I was in a situation this past evening where I had to cool my heels at the hospital. As a physician you would think that that is a normal situation for me, except it wasn't my hospital. A family member had surgery, so I spent time in the surgery waiting area, just comforting family and being my usual self. Well, perhaps better behaved.
Because of this I had to watch TV. Much like an airport lounge, the waiting area had several televisions going, competing with each other in volume and generating the sort of cacophony that makes it hard to read a book or just think quietly. This was the "evening news hour", and CNN, ABC and CBS had their standard network broadcasts going.
Oh my.
For both ABC and CBS it was just about the entire first ten minutes on the national election. Fine, that is coming up so it's going to be a topic of conversation. CNN had segments as well as part of their 'headline' news.
Now I'm not naïve. I've been reading about the media bias in this election. I understand that the MSM is "all in" for Hillary. But it's one thing to know that, it's another thing to watch it in action.
The key word, I think, is relentless. Each and every segment was anti-Trump. The visuals served to make Trump look old and dark. The tone was menacing. The talking heads were pondering, nasty, and condemning. The news anchors kept up the tone, staging questions that were meant to give the talking heads another reason to bash Trump.
The theme was the entire anti-woman, racist, anti-woman, nasty, anti-woman, inexperienced, anti-woman, and double-dealing, and did I mention anti-woman?
Through all this, there was little said about Hillary. ABC, near the end, noted that she was "taking time off to prepare for the last debate" (those hardware upgrades take a couple days, I'm told). That about it. Again, I understand that the networks aren't going to mention her health, Benghazi, email servers, the Foundation, her canoodling with foreign thugs, and her money-grubbing. But there was nothing of substance: it was as if someone at the campaign (perhaps Podesta) who decided that the best plan was to disappear Hillary for the next couple weeks. And that's just what the networks did.
I watched as the media pummeled McCain and then Romney. I've watched the spite directed against every Republican in the election, and how each is rehabilitated four years later to be used as a cudgel against the next Republican.
So cheer up, Donald: in four years the MSM will respect you again.
Oh, and one more thing. I'm well and truly done with the MSM. I'm not even sure I'll continue to watch football on their networks. But I sure will not patronize their news, their prime-time, their shows, and their ads. As the saying goes, you can't pee on my back and then tell me it's raining.
Goodbye MSM.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/19/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This was the "evening news hour", and CNN, ABC and CBS had their standard network broadcasts going.
You might tell the hospital that they only need one TV on to cut down the cacophonous din since they all have the same message and Dem. talking points.
#2
"I'm well and truly done with the MSM. I'm not even sure I'll continue to watch football on their networks. But I sure will not patronize their news, their prime-time, their shows, and their ads. As the saying goes, you can't pee on my back and then tell me it's raining."
What took you so long? I gave up on broadcast network news and their prime time crap back when Taxi was in its first season, and only watched Fox News during the 2000 and 2004 election coverage. I haven't watched any TV news since then; it's all junk.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/19/2016 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Poor guy. Stuck in a hospital waiting room so you couldn't even take your drink out onto the patio like I do when Mrs. Uluque insists on watching this crap. I feel your pain.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/19/2016 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dave: agreed, and I don't watch the stuff unless it's foisted on me. That why at airports I'm always looking for the seat in the departure area that's farthest from the TVs.
My TV viewing the last few years has been football, occasionally soccer, and that's it. I'm not even watching the Cubs. I'd love to cut the cable but my dearest wife must have her HGTV and the MiL must have her Golf Channel.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/19/2016 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
But in a broader media sense including more than just the news, I remember a time, maybe because I was younger and didn't know any better, when I could watch TV and go to the movies without the fear that some Hollywood type was going to stick some Democrat propaganda into the script...when I wasn't disappointed and offended every time some star I admired came out with a quote about how sexist and racist I am...how deplorable I am...how Christian I am. There are a growing number of Hollywood actors, directors and producers whose work I can no longer appreciate because they can't keep their mouths shut about their deranged opinions. It's kinda sad.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/19/2016 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Those cable bills are expensive too.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/19/2016 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yet another sign of the deepening divide that will not end well for us. Traditional America is fracturing against post American globalism that hates it but wants what is left of the benefits it created. Immigration and diversity have swamped the ship of state.
