseen this in 1912?



 
The so-called Socialist ... has not fallen into the Servile State by a miscalculation ... he welcomes its birth, he foresees his power over its future ... it is orderly in the extreme ... and the prospect of a vast bureaucracy wherein the whole of life shall be scheduled and appointed to certain simple schemes deriving from the co-ordinate work of public clerks and marshaled by powerful heads of departments gives his small stomach a final satisfaction.
Best of all, the socialist agitator was free under the arrangement to engage in his favorite project of remaking mankind to free him from "the ravages of drink: more fatal still the dreadful habit of mankind of forming families and breeding children." Belloc's Servile State anticipated the carnival at Davos with its weird hodgepodge of moralism, pseudo-scientific causes and economic diktat precisely because it understood what the power coalition of the future would look like.

Where both Belloc and Orwell may have erred was in assuming the Servile State could fix the sustainability problems that doomed Leninism. The hope of finding a lasting formula for collectivism lies at the heart of the USSR's reboot and the EU and Hillary's socialism in words but crony capitalism in deeds strategy, in contrast to Bernie Sanders' hair-on-fire socialism. Nobody argues with the collectivist goals, just about how to pay for them.  Both the EU and its American imitations are attempts at finding a socialism which can pay the bills. Unfortunately the present political crisis raises the  possibility that the Servile State itself is inherently unsustainable.

The issue which dogs Hillary and which no cosmetic distancing from Sanders will solve is that the middle class is losing faith in the platform. The political turmoil threatening to break apart the EU and the American Blue Model is rooted in the fact that both are broke and have no prospect of meeting obligations as manifested in the stagnation of wages in the West and also in the collapse of the "security" safety nets for which the present-day slaves have traded away their freedom. The progressive campaign is essentially predicated on the assumption that a sufficiently resolute government can defy the laws of financial gravity. There is now some doubt on that point.

Collectivism cannot even pay its pensions. "The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security as of August 2010 was approximately $5.4 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the program's shortfall between tax revenues and payouts over the next 75 years."  One of the culprits, ironically, is that the socialists have succeeded all too well in changing mankind's dreadful habit of forming families and breeding children.

It's not just the Government that's broke but also its political partners. Recently the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund announced that it was bust. Unless it gets an infusion of taxpayer money, pension benefits for about 407,000 people could be reduced to "virtually nothing." Orwell famously said that "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." What he and Belloc failed to anticipate was that the boot might rot to pieces and fail to fulfill its function to oppress.

What Belloc left out of his model, very oddly for him especially, was God. (Those who object to the word can substitute one of their choosing: reality, consequences or arithmetic, it makes no difference.) God can't be fixed and shows up at the most inconvenient moments. Teamsters who are able to intimidate everything find they are finally helpless against addition and subtraction. At the end of it all they, like everyone else who has mismanaged their pensions, can pay their retirees "virtually nothing."

In the face of this failure perhaps it is time to revisit Belloc's alternatives. If the only remaining path is to encourage a return to the popular ownership of property and making markets freer as opposed to cutting deals with monopolists -- then so be it. Technology may be working in favor of the path not taken. As intellectual property becomes the dominant means of production, every human is automatically born with a certain amount of capital, provided Planned Parenthood doesn't get to him first.

Lincoln Steffens thought he saw a future that worked but it was cruel fraud. Why not try property this time instead of slavery? We've tried being slaves. Let's try being free. Belloc points out this idea is so revolutionary that anyone who espouses it will almost certainly be suspected of mental incapacity.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

Then we can really have some fun.
206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greetings, Slaves on: May 22, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/05/21/greetings-slaves/?singlepage=true

Greetings, Slaves
 BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ MAY 21, 2016

Thomas Lifson argues that Bernie Sanders presents "a mortal danger to not only the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, but the continued viability of the party’s strategy of mouthing populist rhetoric while practicing crony capitalism. Too late, they now realize he actually means what he says."

In an age where truth is the worst policy, socialism -- like Santa Claus -- is something no adult should believe in. That Sanders might actually have illusions lies at the heart of his appeal. To a cynical public a politician who doesn't calculate in explicit monetary terms is the nearest thing to secular sainthood. Hans Gruber, the villain in Die Hard, disappointed the industrialist he kidnapped by confessing: "Mr Takagi, ... I am far more interested in the 100 million dollars in negotiable bearer bonds hidden in your vault."

Takagi: You want money? What kind of terrorist are you?


 
We expect revolutionaries to be indifferent to money. Yet in reality the Left thinks about nothing but money as the Venezuelan socialists who have stolen $350 billion from the treasury, according to the Basel Institute on Governance, should have proved to the world. If it's any consolation to the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is not as indifferent to lucre as he seems. Sanders' filings show he's received money from Super PACs and donors with links to Wall Street -- so he may be normal after all.

Perhaps the first major 20th century writer to realize that the ambition of all true Communists should be to become billionaire revolutionaries was Hilaire Belloc. In his 1912 book, The Servile State, Belloc argued the then-burgeoning Communist movement would find more success ditching Leninism in favor of an alliance with Crony Capitalists to reinstate Slavery. "Slavery, or a Servile State in which those who do not own the means of production shall be legally compelled to work for those who do, and shall receive in exchange a security of livelihood."

This modern form of slavery would address not only the concerns of the revolutionaries by fixing job insecurity and guaranteeing retirement on a plantation basis, but also assuage the monopolists, who stay up nights worrying about preserving market share in the face of competition. An alliance between socialists and crony capitalists would solve both problems at once. The only price to pay for this convenience is the loss of public freedom and that is readily paid.

As for the rest, it would be sustainable. The crony capitalists would underwrite the projects of the collectivists. The ant-heaps of each would be so similar to the other that only a few changes in signage would be needed to turn regulated capitalism into the workers' paradise. It was a tremendous insight. Belloc realized Bolshevism was was too obviously destructive to last and anticipated the rise of what we would now call the Blue Model. F.A. Hayek paid tribute: "Hilaire Belloc ... explained that the effects of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters - to wit, the Servile State." Regarding the Servile State, George Orwell realized whatever name it gave itself, such an unholy alliance would be much the same quantity.


Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery ... A good example is Hilaire Belloc's book, The Servile State ...  Jack London, in The Iron Heel ... Wells's The Sleeper Awakes (1900) ... Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1930), all described imaginary worlds in which the special problems of capitalism had been solved without bringing liberty, equality, or true happiness any nearer. More recently, writers like Peter Drucker and F.A. Voigt have argued that Fascism and Communism are substantially the same thing. And indeed, it has always been obvious that a planned and centralized society is liable to develop into an oligarchy or a dictatorship.
The crucial point would be that this proposed Third Way would be more secure than the traditional Leninsim which rested upon the unholy Troika of Party, Army and Cheka. Paychecks would actually be met, courtesy of the crony capitalists. It's not surprising that after the collapse of the Soviets, the next collectivist social project was the much more "responsible" EU. But Larry Elliott, arguing in the Guardian for a British exit from Brussels, realized that distinction was more a matter of degree than substance. He characterized the EU not as "the US without the electric chair; it is the USSR without the gulag."  The correspondence with Belloc's 1912 prediction is eerie.

Belloc argued that the only two exits from the evils of crony capitalism were an expansion of property holdings to the great majority of the people (the classic conservative program) or collectivism. Of the two alternatives, the elites would find collectivism far the easier path. He wrote, "if you are suffering because property is restricted to a few, you can alter that factor in the problem either by putting property in the hands of many or the hands of none ... a trust or monopoly is welcomed because it 'furnishes a mode of transition from private to public ownership.'" Crony capitalism furnishes collectivism so well that the Servile State becomes indistinguishable from the Workers' Paradise and its leaders equally interchangeable. Thus we have billionaires who become men of the people and men of the people who become billionaires. Who could have foreseen this in 1912?



 
The so-called Socialist ... has not fallen into the Servile State by a miscalculation ... he welcomes its birth, he foresees his power over its future ... it is orderly in the extreme ... and the prospect of a vast bureaucracy wherein the whole of life shall be scheduled and appointed to certain simple schemes deriving from the co-ordinate work of public clerks and marshaled by powerful heads of departments gives his small stomach a final satisfaction.
Best of all, the socialist agitator was free under the arrangement to engage in his favorite project of remaking mankind to free him from "the ravages of drink: more fatal still the dreadful habit of mankind of forming families and breeding children." Belloc's Servile State anticipated the carnival at Davos with its weird hodgepodge of moralism, pseudo-scientific causes and economic diktat precisely because it understood what the power coalition of the future would look like.

Where both Belloc and Orwell may have erred was in assuming the Servile State could fix the sustainability problems that doomed Leninism. The hope of finding a lasting formula for collectivism lies at the heart of the USSR's reboot and the EU and Hillary's socialism in words but crony capitalism in deeds strategy, in contrast to Bernie Sanders' hair-on-fire socialism. Nobody argues with the collectivist goals, just about how to pay for them.  Both the EU and its American imitations are attempts at finding a socialism which can pay the bills. Unfortunately the present political crisis raises the  possibility that the Servile State itself is inherently unsustainable.

The issue which dogs Hillary and which no cosmetic distancing from Sanders will solve is that the middle class is losing faith in the platform. The political turmoil threatening to break apart the EU and the American Blue Model is rooted in the fact that both are broke and have no prospect of meeting obligations as manifested in the stagnation of wages in the West and also in the collapse of the "security" safety nets for which the present-day slaves have traded away their freedom. The progressive campaign is essentially predicated on the assumption that a sufficiently resolute government can defy the laws of financial gravity. There is now some doubt on that point.

Collectivism cannot even pay its pensions. "The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security as of August 2010 was approximately $5.4 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the program's shortfall between tax revenues and payouts over the next 75 years."  One of the culprits, ironically, is that the socialists have succeeded all too well in changing mankind's dreadful habit of forming families and breeding children.

It's not just the Government that's broke but also its political partners. Recently the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund announced that it was bust. Unless it gets an infusion of taxpayer money, pension benefits for about 407,000 people could be reduced to "virtually nothing." Orwell famously said that "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." What he and Belloc failed to anticipate was that the boot might rot to pieces and fail to fulfill its function to oppress.

What Belloc left out of his model, very oddly for him especially, was God. (Those who object to the word can substitute one of their choosing: reality, consequences or arithmetic, it makes no difference.) God can't be fixed and shows up at the most inconvenient moments. Teamsters who are able to intimidate everything find they are finally helpless against addition and subtraction. At the end of it all they, like everyone else who has mismanaged their pensions, can pay their retirees "virtually nothing."

In the face of this failure perhaps it is time to revisit Belloc's alternatives. If the only remaining path is to encourage a return to the popular ownership of property and making markets freer as opposed to cutting deals with monopolists -- then so be it. Technology may be working in favor of the path not taken. As intellectual property becomes the dominant means of production, every human is automatically born with a certain amount of capital, provided Planned Parenthood doesn't get to him first.

Lincoln Steffens thought he saw a future that worked but it was cruel fraud. Why not try property this time instead of slavery? We've tried being slaves. Let's try being free. Belloc points out this idea is so revolutionary that anyone who espouses it will almost certainly be suspected of mental incapacity.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

Then we can really have some fun.
207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: May 22, 2016, 02:54:03 PM
IIRC there is a goodly dose of antisemitism thrown in too.

When the mainstream politicos ignore the people, then the fringe gains power. As far as antisemitism, it's always lurking in Europe anyway, nothing new.
208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Secrets of the Fannie and Freddie bailout on: May 22, 2016, 01:54:16 PM

This is a perfect example of why the government should never be involved in anything like this, ever.
209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Austria looks to be headed hard right on: May 22, 2016, 01:52:08 PM

Good.
210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / In Soviet America, TV watches YOU on: May 22, 2016, 12:26:26 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/20/smart-tvs-webcams-allow-access-peeping-toms/

Retro-tech may well be the way to go.
211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Black Lives Matter ‘Activist’ Was Invited To White House AFTER His Arrest on: May 22, 2016, 12:23:42 PM
http://www.weaselzippers.us/272564-black-lives-matter-activist-was-invited-to-white-house-after-his-arrest-for-pimping-17-yr-old-girl/

Black Lives Matter ‘Activist’ Was Invited To White House AFTER His Arrest For Allegedly Pimping 17 Yr Old Girl

From 15:10 to 21:20:


We broke this story on Wednesday, that Charles Wade, a Black Lives Matter and Ferguson ‘activist’, had been arrested on multiple human trafficking and prostitution charges for allegedly pimping out a 17 year old girl in a Howard Johnson’s in Maryland. The 7 counts include serious felonies with up to 25 years and $15,000 fines.

