There is a problem with the oft-quoted “Godwin’s Law” which is: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches , that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin’s law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric.
In 2012, “Godwin’s law” became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. ”
The problem as I see it is that this meme has become merely another way of terming someone, or something, “politically correct”, thereby untrustworthy, or insincere. You will note that Donald Trump constantly uses the PC formulation as an explanation of his bombast and proudly asserts that he is not “politically correct”. Used in the wrong way the expression PC serves as a cover for all manner of bigotry and racial stereotyping. It serves as a rhetorical “get out of jail free” card for those engaging in bigoted bloviation and in that respect is there a more famous bigoted bloviator at the moment than Donald Trump? Back to Mike Godwin though: “Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin’s law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics. Godwin’s law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust“, Godwin has written. In December 2015, Godwin cited several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for their Nazi and Fascist comparisons.”
Notice the last sentence though where Mr. Godwin asserts that comparisons of Trump to NAZI’s, or Fascists are hyperbole. For those who weren’t aware, Godwin is an important cog in the wheel of the “R Street Institute”, which “is an American conservative and libertarian think tank headquartered Washington, D.C..” Godwin’s Law is but another version of clever usage by Republican/Conservatives of PC, as a way to deflect the fact that since the inception of Nixon’s Southern Strategy in 1968, the GOP has been the “Grand Old Party of Racism and Bigotry”. Well I am about to cross the line of Mr. Godwin’s phony law and show that Donald Trump is indeed aptly compared to the rise of Nazism in Germany and let me begin with the first New York Times article on that young, rising German politician Adolph Hitler.
If you follow this link you will come upon this article from the NY Times from November 21, 1922 titled: “New Popular Idol Rises in Bavaria” subtitled: “Hitler credited with extraordinary powers of swaying crowds to his will”. Since the article is in PDF format I can’t directly copy its words, but I can paraphrase them and you can go to the original to see if my paraphrasing is accurate. The meat of the article comes towards its climax, when while admitting that Hitler’s anti-semitism is virulent and violent, then goes on to say that ” several reliable, informed sources” tell the writer that Hitler’s anti-antisemitism was not as it seemed, but merely was being used as clever “bait” to catch masses of followers with a simplistic message, because the masses are simplistic people. It also quotes a “sophisticated politician” who credits Hitler with “political cleverness for laying emphasis and over emphasis on Anti-Semitism, because you can’t expect the masses to appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you are really leading them”. The upshot is that Hitler was really a German Nationalist who sought to rebuild his country and make sure it regained its rightful place in the world.
Trump made headlines at the beginning of his campaign when he decried Latino immigration to the U.S. and characterized Mexican “illegals” as murderers, thieves and rapists of White woman. Trump then opined that we should not allow anyone of Islamic faith to visit the U.S. and further made the implication that we should look closely at any of our citizens who followed Islam. His rhetoric also was that of an American Nationalist, who was going to make our country great again and yes there were some who opined that Trump was merely using the anti-immigrant rhetoric as a means of rousing the base, when his real message was one of strengthening our country. Though Hitler and Trump came from far different backgrounds, their verbal crudity of speech, their use of stereotyping scapegoats and their messages of jingoistic nationalism seem frighteningly similar. Let’s look at some more examples, but first let’s understand how Trumps’ rise is directly attributable to our Mainstream Media making money on his controversial campaign.
Let’s look at the opinion of Leslie Moonves the Chairman and CEO of the CBS Television Network: “Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy. Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” he said of the presidential race.
Moonves called the campaign for president a “circus” full of “bomb throwing,” and he hopes it continues.
“Most of the ads are not about issues. They’re sort of like the debates,” he said.
“Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now? … The money’s rolling in and this is fun,” he said.
“I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going,” said Moonves. “Donald’s place in this election is a good thing,” he said Monday at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco. “There’s a lot of money in the marketplace,” the exec said of political advertising so far this presidential season.”
In the past, when it was a respected news outlet, CBS News was independent of the scrutiny of CBS Entertainment executives. It’s journalistic stars were of the likes of Edward R. Murrow, who had the courage to take on and bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy. During the Vietnam era, CBS’ Editor in Chief and Nightly News anchor, Walter Cronkite, had the courage to take on the President and present a true picture of the failure that was the Vietnam War. True Journalism no longer exists at the Major TV news sources, who all are making huge profits from the Trump Circus, because of greedy, cynical men like Les Moonves, who are overseeing network news. Moonves could care less about the fate of America, because he and his bosses are quite wealthy and feel they’re above the masses of Americans. In the end he is merely another “hollow man”, willing to make a buck without thought for the consequences of his actions. He and his cohort of top TV network executives, bear direct responsibility for the rise of American Fascist, Donald Trump. Am I violating the benighted Mr. Godwin’s “Law” yet?
At Salon.com chauncey DeVega writes: “Donald Trump is the preferred candidate of white supremacists. Online and in other spaces, they have anointed him their champion in the 2016 presidential race. When asked about this on CNN, Donald Trump deflected, bobbed, weaved and dissembled: “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK?” Trump said. Trump was pressed three times on whether he’d distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan — but never mentioned the group in his answers.“I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists…” Despite what he said Sunday, Trump apparently did know Duke in 2000 — citing him, as well as Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani — in a statement that year explaining why he had decided to end his brief flirtation with a Reform Party presidential campaign. “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep,” Trump said in a statement reported then by The New York Times. …After his appearance on “State of the Union,” Trump highlighted that Friday comment in a tweet, saying he does disavow Duke.”
DeVega goes on: “The facts are not always kind. In reality, the relationship between the Republican Party and white supremacy–and yes, the Ku Klux Klan–is much deeper and more problematic than the comments by .. other Republicans would suggest.” DeVega goes on to explain his meaning and states: “The post-civil rights era Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization, one in which conservatism and racism are now one and the same thing.”
“In the 2012 election, 89 percent of Republican voters were white. While the Republican Party routinely anoints a professional “best black friend” (Herman Cain in 2012; Ben Carson in 2016; Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in 2009) who serves in the role as human chaff to deflect charges of racism, non-whites are a minuscule part of the GOP’s electoral coalition and base. This is reflected by how Republican voters are much more likely to be racially resentful toward black Americans and also manifest what is known as “modern” or “symbolic racism.”
Even more troubling, research by Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler demonstrates that “old-fashioned racism” has actually increased among Republican voters since the election of Barack Obama. Once thought to be a relative non-factor in contemporary politics, this, the more primitive and retrograde racism of Jim and Jane Crow America, is now such a potent force that it is directly correlated with party identification: individuals who are “old-fashioned racists” are more likely to support the Republican Party.
Since the end of the African-American civil rights movement, the electoral strategy of the Republican Party has relied on the use of racially coded appeals and “dog whistle” politics to win over white voters. This tactic — what would come to be known as the “Southern Strategy” — was outlined by Lee Atwater, mentor to Karl Rove, as:”
Lee Atwater’s Strategy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”
“Atwater’s approach for mobilizing white American voters has dominated Republican electoral strategy for at least four decades. It was the basis for Ronald Reagan’s “law and order” and black “welfare queen” narratives. George H.W. Bush summoned it with his Willie Horton, “black beast criminal rapist” campaign ad in 1988. The Southern Strategy was desperately deployed against the United States’ first black president, Barack Obama. From “birtherism” to claims that Obama is “traitor” who “hates Americans,” the rampant disrespect and obstructionism that Republicans have shown toward him, as well as the panoply of both overt and subtle racist attacks by conservatives against Obama’s person (and family) are all outgrowths of the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy, with its mix of coded and overt anti-black and brown racism, is also a script that is closely adhered to by the broader right-wing news entertainment propaganda machine.
The Age of Obama also gave rise to the Tea Party movement. As an extreme wing within an already extremist and revanchist Republican Party, Tea Party members and their sympathizers were/are extremely hostile to Barack Obama and the symbolic power of a black man leading “their” White America. The Tea Party demand that “they want their country back” is both a direct claim of white privilege and constitutes a worldview where whiteness is taken to be synonymous with being a “real American.”
“Last week, voters across Vermont and Minnesota received robocalls from the white nationalist William Johnson, who has founded the American National Super PAC to support Donald Trump. “The white race is dying out in America and Europe because we are afraid to be called racist,” Johnson said on the calls. “This is our mindset … It’s OK to give away our country for immigration, but don’t call me a racist. It’s OK that few schools anymore have beautiful white children as a majority, but don’t call me racist.” Others fear the taint of racism, Johnson said, but Trump does not. “Don’t vote for a Cuban, vote for Donald Trump,” his message concluded. He gave a phone number that listeners could call for more information.
Johnson is the chairman of the white supremacist American Freedom Party; according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it was founded by a group of racist California skinheads in 2009. He has called for the deportation of Americans with any “ascertainable trace of Negro blood” or more than one-eighth “Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood.” When he is not working toward creating what he calls “separate white ethno-states,” Johnson farms and practices corporate law in Southern California.”
Black students kicked out of Trump rally at a college they attend, apparently for being black
“Donald Trump’s campaign is denying having told the Secret Service to remove 30 black students from a Monday rally they were attempting to attend quietly and peacefully, but Secret Service agents say they kicked out the students at Trump’s request. Either way, it’s disgusting: The sight of the students, who were visibly upset, being led outside by law enforcement officials created a stir at a university that was a whites-only campus until 1963.“We didn’t plan to do anything,” said a tearful Tahjila Davis, a 19-year-old mass media major, who was among the Valdosta State University students who was removed. “They said, ‘This is Trump’s property; it’s a private event.’ But I paid my tuition to be here.” […] “I don’t understand why they would do something like that,” Davis said. “I have not experienced any racism on this campus until now.”How’s that for a preview of President Trump’s America? He can bring new racism to a place that was whites-only until 1963.”
Nine Examples of Donald Trump Being Racist
In the interest of brevity I’ll just list the 9 examples, but you can follow the link to see the documentation about each:
- The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black people
- He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him
- He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States
- He treats racial groups as monoliths
- He trashed Native Americans, too
- He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of the Central Park Five
- He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester
- He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”
- He stereotyped Jews as good negotiators — and political masterminds
Then there is this sent to me by my friend and long time commenter Anonymously Yours:
“White Supremacists are Broadcasting from Inside Trump Rallies”
“James Edwards, a notorious white supremacist and radio talk show host, is promoting a recent interview with the son of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump that’ll air on Saturday.
Edwards talked to the real estate mogul’s eldest son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., last Saturday for his “pro-white” radio show, “The Political Cesspool.” Previous guests on the show have included Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and Ku Klux Klan leaders.
Edwards heralded the 20-minute interview in a blog post flagged by Little Green Footballs, that boasted about his access inside a Trump rally in Memphis, Tennessee, last Saturday, where Edwards was broadcasting his show live. He said Trump’s campaign gave Edwards and his co-hosts full press credentials and “VIP” parking near the event.
“We’re watching history in the making,” Edwards said at the start of his three-hour broadcast from the press area of the Memphis Trump rally. “Donald Trump will be the first Republican nominee that I have ever voted for.”
Edwards said he and his co-hosts have attended three different Trump rallies in recent months: One in Illinois, one in Arkansas, and the rally in Memphis. With press credentials from Trump, the white supremacists feel “every bit as legit” as members of the traditional media, he added.”
Those who’ve followed my writings know that I’m concerned with what I see as the “Authoritarian Personality” which I first wrote about in
https://miconoclast.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-a-free-book/
The author Professor Bob Altemeyer has spent his career studying the “Authoritarian Personality” and how this mindset affects the voting patterns in America. The post supplies a link where you can download the Professors detailed book and this is why Bob Altemeyer thinks you should read it:
“But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you’ll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack–and by the American government no less!
The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence.
The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark?”
The book “The Authoritarians” was written more than 8 years ago and yet it seems even more relevant today as an explanation of why Donald Trump seems poised to become the Republican Presidential Candidate. While the Professor’s book was the first I’d read in terms of the study of the “Authoritarian Personality”, the academic study of authoritarianism has been a fertile field. My last link of the day is from a VOX piece titled: “The Rise of American Authoritarianism”. “the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.
This trend had been accelerated in recent years by demographic and economic changes such as immigration, which “activated” authoritarian tendencies, leading many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive as increasingly alien.