You too, Steve, had to do something like that recently. When the Golf Channel and Weather Channel, Weather Underground, natch, are running hit pieces, it isn't just relentless, it is embarrassing. Seriously, the other day there was a Jeopardy! question concerning 2016 presidential politics?
I ended up getting a book read and having some great conversation with some others in waiting.
I say this with utmost conviction: I would rather watch Little People: Atlanta than entertainment news. The acting is better and story more believable.
So ya, we have a tv subscription, but it is not being used very much at all.
Even the morning local news - done. Five KS Supreme Court Judges are up for affirmation. The KSSC overturned a death penalty conviction on two guys who raped five gals for three hours, took them out to the country, shot them in the back of the head, then ran over them. One gal survived, got help. Ruling overturned. On the news: Governor Brownback doesn't have a budget yet! Cue commercial - this is why we must retain these five judges.
#10
Spent 6 weeks out of the country this year (having fun mostly. When I needed a news fix, I would pull up the "International Whatever"... Didn't matter if I was in Tokyo, Bangkok, Dubai or Prague- the daily papers included at least 3 negative articles referencing Trump if not about his antics exclusively. The Bengazi Beast was always, ALWAYS positioned in a better light, even if the story line was negative.
[BBC] Indonesia could "wipe out" paedophilia with its new policy of chemical castration, President Joko Widodo has told the BBC.
He said Indonesia respected human rights but there would be "no compromise" when it came to punishing such sexual crimes. Indonesia passed controversial laws earlier this month authorising chemical castration for paedophiles.
The laws were subject to fierce debate in parliament. The Indonesian Doctors Association says its members should not be involved as the procedure would violate medical ethics.
"Our constitution respects human rights, but when it comes to sexual crimes there is no compromise," President Widodo said. "We are strong and we will be very firm. We will hand out the maximum penalty for sexual crimes."
He added: "In my opinion... chemical castration, if we enforce it consistently, will reduce sex crimes and wipe them out over time."
#6
I looked it up -- it appears chemical castration is not permanent, but requires regular, doctor-administered injections. Indonesia is a Third World country. There is no way to guarantee that the doctor will not be bribed to lie about having given the shot, or that the patient will not choose not to go in for his next dose, or that the delivered dose is not just tap water (or worse) in the container instead of the prescribed medication.
#7
That's why I recommend the Callicrate Smart Bander.
The Callicrate Smart Bander is a humane castrating tool for any size offender. Extra-strong Callicrate loops are produced using a special latex formula that is over three times stronger than pre-made latex rings. Patented no-slip clip holds the tension for immediate and total blocking of the blood vessels, for faster scrotal drop with less pain and swelling. Because each loop is ratcheted to the precise tightness required, each use provides a custom fit. Spring loaded indicator senses proper tightness. Scrotum should fall off in 20 to 35 days. Vaccinate with tetanus toxoid according to label directions. Callicrate Bander Kit comes with bander, 5 loops, cutter, and carrying case. Link
[Foreign Policy] The United States military failed America in Afghanistan. It wasn’t a tactical failure. It was a failure of leadership.
The ascent of David Petraeus and the Army’s rediscovery of counterinsurgency doctrine led many to believe that the military had dramatically adapted itself for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the transformation was only skin deep. Petraeus was a myth, and the intellectual father of the Army only in the eyes of the national media. The institutional inertia of the military bureaucracy never caught up with the press releases. The result was a never-ending series of public pronouncements by senior leaders about the importance of counterinsurgency, accompanied by a continuation of Cold War-era personnel and rotation policies that explicitly short-changed the effort.
Upon taking command in Afghanistan in 2009, General Stanley McChrystal made the rounds of his subordinate units and asked each of us, "What would you do differently if you had to stay until we won?" At the time I was in charge of operations for a brigade in the middle of tough fight in eastern Afghanistan. It was absolutely the right question, but in retrospect it was also a trick question. The answer was to get the right people into the fight, keep them there long enough to develop an understanding of the environment, and hold them accountable for progress, but that was not something the military was interested in doing. Instead, we stuck with a policy that rotated leaders through the country like tourists.