Wade, who previously had worked as a stylist for Solange Knowles, Beyonce’s sister, became known in Ferguson for starting a non-profit ‘Operation Help or Hush’. He claimed he helped to house and feed protesters involved in Ferguson protests.

Wade had a history of prior arrests before this one, including an arrest in Travis County, Texas in August 2014 for making false statements, and an arrest in January 2016 in Miami for grand theft. The Miami arrest resulted in a ‘deferred prosecution’. While we do not know the circumstances of the agreement, often such arrangements are based off of no prior criminal involvement, with agreements to not become involved in future criminal involvement.
Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 2.08.09 PM

The deferred prosecution arrangement appears to have been entered into on April 29, 4 days after the arrest in Maryland, raising the question of whether the court there had been informed of the arrests in Maryland, since it seems unlikely the court would have made such an arrangement, knowing of these pending charges.

In a statement released on Twitter, Wade tried to justify his actions in both the pimping arrest and the Miami arrest, claiming he had been unfairly accused for trying to help people. The police report in the Maryland case claimed, however, that he had advertised the girl in a ‘Backpage’ ad, that they called his phone number and they arranged the ‘date’ with him.

Yet, even giving this history, Wade was apparently invited to the White House, according to the Daily Caller, to attend a special movie screening earlier this week with other Black Lives Matter members. He did not attend.

Bill O’Reilly and his guests question how Wade managed to be invited to the White House, and why wasn’t he vetted either by them, or media, which promoted him without question. Geraldo Rivera even referred to him as a ‘poverty pimp’, and brought up again the question of what has become of the money donated to his charity, noting there has been no accounting.
212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some remember on: May 22, 2016, 12:07:04 PM
https://twitter.com/GRAAmerica/status/734406891040825344

213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Soros funding NPR on: May 22, 2016, 11:52:08 AM



Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous “deal” in American history — Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.
“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.
 
AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” .

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

— Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

— Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

— Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
 
On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other .

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

— In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network :

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.
A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

[a] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
[c] http://freebeacon.com/issues/public-radio-pay-to-play/
[d] http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427
[e] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-officials-plot-ways-to-pressure-lawmakers-into-supporting-iran-deal/
[f] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-instructs-allies-to-lean-on-jewish-community-to-force-iran-deal/
[g] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/money-behind-iran-nuclear-deal-ploughshares/
[h] http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/M+A_Ploughshares_culture%20report.pdf
http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/how-we-won
[j] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/20/ben-rhodes-echo-chamber-on-iran-had-many-supporters
[k] http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/obamas-iran-echo-chamber-just-cant-stop/
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/05/obama-admin-funded-journalists.html/#sthash.bsP71mGq.dpuf

214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 21, 2016, 02:33:10 PM
I am still wrestling with this decision. Do I hold my nose and vote for Littlefingers, because the Dowager empress would be much worse, or do I go 3rd party protest vote? I won't tell you not to vote for Trump, but steel yourself for when he fcuks us.
215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 21, 2016, 12:48:52 PM
utterly unfounded, like most of what Trump says.

"Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, "

Any one here about the final conclusion of that published photo? Was that really him in the photo standing near Lee Harvey Oswald after his arrest?

It was implied that was him but was it really?  I never heard whether it was or not.

If it was him in the photo so what.  So he was an anti-Castro guy.
216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Who will win? on: May 21, 2016, 10:26:55 AM



http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bracken-dhimmi.jpg
217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights on: May 21, 2016, 09:40:26 AM
http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2016/05/03/four-reasons-donald-trump-cannot-be-trusted-on-gun-rights/

Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights
By: goldwaterconservative (Diary)  |  May 3rd, 2016 at 05:08 PM  |  2

Many Donald Trump supporters believe that their candidate has genuinely converted to the conservative persuasion. I am not inclined to agree. On the issue of gun rights and the Second Amendment, which is critically important, I believe that Donald Trump cannot be trusted.

Reason 1: Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2000


The policy advocated by Trump in 2000 was not simply an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, he thought about it enough to put it in his book The America We Deserve in preparation for a potential presidential bid. Here is what Trump said:


It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”

Reason 2: Trump has been friends with Michael Bloomberg for over a decade

Nobody in America is more anti-gun than Michael Bloomberg. Nobody has done more personally to attack the Second Amendment than he has.



Reason 3: Trump praised President Obama’s remarks following the Newtown shooting

Below is a real, verified tweet. Click on it, it is real.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/280754630047199232

During his speech, Obama introduced his “even if it saves one child” argument for gun control:

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.

And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

Reason 4: Trump has banned guns on his properties for years

This issue was actually brought up during a debate:

“We called a few Trump resorts, a few Trump properties that do not allow guns with or without a permit. Would you change those policies?” moderator Carl Quintanilla asked.

“I would change them,” Trump tersely replied.

Yet so far the policies haven’t been reversed on Trump properties. “If Donald Trump wants to earn the support of gun owners, he needs to follow through on that promise,” the group’s statement continued.

A number of Trump properties in which the Republican presidential front-runner does still own remain gun-free zones, among them Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, Trump National Gulf Club in Los Angeles and Trump International Hotel Waikiki Beach Walk in Honolulu.