These Americans with authoritarian views, they found, were sorting into the GOP, driving polarization. But they were also creating a divide within the party, at first latent, between traditional Republican voters and this group whose views were simultaneously less orthodox and, often, more extreme.”
An argument can be made that Germany was among the most stable, innovative and well educated Country’s over the 19th and early 20th Century. While it was a homogeneous nation ethnically, it was a cosmopolitan nation as well. The tradition in Germany though was an authoritarian one of follow the leader, who in the 19th and early 20th Centuries was a King called The Kaiser. He with the assistance of a wealthy Military elite, led the country and the good Germans followed these leaders into a disastrous World War I debacle, that left the country struggling. Germany became a country torn by strife between its Left Wing and its Right Wing. As pointed out in that NY Times article from 1922, into that maelstrom of political strife there arose a leader that appealed to the Authoritarian Personality. That leader, Adolph Hitler, used the scapegoating of Jews and Leftists, to arouse the German people, inculcate them with fear and distrust of a minority and eventually become Germany’s Supreme Leader. The authoritarian personalities following him ultimately followed him to their own ruin, but not before they followed him to perpetrate one of the great crimes of recent history.
I’ve provided evidence that Donald Trump is a “Hitlerian” copycat in methodology. He behaves as a Fascist, is Fascistic in his approach use violence against those he disagrees with and shows a Fascist’s disregard for any laws other than the use of naked aggression. Although Trump is to the “manor born” he presents a thuggish personality that seems to awe and appeal to those following him. Mr. Godwin can blow smoke out of his rear end as much as he’d like, but in his small way he is complicit in the rise of this NAZI-like figure. This is ironic because Godwin is himself Jewish. Also complicit is the Republican Party Establishment, which has played so long on the edge of racism and misogyny that it has finally teetered into the abyss. God Damn them all for what they have unleashed upon this country.
March 4, 2016 at 4:21 am
Thank you for that pdf file, “New Popular Idol Rises in Bavaria” subtitled: “Hitler credited with extraordinary powers of swaying crowds to his will”
I keep getting whiffs from Trump and have been trying to find real time news accounts reporting on Hitler as he started his push to gain office. I keep hearing things like, “Oh no, not to worry, that can’t happen here…” which sound eerily similar to the denial Germans employed as Hitler rose to power. That pdf was exactly what I was looking for.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 5:31 am
Mike
Here is video of a black woman being harassed and shoved out of a Trump rally:
It kills me that Mozart can read this piece and see what is happening and yet will not vote for Hillary.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 5:41 am
Also…yesterday I mentioned I was disheartened by the low numbers of voting Democrats. Some portion of that low turnout was due to Voter ID laws. Just another reason to vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Mike: I have always taken Godwin’s law as an aphorism; and it is indeed a general truth in most discussions. Hitler is [rightly or wrongly] the worst thing most people can think of in terms of violent oppression due to the 6M+ murders in the Holocaust over about 5 years. The biggest competitor in terms of violent oppression is Slavery in America, but the Holocaust can be pinned on one person, Hitler, and Southern Slavery is not blamed on any one person.
So in discussions with an opponent which seems not open to reason or compromise, comparisons escalate toward the worst possible: Hitler. But as you say, sometimes the comparison is apt. Aphorisms are rules of thumb, not rules of physics.
Godwin’s law applies even if the opponent is on the side of fairness, sharing, and universal humanitarian care, as I usually am (if not discussing criminals that deserve none of that). I have been compared to Hilter, willing to kill millions out of bigotry and prejudice, because the extent of my “compromise” does not extend to violating my reason.
As InsufferablePedant demonstrates; indirectly crediting me with endorsing a new Hitler by my refusal to vote for they pathological liar in the pocket of the wealthy class that is willing to destroy the middle class and send thousands of teen soldiers to their deaths in pointless corporate wars over foreign assets.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Mike:
Very interesting article. All I can say is that the left created Donald Trump. He is a response to 80 years of leftist progressive bull shit. You fascist on the left know one of your own.
The left has created the atmosphere of tribalism and Trump is the result. Progressive ideas have fractured this country into competing interest groups looking to feed at the trough of taxpayer money. What did you think was going to happen? Especially when there are 200 million white people or more in this country.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 3:00 pm
“All I can say is that the left created Donald Trump. He is a response to 80 years of leftist progressive bull shit. You fascist on the left know one of your own.”
Bron,
Remember the Reagan Revolution that started 36 years ago? Remember the recession at the end of the 1980’s? Remember the first Iraq War? Remember the recession that cost G.H.W. Bush a second term? Remember 9/11 and the two wars started in the wrong places for the wrong reasons? Remember the recession of 2008 and the Tarp Bailout that was started by the G.W. Bush Administration? Remember that since Reagan the Conservative strategy has been lower taxes all the time and ending government regulation?
Your Conservative side has been in power for the last 36 years and the two Democratic Presidents were farther to the Right than Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Your side has been winning all this time and America is in decline because of what you believe in. I know that it’s painful for you to realize that all your suppositions were wrong, so what you do is use the psychological defense mechanisms of denial and reaction formation, by blaming it on the other side.
Are far as fascism goes this have been an argument that we have had for literally five years and you still fail to understand the meaning of the word, despite all the times it has been explained to you. You are stuck in the same old rut and I suspect it is there as a way for you to resent that you have to pay a lot of taxes because of your income and justify your own selfish needs.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Hey Mike:
All that you mentioned above is pretty much leftist ideology.
I know exactly what the word means. You are the one who fails to recognize that socialism and fascism are just different models for the same totalitarian crap. Socialism says that the means of production belongs to the state and fascism says that the means of production is controlled by the state but owned by private individuals. But if I control the means of production whether or not you own it is a moot point.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 3:39 pm
EntirelySufferablePedant: Let me be pedantic. Several years ago I read an article about a man that won about $2M in the lottery; the numbers he played were his birthday and his wife’s birthday. But as it turns out, in the winning ticket, he was one year late on his wife’s birthday! (In the article I read, she is quoted as saying “Well I guess I’ll just change my birthday!” [to match the ticket].
The point of that story is that, when asked, people expressed a willingness to follow the same formula, including being one year late on a birthday, in playing the lottery. In one sense, I say “why not”, any combination is equally likely to win, so who cares how you pick them? But in another sense, it is stupid to think that the result [winning the lottery] is causally linked to everything that happened before it that was supposed to direct the outcome.
That is “witch-doctor” logic and magical thinking. Even if somebody is a racist seeking power does not mean they will manage to become another Hitler. The world has changed in the 94 years since 1922, racial attitudes have changed, the rights of minority citizens are much different in 2016 than they were in 1922 and they are objectively much less vulnerable now than they were 94 years ago. In 1922 it would be considered laughable, by virtually all Americans, that a Black, a Jew, an Hispanic and a female could all make credible bids for being elected President; yet that is the reality today.
So no, I don’t see what happened in 1922 as any harbinger of another Hitler, because I do not believe that history can repeat itself in modern American culture.
Here’s a trick question: Do you not trust Democrats to oppose by filibuster, vote, agitation and more every attempt Trump might make to institutuionalize racism? It’s a trick because it makes no difference how you answer: If you trust them to be successful in such opposition, then (as Republicans have proved) they can pull all the tricks the Republicans have and effectively grid-lock the Congress and prevent anything from happening on that front. If you do NOT trust them to be successful, then the war against racism is lost already, and peaceful politics is not a way to fix it.
I will not vote for Hillary because I care about people and minimizing the long term harm and misery and despair created. That is not the short term.
Do you think it was possible to end slavery in the USA without shedding the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Do you think it was possible to stop Hitler without the deaths of 85 million people world wide? (civilian, military, and holocaust victims). I do not think either war was possible.
The sad fact is that justice requires casualties and sacrifice on the side of those fighting for the good of mankind (and I say “casualties” in the sense of both injuries and deaths), and there is no guarantee of victory in such a fight, real risks must be taken that evil will prevail and victims will never be made whole. But an aversion to such suffering in the short term virtually guarantees that evil will prevail in the long term.
The short term route for Lincoln, causing the fewest deaths of Americans, would be to continue to compromise with the slave states and continue the institution of slavery in some new territories. Or allow the South to secede and become a separate slave-holding country. In the short term, war is averted and nobody dies.
The short term route preserving the most American lives for FDR would be to stay out of WWII. If they had not been involved off camera, Pearl Harbor probably would not have happened, and even if it had, a simple one time retaliation instead of a declaration of all out war would have preserved the most American lives.
The reason I will not vote for Hillary is that (a) I doubt what Trump can actually do, and (b) I think it is far worse harm in the long run to normalize Republican policy by having it adopted by Democrats as Democratic policy, as I am (FAIAP) certain Hillary will do, than it is to let Republicans try to pass their policies as Republican policies with Democrats vehemently opposed.
I think Obama proved this principle with the Affordable Care Act, nearly 100% cribbed from Mitt Romney’s Republican endorsed compromise plan, and the ACA locks us into paying 3 times as much for healthcare as countries with nationalized health care, still denies care to tens of millions, and locks in obscene and uncontrolled pharmaceutical prices that are not allowed at all in countries with nationalized health care.
Yet now, Hillary says that is the best we can do, and Democrats are enthusiastically behind the Republican plan they once vehemently opposed, and Republicans want to repeal the plan they once enthusiastically supported because it limits the profits of the wealthy. Because a Democrat passed a Republican plan, the healthcare debate shifted over a mile to the right of where it once was, and now something that has been obviously and objectively successful at reducing health care costs in over a dozen other countries is now deemed, in America, an impossible fantasy.
This is the danger. Hillary was the President of the Young Republicans in college, she is by nature a conservative Republican, her campaign promises are lies, she is adopting Sanders’ rhetoric but her history tells us she doesn’t believe a word of it. If elected she will, as a Democrat, adopt Republican policies that favor the wealthy and economically disenfranchise everyone else, and because she is a Democrat, the majority of Congress will vote for her policies and the country as a whole shifts another mile toward the Right, those Republican policies become “Democratic” policies and the Republicans take the win and start demanding even less regulation, even less control, even greater rights for corporations to exploit the weak and treat us all like slaves.
I won’t vote for that. if votes like mine make the difference, then I hope any pain caused by Trump’s deadlocked presidency is not in vain, and forces the Democratic party to transform itself into the progressive liberal party that would embrace the policies of Democratic Socialism and reject the wealthy class. over 2/3 of Americans would be fine with those policies.
If votes like mine make no difference, then I fought a battle on the side of good and lost, and those that were deceived by the liar will get — not what they deserve — victimized and oppressed by their inability to comprehend the long term consequences of what they will have done.
People will undoubtedly suffer and die under a Trump presidency, but for me there is hope it will be strongly opposed and hope that it will transform the Democrats into something far better than the corporate shills we have now. The suffering and misery caused by a Hillary presidency, even after that ends, will be much longer lived, more insidious, and last two generations (40 years) at least, likely more than the rest of my life. It will transform the Democratic party into something much more like the current Republican party, and allow the Republican party to move even further right than they are now. That is what I believe, and the only way I can reliably convey that to the Democratic Party is to vote for Sanders, support Sanders, and if he fails to win the nomination, write-in Sanders for President and hope enough others do the same, so the Party leaders know we put our foot down, banker-candidates will be rejected and their money won’t help.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 3:42 pm
Proofread: I said “I do not think either war was possible” when I changed my mind while typing; I meant “I do not think either outcome was possible without war”.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Bron: Socialism says that the means of production belongs to the state
Democratic Socialism does not say that at all; Norway is the premier example. Companies are privately owned, the State only owns the facilities it uses to provide social services like healthcare, security, police, etc. Just like in the USA. And just like in the USA companies are regulated, but regulation does not constitute “ownership” at all. Private companies are not directed, managed, or run by the state. Private company holders can become multi millionaires or billionaires, no law prevents that.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Take note, even the possibility of another Hitler with all the misery that portends becomes a hate Hillary speech. Amazing.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 4:58 pm
Blouise: But as I explained, I believe the “possibility of another Hitler” is an utter fantasy and therefore portends zero actual misery, only imaginary misery, so unless you are truly intent on preventing another planet like Alderaan being destroyed by a new Death Star, I fail to see why my pivot away from your fantasy and into something that is actually real and will cause actual misery, death and despair is so amazing to you. There is no possibility of a “Hitler” ruling America. If Hitler 2.0 emerges somewhere in the world, the best person to lead this country would be a person would not be a person that uses dog training metaphors to refer to blacks, as Hillary did (they must be brought to heel, she said as First Lady).