Taking the lessons of unit cohesion from Vietnam, the military has followed a policy in Afghanistan where entire units rotate in and out of country every seven, nine, or 12 months. This model, more than the policy of individual rotation in Vietnam, ensures both tactical proficiency and unit cohesion at the soldier level. But it also is completely ill-suited for a counterinsurgency campaign. It makes sense to limit the time soldiers spend conducting tactical operations, but leaders attempting to establish the kind of relationships and understanding necessary to be effective in counterinsurgency must be kept in place much longer. By changing out entire units so frequently, our policy has guaranteed that military leaders rotating through Afghanistan have never had more than a superficial understanding of the political environment they are trying to shape.
The shortcomings of this rotation policy in counterinsurgency have been further reinforced by an institutional culture and personnel management system that places a low priority on the advisory mission. From the beginning of our efforts in Afghanistan the advisory mission was promoted publicly but given a low priority in execution.
The premier example of this mismatch between what military leadership said we were doing, and what the bureaucracy was actually prioritizing, can be found in the story of the AfPak hands program. The program was launched by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and lauded as the key to shaping Afghanistan by creating a cohort of expert officers from across the services that would have the language skills and experience to build the kind of long-term relationships needed to build an effective Afghan security apparatus. While a priority for the Chairman, the effort was never embraced by the services.
Despite the fanfare and stated importance of the program, mismanagement and mis-utilization were rampant as this specialized cadre encountered personnel systems unable to support non-traditional career paths. Caught between career managers that saw the program as a deviation from what officers "should" be doing ‐ leading tactical units ‐ and a deployment system that often led to random staff assignments instead of partnered roles with Afghan leaders, the program quickly became known as an assignment to be "survived" if not avoided altogether.
A leaked briefing from the Army G-1, the service’s head personnel officer, to the Chief of Staff of the Army in 2014 confirmed that the AfPak Hands program had become a dead end for military careers. Officers who had participated in the program were being promoted at a fraction of the rate of those who had not. There are only two explanations for this outcome: Either the Army was sending sub-par officers to serve in the program, or officers were being punished for deviating from the traditional career track. Whichever it was, both explanations reveal that the effort to train and advise the Afghans was simply not a priority for the Army.
Con't.
#2
The Mongols succeeded in the region today referred to as Afghanistan. Mongols waged 'war'. That's the difference. How's that "Kinder Gentler" stuff working out for you.
#7
As Clausewitz said, "Killing is the sine qua non of war," When all the enemy is dead, the war is over. Not a politically sellable approach in the soft n tender West these days.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/19/2016 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The fact that afghan society is mostly corrupt, illiterate and tribal and the fact that the Taliban were fanatically motivated by Islam while the govt was also motivated by Islam was going to be a problem.
We never really had a way to address the corruption, etc. and never even had the stomach to recognize the Islam problem.
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/19/2016 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
Remember all the dire predictions that were going to happen if Britain decided to pull out of the EU, including the start of World War III? Nothing happened, other than a panic drop in the British market and pound sterling, both of which recovered within a few weeks after the vote.
I did, in fact, note this leading up to the Brexit vote - the betting pattern leading up to the vote was for Britain to remain - a few big money bets for remain (Bremain, whatever) and a numeric majority of the small bets for Brexit, which is how the actual vote panned out.
We are now seeing the same pattern playing out during the last month of the US election - dire predictions of Trump the Next Hitler becoming president, a relentless media push to demonize and demoralize Trump supporters (as noted by Steve White in an earlier post), and the same betting pattern that we saw a mere four months ago with Brexit. If you also take into account massive attendance for Trump at his rallies and scant attendance at Hillary campaigns, I cannot believe any of these polls are accurate, as much as they oversample Dems to get their desired result. If this pattern holds, and Trump does well tonight, Trump wins this thing.
[Independent] It is news that will strike fear into the hearts of perhaps half of America and large chunks of the world outside of it.
Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.
Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican.
That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.
The bookie has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician.
#2
It's interesting. With all the posturing there's been around the world on the subject, they will be scrambling should Mr. Trump be the winner...which will give President Trump a very strong negotiating position when dealing with them*. Actually, it will give President H. Clinton s stronger hand at first, too, simply for not being him, but I expect she'll drive her husband nuts when she doesn't use that edge properly.
* He and Bibi Netanyahu should get on like a house afire as they speak the same language -- Bibi with his Harvard MBA and architecture MS and Donald with his from Wharton and experience in the hospitality business -- but the Israeli Left and the Arab List politicians will find themselves even farther in the wilderness than they are now.