Conclusion:
Do you still trust Donald Trump on the Second Amendment after reading this? All you have is his current word. After his recent claims that convicted rapist Mike Tyson is innocent, and that Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, we know how good is word is.
218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / How to scrub what Google has on you. on: May 21, 2016, 09:30:49 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-google-knows-about-you-2016-5?r=UK&IR=T


219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Child trafficker's lives matter on: May 21, 2016, 08:52:35 AM
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/blacklivesmatter-leader-charles-wade-arrested-for-sex-trafficking/

One of the leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Charles Wade, was arrested on human trafficking and prostitution charges during an April sting operation in Maryland, according to multiple press reports. Wade, the co-founder of Operation Help (sometimes known as “Hush”) — an organization that provided clothing, food and shelter for #BlackLivesMatter activists protesting in Ferguson, Missouri — is accused of forcing a 17-year-old girl into prostitution.


The Daily Caller obtained a police report stating that Wade was picked up in a College Park police sting after cops responded to a backpage.com ad from a woman who claimed to be 23, offering sexual services at an area Howard Johnson hotel.

When police arrived and confronted the woman, who turned out to be 17, she identified Wade, who had been watching from the parking lot, as her “manager” named “CJ.” The police then arrested Wade who, according to the report, had rented the hotel room and was carrying three cell phones.

According to the police report, the woman told police that “CJ” knew she was underage and “wasn’t worried” because she’d turn 18 in a few months. She told investigators that she provided CJ with all of the money she made in her endeavors.
220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ben Rhodes, NPR and lies on: May 20, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363603.php

Group ID'd as One of Ben Rhodes' "Force Multipliers" In Selling Iran Deal Also Gave $100,000 to NPR to "Help" It "Report" on the Deal
221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Trump Would Deal with the National Debt on: May 20, 2016, 03:22:06 PM
How Trump Would Deal with the National Debt

 MICHAEL TANNER   May 11, 2016 4:00 AM @MTANNERCATO

The candidate’s various plans range from useless to disastrous. The budget deficit is going up. The Congressional Budget Office recently warned that revenues this year are lower than had been expected. This means that the deficit will almost certainly be higher than the $544 billion previously projected. With our national debt now topping $19.15 trillion and likely to reach $29 trillion by 2026, this is not good news. But don’t worry — Donald Trump has a solution for this growing tide of debt. He just won’t pay it. Last week Trump initially said, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” to pay bondholders less than full value on the debt owed to them. This is, after all, the sort of thing Trump has done with creditors when, say, one of his casinos went bankrupt. It is also more or less what Greece has repeatedly negotiated with its bondholders over the last few years. But the United States is neither Greece nor one of The Donald’s businesses. There wouldn’t be any outside entity to force bondholders to accept less than face value. And a President Trump would have little leverage in any negotiation without threatening a general default. But even the hint of a default would inject an almost unprecedented level of uncertainty into international markets, causing interest rates to spike for all other kinds of debt, from corporate debt to state- and local-government debt. In this maelstrom of uncertainty, liquidity would probably collapse, since financial institutions, in an attempt to reduce their exposure, would be unwilling to make loans. This, in turn, would lead to a huge drop in business investment and consumer spending. It would be like the last economic crisis on steroids. The last country to try this route was Argentina, which defaulted on some of its debt in July 2014. The result wasn’t pretty. The economy was thrown into recession, contracting by 3.5 percent. Inflation spiked to as much as 41 percent. Consumption fell by 4.5 percent. The country was shut out of international markets. It may be years before Argentinians dig their way out of the mess. Oh, and those bondholders who would get screwed under Trump’s proposal? That would be you and me. Roughly 55 percent of government debt is owned by Americans, mostly through their 401(k) or company pension funds. If Trump reduces the value of those bonds, we can say goodbye to our retirement plans. Moreover, in the aftermath of Trump’s “renegotiation,” investors would obviously be reluctant to take a risk on future U.S. bonds; interest rates would need to be higher to offset the increased risk. But every percentage-point increase in interest rates costs the federal government $120 billion in additional interest payments. Thus, in attempting to lower the debt, Trump’s plan could actually end up increasing it. And not that the Constitution matters that much to Trump, but there is a little provision that says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” Faced with the utter implausibility of his idea, Trump quickly traded Greece for Venezuela, saying, “You never have to default because you print the money.” Not since Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin has anyone seriously proposed inflating our way out of debt. Massive inflation would mean that the savings and investments of millions of Americans would be wiped out. The cost of living would skyrocket, and low- and middle-income Americans would find it more difficult to afford even the basic necessities of life. Those on fixed incomes, like senior citizens, would be among the biggest losers. Businesses would be forced to offset rising costs by slashing payrolls, throwing millions of Americans out of work. The cost of imports would rise dramatically, which would be a disaster for consumers, but, on the bright side, it would save Trump the trouble of imposing all those tariff hikes. Eventually, Trump backed into his third position on the issue: He would have the Treasury Department reconfigure U.S. debt by issuing new Treasury bonds to buy back older bonds that trade at slightly lower rates. (Because of quirks in the bond market, investors have a preference for newly issued Treasuries.) Such an approach probably wouldn’t disrupt financial markets. But it also would result in only a minuscule reduction in our total debt, and it would do so by increasing the interest rate the U.S. is paying on that debt, so it would basically just be shuffling things around without actually changing anything. Trump’s rapidly multiplying positions didn’t just display how little he knows about how the U.S. government and the U.S. economy really work. It also underscored the fact that Trump has no plan to reduce the size and cost of government. Yes, he has said he would cut taxes, though he has now repudiated his own tax plan, but he has no plans to cut spending beyond vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.” In fact, in areas ranging from defense to the VA to border enforcement, he wants to hike spending. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Trump’s plans would add as much as $15.45 trillion to the national debt over ten years, including interest costs. At the same time, Trump has specifically taken reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid off the table. Since those entitlement programs account for half of all federal spending, there is no serious debt-reduction plan that exempts them. In fact, given that those programs face more than $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Trump’s plans would virtually guarantee that we would continue down the same disastrous road to fiscal collapse that we have been taking for the past 15 years. Trump declares himself the ‘king of debt’ and says, ‘I love debt.’ He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Trump declares himself the “king of debt” and says, “I love debt.” He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is an old-fashioned tax-and-spend Democrat. The CRFB suggests that her proposed $1.8 trillion in new spending over the next ten years would be mostly paid for by new taxes, with other policy proposals like enacting immigration reform making up most of the remaining difference. Others, such as the Tax Foundation, point out that when you consider the reduced economic growth that would result from Hillary’s tax hikes, her spending increases would add roughly $1.2 trillion to the debt over the next decade. Hillary is no fiscal conservative. A Clinton presidency would mean bigger and more costly government, financed by more taxes and, most likely, more debt. That’s bad news. But on this issue, it’s hard to see that she’s worse than Trump. Either way, the American economy and the American people will be the losers. — Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis. You can follow him on Twitter @mtannercato, or on his blog, TannerOnPolicy.com.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt
222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 20, 2016, 10:13:40 AM
So what you are saying is you weren't smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. Well Trump was! So there!

"Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug."

I know, flaunting my elite public school education.  Like most upper class elites removed from reality, I worked all the way through college, commuted from my parents house to the nearest public university during the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter boom years.  Today, like a lot of ivory tower elites, after a little writing I will go up to north Minneapolis, clean tenant debris and see if I can get a couple of toilets to flush more smoothly - 2 blocks from where Jamar Clark was shot. 
 http://www.startribune.com/No-charges-against-police-in-Jamar-Clark-shooting-death/373979481/#1

Economics is all theoretical to me.  I already have it made, born like George Bush with a silver foot in my mouth.


223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 20, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Trump=



Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug.
224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Elites on: May 19, 2016, 06:16:30 PM


http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/GTY_trump_wedding_clintons_jef_150806_16x9_992.jpg

There is a club. We aren't in it.
225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From Hotgas comments on: May 19, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
"PatrickPu Basileus • a day ago
Thank you all for the kind words. I have just so abused, put upon, denigrated and simply castigated by the "elites" and those who are anti-american that I just had to put this together.

We are different that the Reagan Democrats because we encompass so many different groups. Rep, Dems, Indies, we are it. We are the Trump Americans and damned proud of it."

 rolleyes
226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, vasectomies for young bucks on: May 19, 2016, 02:24:38 AM

Us hicks out west have this thing called hunting that is much more effective in managing deer populations.
227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 18, 2016, 08:32:34 PM
Trump Americans=makes scientologists look like a meeting of a skeptic's group.
228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Our Pat on "Trump Americans" on: May 18, 2016, 04:59:18 PM

#Invalid YouTube Link#


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

229  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: African Immigrants score highest academically on: May 18, 2016, 07:46:11 AM

Won't be picked up by the MSM.
230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 17, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
See, I told you he strengthens some of Trump's weakest links!


Good point.
231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 11:53:14 PM
Speaking only politically, Kasich has a lot to offer in the way of strengthening up some of Trump's weakest links.


Kasich is a loathsome turd who makes Trump seem decent and ethical in comparison.
232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 10:08:31 AM
Strange. I've been assured that there are professional journalists, who are fair and objective! With credentials!
233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
I doubt "Littlefingers" could tell you which Korea is an ally and which is an enemy.
234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 09:44:29 AM
So, if I was Xi Jinping, and feeling threatened by internal strife, I wait until the Hilderbeast is sworn in, then through diplomatic channels let it be know that China does indeed have ALL her emails, and if she makes one peep about the reunification with the renegade province, or a confrontation with Japan or other asian parties, it all gets dumped online.

If things get bad enough, fast enough, then they just say fcuk it, Obama is a P*ssy and go for broke.
235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: May 16, 2016, 09:36:42 AM
Or it might realize it might be a good idea to start working to restrain the Norks and to start respecting international law in the South China Sea.


I have a HUMINT source that says that things feel very unstable in China right now. Reminded of the Cultural Revolution at the start.
236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 09:34:33 AM
I'm glad you said non-STEM; my daughter's degree is in math.

Smart girl. Now she should find a good job in Singapore or Hong Kong to develop global business skills.

I will suggest the growth industries of our time, canned goods and ammo...

We have some time, I hope. Not long ago I was having dinner with a friend who has a an elite military background and is a career law enforcement officer. We see the same endgame,and it's hard to say if we have months, or years before it kicks off.

Now, the firearms business is one of the few bright spots for domestic industries, thanks to history's greatest gun salesman.
237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump’s nuclear arson in Asia: Spengler on: May 16, 2016, 09:26:20 AM
http://atimes.com/2016/05/trumps-nuclear-arson-in-asia/

Trump’s nuclear arson in Asia: Spengler

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN on MAY 3, 2016 in AT TOP WRITERS, CHINA, DAVID P. GOLDMAN, JAPAN, KOREAS, SPENGLER
Late last year I spent some time with a former chief of China’s military intelligence, a bruiser with an ax to grind against the United States. Halfway through a long tirade about America’s alleged abuse of its global power, he interrupted himself and said: “There’s one thing we appreciate about America, though. You keep the Japanese away from us.”

Some Asian countries abhor American power, some like it, and some live with it reluctantly. But they all have one thing in common: They trust the United States of America more than they trust each other. There’s no regional balance-of-power arrangement that could replace America as a strategic buffer.

That’s why Donald Trump’s April 29 suggestion that Japan and South Korea should acquire nuclear weapons was the craziest single statement on foreign policy of any major American presidential candidate since the Second World War. “You have so many countries already — China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia — you have so many countries right now that have them,” said Trump. “Now, wouldn’t you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?”

nuclear_blast

Trump’s April 29 foreign policy address made some good points, or rather points that would have been good if they had been in a different speech by a different candidate. But the core of the speech was Trump’s narcissistic claim that he would negotiate a “great deal” for the United States with its Russian and Chinese rivals. You don’t start negotiations by pouring gasoline around the conference table and flicking a cigarette lighter. Trump can’t un-ring that bell. Any negotiations he were to undertake in Asia would be a disaster.