You are right, I hope everyone takes note; because I vilify Hillary for her provable acts that have resulted in harm, and I am not lost in some fantasy version of the Clintons, promoted by Clintons for Clintons.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Correction: Would be a person like Sanders, and would not be a person …
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 5:24 pm
Democratic socialism, socialism, fascism, communism it is all the same monkey fucking crap. No matter what you call it, it still sucks.
Bernie Sanders is a fucking idiot, Hillary Clinton is a fucking idiot, Donald Trump is probably not much better than they are when it comes right down to it. I am really disappointed but I would vote for Trump over Clinton or Sanders. At least Trump is talking about making people work for a living. Even if he doesn’t necessarily believe it.
The only silver lining to the cloud called Trump is that it is scaring the living ship out of lefties. As I said above those fucking fascists know one of their own when they see him. LOL, the chickens are coming home to roost.
We couldn’t just have a country where everybody is free to rise to the level of their own abilities and except their lot in life if they didn’t have the physical or mental ability to become successful, no we had to have a country where everybody has to be equal. Where all of the boo-boos of life are kissed by the federal government and all the little snowflakes must go to college and be taken care of from cradle to grave.
What rotgut, bull shit thinking. And now because of that, we are on the verge of electing a man who probably does have fascist delusions of grandeur.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 5:50 pm
Bron: Even if he doesn’t necessarily believe it [that people should have to work for a living].
When it comes down to it, hardly any actually rich persons believes it, you can tell because their own children are always exempt when they become adults. They leave them millions and those kids never have to work a day in their lives to “earn” the benefits of being rich. Like the Waltons, the Rockefellers, the Trumps, and 98+% of millionaires and billionaires in this country, including the Kochs. Even the altruistic billionaires like Warren Buffett ensure their offspring are funded with tens of millions and will never have to “work” for a living.
And I doubt most Republicans or conservatives are any different; maybe the 2% or 3% that are sociopaths, but everybody else that loves their children will leave whatever they can to prevent them from suffering poverty or illness or anything else that could be alleviated financially. People that tout the “honor” and “character” of hard work and “self sufficiency” don’t truly believe in it, they say it as cover for the fact that they are just selfish bastards that think every dime of their money is more important than the life of a fellow citizen. Period. It is virtually always a facade of bullshit, just look at what virtually all of them bestow upon their own adult kids. Why? Because they love them, and they don’t want them to have to work or struggle or be coerced into working for a living, and they know full well that slave-waging is precisely the fix the majority of people suffer and the negatives far outweigh any positives. That is what they are protecting their children from, and if they weren’t selfish assholes what they would understand all people should be protected from.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 7:21 pm
It’s the man, Trump, but it is also the people who support him, listen to him and do his bidding.
The Secret Service beat up a photographer at one Trump event and expelled 30 non-protesting black kids from another Trump event. He was at their university but the hall was rented by him so it was “private” and he didn’t want blacks in the audience so the Secret Service applied their paramilitary training and ejected them … good little brownshirts. Yes, indeed, it can happen here. It already has.
The KKK, all those militiamen up north and down south, rogue cops and “just following orders” Secret Service types … Jesus Christ, of course it can happen here … easily. If one is brown, black, red, yellow, non-Christian, infirm or handicapped of any color and not worried you are a fuckin’ fool.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 7:39 pm
Even his own party stalwarts are trying to warn us. Well that and also trying to get out from under …. not our fault, Not Our Fault, NOT OUR FAULT!!
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 7:44 pm
Trump will win even if he loses the nomination because in coming out against him, the party has violated their agreement with him and he can sue for breach of contract. Which is what I’ve been predicting since the guy first stepped into the ring. It’s always been a win-win for The Donald.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 7:53 pm
Of course he can also sue and still run as an Independent. Then, and MM, this is just for you, all those lily white Sanders supporters who engaged in misogyny-Uncle Tom name calling-hissing 80 year old Hispanic civil rights icon off the stage activities can vote for him.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 8:40 pm
I am laughing my ass off. Silly liberals, what did you think was going to happen? You make it impossible for the middle class and the poor to get ahead with all your taxes and regulations and ridiculous political correctness and then you wonder why they are attracted by someone who tells them it’s the Chinese and the Mexicans?
You ought to be thanking your lucky stars that he is not telling them the real cause of the problem. My God the thought of 200+ million pissed off white people is more than I care to imagine. The last time that happened didn’t bode well for the world. And that dumbass didn’t have nuclear weapons. And wouldn’t you know Woodrow Wilson, a good progressive, was behind that rise to power.
It seems that everywhere you look progressive policies always lead to disaster. When will you just go away and play with your marbles in private so that you don’t keep fucking things up for the rest of us?
That’s just a rhetorical question. I know you will never go away. You will just keep screwing up and screwing up until the end of time.
The candidacy of Donald Trump should give all liberals pause for thought. You people made it possible for him to run for office. Whatever happens to the United States and the world will be in your laps. Just as your policies led to the rise of Adolf Hitler it is leading to the rise of Donald Trump. Hopefully Trump will be a kinder, gentler fascist.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 8:54 pm
I am laughing my ass off. Silly liberals, what did you think was going to happen? … You people made it possible for him to run for office. born
And yet by some strange trick of fate Trump is a Republican and bron is yelling ..not our fault, Not Our Fault, NOT OUR FAULT!
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Mozart
You misjudge my comment. I never intended to compare you, either directly or indirectly, with Hitler. No, I simply believe you are making a terrible mistake and one that I do not understand. I assume I do not have to apologize to you, since you are so far off the mark of my intent.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 9:16 pm
Trump is skipping C-Pac. Damn, now who’s going to do the podium-bounce?
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Pedant: No apology requested. If you do not understand me I presume you did not bother reading what I wrote, I think I was perfectly clear. I am not making a mistake because I am looking at the entirety of what will transpire in the next forty years, and you are looking at what would transpire in the next four, and that short term harm is blinding you to the much greater long term harm. But that short-sightedness is obviously the norm in this country, it is how we have ended up in this dismal state of corruption and government abetted greed for the few and misery for the rest.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 10:00 pm
Mozart
I have now read your 3:39 comment and better understand your position. There is much there with which I agree. However, I am more risk adverse than you. Sure, perhaps no Trump legislation will pass. The Supremes however, will still be life-long appointments and the next president will appoint at least two. Who knows? Maybe three. The power of the Supremes far outweighs that of the executive and the legislature. I do think some good change is accomplished incrementally, so I’m okay with the ACA that falls short. I also believe big changes need the support of a larger share of citizens in order to succeed. Hence, I believe single payer was not possible and we will struggle for years in order to make the needed improvements. Meanwhile, it is encouraging that a few more states are allowing the Medicaid changes. I think there is even some possibility that the drug portion can be fixed. Fixing those issues will make a yuuuuuge difference for millions. That counts. That counts alot. Yes, HRC is far too hawkish – but she doesn’t out-do Trump, Cruz, and Mario and she won’t be working with the Freedom Caucus. I have no idea how we will fare in foreign policy. But I’m fairly certain you don’t either. But I’m damn pleased with Cuba and Iran. I also count those as a BFD and required a man with some extraordinary balls. I’m damn proud of him.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 10:15 pm
Mozart
FWIW
As it is no doubt apparent, my reading is often interrupted and I have not yet read all notes before making some reply.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 10:19 pm
And my concerns for the Supremes should illustrate that I’m not thinking short-term. Those people often sit for thirty or forty years.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:13 pm
Pedant: The Supremes however, will still be life-long appointments and the next president will appoint at least two. Who knows? Maybe three.
Isn’t that true of most presidents? Won’t that still be true of the President after Trump? There have been 112 SC justices (and should be one more now) for 56 presidential terms; an average of exactly 2 per Term.
The SC is important, but Hillary is by her nature a conservative Republican that will nominate centrist Republicans and move the country further Right anyway, and also as a “Democrat” move the Democratic Party further right anyway, and will probably be replaced by an actual either a further-right Democrat or a centrist Republican!
You have it backwards, in the long term we are better off if the Democratic party is either Far Left (like Sanders) or is opposing a far Right candidate (like Trump). Electing a centrist moves the Democratic party and the nation and the SC and the law in general much further Right.
The only reason single payer failed was because Obama made a deal with the insurance and pharma industries. over 70% of voters approved of the supposed single-payer public option the month after Obama took office, and we know now that after a secret meeting (remember he promised he wouldn’t have them?) in the WH with Insurance and Pharma lobbyists, Obama made a deal to kill the public option and sent Rahm to recruit Liebermann to be the bad guy that would do it. Liebermann, whose wife was a paid lobbyist for the healthcare industry.
No, we won’t fix either the premiums or the drugs; I presume that is the nature of the deal.
HRC will perpetuate what has been happening since Bush/Cheney, endless war on behalf of corporate profits under the guise of a “war on drugs” and “fighting terror” by exaggerating every tiny threat in order to perpetuating terror and provide the excuse to invade countries of strategic importance (to corporations).
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:21 pm
Pedant: The average service of a SC justice is 16 years. Only 12.5% serve 30+ years, 25% served less than 9 years. The chances of a Supreme serving less than 9 years is double the chance of them serving thirty or more.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:28 pm
“The SC is important, but Hillary is by her nature a conservative Republican that will nominate centrist Republicans and move the country further Right….” MM Not even close,……her husband appointed the most liberal member of the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His other appointee was liberal David Breyer. Her appointees would be similar and the more seats the dems could pick up the more liberal they could be. i understand that you will not vote for her under any circumstance and I respect that but this assessment of her court appointees bears no resemblance to reality.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:50 pm
SwM: Her husband was not President of the Young Republicans in college, Hillary was. To my knowledge Bill has always been a Democrat.
Hillary will appoint a centrist if she appoints anybody, and just like Republican health care, she will lie and say “we have to be pragmatic, the political reality is that Republicans must approve the appointment or they will filibuster all my judge appointments so this is the best I can get.”
In other words, more bullshit that her fans will call “leadership.” We don’t get liberals under Democrats any more, we get centrists, because the “lesser of two evils” crowd moves us further Right with every election. Sanders may not win, but the level of his support, especially among the young, is an indication of how sick the electorate is becoming with how far Right we have traveled as a country since Bill; it began with his disastrous repeal of Glass-Steagall.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 12:46 am
SwM: Her husband was not President of the Young Republicans in college, Hillary was. MM,
More incomplete information from the Sanders supporter trying to bolster an opinion he wants accepted as fact. In the spring of 1968 she was a junior in college and a volunteer working for Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s presidential campaign. She graduated from Wellesley College in 1969. She has been a Democrat for 48 years.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 12:48 am
Mozart
What justices are you including in your age stats? I suggest that justices are living and serving longer these days. Plus, more care is given these days that new appointments are (ideally) younger than fifty.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 12:49 am
Sanders has been a democrat for less than one year. Gotta keep those facts straight
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 1:06 am
IP,
Easy to check so I did. You are right. The terms have gotten longer and longer … (years) 24, 15, 33, 35, 25, 30,, 19 all now no longer serving. Of the 8 presently serving, 4 have served 28, 25, 23, 22. The other 4 have less because they are more recent appointments.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 1:11 am
Mozart
Currently, the old guys on the court have served at least 23 years. Kennedy has served 28, Thomas has served 25, Rehnquist served 33, Stevens served 35, Scalia 30, Sandra 25 (sorta forced out), Brennan 34.
I think your stats need further consideration.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 1:40 am
Mozart
So you think the polls indicate what legislation could have passed? If that’s so, why didn’t gun control pass after Sandy Hook?
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 1:48 am
Mozart
Are there any cases pending at the court that you think are important? More Voter ID? Roe v Wade? One Man One Vote? More Money is Speech? More Religious Freedom? Affirmative Action? The Turley/House suit against Obama?
Anything there that is important to you?
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 2:18 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699 “The math suggests Trump would need a whopping 70% of white men to vote for him. That’s more than Republicans have ever won before – more than the GOP won in the landslide victories of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and far more than they won even during the racially polarized elections of Barack Obama.