[Fox Insider] According to new FBI documents, one of Bill Clinton's secret service agents helped maintain Hillary Clinton's private email server, Martha MacCallum reported.
"People on the inside [of the secret service] have told me that they really see this woman [Hillary Clinton] as a very unique threat to our republic," former secret service agent and former Congressional candidate Daniel Bongino said on America's Election HQ.
"This story...is totally against the rules [and] totally unsurprising to me," he said.
Bongino also responded to another missive mentioned by MacCallum, which said Clinton apparently refused to ride in a vehicle with the leader of a country she was visiting, instead requesting to be accompanied by her top aide Huma Abedin.
Con't.
[The Hill] Donald Trump on Tuesday called for term limits in Congress as part of his new ethics reform proposal.
"If I’m elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colo. "Decades of failure in Washington and decades of special-interest dealing must and will come to an end."
"Not only will it end our government corruption, but we will end the economic stagnation that we’re in right now -- no growth," Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, added of the proposal.
Trump released a five-point ethics plan Monday night in an effort to "drain the swamp" in Washington.
He also wants Congress to pass a law preventing all administration officials, lawmakers and congressional aides from lobbying the government for five years after leaving public service.
His plan additionally includes a call for Congress to pass legislation banning registered foreign agents from raising money in U.S. elections.
Trump promised as part of the plan to close loopholes that allow former government officials to call "themselves consultants and advisers when we all know they are lobbyists."
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/19/2016 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This topic was widely discussed many years ago. There was one argument against term limits which made some sense that needs to be considered at the same time.
That argument was that without Congress people with long experience it would confer even more power to the unelected bureaucracy. The Bureaucracy would not have any opposition wise to the way it works and able to provide some check (all right stop laughing).
While I don't agree that this is sufficient to NOT put term limits on Congress it does highlight a potentially more important issue which is the rise of the bureaucratic state.
#9
Yep, all senior government official and officers in all branches need to have limits. If I could, I'd also ban any Senator from the office of President. Make your choice, do the job you choose.
#1
They are investigating systemic voter fraud over the past 4 years in Tarrant County Texas - and its all benefitting (D) candidates.
This is bigger than either of the candidates - it speaks to the legitimacy of our government. If we don't have a true vote, we are no better than a banana republic.
The (Texas) secretary of state has referred to the voter fraud evidence as "voluminous." The complaint contained over 1,500 pages of documents. And while the complete document is not yet public, one thing [is] clear—political operatives inside Tarrant County have illegally forged thousands of signatures on ballot-by-mail applications and carrier envelopes over the last four years.
At least two local officials are in office as a result of the voter fraud uncovered – State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. (D–Fort Worth) and Fort Worth Mayor Pro Tem, Sal Espino.
Espino won his race by a twenty-six vote margin in an election in which 450 votes were fraudulently harvested in that district alone. Romero won his seat by a 110 vote margin in a race that was similarly impacted by voter fraud.
[Breitbart] A record one-in-five U.S. residents speak a foreign language at home, with the fastest-growing languages including Arabic and Urdu, a new study reveals.
The Center for Immigration Studies, surveying data the Census Bureau released from its 2015 American Community Survey, found 64.7 million U.S. residents spoke a language other than English at home, with data indicating that one-in-four public school students speaking a foreign language at home.
This has huge implications for the future of public education in the United States. As Breitbart News previously reported, American taxpayers carry the costs of educating nearly four million foreign-born students who do no speak English. Most of the non-English speakers in American schools perform at extremely low levels while costing taxpayers roughly $59.8 billion per year:
(CNSNews.com) ‐ The new Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture’s tagline is "powerful moments in African American history, culture, and community." However, the museum ‐ with a $540 million price tag funded 50 percent by U.S. taxpayers and with a collection of more than 36,000 artifacts and 100,000 people represented ‐ doesn’t include many prominent blacks, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Edward Brooke, a Republican who became the first African American to be elected to the U.S. Senate by popular vote in 1966.
After touring the new museum and exploring the website, which contains information on all the exhibitions in it, CNSNews.com asked the Smithsonian why Thomas, Brooke and eight other prominent men and women are not included in the museum.
CNSNews.com asked: "Many prominent African Americans are not included in the museum, most notably Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ... Can [the institute say] why Thomas and the others listed below are not a part of the museum exhibits?"