The Japanese and South Koreans were horrified, with good reason. As CNN reported, “So high was the level of concern, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, ‘whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan’s diplomacy.’ Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, ‘It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons.'”
Trump doesn’t read books, except the ghostwritten tomes that have appeared under his name, and probably doesn’t know that that the Japanese army killed about 25 million Chinese during the Second World War, the vast majority of them civilians. The scale of Japanese atrocities makes the mind reel, and China remains traumatized by the memory. Japan has never acknowledged the scale of its wartime misdeeds, unlike Germany. Japan and China fear each other and take extraordinary measures to keep provocation below the threshold of danger. As Kyle Mizokami wrote in The National Interest:
It is perhaps China’s greatest nightmare: a nuclear-armed Japan. Permanently anchored off the Asian mainland, bristling with nuclear weapons, a nuclear Japan would make China’s security situation much more complex than it is now, and force China to revise both its nuclear doctrine and increase its nuclear arsenal. To be perfectly clear, Japan has no intention of building nuclear weapons. In fact, it has a strong aversion to nukes, having been the only country to actually be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike on its cities. Japan’s strategic situation would have to grow very dire for it to undertake such a drastic and expensive option. At the same time, China has no interest in provoking Japan into building them. China’s nuclear “no first use” policy is in part aimed at reassuring Japan that, unless it were attacked first with nuclear weapons, it will not use them in wartime.
China grudgingly respects the United States for acting as a superpower in East Asia. By keeping Japan under the American strategic umbrella, Washington in effect told China that it did not have to prepare for war with Japan. Trump has now told China to prepare for a nuclear-armed Japan.

Trump understands nothing about China.  “China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect,” he said on April 29. The merits of this claim are beside the point (China’s real effective exchange rate has risen by 40% since 2009, not fallen as Trump alleged). China’s first three priorities are security, security, and security. Its economy comes far down the list. If China believes that it faces an existential threat by the adversary that devastated it between 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, and 1945, when America won the Pacific war, it will make any sacrifice it thinks necessary in order to prevail.

China has invested massively in its strategic forces, including carrier-killer surface-to-ship missiles, satellite-killer missiles, ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines, a new generation of ICBM’s, as well as cyber war capabilities. Trump presumably would threaten to restrict Chinese exports; China would respond by massively shifting resources to its military sector. America’s interest lies in persuading China that it can feel security within its borders without projecting power in such a way as to destabilize the region around it, as it threatens to do by constructing artificial islands for military use in the South China Sea. The worst possible thing would be to introduce the wild card of a Japanese nuclear threat into the discussion.
Beijing will never believe that Trump is merely a blithering, blathering ignoramus. In China’s imperial system, every public statement is weighed carefully, for words cannot be retracted. The Chinese will remember that Trump proposed to put nuclear weapons into the hands of the Japanese and treat him as a dangerous enemy. And the consequences for Asian and American security will be dire.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times.
238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / So much for the peaceful rise of China... on: May 16, 2016, 09:21:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTdOnDSPZ_Q

#Invalid YouTube Link#

‎China‬'s ‪‎PLA‬ army enlists rap-style music video to recruit young soldiers

Published on May 2, 2016
The People's Liberation Army has released a rap-style music video filled with masculine lyrics and advanced weaponry in an attempt to attract more young people to join the military.
The song, called Battle Declaration, was posted on 81.cn, the PLA Daily's website, on Thursday. It is the first hip-hop video made by the PLA.
Previous PLA songs have been sung to the accompaniment of orchestral melodies, and their lyrics were carefully worded to avoid being too aggressive. By comparison, Battle Declaration, in an unmistakable effort to cater to the taste of young people, features a popular hip-hop style, and the lyrics hide neither combativeness nor a desire to fight.
The video starts with a young PLA soldier touching his uniform and putting on his cap. Then a man's voice comes in and says, "There are always missions in soldiers' minds, enemies in their eyes, responsibilities on their shoulders, and passions in their hearts."
The song then continues: "There could be a war at any time. Are you ready for that?"
The video shows soldiers training and exercising, fighter jets conducting dogfights and missiles being fired, among other military activities.
Almost all of the PLA's best weaponry is displayed in the video, including the aircraft carrier Liaoning, J-11 fighter jet, Type-99A tank and DF-11 ballistic missile.
Satellites and spacecraft also appear in the video, which indicates the PLA has placed unprecedented importance on its space force, said a PLA publicity expert who asked to be identified only as Jiao.
Moreover, the appearance of the military's space assets also intends to impress upon viewers that "the PLA is no longer the poorly equipped one that they saw from TV dramas, but a powerful force as modernized as the United States military," he told China Daily.
Jiao said the hip-hop video could be a big help in recruiting young people.
The PLA is striving to recruit more educated young people. An increasing number of media reports say some young people spare no efforts to avoid military service.
Colonel Wu Qian, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said at a news conference on Thursday that a man's youth is not only about being cool, but also about being responsible for the nation and its security.
239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
I'm glad you said non-STEM; my daughter's degree is in math.

Smart girl. Now she should find a good job in Singapore or Hong Kong to develop global business skills.
240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Beijing rattling sabres at Taiwan on: May 16, 2016, 09:04:49 AM
1992 Consensus called key to cross-Straits ties
By Peng Yining (China Daily)
Updated: 2016-05-07 07:37
CommentsPrintMailLargeMediumSmall
 1992 Consensus called key to cross-Straits ties
Taiwan's Democratic progessive party (DPP) leader Tsai Ing-wen attends to the talent competition of children with mental disabilities in Taiwan, file photo. [Photo/IC]

'Mainland won't tolerate any vagueness' on whether Tsai endorses one-China principle

A denial of the 1992 Consensus principle that Taiwan and the mainland are both parts of one China would change cross-Straits relations and cause the collapse of the political mutual trust and process of dialogue between the two sides, experts say.

"The island's new leader has to answer whether she endorses the 1992 Consensus - it's not an optional question," Li Yihu, head of Peking University's Taiwan Institute, said on Friday. "The new leader has to voice a clear position on this issue."

Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, will assume the island's leadership on May 20 and deliver her inaugural speech.

"Cross-Straits relations have come to a turning point," said Li. "The mainland won't tolerate any vagueness regarding the Consensus."

In a front-page commentary on Thursday, People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party of China, stressed that not adhering to the 1992 Consensus constitutes sabotage of the common political foundation for cross-Straits ties.


According to the commentary, the development of cross-Straits relations in the past two decades has proved that the relations have a bright future with the endorsement of the Consensus. And without it, the peaceful development of the relations would be off course and could founder, it said.