Of course, the argument often made by Trump’s followers is that he will win in November because he will bring so many disengaged Americans to the polls. But they’re talking about disengaged white voters, mostly mostly men— and unfortunately for him, the turnout rate for white men is already relatively high.
He can, and presumably will, try broadening his appeal by pivoting. When Trump clinches the GOP nod, he may attempt what Mitt Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom once called the “Etch-A-Sketch” campaign relaunch—to restyle himself as a more palatable general election candidate. But given his commitment to a wall on the Mexican border and a ban on Muslim immigration, and given his flirtations with racism and fascism, he’s likely done too much damage to salvage much crossover appeal.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699#ixzz422QXJpHX
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Blouise: Sanders has been a democratic socialist all his adult life, in college leading both civil rights and racial equality protests, arrested in 1963 for protesting segregation in Chicago.
While Hillary was a Republican, Also From NPR, “during her first year of college[1965], she was elected president of the Wellesley Young Republicans Club. According to Carl Bernstein’s book A Woman In Charge, by the fall of 1966, she identified herself as a Rockefeller Republican.” Then in 1968, She attended the Republican Convention as a Young Republican.
To her credit, Nixon’s persona and racist strategy turned her off Republicanism; but even then she did not decide she was a “Democrat” until after graduating, and then attending Yale, sometime in 1969.
Hillary Clinton was raised a Republican and remained a Republican until the age of 22. Presumably we allow 18 year olds to vote (and fight and die in wars) because we believe by then they are rational adults capable of making important decisions. She doesn’t get a pass because she was “young,” she is clearly by her upbringing and nature a conservative Republican.
Why would it make a difference to you how long Bernie has been a Democrat instead of an Independent? He has sided with Democrats far more than many Democrats. He has never in his life identified as a Republican. He was fighting segregation and fighting for civil rights and protesting racial injustice while Hillary was gaveling in the Young Republicans. He was for equality and the principles of democratic socialism from early High School.
I judge people by the content of their character. You can try to cast Bernie as some undeserving interloper, but the Democratic Party has always embraced him and all of his principles have remained consistent. Hillary is an interloper too, but cannot make the same claim: She did not leave the Republican party because of Republican principles of governance, she said herself she left because she didn’t like Nixon or his thinly veiled racist southern strategy. Rejecting a phony like Nixon is much different than rejecting the principles and ideals of Republicanism; leaving a Church because you don’t like the congregation is not equivalent to becoming an Atheist.
In any case, I find the notion that one has to belong to the right club and pay their dues in that club in order to lead the country to be both elitist and wrong. The country should be led by the person with the best character to fight corruption and help others, the mechanics required to actually get elected are secondary.
Hillary is an authoritarian at heart that supports corporations even if it results in the subjugation and misery of the poor and middle class. Sanders is a socialist at heart that wants the most good for all people. I care about the content of their character, as best I can discern it. On that score, Hillary was still laughing decades later about being a “Goldwater Girl”. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said, “the Supreme Court decision is not necessarily the law of the land,”, and in 1960, describing Brown v. Board of Education, Goldwater said it was an ” “abuse of power by the Court” and that politics needs to take into account “the essential differences between men.”
Yay, Goldwater Girl.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Pedant: There are always cases in the Supreme Court that are important to me and that I think should be decided on the side of progress toward equality for all persons and care for the less fortunate.
The fact that they are ALWAYS there is the reason I focus on the next 40 or 50 years (scientifically speaking in various studies 50 years is near the limit of 50/50 predictability in this world).
I judge all short-term strategies in the light of long-term impact; in my personal life, my financial life, my professional life, my health and in politics. I am doing reasonably well in all the things I can control.
Every president appoints Supreme Court justices, and the SC can revisit cases and overturn the decisions of a prior SC. The answer, therefore, is to change the character of the SC over the long term to pro-liberal, pro-socialist, pro-humanist. The best way to do that is to prove to people that it works and makes 95% of citizens happier and more productive and more likely to maximize their potential, even more likely to start their own businesses, without causing any actual financial or physical hardship for the 5% that want to exploit the 95% for their own wealth creation.
If you panic and vote on the current cases, they will be replaced by another crop of cases in four years, and another four years after that, ad infinitum. The short term solution implicitly means never losing an election. That in turn means always choose the Democrat no matter how conservative or pro-corporate they are because the Republican will always be worse. That in turn means the Democrat is always free to curry votes and personal money and campaign contributions by running just barely to the Left of the Republican and Democrat voters will never abandon such a candidate.
The driving force behind small government, low taxes, deregulation, unconstrained markets, elimination of minimum wage and workplace regulation, opposition to gun control and boosters for big military intervention and war are all rich people and rich corporations. That is where the big money is, that is where the six figure checks are written. They are the ideologically Right. And every time we elect a Democrat that takes personal and campaign money from them, they select candidates that move the country further Right than it currently is (and of course some candidates tailor their message to meet their requirements). That gives the Republicans, the foil also being funded by those factions, the opportunity to position itself even further to the Right than the Democrat. The Democratic position becomes that of their candidate, and next election, Democratic candidates have been given room, by the Republicans, to move even further to the right, and they have to do so in order to get the funding from those amongst the wealthy that truly want to be free of ALL taxes and regulation so they are free to demand anything from their workers with impunity.
That is the logical progression you create by worrying about the short term at the expense of the long term; you kill the prospects of any long term solution, because in this system that solution demands sacrifice, a line must be drawn between Left and Right that a Democrat cannot cross without losing their seat. If you only worry about the short term and always vote for the lesser of two evils, that line does not exist.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 4:23 pm
Mozart
I fear your long-term thinking will get us nothing but Republicans in office because no one will please you enough to garner your vote. Further, your rejection of short term solutions leaves no room for incremental improvements. Who cares about eliminating polio – malaria kills millions. Who cares if ACA enables millions of Americans access to healthcare – we still have fifty million without access? Who cares about Head Start – our colleges are out of reach for those kids?
I wonder how your rejection of incremental change works in your job? It seems to me that science is built in increments. And how does such a view work in raising children? Does it leave them any room to fail and start over?
I don’t know, Mozart. It seems to me your philosophy has all the makings of some great Greek tragedy – and will leave the stage littered with bodies.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 5:25 pm
MM,
My mission right now, until I find a better one, is to simply point out the facts you tend to gloss over. The Socialist Party USA used to be the Socialist Democrats USA and since it is still very much a working political party, one wonders why Sanders became a democrat last year. I don’t really care but since you’re the one so hung up on Clinton’s early familiar association with republicans thus discounting her 40 odd years as a Democrat, I figured you’d be just as curious as to why Sanders turned up his nose at the Socialist and became a Democrat last year.
I figure he did it because he’s calculating lazy which I think is a fair analysis given his lack of accomplishment during the 24 years he spent in elected office … or … there is a really great conspiracy theory out there involving Sanders on the far left and Trump on the far right with Clinton gathering all the vast middle ground. It’s a good one!
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm
More Mozart:
Sanders may not win, but the level of his support, especially among the young, is an indication of how sick the electorate is becoming with how far Right we have traveled as a country since Bill; it began with his disastrous repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The young are typically inclined to be liberal and enamored with socialism so I don’t think it is any indication at all that we have moved to the right.
The Bush years were compassionate conservatism which is nothing but liberalism. And then we had the tarp bailout which was nothing but socialism/fascism and then we had 8 years of Barack Obama who was definitely not a conservative.
So the idea that we are moving to the right or to conservative principles is just flat out wrong. The evidence doesn’t support it. We are moving away from free markets and individual liberty at an alarming rate. So much for the enlightenment principles that were the philosophical basis for the founding of our Republic.
As far as the Glass-Steagall act is concerned, that was created by politicians who were worried about their respective jobs during the depression. Clinton was right to repeal part of it although he probably should’ve repealed all of it. To think that Depression-era legislation should still be controlling the way we do business in the 21st century is just vacuous.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 8:40 pm
At lunch today one of my friends opined, “I think we should give the keys back to England.”
He expected the group to laugh but no one did. What he got instead were several, thoughtful, “Hmmmm’s”
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 10:45 pm
“”Hillary is an authoritarian at heart that supports corporations even if it results in the subjugation and misery of the poor and middle class. Sanders is a socialist at heart that wants the most good for all people. I care about the content of their character, as best I can discern it. “”
That says it all!
Is there anything one can say for Hillary that ends not, ultimately, an indictment of Hillary?
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 12:58 am
po: I see no point in saying anything good about Hillary, when on balance I consider her an unnecessarily lethal danger to both minorities in this country and civilians overseas.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 1:00 am
Blouise: Sanders hasn’t ditched anybody, he had no party backing him. And as I said, what’s the elitist position of “you have to be in my club to run the country” your are promoting?
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 1:21 am
Pedant:
I fear your long-term thinking will get us nothing but Republicans in office because no one will please you enough to garner your vote.
Obviously false, because Sanders pleases me enough to get my vote and my money, Warren pleases me enough, many others would please me enough. The people I want do not have to be perfect, they just cannot be corrupt pathological liars.
Further, your rejection of short term solutions leaves no room for incremental improvements.
False again, there is plenty of room for incremental improvements; as long as they are increments toward the real progressive, socialistic state we should all live in. I will embrace those too.
I do not reject short term solutions at all, I reject 100% short term solutions. And I advocate always looking for the long term goal, and if short term solutions are necessary, ensuring that they are either useful toward the long term goal, or at least not backwards from the long term goal.
That is the situation you advocate; your “lesser of two evils 100% of the time” position prevents you from ever reaching the long term goal and guarantees you will lose your gains when you fail to win.
I wonder how your rejection of incremental change works in your job?
I don’t reject incremental change.
It seems to me that science is built in increments.
Not always. Relativity overthrew Newton. Quantum physics was entirely new. Science is, in general, built in layers of goodness: Nothing is (in the final analysis) accepted unless it can explain not only everything that is already explained, plus something more that is currently unexplained.
If politics worked the same way, all governments would have to start from the Nordic model of Sweden or Denmark or Norway; the consistently happiest countries on Earth, and they are Democratic Socialists.
Science is built on understanding things well enough to predict how they will behave, both if left alone and in response to interventions. Sometimes that requires a wrenching revolution in thinking; like Darwinism, like Plate Tectonics, like Quantum Physics. It is not incremental at all.
And how does such a view work in raising children? Does it leave them any room to fail and start over?
Like science, there is plenty of such room. My child understands quite well she needs to keep her eye on the long term, and find her short term goals in concordance with that. That may not be possible in some life or death situation, but it is usually possible, it just isn’t always the easiest thing to do.
I would liken it to life-saving cancer surgery. The long term goal is to continue living. The easiest and least painful thing to do in the short term is not go into surgery! The correct choice is the more painful choice, get cut open and have a tumor removed and then spend a few weeks recovering. In that case, the right thing is the most painful thing.
The same thing is happening here. Perpetuate the cancer in politics by avoiding surgery, or take the pain of the surgery in order to save lives.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:32 am
Mozart
Okay. Let me try this…
I believe the Supreme Court has the greatest impact on our lives. As you have pointed out, most presidents get to appoint two justices. The present court, pre Scalia’s death, the court was split 5-4 and that court was the most pro- business since WWII per a study done by a couple of law professors and Judge R. Posner. From a New Yorker article 3/7/16: The Roberts Court hasn’t just made a lot of pro-business rulings. It has taken a higher number of percentage of cases brought by businesses than previous courts,and it has handed down far-reaching decisions that have remade corporate regulation and law….{Citizens United}…It has overturned long-standing antitrust restrictions. It has limited liability for corporate fraud and made it harder for workers to successfully sue for age and gender discrimination. It has made suing businesses and governments more difficult, especially class-action suits.
And once corporations recognized that the Court was predisposed to favor their interests, they began pursuing those interests more aggressively…The business community smelled blood and went after it. Most notably, the Chamber of Commerce has become assiduous in pushing corporate cases to Court.” One of those cases ruled that companies could require that customers lose their right to sue and are forced into arbitration and has the potential to wipe out class-action lawsuits.
As I understand it, these issues are exactly what most concerns you , and I can promise you that any 2017 Republican president is going to appoint justices that are going to continue this war on ordinary citizens and workers and their rulings are going to have very long lasting effects.
What do you propose to protect my kids and grandchildren from such a Court?