Linda St. Thomas, chief spokesperson for the Smithsonian, replied:
"There are many compelling personal stories about African Americans who have become successful in various fields, and, obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them," St. Thomas said in an email. "However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.
Con't.
[Police - LE Magazine] IACP President Apologizes for Law Enforcement's 'Historical Injustices'
BLUF: There have been times when law enforcement officers, because of the laws enacted by federal, state, and local governments, have been the face of oppression for far too many of our fellow citizens. In the past, the laws adopted by our society have required police officers to perform many unpalatable tasks, such as ensuring legalized discrimination or even denying the basic rights of citizenship to many of our fellow Americans.
While this is no longer the case, this dark side of our shared history has created a multigenerational--almost inherited--mistrust between many communities of color and their law enforcement agencies.
#1
IACP President Terrence M. Cunningham feckless apology was featured by Dana Parino on Fox's 'The Five' last evening. Yet more evidence of Fox's drift to port.
Imagine the space-time continuum gets scrambled and you find yourself in a world where the coming election is between a crazy old cat lady, an old hippie, Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler is leading one major party and Mussolini is leading another major party. The hippie and the cat lady have no party and very little support. As a practical matter, your choice is between Mussolini and Hitler. More important, you know the ramifications of both choices. The former is murder and mayhem and the latter is authoritarianism and long speeches.
To anyone with a soul, the choice is clear. You vote for Mussolini. It’s a terrible option, but so is chemotherapy. No one enthusiastically opts for chemotherapy, but it beats dying from cancer. If you told your doctor that your morals prevented you from choosing chemo, so you were going to visit some guy with magic crystals, your doctor would try to have you committed. Similarly, no one would wants Mussolini as the ruler, but he is a vastly better option than Hitler. You do what you must, even when it is unpleasant, to stop Hitler.
To continue this a bit further, imagine if someone came up to you are said “I’m Susan Wright and my principles prevent me from voting Mussolini, even though I know Hitler will murder millions, so I’m voting for the goofy hippie guy.” You would have dark thoughts about that person. They are willing to stand aside and allow something truly horrible just so they can avoid doing something unpleasant. To make it worse, they demand that you pretend that their cowardice and treachery is high minded.
Further, you would look at those people investing all of their energy ridiculing Mussolini as pro-Hitler partisans. After all, the successful end of the efforts can only mean one thing – Hitler wins. They could protest all they like that they hate both Hitler and Mussolini, but you would know them by their deeds. They are working to pave the way for Hitler, regardless of their reasoning. If successful, they would be, in part, responsible for what comes next. Blood would be on their hands and you would feel justified in holding them responsible.
Alternatively, if someone came up to you and made the case for Hitler, along with pointing out the faults of Mussolini, you would not feel the urge to punch them in the face. They may be horribly mistaken, but at least they are being honest. They are pro-Hitler and they take responsibility for it. They own it. Who knows, they could be right and Mussolini is worse in the long run. In theory, at least, you can debate this with the Hitler fans and maybe in the process sway some undecided voters to your side.
Obviously, you see what I’m doing here. Replace Hitler with Clinton and Mussolini with Trump and we have the debate between the Cult of Never Trump and the rest of us. No one thinks Trump is the ideal candidate. Many of us think he is a awful candidate, but he is orders of magnitude better than Clinton. Her election means the nation lurches into authoritarianism. What comes next will be unfathomably horrible. If you have a soul, you do what you must to prevent evil from triumphing. Susan Wright has no soul.
#1
Sorry Badanov, this analogy does not hold water. Try as you might, Hillary is not Hitler. She is not a populist (although Trump is), she is not a Nationalist (although Trump is), and she is not a racist (nether of them are). She will begin as a cripple president, and likely will collapse in office despite the efforts to Humpty Dumpty her presidency.
Also, I find your argument weak.
First, Convincing me to vote AGAINST is not the same thing as convincing me to vote FOR. Forget for a moment about Hillary - find something other than smoke, mirrors and hop that convinces me that Trump is fit for office, that he will be effective, that he will promote the things I want - like smaller government (no), constitutionalism (no), 2nd amendment (his history says no), opposing progressivism (no), etc. Recently he is finally making some points with term limits, so there is that, but that's a Congressional/State function, so its a moot point for a President.
Secondarily: If my soul is at issue, then you are recommending I taint it by endorsing a lesser evil? That's still endorsing/promoting evil. Sorry, that's utterly unconvincing, I suggest you stop trying that as a moral argument unless you like losing.