"It is very rare for People's Daily to have a commentary like this on its front page," said Li. "The article shows the central leadership's firm position on this point. It's an official message and a powerful statement."


Li said the mainland has reiterated the importance of the Consensus and the serious consequences of not adhering to the principle.

"Economic loss is obvious, and the political impact would be inevitable," he said. "All the consequences would have to be borne by the Taiwan leadership."

But the island's new leader has been trying to skirt around the issue, said Ni Yongjie, deputy director of Shanghai's Taiwan Research Institute.

"Tsai did say she would prefer preserving the status quo. But without the Consensus, the status quo would not exist," he said, adding that Tsai could use the opportunity on May 20 to explicitly endorse the Consensus.

Zhu Songling, director of the Institute of Cross-Straits Relations at Beijing Union University, said the mainland has been unequivocal and has warned that further development of cross-Straits relations would be set back by its denial.

"Tsai's dodging of inquiries about her position on the Consensus is actually destroying cross-Straits ties," he said.
241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Good thing our side isn't this easy to con... on: May 16, 2016, 08:53:36 AM
https://fee.org/articles/penn-jillette-on-the-clintons-quote-of-the-day/


Clinton
Penn Jillette on the Clintons: Quote of the Day
Their fans think they can read their minds
Anything Peaceful
 Thursday, October 15, 2015
 Facebook Twitter Reddit More
#Clinton #Libertarianism #Politics #Democracy
On his weekly podcast, libertarian magician and skeptic Penn Jillette gave an incisive take on Hillary and Bill Clinton.

We have Hillary Clinton — while you were alive, while you were sexually active, three years ago — saying marriage is just between a man and a woman. ...
And yet many people in [the gay community] are supporting Hillary, and their reason for supporting her is that "she was always in favor of gay rights, but she had to say what she had to to be elected." …
She came out in favor of the pacific trade deal, very strongly in favor of it, and now she’s against it.
And that’s not seen as flip-flopping, it’s not really seen as a revelation or learning something — it’s seen as "she is politically expedient, and we want someone who is politically expedient."
The followers of Hillary Clinton seem to think they have a secret deal with her — where they understand what she really believes, what she’s really going to do — and they are willing to support her as she bends the truth in order to be elected. …
Why do the people who support Hillary think that what she’s saying is to manipulate other people and not to manipulate them?
This cultivated impression of insincerity allows her supporters project whatever beliefs and values they want onto her, rationalizing away any dissonant actions as just "savvy politics," letting her be everything to everyone.

Penn notes that Bill Clinton exploited the same tendency when he ran for president in 1992:

I remember when Bill Clinton was running for president. He was in a capital punishment state, Arkansas, and he flew back during his campaign, during the Gennifer Flowers thing, to pull the switch on a mentally handicapped criminal.
He went back to pull the switch, and I remember talking to a buddy of mine in Chicago … who said, "We know Bill Clinton is against capital punishment, we know he’s against it, but he had to make sure this guy was killed in order to be elected, and he knows that’s important."
And I said I know people who are pro-capital punishment who have never actually been part of killing a person, and who might balk at that.
So this is what they postulate: you’ve got an anti-death penalty guy who think it’s worth it to kill this guy in order to be elected... so he can fight for not killing people?
Of course, this is not unique to Clinton supporters. Politics is a tribal game, where members of one team will always assume that their leaders are (at least secretly) really on their side and doing the right thing, and they'll find ways to rationalize their disagreements as merely strategic or cosmetic.

Listen to the rest of the show here.
242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle-Salon 2013 on: May 16, 2016, 08:39:45 AM
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/



WEDNESDAY, MAR 6, 2013 05:30 AM MST
Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle
The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains
DAVID SIROTA    Follow
Share   10K
Post
0
TOPICS: EDITOR'S PICKS, HUGO CHAVEZ, HUMAN RIGHTS, LATIN AMERICA, POVERTY, SOCIALISM, VENEZUELA, POLITICS NEWS

Hugo Chavez's economic miracle
Hugo Chavez (Credit: AP/Leslie Mazoch, photo treatment by Salon)
For the last decade in American politics, Hugo Chavez became a potent political weapon – within a few years of his ascent, he was transformed from just a leader of a neighboring nation into a boogeyman synonymous with extremism. Regularly invoked in over-the-top political rhetoric, Chavez’s name became a decontextualized epithet to try to attach to a political opponent so as to make that opponent look like a radical. Because of this, America barely flinched upon hearing the news that the Bush administration tried to orchestrate a coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan leader.

Just to get it out of the way, I’ll state the obvious: with respect to many policies, Chavez was no saint. He, for instance, amassed a troubling record when it came to protecting human rights and basic democratic freedoms (though as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy notes, “Venezuela is recognized by many scholars to be more democratic than it was in the pre-Chávez era”). His rein also coincided with a boom in violent crime.



That said, these serious problems, while certainly worthy of harsh criticism, were not the primary reason Chavez became the favorite effigy of American politicians and pundits. In an age marked by America’s drone assaults, civil liberties abuses, and war on voting, it is not as if this nation’s political establishment sees an assault on democratic freedoms as deplorable. Likewise, that same political establishment is more than friendly with leaders of countries like Mexico and Colombia – countries which are also periodically hotbeds of violent crime.

No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.

For instance, according to data compiled by the UK Guardian, Chavez’s first decade in office saw Venezuelan GDP more than double and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. Then there is a remarkable graph from the World Bank that shows that under Chavez’s brand of socialism, poverty in Venezuela plummeted (the Guardian reports that its “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later). In all, that left the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. Additionally, as Weisbrot points out, “college enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”

When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela’s did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter – and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore. It suddenly looks like a threat to the corporate capitalism, especially when said country has valuable oil resources that global powerhouses like the United States rely on.

For a flamboyant ideologue like Chavez, that meant him being seen by the transnational elite as much more than an insignificant rogue leader of a relatively small country. He came to be seen as a serious threat to the global system of corporate capitalism.


That, of course, is considered a high crime by the American political illuminati – a high crime prompting a special punishment.