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 4:52 am
MM,
Poor Sanders, the Socialist who so admires Norway, is without a party and thus forced to hitch a ride on the Democrats’ vehicle in order to gain the USA Presidency.
He does offer one hell of a Norwegian Fairy tale.
BTW … Today he won 2 caucuses and she won 1 primary but she still ended up with a higher delegate count from those 3 contests than he did. (and that, sadly for your argument, is without counting the supers) Ah, if only this contest were taking place in Norway.
That’s the problem with fairy tales … reality always asserts itself.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 7:35 am
blouise
Have you ever read a Norwegian Fairy Tale? I only ask because of my own Norwegian ancestry. They never end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Bear_Is_Stumpy-Tailed
and that’s one of the happy ones.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 8:40 am
Pete,
I think there are a lot of trolls
I’m presently binge watching House of Cards and just finished an episode wherein all action took place in an open nominating convention. It was hilariously timely.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 8:46 am
52% of Norway’s work force is unionized. The Norwegian Troll Union always meets under bridges. They eat socialists who don’t pay the toll. Bet you didn’t know that!
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 1:13 pm
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/5/11167824/winners-losers-kansas-nebraska-lousiana-kentucky-maine Cruz wins. Rubio, Sanders and the Republican Party lose. Cruz is making some decent gains on Trump
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:30 pm
Pedant: The fact that you cite how the Republicans have dramatically shifted the Supreme Court so far to the Right (on business and money matters which are all the majority of the rich truly care about) reveals both the problem and your mindset.
Electing either Hillary or Trump will move it further in that direction, they are both pro-business candidates.
The best way to protect your kids, grandkids, and their kids and grandkids for the REST OF THEIR LIVES is to force the Democratic Party to give us Democrats for President that are NOT pro-business and pro-wealth. Leftists. Yes, the Court has been shifted Right by Republicans, but also by Obama appointing centrists so when Republicans get their turn, as they certainly will sooner or later, they can appoint far Right ideologues like Scalia. Which way does the see-saw tilt if Democrats only pile their weights in the center, and consistently let Republicans pile all their weights on the far Right?
A vote for Hillary piles more weight in the center and doesn’t protect your progeny, it endangers them!
The best way for any parent to protect their (non-adult) child is for the parent to take the hit so the child doesn’t have to; for the parent to go to war so their child doesn’t have to, for the parent to suffer the pain of correcting course so the child doesn’t have to, and as an example to the children of what they must do when they are adults: Decide to take the hit for correcting course even further so their children do not have to, because greed and power are constant pressures to create new evil doers. They can be kept in check if each generation understands it must do its part, but that is not what you propose.
Your proposal is selfish; because YOU don’t want to suffer for four years, so you will instead pile on the trouble by electing a centrist and leave a bigger problem for your children, and teach them to leave an even bigger problem for your grand-children, until the result of everybody voting for the lesser evil comes to fruition: The Democrat they elect is further Right than the worst they feared ten terms ago!
In fact that has already happened; Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and presided over what many say was its most effective period, he proposed a national health-care plan with federal subsidies (Democrats killed it on partisan grounds); Nixon proposed a negative income tax for poor people, he expanded food stamps and enacted Supplemental Security Income for those with disabilities and the elderly, in 1974 Nixon raised a stagnant minimum wage by 40%.
No Republican could do that today, and it is clear to me Republican Nixon was more liberal and got more accomplished for the middle class (and environmentalists) than Hillary will ever be able to get done. Why? Because the “lesser of two evils” strategy kept pushing the problem onto later generations and moving the government ever further to the Right, with every election of either a Democrat or a Republican. Out of selfish greed Democratic leaders go as centrist as they can and let the Republicans go as Right as they want, and by never going full Left they predominant direction is ever more Right, ever more Conservative, ever more wealth-friendly, and ever more harmful to the middle class.
Neither Nixon or Reagan could make it in the modern Republican party, and in many cases they were to the Left of modern Democratic Party leaders. The ratchet is real; the lesser of two evils is a selfish strategy for you to avoid pain by postponing the pain until it is your children or grand-children that must suffer, that must die in the wars, that must work for survival wages to pay for shelter and food, that must suffer unemployment because we permit corporations to use slaves in other countries and sell their products here, that must die early because they cannot afford healthcare, that are relegated to second class citizens because they couldn’t afford the education required to reach their potential.
That selfish strategy is a long term loser, and it isn’t hard to see over the last two generations, and the degree of shift toward the Right is the harbinger of how much further we will move to the Right in the next two generations you claim to care about. You will perpetuate the short-term thinking of the last 40 years and condemn the future so you can feel good about yourself.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 3:00 pm
SwM: Hillary gained a total of 11 earned delegates on Bernie (entirely due to conservative Louisiana), and the “track” according to FiveThirtyEight is unchanged; she is at 114% of track and Bernie is at 85%.
Cruz is “gaining” on Trump only after being lapped on the track by Trump, Trump is at 107% of 538’s “track” and Cruz is at 67%. Funny how you characterize Cruz with 67% as winning and Sanders with 85% as losing.
Sucked in by media hype much? Arithmetically challenged? Unaware of conservative state front-loading by the DNC?
The race is not decided, Bernie was forced to run uphill while letting Clinton run downhill, but in mid-track the advantages switch; and the distance Bernie fell behind in the first half, he may well make up in the second half. Only 28.5% of delegates have been awarded thus far; there are 2839 left to award, and Bernie is only behind by 210 delegates at this point.
It is not rational to assume that Hillary can outperform Bernie in states favorable to her by 210 delegates with just 28.5% of delegates, and then to assume Bernie cannot outperform Hillary, in states favorable to him, by 210 delegates, also with 28.5% of delegates. In fact it is an assumption that the remainder of states will vote just like the front-loaded conservative Red states, which is almost certainly untrue.
Sure, Bernie lost this round on points, but he hasn’t lost the battle by a long shot.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm
Actually it is the minority vote that is propelling Hillary in the south not the conservative vote. Conservative southerners hate her for the most part, and they vote in the republican primary. And, yes, Cruz is gaining momentum as Trump gets identified with white supremacy and Rubio fades.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 5:44 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/06/ted-cruzs-huge-surge-in-election-day-voting-in-louisiana/
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:09 pm
This post from Glenn Greenwald tells the uncomfortable truth that Trump is only saying out loud what the Foreign Policy Establishment has acted upon and believed for years. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/04/trumps-policies-are-not-anathema-to-the-u-s-mainstream-but-an-uncomfortably-vivid-reflection-of-it/
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:12 pm
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-gop-establishment-now-faces-its-nightmare-scenario-trump-versus-cruz/ “http “The nightmare scenario of a Trump-Cruz race is now looking more likely than ever.
Republican leaders have to be asking: How did the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower end up faced with the choice between a narcissistic billionaire who keeps saying awful things and a narcissistic senator who keeps doing awful things?
If the Republican elites who stopped listening long ago to their better angels really want an answer to that question, of course, they need only they look in the mirror.”
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm
Actually it is the minority vote that is propelling Hillary in the south not the conservative vote. SwM
Although I know what you are saying, the “minority” vote has consistently, through the years of polling, tracked slightly to the right of center. Liberalism is not their forte. That’s why Obama should have been no surprise to liberals. They saw something in him that was never there. It is also part of the reason Sanders message doesn’t resonate. Super delegates are usually long-time democrats who also know this, which is, again, part of the reason they pledged to Clinton who has always understood and delivered the message that hits home.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:23 pm
Blouise, On many social issues I would say yes but on economic issues I would say they are mainstream democrats for the most part which is far to the left of today’s republican party. They do not appear to be socialists, however.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Super delegates want to back a winner as some are elected officials who hope a nominee has coat tails.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:26 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-violence-to-come/471924/?utm_source=SFTwitter “The police are more professional today than they were back then. And video-recording devices are now ubiquitous, which may make such incidents less likely. Then again, Wallace never won a major party’s nomination. Between now and November, Trump could hold hundreds more rallies, many in areas with large African American and Latino populations, in an atmosphere of mounting hysteria as Election Day nears. The young left-wing militants who have already braved danger in places like Ferguson, and who hold their more conflict-averse elders in contempt, are unlikely to stop their disruptions. Trump will keep baiting and threatening them because it’s how he rouses his fans.
How will Americans react if something truly terrible happens? Given the events of recent months, it’s impossible to know.”
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm
Mike,
Interesting column from Greenwald. The USA has always, down through our history, over reacted during and immediately after a large influx of immigrants. Read some of the newspaper archives after the Irish and Italian surge of immigrants. Trump is nothing new there either.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:34 pm
economic issues I would say they are mainstream democrats. SwM
Like most voters who sit in the center, minorities will lean a little left then a little right, what they don’t like is far left or right because they don’t trust that their interests will be protected by extremes. Obama also understood this very well.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Super delegates want to back a winner as some are elected officials who hope a nominee has coat tails. SwM
True. This is why I think Sanders should sitick around after Nov and build on the movement he’s initiated by helping some of his followers to gain elected office. In a few years some of those young folk who believe in his vision will have attained elected office thus making coattails a reality.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 8:10 pm
SwM: I doubt Trump will “continue to inflame”, I predict that Trump, after he wins the nomination (presuming he does), will become a different candidate, probably still combative and insulting but he will cut out the racism and bigotry entirely. I think he is using that to win the nomination, and will use his Teflon shield to just “change his mind”. It isn’t hurting him so far:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/12/trump-i-will-be-changing-very-rapidly-in-a-general-election-n2118062
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-h1b-visas-gop-debate-immigration-2016-3
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/03/04/trump-changes-his-mind-about-torture-says-he-wont-order-military-to-disobey-international-laws-n2128868
The media is, as always, pretending everything remains the same going into the general. Trump will dtich his racist fans and change completely, he (effectively) tells us so in the first link.
Do not expect what you have seen so far. After six months of a “Presidential” Trump act, do not expect the public to remember what you have seen so far. Public memory is short, many are not even paying attention right now.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Mm,Think the public is catching on to Trump.He could still be the nominee but something has changed. Think he pushed the “nazi’ like rhetoric and the associations a bit too far during the last week.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 11:23 pm
We shouldn’t think Trump or Cruz or the elites are in control. All we need is another San Bernardino and the mob rules.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 11:56 pm
Mozart
I’ll have to accept your condemnation. I am going to act selfishly come November because I AM going to vote and I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Selfishly, I think it is what a citizen does.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I’ll leave you to your withering attack on the party centrists that is sure to horrify them – your write-in vote for Bernie. I hope we can all withstand the repercussions.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 12:20 am
Pedant: No person’s vote is important in the least; elections are won by at least a hundred thousand votes or so; even the Final Bush v. Gore vote in Florida was over 500 votes different. My protest vote by itself will be meaningless and change nothing. If several thousand of us feel the same and it makes a difference in the election, then I will be happy so many woke up and saw reason and did what had to be done to make it clear that the (non)Democratic Party needs to change or die.
On behalf of everyone including you, whether you like it or not.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 12:29 am
“We shouldn’t think Trump or Cruz or the elites are in control. All we need is another San Bernardino and the mob rules.” IP
Exactly, and since the mob dictates the political rhetoric, as the candidates and their party, especially the republicans, will double down on the extremist talk, all common sense will go out of the window. Ted Cruz has already matched Trump in much of what he said, sometimes even going beyond.
The whole issue is that Trump is what Bernie is to the Democrat, a lone wolf going against the interest of the pack. But because the elk is responding better to the lone wolf’s tactics, the pack will sooner or latter adopt some of its tactics.
I mean, didn’t the candidates say they would still support Trump IF he wins the nomination?
While demonizing him at every step?
As for the minorities, they do as minorities always do, unless the candidate looks like them where tribe rules over fear, they will always go with the devil they know over the potential angel that may end up a worse devil. Hillary is riding a positively viewed Clinton culture that is established within African American culture, one that is supported by the democratic structure of patronage and benefits in the South. This is where Bernie’s gains with the minority youth comes in.
In order to win minorities however, Bernie will have make up 40 plus years of such Clinton qui pro quos…which, unfortunately is almost impossible to do. Thankfully, Obama’s candidacy has done some work towards breaking up those Clinton support system in the black community.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 12:51 am
MM says
” I doubt Trump will “continue to inflame”, I predict that Trump, after he wins the nomination (presuming he does), will become a different candidate, probably still combative and insulting but he will cut out the racism and bigotry entirely.”