My main objection to this whole badly argued position is it reeks of moral relativism.
Moral relativism and "the ends justify the means" are the argument of socialist, progressives and dictatorships; yet this, in essence, is what you are proposing with this analogy. Just stop - you have become what you oppose.
But ultimately it does not matte r- Trump is losing and will lose because he is a horrible man (narcissist and egoist who is blind to his own faults and blames others for his failures, believes because he is rich morals and laws and decency do not apply to him) and an incompetent candidate and an incompetent campaigner. Any one or even 2 of these might have been overcome, even in the face of a hostile press. But not all 3.
And this is why we warned you about Trump a long time ago. The "Dale" types didn't listen and drank the poisoned koolaide blindly, the "Fred" types went along because they were angry at the Beltway GOP, and now we are stuck with this looming disaster.
Don't come to us expecting us to help you further screw things up. We are preparing for the fight to come - fighting President Hillary that you have made happen. Its going to be nasty mainly because you are burning down other conservatives (Lee, Sasse, Cruz, Rubio who is conservative other than immigration) instead of going after the beltway squishes like KY McConnell & TX Cornyn and the machine candidates like the zombie Thad Chochran from Mississippi.
Putting a spine into them or replacing them is going to be the hard work that faces us now.
The time for offensives is done - you are delusional if you thing you are fighting anything other than a Dunkirk at this point.
#2
FYI, latest poll is that Trump may lose Texas. Thats right, TEXAS. Trump people were warned about this, you screwed up nominating this clown, and now you're surprised by the end result?
You cited the polls for your win back in the spring, endlessly. But you ignored the other part of those polls. The part that had Trump as the only candidate to consistently be a loser to Hillary in over a dozen polls. YOU DIDNT LISTEN. Facts are facts. They are hard things.
Yet you proceeded anyway. This one is on you who supported him, for nominating a guy so bad that a large portion of the party will not vote for him, and who has been utterly a disaster as a candidate, as many predicted. These October surprises are hardly surprises at all - and are all the worse because that idiot narcissist blocked his own people from doing the Opposition Research that could have headed this stuff off. Picking fights with a Gold Star Family instead of being the bigger man and moving the news back to Hillary and her corruption on Benghazi. Going after Ted Cruz well after the nomination was over with and the convention done - instead of going after Hillary and the Emails. Blowing the WikiLeaks Dem party corruption out of the headlines by tweeting stupidly at his "bimbo" accusers. Offending Mormons directly and ignoring their concerns, with a "screw you, you went Cruz so we don't need you" attitude - which may cost him Utah and the election.
I could go on and on. But you see my point. This could have been avoided, and it hasn't been.
That's why Trump is going to lose. And to support him is to support the self-destructive (to those who value liberty) attacks he is making on conservatives and others who refuse to kiss his ass. Sorry, No. I will not vote for him and reinforce YOUR mistake. He is going to lose anyway, by driving away far more people than he brings in.
#3
I told you this would be a disaster back in the spring. After seeing this, I expected the next 4 years to be a hard slog against President Hillary. You put him there, you own him, you own his mistakes, you own his loss, you own President Hillary.
Guess what? You were wrong. I was right. You were self-deluding. Own it.
I was one of the ones whom you Trump people and the koolaide crowd (including the anti-semites and class/race-warriors) told "we won, we beat you and we don't want you or your conservatism, we can and will win without you".
And guess what else? I'm holding you to your word on that.
And that's that. Look no further than your mirror if you want someone to blame. Those of us who fight for our principles are getting ready to clean up your mess.
#7
The biggest point that this type of analysis misses is the reaction of the deep-state, insiders to the two choices.
If Hillary wins you can kiss good bye to anything resembling rule of law and checks and balances because those charged with providing those are totally sold out. The media will never ever broadcast the evidence of galloping authoritarianism, the IRS oppression, the total shut down of law against corrupt pols. Bureaucrats will rule at the behest of the lobbiests setting regulations to allow anyone to be arrested at any time.
If Trump wins, the media and the bureaucracy will fight him tooth and nail providing visibility to any and all peccadilloes. This, too me, is our only safegaurd against a dismal future.