As evidenced by the treatment of everyone from Martin Luther King to Michael Moore to Oliver Stone to anyone else who dares question neoliberalism and economic imperialism, that punishment is all about marginalization – the kind that avoids engaging on substance for fear of allowing the notion of socialism to even enter the conversation in the first place. Instead, the non-conformist is attacked and discredited with vapid invective and caricature, becoming a cartoon villain whose ideas, performance and record are ignored before they can be considered on the merits. He becomes, in other words, the Hugo Chavez we so often saw in American political ads.

Stating this, mind you, is not to claim that Venezuela’s economy under Chavez was perfect. As The Week correctly put it, while “Chavez’s policies of redistribution and nationalization of oil assets endeared him to Venezuela’s working class” and produced many laudable results, the country’s “oil-centric economy has taken away resources from other areas that are badly in need of development.”

However, it is to argue that at a moment when America faces a pivotal debate about taxation and the size of government in specific and free market fundamentalism in general, Chavez’s passing should prompt as much reflection on the individual iconoclast as on the overarching economic ideas he came to embody.

To start, that means asking important questions.


For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

No doubt, there are few absolutely clear answers to those uncomfortable questions, if those questions are assessed honestly. Most likely, in fact, the answers are murky. But such questions need to be asked. The problem is that even gently raising them typically gets one tarred and feathered as a communist and then inevitably called a Hugo Chavez pal (even if Chavez’s overall record is also being criticized!). At the moment Chavez’s name is invoked, the conversation is inevitably terminated, ending any possibility of discourse.

That is by design – it is what the longtime caricaturing and marginalizing of Chavez was always supposed to do. But maybe now that the iconoclast is dead, the cartoon will end. Maybe now Chavez’s easily ridiculed bombast can no longer be used to distract from Venezuela’s record – and, thus, a more constructive, honest and critical economic conversation can finally begin.

 David Sirota
David Sirota is a senior writer for the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 16, 2016, 08:12:48 AM
What do you say to a graduate with a non-STEM degree?



Venti mocha on ice, please.
244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 16, 2016, 12:30:15 AM
Hotair.com has seriously gone downhill since it was Michelle Malkin's.
245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Narrative Space on: May 15, 2016, 07:42:46 PM

Keep in mind that this administration is using these same techniques against us.
246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 05:21:09 PM
GM,  Are your taking that media photo out of context?     wink

I'm sure I am. Just like the video below is totally out of context.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4lFrk4PbVg

247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 05:03:43 PM


How many times did Melania have to drag Bill's hand back to her waist?
248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: May 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM
I doubt anyone here has posted that Trump is evil incarnate. If they did, I missed it. Trump may well win. Prepare yourself for when he fcuks us over to make his "deals".

Since I quit posting here, I have been lurking, reading the posts on the election and the candidates. Several times I have almost posted, but realized that I would once again subject myself to negative articles about Trump promoting media and political talking points that have taken Trump’s words out of  context, his history having been distorted, and rants that Trump is evil incarnate. I can go anywhere for that.

Since Hotair.com blew themselves up by going over Facebook for posting, I have been a part of www.HotGas.net  I am a featured commenter and one of the moderators there.

There is no place generally to go and have a reasoned debate on Trump, Clinton and the ongoing election. Go to The Right Scoop, and anyone opposing Cruz is subjected to the vilest comments imaginable. (I went there once and after writing about 50 words on why the article written was misrepresenting a Trump position, I was attacked in ways that would make a sailor blush. And within two minutes, I was permanently banned.)

Conservation Review? The same thing occurs. Luciannel.com? Yep, banned The National Review, pro Trump comments are often deleted. But the same happens with the Pro Trump website, The Conservative Treehouse.

I am writing this because I am extending an offer to anyone here.

At HotGas, we would welcome anyone here to pen a thought out article on your views of Trump, other candidates, or the coming General Election.  Then, we can have a reasonable discussion, no name calling, etc.

If anyone chooses to write an article, be prepared to back up claims with proof or facts to support the claims. You will be challenged on what is presented.
Know that HG does support Trump. But know this also…..over 50% of our posters and readers were either Cruz people, as a first or second choice, but most have flipped. We would be happy to discuss why the flipping.

This is your opportunity to present your views to a website that has over 15k unique visits per day, and about 30k hits per day.  Just amazing for a website that began on Feb 8, 2016 and has been operational for just 3 months.

If you want to submit an article, just send me an email, and I will get it posted as a Featured Reader Submission. Just make sure it is well thought out and not just a series of rants.

Pat   ppulatie@pacbell.net

249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: My conscious is clean and I am voting Trump on: May 15, 2016, 02:26:40 PM

And I am aware of his negatives.

Wow GM.  In the many years I have been on this thread I believe this is the longest post you have ever made.

*Actually my posts in debates got quite long, but the post above is from Larry Correia, not me. Though I like it a lot.*

I am voting for Trump.  Why:

Because he as Crafty pointed out has good positions. 

Because he is the nominee like it or not.

Because I believe he can be brought around to our side.

I am not going into this blindly.

I am not low information.

*You aren't, but Trump is a low information candidate. He lacks even basic knowledge of how the US government is supposed to work. He didn't even know what the nuclear triad was.*


They did not have free speech in Nazi Germany.  They killed off their opposition.

We have free speech here.  Trump does not control the media.  Yes they love him.  They have made fortunes off him but they don't like him and they show his negatives along with his positives

He does not the majority of people behind him. 

I do not mind some populism either.   I don't see why we can not have both Conservatism and Populism

Sometimes I think Conservatism gets mixed up with Libertarianism.   I don't like the latter.  Not for me. 


*I am a small "l" libertarian. I don't want big, unconstitutional government weighted against either "side". Will I vote for Trump? Every time I think no way, I see something like this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-15/mexican-president-warns-war-if-gringo-trump-wins-white-house and it makes me want to get a "make America great again" hat.*
250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Venezuela finding out how socialism doesn't work on: May 15, 2016, 04:10:02 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/maduro-orders-seizure-of-closed-venezuela-factories-jailing-of-owners/ar-BBt3bLI

But, but, it's scientific!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 276
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!