I am certain of that. Why?
1- Trump was never known to be bigoted. Rather, he was known, as successful businessmen are, to be able to relate to various groups. This is obviously an opportunistic ratcheting demanded by the aims of his campaign and his electorate.
2- He knows he can’t win the presidency based on the support of the mob alone. He would have to take away voters from Hillary, independents, conservative democrats, minorities and traditional republicans who will never vote for Hillary. And he won’t get the support of those groups unless he can walk his rhetoric back. Which he will do easily and shamelessly.
Now if he manages to recruit his fellow candidates into supporting him against Hilary, if their hatred of her is stronger than their reluctance to support him (which should be the case), I think he has a strong chance here.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 2:32 am
This is where Bernie’s gains with the minority youth comes in. po
Gains within minority youth were hopefully projected by Sanders campaign but exit polls, once the voting actually started showed those projected gains to be wishful thinking … (7 out of 10 in minority under 30 group went to Clinton)
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 2:52 am
For Political Science nerds, such as myself, who like analysis based on polls, graphs, and studies, the following should interest you.
Trump is closer to what most Republicans believe than the ‘establishment’ candidates are
“Trump’s breaks with Republican orthodoxy may actually be closer to the beliefs of the Republican base.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/06/trump-is-closer-to-what-most-republicans-believe-than-the-establishment-candidates-are/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_cage
Tobias Konitzer and David Rothschild
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 2:09 pm
po: Also, due to the damaged reasoning faculties of the far right people to whom he appeals, they only hear what they want to hear, and no matter how much he says the opposite they will not believe him.
I was reading a reporter that interviewed David Duke supporters (racists) after Trump repudiated Duke, insulted Duke, repeatedly and vehemently. They say (I paraphrase) “He has to say that, we get it, but we know he doesn’t mean it.”
Like the links I gave, Trump has managed to change his mind many times and avoid any charges of flip-flopping, in fact he has told his supporters (paraphrasing again) “If I couldn’t change my mind when given new information I’d be a failure, it would be stupid. You have to be able to change your mind.” Their response? Yea, cheer, you don’t have to be consistent with us, Donald!
Part of the “lesser of two evils” mindset, on both sides, means that nearly all Republicans will also vote for Trump as their lesser of two evils, or they will just stay home. He does not have to remain consistent, and as he has already told his supporters he will “change dramatically” for the General election. They already expect that. They will vote for him anyway. I doubt many will stay home no matter what he says now; they have found their alpha male hero.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm
One favorable Trump enjoys in Michigan and Ohio is the fact that he supported the auto bailout and is on record as doing so. “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent… You cannot lose the auto companies” [Source: Fox News, 17 Dec. 2008]
I well remember that time as Corker of Tennessee and Shelby of Georgia were actually warned to not visit Michigan or Ohio after their attacks on the auto bailout but, more importantly, Dennis Kucinich, a “yugely” popular democrat found himself losing the democratic primary for his regular House seat after he came out against the auto bailout.
It’s going to be interesting to see if Sanders vote against the auto bailout 8 years ago works against him in these two states.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:33 pm
It certainly should but do younger students who have been promised free tuition care about that, blouise? Hillary hit him hard on that vote and his gun votes. He tried to shush her.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:43 pm
shush her. -SwM
Yes, I started getting phone calls and emails about that from friends who were watching the debate. They also said he seemed overly irritated with her. I guess you could hear the audience’s reaction to his shushing moment. Kinda backs up all the misogyny language we’ve been getting from Sanders supporters.
Not Mike though. He has come out strongly against Clinton but never once fallen into the misogyny language trap.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Blouise,Think most of the misogyny comes from his supporters that call themselves “independents” and not those that have previously voted for Obama and will vote for her if she is the nominee.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:57 pm
do younger students who have been promised free tuition care about that, blouise? -SwM
I doubt it. As a constituency they are like any other constituency, mainly concerned with what directly impacts their interests.
I also wonder how he’s going to force all the states to empty their prisons. He can do something about the Federal prisons but that is only 12-13% of the prison population. Trump at one extreme with the Wall and Sanders at the other with empty prisons. What a circus.
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Think most of the misogyny comes from his supporters -SwM
I used to think that but not anymore
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 5:27 pm
I read that he cancelled some events in Mississippi. Campaign officials say he’s sick.
A jazz musician friend of mine has a favorite quip: “A closed mouth don’t get fed.”
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 2:16 pm
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35729921 “Then there are parents like Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, who came home one day just after her 11-year-old daughter heard Rubio say that “the Palestinian Authority, which has strong links to terror, they teach little kids that it’s a glorious thing to kill Jews”.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Linda Sarsour has told other Muslim parents not to let their children watch the debates
“The fact that that’s being said really hurts them,” she says of her children. “That scares them because they don’t know who they’re referring to, and that could be them. The question is like, ‘What happens if one of these is our president? What do we do?'” ‘ Don’t think trump will be able to turn things around with the people he and the other republican candidates have offended. I think they will come out in droves to vote against him.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 6:29 pm
More Latinos Seek Citizenship to Vote Against Trump
DENVER — Donald J. Trump’s harsh campaign language against Mexican immigrants has helped him win a substantial delegate lead in the Republican primaries, but it is also mobilizing a different set of likely voters — six in the family of Hortensia Villegas alone.
A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas — along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents — has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.
I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win. …. He doesn’t like us” …
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/trumps-rise-spurs-latino-immigrants-to-naturalize-to-vote-against-him.html?_r=0
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 6:35 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/08/mothers-of-slain-black-teenagers-assail-bernie-sanders-for-ghetto-comments/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur ““Senator Sanders is wrong to suggest that the concept of the ghetto is inextricably connected to black America,” Ms. Fulton said in the statement. “We need a president who understands black families don’t all live in ghettos — and who has a plan to end the racial violence that too often plagues families like mine.”
The mothers also attacked Mr. Sanders’s position on gun control and denounced the fact that the National Rifle Association praised the senator’s stance against holding most gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of people who buy weapons legally and go on to commit crimes.”
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 6:48 pm
It’s going to be very interesting to watch Michigan today. He has spent a lot of time and a whole lot of money there. If Michigan doesn’t work out for him as Nevada (another place he spent a whole lot of time and money on) didn’t, he’s going to have to do some serious finger waving at himself.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 6:55 pm
He supports protecting the gun manufacturers, shushes women, and thinks most black people live in ghettos …I think he joined the wrong party last year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 8, 2016 at 7:33 pm
Blouise: He didn’t shush a woman, he told another candidate that was overstepping their time and trying to walk on his reply to be quiet. Those are entirely different things. I would have done the same thing to a man, and I have in the past told a man too eager to keep repeating his point when I had the floor, at a national standards committee, that he could stop talking while I had the floor. It had nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, it had something to do with Hillary breaking the rules to do whatever the fuck she wanted, as she is wont to do. I watched the debate, she does it frequently, including intentionally answering a different question than she was asked, because the question she was asked was not something she was prepared to answer.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 7:51 pm
He didn’t shush a woman, he told another candidate that was overstepping their time and trying to walk on his reply to be quiet. Those are entirely different things. MM
You forgot the finger wave.
Face it, MM, he’s had ample time to learn how to handle an interruption by her. Hell, she probably interrupted him on purpose so he’d committed the faux pas. Wonder how he’d handle an interruption from anyone of the many female world leaders? Which was the whole point, of course. Your guy just ain’t ready for prime time.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 8:02 pm
And take a moment to look at the campaign strategy. She goes in and runs like it’s a Senate seat. She finds a local issue that resonates and hits on it which doesn’t get much national press but does get a lot of local coverage leading up to the primary. He goes in and holds a big rock rally that only the national press covers. She talks to local newspaper editors, goes on local radio talk shows, and visit hot dog stands. He gets whisked away from a stadium in his limo.
Like I said, he joined the wrong party.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 8:08 pm
And don’t forget … black people live in ghettos. Sure, we white people knew what he meant, right? What a wonderful opportunity to remind the voters that for the last 25 years Sanders has represented a state that is 95% white. Fool should have just kept his mouth shut.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 8:34 pm
We are starting to see the ads now in prep for the upcoming primary. Trump is bitching about immigrants taking jobs. Sanders is standing in a stadium soaking up the admiration. Clinton is talking to local people about local issues. Her ads for Cleveland are set in Cleveland. Columbus ads are set in Columbus … etc. Sanders is just in the same stadium smiling at the cheering rock crowds. This is Cleveland, home of the Rock Hall. We see rock stars all the time on the streets, in the restaurants, etc. We haven’t seen Sanders anywhere but in a stadium … twice. Clinton has been talking to people in cafes and lobbies and churches … up close and personal. We’ve seen Sanders as up close and personal as we’ve seen Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 8, 2016 at 9:21 pm
Blouise: I did not forget anything; perhaps you should open your eyes. Sanders waves his finger at male moderators, at the audience, anytime he wants people to notice he objects to a statement. It was not to a woman, it was to a candidate breaking the rules. Or do you already know that and are just grasping at straws to make something that was not gender-biased at all sound gender-biased?
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 9:56 pm
MM,
I didn’t make it gender biased The audience immediately oohhed, Twitter lit up. He fell right into it with body language and tone. On the radio it might have played differently but he was on camera so the body language and facial expressions of irritation were seen. Also, remember it was a conversation about his voting against the auto bailout that he was trying to explain away. The man flubbed it and you’re trying your best to blame the woman who is me, in this case. Big surprise there.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 10:05 pm
Vagina-American, MM, Vagina-American … You really don’t get it and I doubt you ever will.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 11:08 pm
Donald Trump’s supporters swear their allegiance in Orlando
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/05/donald-trumps-supporters-swear-their-allegiance-in-orlando/?tid=a_inl
We can’t say we didn’t see it coming
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 3:43 am
SwM,
Weather forecast is good for driving so I’m off.
Allready voted absentee ballot
Michigan is deliciously close.. This is a fun election!
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 4:09 am
Charles Evers of Mississippi endorses…..Trump!
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Bernie wins Michigan, perhaps the biggest upset ever seen in primary voting; he as down by 21 points in polling the day before the primary, 538 predicted >99% chance of Hillary winning, and Bernie pulled it out by 4% (52/48).
Gary Hart beating Mondale in 1984 new Hampshire was close; Hart made up a 17 point polling deficit and won by 9.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/
Fun Stuff. other than Florida, the South is done. More work to do, but nice to see the conventional primary polling and punditry is trashed.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm
Have fun, Blouise! It was in the seventies here yesterday. Bernie got the Muslim vote in Michigan. Minneapolis’s very liberal congressman. Keith Ellison, campaigned for him there. He originates from Michigan. They will come back to Hillary in the fall so no worries. Lots of talk about Sherrod for vp on MSNBC last night. I think Castro is too young and he would not help the ticket in Texas. I don’t think anyone would.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Bernie also did well in very white rural areas. Some of those voters could go to Trump in the fall but Hillary can win Michigan with large turnouts in urban areas. Her husband’s record on free trade definitely hurt her in a state that has not recovered from the deep recession.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm
“One result that has stayed consistent on the Democratic side is that self-identified independents are far more likely to vote for Sanders. The current exit poll estimate is that he is winning them in Michigan by a 70 percent to 28 percent margin. Clinton, on the other hand, leads among self-identified Democrats by 57 percent to 41 percent. Although party registration doesn’t necessarily match identification, it gives you an idea that Sanders really benefits from open primaries.” five thirty eight
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/trump-clinton-lead-florida-ohio/ Ohio is closed so maybe the polling is better there.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 2:10 pm
“Jennifer Jacobs @JenniferJJacobs 35m35 minutes ago West Des Moines, IA
Dem delegates so far:
Clinton 1,221
Sanders 571
Needed to win 2,383
March 15 states FL IL MO NC OH
All D delegates divvied proportionally.