So, Mr. Spook, what is the best way forward from our current position. Trump was never my choice until he was the nominee. I would have preferred Walker or Cruz but that isn't the choice I have now so I'm all for lessening the damage as much as possible.
#9
OldSpook, if you're OK with Hillary turning the United States into a Third World country then vote for her. If you like her vision of a world wide socialist and borderless police state then go for it. But you've just written three big, long comments attempting to justify your decision that kinda make it look like you're having trouble justifying it to your own self.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/19/2016 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Beer circle out here says even if you don't like Trump, and want him to fail, then elect him and watch every check and balance suddenly be enforced, he will be embarrassed, and likely primaried in four years if not impeached beforehand, which would bring us President Pence.
#11
OS has been entirely consistent in his view from very early on. And he was right. But that's history, mitigation of damages is the the name of the game. Hold one House of Congress at all costs, I fear the Senate is gone, but only for 2 years, hold the house! A house seat lost is a bitch to recover.
Well, at least this cycle we formed the circular firing squad before the election, something of a break-thru.
Now, I figure I am the only RINO in the joint, can we figure what a "real Republican is?" I reserve the right to chime in. Do recall that the last great RINO President said, the 11th Commandment, Thou Shall Not Peak ill of another Republican?
Yeah. I am more than a bit with crazy OS, we've blown both our feet off for real this time.
We believe in the Constitution, even when things get "icky" because of the 1st and 2nd Amendment.
We believe in free enterprise, and the right to conduct business free of undue burden.
We acknowledge that tax money isn't "ours"--it came from the pockets of those who work for it. We spend it wisely, and we're ever cautious about creating programs that disincentivise people and businesses to provide for themselves.
We believe in our borders, and the security of our country, and believe that it trumps everything except our Constitution.
We support our military. We make sure they have the tools they need to succeed. We remember that they may ultimately be called upon to wage significant combat, and we refrain from weighing them down with frilly feel-good political correctness concerns.
We'd like to help the world, but not in a cavalier way that imperils our soldiers for no clearly enunciated gain.
We have principles that guide which nations we will be chummy with. IF there is a strategic gain to be had by doing some project with a nation that violates those basic principles, we won't whitewash their shortcomings. Instead we will acknowledge their flaws, and enunciate what is to be gained for holding our nose while working with them.
#13
I have always looked for the thoughtful posts from OldSpook and so I will respectfully agree that he is more right than wrong and was prescient about what might play out if Trump was the nominee.
Having just returned from my first trip to Poland, a trip that had a heavy historic bent, I am wondering if better analogy might be the political calculus that Polish nationals went through from 1939 through early 1945- Having no "Polish" political alternative, is it better to through in with the Nazi's from the west who are going to slave labor you to death in a very efficient manner (PS Went to Aushwitz- still stinks of evil) or prefer to be ruled by barbarians like the Russians coming from the east fully capable of slaughtering a generation of military leadership in the forests of Katyn?
#14
I agree with Crusader but feel that he missed the prime point.
We believe in the individual. The individual is responsible for all his/her actions.
There is no tribe or group or family that should be considered above an individual. If an individual does wrong it is it is no reflection on anyone else, conversely if he/she does good THAT is no credit to anyone else.
This way there is no racism or oppression because of some factor outside an individuals control. If a person holds to a creed that is abominable it is solely that persons responsibility.
#15
I look forward to Old Spooks posts, providing interesting insights. His perspective on voting has not changed in four - and maybe eight - years.
Let me offer this quote from Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, page 565, which I read tonight - "In war, as in life, it is often necessary, when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so it is folly not to work for it with all your might."
About the time of Trondheim, Norway, April, 1940. Timely, 76 years later, is it not?
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/19/2016 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
That's why I recommend the Callicrate Smart Bander.
[Fox Insider] According to new FBI documents, one of Bill Clinton's secret service agents helped maintain Hillary Clinton's private email server, Martha MacCallum reported.
(CNSNews.com) ‐ The new Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture’s tagline is "powerful moments in African American history, culture, and community." However, the museum ‐ with a $540 million price tag funded 50 percent by U.S. taxpayers and with a collection of more than 36,000 artifacts and 100,000 people represented ‐ doesn’t include many prominent blacks, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Edward Brooke, a Republican who became the first African American to be elected to the U.S. Senate by popular vote in 1966.
[Police - LE Magazine] IACP President Apologizes for Law Enforcement's 'Historical Injustices'