6 retweets 3 likes
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 2:18 pm
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-upsets-clinton-michigan-loses-ground-delegates?cid=sm_fb_maddow
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 3:12 pm
Blouise, The NRA’S favorable comments about Bernie helped him in the rural areas of Michigan.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 4:16 pm
“Blouise, The NRA’S favorable comments about Bernie helped him in the rural areas of Michigan”
SwM/Bernie,
As someone who will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, I must say you are casting at straws. Bernie’s victory wasn’t about the NRA. Hillary had two big problems exacerbated by the debate in Flint. From a technique standpoint her answers were far to long and she seemed to run on and run on. The second was her attack on Bernie’s “Bailout” vote and his retort about the Clinton fondness for trade treaty’s, especially NAFTA. That treaty directly related to auto manufacturers moving overseas, or to Canada. Michigan has a savvy electorate, made more savvy by the UAW. All of those laid off for auto factory workers know very well why their companies moved operations away. The fact is that this was an enormous win for Bernie.
Hillary needs to start refining her messaging and relying on her fame to carry the day, rather than trying to tear down Bernie. By doing so she only elevates him to equal status and pisses off people like me who are willing to vote for her. What she has done right is essentially mimic Bernie’s campaign, which she can safely do relying on her being so much more well-known. The more she presents herself as an agent of change and less as a policy wonk, the better she will do.
A key example of that is in the debate when they asked her about whether she was against “fracking”, a hot button issue. She essentially equivocated, whereas Bernie answered with a definite yes. She needs to limit her equivocation and triangulation. There is a difference between campaigning and holding elective office. Her hesitation about certain things, like fracking, hurts her and I think that as in 2008, she has been getting bad campaign advice. From my perspective, even as I’m about to vote for Bernie in Florida, I want a Democrat to win the Presidency. Hillary needs to change her style, because even if she wins the nomination, she can lose the general by missing the key point of this election. This election is driven by people wanting something new politically, her current advisers are doing her a disservice. Bill is unfortunately not the one to give her the best advice.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Ooopsie!
I meant “SwM/Blouise”. Freudian slip?
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm
“The former Secretary of State has been campaigning heavily in Michigan for weeks. Nearly two months ago, she made the water crisis in Flint a centerpiece of her campaign by raising the issue in the Democratic debate in South Carolina. She pushed the Sanders campaign to hold a subsequent debate in Flint, and flaunted her wonkiness and can-do policy expertise by bringing national attention to the beleaguered city.
Clinton aides and allies boasted about her performance in Sunday’s debate, where Sanders sometimes spoke over her and seemed stuck on the issue of gun control. “Bernie Sanders’ week has been filled with missteps, temper tantrums, wacky defenses of dangerous policy positions, and tone-deafness on issues that are deeply important to voters,” Brad Woodhouse, president of the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record said in a memo.”
http://time.com/4252113/bernie-sanders-michigan-upset-primary/
Then there’s this: “Perhaps more importantly, Sanders closed some of the gap among black voters, winning 30% among that demographic—significantly behind Clinton, but much better than he performed in Southern states.”
And finally: “For progressives supporting Sanders, the victory breathes new life into a campaign for which some have already been preparing obituaries. And it proves that angst over trade deals, which many Americans blame for the country’s loss of manufacturing jobs, is enough to sway voters.
“The Beltway elite may never have really understood why job-killing trade deals are such a big deal,” said Dan Cantor, national director of the Working Families Party, which has endorsed Sanders. “But the people of Michigan surely do, and Bernie Sanders does too.”
The bottom line is this. Hillary’s winning is dependent upon her finally realizing what this election is about. This is her problem, because being part of the Corporate Party wing, she doesn’t understand the dynamic of this race. Bernie is competitive, Trump is leading and Cruz a close second, because the people are tired of the same old rhetoric of politics. Hillary has the intelligence to see beyond her pre-suppositions of what a politician used to need to do, whether she has the self-awareness to understands her failings is another matter.
BTW, Blouise, enjoy that road trip, it sounds like fun.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm
“Bernie’s victory wasn’t about the NRA.” Mike S. Disagree that Bernie’s positions on guns did not help him rack up the votes in rural areas which is how he won. Is that the entire picture? No,but it certainly was a factor.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:00 pm
emptywheel @emptywheel 2h2 hours ago
Another point: Remember all those Dems mocking NRA’s comment on Bernie 2 days ago? He won where Dems love guns, by huge #s.
8 retweets 4 likes Emptywhell lives in Michigan.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:11 pm
ff course the main driver for Sanders and Trump was the desperate state of the Michigan economy. It has only recovered from the decession marginally compared to many other states. But in close election, NRA members do have an impact. Ask John Dingell.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:29 pm
From the road and heading into Republican Land.
Leaving out the supers, he’s 210 delegates behind her. (In Michigan he ended up with only 7 more delegates than she got – 65 to 58.) He needs to win big in a big state in order to catch, then pass her. Otherwise he won’t be able to attract any supers to his column. If all he’s interested in is pushing his message then these close margins are fine but if he wants to win the nomination, he needs some big victories)
The gun thing did play a role. My oldest daughter lives in northern Michigan and she was telling us over the weekend that the NRA was pushing big for him through emails and the like. She figures all those people will go for Trump in the general but took this opportunity to flex their voting muscle for Sanders.
BTW. I got to go to that coffee (another reason I waited to hit the road) It was great.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:34 pm
I’m sure Sanders will be coy about his buddies at the NRA. 😉
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:48 pm
I meant “SwM/Blouise”. Freudian slip? – Mike
Harrumph! There is no way to confuse me and Sanders. He has all that wild white hair while mine has the “peacock” look. Yes, my hair is brown with highlights of blue, purple, teal, and silver. And, because I am old and don’t give a damn, I can carry it off. Freudian slip, my eyebrow.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Signing off. Lunch is over
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Don’t think Bernie will get the gun people in Florida.They will stay in the republican primary.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:33 pm
SwM,
I think that’s why Mook started to walk back expectations on Monday. They picked up on the NRA push that started over the weekend. Hey, way back when Sanders made his first successful run for national office, the NRA helped him big time. I sure they’d much rather have him as the nominee than Clinton. They know they can work with him. Of course, come November, they’ll all vote for Trump.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:36 pm
You are right about Florida but they might come out for Sanders in Ohio. Lots of gun nuts in Ohio.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Kentucky is a beautiful state!
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 10:20 pm
Um, er…..what color are your eyebrows?
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Mike,
Excellent! All those karaoke sessions at summer camp taught you how to take the pitch.
Brown and, sadly, no Lady Gaga eyelids. After all, one does not go to meet the future first female President of the USA sporting red sparkle eyeshadow. BTW … best National Anthem ever done thanks to Lady Gaga
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Good explanation of how the republicans will run a contested convention trying to block Trump. I plan to have a front row seat as a +1guest. I’ll need a gun if I want to blend in. Maybe Sanders can get one of his NRA buds to loan me one.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/09/us/politics/how-trump-could-be-blocked-at-a-contested-republican-convention.html
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 12:22 am
Another interesting article for Political Science nerds like me
Image of graph:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/03/OLIVER-authoritariangraph.jpg&w=1484
Article:
Trump’s voters aren’t authoritarians, new research says. So what are they?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/09/trumps-voters-arent-authoritarians-new-research-says-so-what-are-they/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_cage
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 1:08 am
Gaga was superb, but Whitney’s was damn fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 10, 2016 at 3:13 am
IP,
Yes, she was, indeed. I didn’t expect anyone to come close to Whitney’s offering which is part of the reason Gaga blew me away.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 3:45 am
Yes, I don’t think we know how fine a singer Gaga is. I never realized it until I heard her sing with Bennett. Actually, I think her ‘Banner’ surpasses Whitney’s, although Whitney may have shown more passion.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:16 am
My wonkiness:
Diction superb and she keeps her throat open and relaxed by the way she doesn’t fully pronounce the “r’s” at the end of a word … like “air”. You think you hear the “r” but it’s really “aaahr”. That kind of diction takes hours and hours of practice to learn
Her vibrato is even and sustained which indicates a strong core and a stance that looks relaxed but is actually firmly clutched buttock muscles that support the diaphragm. Controlling vibrato, especially in a high tense situation, is pure muscle.
Her pitch, or ear, must be close to perfect as she only has a piano backing her and her range is smack on from bottom to top.
Her treatment of the word “gallantly” was quietly spectacular.
The pause between the last “the” and “brave” was done to hit the flyover exactly.
She owned it.
I’m out of town using my Fire tablet which doesn’t post tube url well so I’ll try the NFL video so you can see what I mean
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl/0ap3000000634472/Lady-Gaga-sings-the-National-Anthem
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:19 am
I’m going to agree with you on the passion bit. Gaga’s is a performance but Whitney’s seems to spring from deep within thus more genuine.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 7:23 am
Damn fine wonk! And it’s nice you agree about the passion.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 1:37 pm
The NRA? I think nobody is more pro-gun than the South, and Hillary is winning nearly everything south of the Mason Dixon line. Bernie is not against gun control, he has a D minus rating with the NRA (F in 2003) because he consistently votes for strong background checks, limited magazines, a ban on assault and automatic weapons, and closing of the gun show loophole for background checks. He is well to the left of many Democrats on gun control.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 1:43 pm
“The NRA? I think nobody is more pro-gun than the South, and Hillary is winning nearly everything south of the Mason Dixon line.” In the south the white NRA folks vote almost exclusively for republicans. Doubt the gun people are hanging out in the democratic primary in the south but in the north there are many working class hunters that do vote in the democratic primary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 10, 2016 at 1:44 pm
Interesting Study: Trump voters are NOT authoritarians (Cruz voters are though).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/09/trumps-voters-arent-authoritarians-new-research-says-so-what-are-they/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_cage
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 3:02 pm
When I first heard of Gaga and hadn’t seen her perform, I thought she was a Madonna wannabe. My wife made me listen and now she is my favorite performer today. She is a formally trained musician. Beyond that though, she is highly intelligent in her choices and the thought she puts into her performances. Last summer we saw her and Tony Bennett live at the Bethel Arts Center, an open air amphitheater on the site of the original Woodstock. They both were superb and the night was magical under the stars. Her recent performance at the Academy Awards teared me up, it was so beautiful.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:11 pm
MM,
Are you commenting on my post from 12:22am?
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:17 pm
The NRA? – MM
Read the history regarding his first successful election to the House. You’re all about Clinton’s past. Don’t ignore Sanders. He was pro NRA when he needed their money and endorsement to win his Vermont seat. They know they can work with him.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:21 pm
When I first heard of Gaga and hadn’t seen her perform, I thought she was a Madonna wannabe. – MM
That’s exactly what I thought until I heard her. Her thorough preparation indicates the level of respect she has for her audience. Admirable.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:23 pm
Oops … sorry, that quote about Gaga was Mike’s. My tablet changed it to MM. Probably going to have to buy a new tablet.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Sanders has some problems looming. Record keeping on illegal donations to his campaign and questions regarding campaign expenses are being asked by the FEC. I’m sure it’s just a staffer’s sloppiness.
FEC report
Click to access 201602110300034988.pdf
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 7:07 pm
Whatever those are, Blouise, I fear they are dwarfed multiple times by Hillary’s re emails 🙂
If they really want a woman at the helm, maybe Democrats can recruit Jill Stein? No jail time looming for here…no legacy that is still murdering women and children worldwide…
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 7:43 pm
Blouise: He was pro NRA when he needed their money
Unlike me (or many like me), Bernie has said more than once he is pro hunting and pro-gun within reasonable limits of sport and self-defense; he doesn’t believe people have a right to assault weapons or other militarized weapons of war.
Since you have done it so often recently, I will not research your claim, I will assume you are making a partisan mis-characterization of something he has done that is consistent with the gun rights he believes in and his Vermont constituents believe in, and you are exaggerating his “support” for the NRA. He has a D minus rating from the NRA, and an F in 2003. Show me a link if I am wrong.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 7:47 pm
Blouise: Are you commenting on my post from 12:22am?
Oops! No, I did not realize you had already posted that same link.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:06 pm
MM,
Of course, why look at something you don’t want to see … let’s make it my fault. If you remember in the very first post I addressed to you regarding Sanders I mentioned his gun problem. You responded that you didn’t know anything about that.
We are not talking gun rights. We talking about the bill that opposed a mandatory waiting period for handguns. He promised the NRA and then publicly stated he would vote against the bill if elected.. The NRA spent the money to attack his rival. Sanders won and, like a good little boy, voted against the bill. I know you want to think that’s hype but it ain’t. His opponent’s name was Smith. He was the incumbent who decided he couldn’t face himself in the mirror (direct quote from Smith) if he voted for that Bill. Sanders had no such problem.
My Senator was a Congressman and before that he held state office. We have a lot of hunters in Ohio. We have a lot of gun owners in Ohio. He never accepted money or help from the NRA and guess what, he won election after election without them.
Sanders wanted to win and he was willing to accept NRA help to do so. Mirror, mirror on the wall ….
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:43 pm
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/10/another_trump_rally_turns_violent_black_protestor_punched_in_the_face_while_being_kicked_out_of_north_carolina_rally_by_police/ People are not going to forget about this violence as MM has stated. More than half of his own party does not want him to be the nominee.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 11:35 pm
The sheriff department’s explanation as to why they handcuffed and detained the black man rather than arrest the white man who’d hit him was pathetic. Thanks to the video they know the white man’s identity. Let’s see what happens next. Anyone want to make a wager?
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 11:39 pm
In the earlier post detailing Sanders association with the NRA I typed “bill that opposed” which should be “bill that proposed”
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 11:44 pm
No jail time looming for here – po
Wishful thinking, po. No jail time for Clinton either. Right wing bullshit
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 11:56 pm
I wonder if Trump is going to pay the white guy’s legal fees … that is if charges aren’t dismissed. He did promise to do so at one of his earlier really.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 12:20 am
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 1:27 am
SwM,
Oh boy. Might have to kill him, eh? Send lawyers, guns, and money. The shit has hit the fan.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 1:42 am
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/10/3758686/trump-campaign-accuses-assaulted-reporter-of-lying/ As predicted the violence is getting out of control, Blouise. You have to wonder how much of this the public will tolerate. I know some here think he will be the next president but I highly doubt it. Wonder if Trump will have to address the violence in tonight’s debate.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 1:57 am
I pledge $1M to anyone that can imagine President Trump being able to engender such an article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
Wonder what you guys think of it.
Warning: Stuff said here that makes HRC pretty scary. However, nothing that we didn’t already know…
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 2:03 am
SwM,
Remember the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago that followed the assassination of MLK and RFK? Wonder if republicans will bring all their angry old white men to Cleveland this year?
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 3:37 am
IP,
That is some assignment you gave us. It was a good one and I believe I have a better understanding of Obama’s foreign policy aims after reading the article. I see the reasoning behind his retrenchment and realist-driven restraint and no one can deny that in spite of all that he is, indeed, the most successful terrorist-hunter in the history of the presidency. I also agree that China should be our main focus in attempting to build future bonds of partnership.
The Middle-East is the perennial stumbling block. I am more of a hawk and believe Libya was about as successful as we’re ever going to be. In other words, no matter how well we do, we will fail. I suspect Clinton, also a hawk, learned that lesson. The question is, what will she do when the next Libya pops up. At least her judgement will be informed, educated and, hopefully, sound. Her experience in these matters is one of the things I am counting on knowing full well that the next Libya will not be like the last one, or like Iraq, or like Syria. It will be its own unique shit storm. (I do think we should have gone after ISIS while they were still forming in Libya but that’s me operating with 20/20 hindsight.)
There is one quote from the article with which I agree 100%. We are often our own worst enemy because:
“I believe that we have to avoid being simplistic. I think we have to build resilience and make sure that our political debates are grounded in reality. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the value of theater in political communications; it’s that the habits we—the media, politicians—have gotten into, and how we talk about these issues, are so detached so often from what we need to be doing that for me to satisfy the cable news hype-fest would lead to us making worse and worse decisions over time.” -Obama
Thanks for the article. There is much in it that I still must ponder.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:06 am
Blouise, the ME is a major stumbling block because we keep making it so. Of all the candidates, only one, not even a candidate, Jill stein is calling for an end to our tromping around in the ME. Everyone else is calling for a slightly reduced or increased form of the Obama doctrine, when they are not calling for Armageddon wholesale.
This brings us to Hillary and the eminent role she played in much of what’s going on in the ME. Not having learned from her Iraq vote, she insisted on “the we came, we saw, he died” in Libya, and is calling for much the same, if not worse in Syria, as she did about Iran.
She is much like McCain, as she has yet to see a war she doesn’t like.
To think she has learned anything from the Libyan debacle as she keeps justifying it and doubling down on the hawkish rhetoric is to be self-deluding.
If her judgement hasn’t improved, gotten sounder and more informed after being trounced by Obama based partially on her Iraq vote, by her doubling down with a push in Libya and elsewhere, there is no way in any hell that she would refrain from more of the same.
She is immoral, she is deceitful, she is cold hearted and her hubris does not allow her to learn lessons. And as we spread out between Ukraine and Russia, China and the South China seas, iran and Syria, a wounded lion being tailed by a pack of hyenas, the fact that we keep speaking as if we are still the major power in the globe, supreme and unscathed fascinates me. And this is the worse time ever to have someone as president who feels she is an empress and can do as she wills.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:09 am
*If her judgement hasn’t improved, gotten sounder and more informed after being trounced by Obama based partially on her Iraq vote, by her doubling down with a push in Libya and elsewhere she is showing us that there is no way in any hell that she would refrain from more of the same.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:35 am
All of which documented right here by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44401.htm
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:43 am
Careful, po, you’ll pop a blood vessel.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:48 am
and as for the Obama doctrine piece, I haven’t read it yet and am not sure I will for 2 reasons.
1- I have come to distrust Goldberg and whatever he writes
2- I have come to distrust Obama and whatever he says. He is actually quite a skilled manipulator, which is to be expected, but still.!
I know his legacy and it is one that enabled the oligarchs’ hold, the military-industrial complex’s spread, legitimized torture and banks malfeasance, spread the fields of battle, droned record numbers of civilians, deported record numbers of immigrants… That legacy is pretty clear to me, and it was clear enough that I did not vote for him again.
here is a short rebuttal of the essay.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44407.htm
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:03 am
Haha…you are right, Blouise, I better chill!
After watching some of the Rep debate however, I am ready to give up, crawl into a hole and remain there for a few months.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:31 am
po,
I’m lazily whilling away the time here in Republican Land. My host is a staunch, moderate republican who is grieving the loss of his party to what he calls “over the top emotional twits”. He also wants to crawl into a cave and forget the world. So, you’re not alone.
I’m happy with Clinton as my candidate so I won’t be joining y’all in the cave.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 8:40 am
blouise
That’s been my worry is that as the republican circus spirals further out of control that some traditional moderate republicans (the money people) may begin to see Hillary as a viable alternative.
The worry is, what will they want and what will she give.
jeez now I sound like a concern troll.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 12:55 pm
po” And this is the worse time ever to have someone as president who feels she is an empress and can do as she wills.” i don’t agree with that narrative. It is the narrative of the far right and far left. I think that is only thing the far right Ted Cruz voters and the Jill Stein voters agree on. I think she has been humbled by the many disappointments she has experienced along with her own personal knowledge of who she is and where she is going. She is a bit too hawkish but an empress, no. Trump will be proud to be an emperor in his golden palaces.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm
pete, There is talk of a conservative republican running as a third party if Trump wins. I assume that person would attract the republican votes and not Hillary.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 1:27 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-debate-miami_us_56e24024e4b0860f99d889c0?9wqxgvi
“The Republican debate on Thursday night was calm, civil and respectful. It was also shot through with a depth of extremism that would have shocked the nation as recently as 2012.”
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 4:29 pm
SWM, even the fact that we compare Hillary to Trump tells us the measure of the problem.
The emailgate proves without a doubt that she is indeed an empress, not one who luxuriate in gold, but one who thinks to be bigger than the rules. She has broken or bent the rules time after time after time in order to make them fit her purposes, and rather than acknowledge her mistakes she routinely doubles down and claims either ignorance or conspiracy against her.
i have been waiting to see her disappointments translate into some humility, some heart-warming, some reversing of her course…but not, she has doubled down on every item on that long list that she has been chastised for!
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:03 pm
even the fact that we compare Hillary to Trump tells us the measure of the problem. – po
They are being compared because they are the front runners. Her supporters stopped listening to the right-wing narrative you keep rehashing years ago. We know her faults, we know her strengths, and we want her in the Oval.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:07 pm
po,I really see very few comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They are very much opposites.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Certainly have not seen her cheering on violent behavior at her rallies.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:29 pm
Pete,
Thank god, you’ve expressed a concern not based on screeching hysteria. I share that concern which started a few months ago when many of my republican female friends indicated they were going to vote for her. Would Clinton’s internal polling pick up on this and push her more to the center right?
Now, if someone like Kacish were to get the nomination I’m pretty sure most of them would vote for him.
I think we just have to see how it plays out. SwM suggested the third party option that the Republicans may be considering. That’s a real possibility that would keep the moderates from going to Clinton. I don’t think the republicans are as worried about losing the Oval as they are about losing all the state offices that are part of the coattails. Trump may be killing their chances at the Oval but he’s wreaking total havoc within their their state organizations.
This presents a further concern that is tied to the one you voiced. Clinton is a Democrat of long standing and, unlike Sanders, a real team player. The chaos within the Republican organization presents some long term advantages to Democrats at the state level. You see what I mean?
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:44 pm
SWM, Trump is not saying anything the Republican party has not been saying in some form or another, and Hillary is not saying anything that different from what the Republicans have been saying.
The difference between Hillary and Trump?
Trump was against the Iraq invasion unlike she would not be named…
Trump was against the Libyan deconstruction, unlike she…
Trump wants to stay out of Syria, unlike…
Trump wants to talk to Russia, Hillary wants escalation…
Yes, they are opposites but Trump wins that matchup.
As for Hillary’s faults, Blouise, what are they? Perhaps I missed your listing.
As for her supporters, she is by default the best candidate, not the preferred candidate. Even your republican friends are not voting for her because she is the best candidate, they are in opposition to Trump.
All the polls are clear about how little she is liked, and how little she is trusted.
Then again, we are all entitled to being tribal. If people voted for Obama because he is black, then yes, people can vote for Hillary because she is a woman, not because she is any more than that.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Same old rant, po. Nobody is listening anymore.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 5:59 pm
I would have voted for Obama in the general election in 2008 and 2012. It did not matter that he was black because he was the far superior candidate. For some reason his approval ratings are way up. Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate this time.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:07 pm
SwM,
It gives them comfort to think it’s just tribal or gender biased. She’s the only one equipped to both know what the job actually is and how to do it. All their screeching and name calling is beginning to sound Trumpish.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:07 pm
Blouise
As I said, tribalism calls for turning deaf to the truth.
Swm
How was Obama a superior candidate over Clinton? Experience? He had none!
Value statement? If so, this Clinton candidate is less moral than that Clinton candidate.
Clinton is the superior candidate only if we take her experience without its consequences.
(As for Kissinger)The world is a worse place because Clinton is in it! Harsh, certainly, true, certainly!
And therefore the country is less safe because of Hillary’s “qualifications.”
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:11 pm
I said Obama was the far superior candidate in the general.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:12 pm
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/obama-approval-rating-hits-3-year-high.html And yes, if Obama was the nominee again he would win no matter what nonsense you read on RIL.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:16 pm
Hillary and,yes, even St. Bernie are trying to attach themselves to Obama while Trump, Cruz and Rubio claim he is a total failure.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:25 pm
The world is a worse place because Clinton is in it! – po
Bingo! Emotional Trumpism! The rhetoric of the rant that fuels the anger and justifies the fanatic! They never fail to take that one step too far.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:34 pm
I don’t doubt Obama would win again, SWM. And with the experience he has now, he would run laps around the other candidates.
But when he ran against Hillary in democratic primary, he certainly was not the candidate he would be right now. And still he won, despite his inexperience,, despite her extensive experience…why?
She was still a woman, and yet she did not win a clear majority of the female vote!
What did Obama have above her? Change we can believe in! What is Bernie challenging her on? Change we can believe in.
With all of her vast experience, she lost to a political neophyte then, is being challenged by a Bernie now, whose problems I have stated here.
How valuable really are those qualifications if they fared so poorly against a newbie and seem to be a liability against Bernie to the point where Hilary is riding Obama’s coattails while her husband attacks his legacy? What is Hillary offering other than she is not Trump and she is a woman?
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:35 pm
SwM,
Rubio wants his Ohio people to vote for Kasich. This desperation is great political farce.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:38 pm
I am not sure what you are saying, Blouise. Are you lumping me with the Trumpets? Can’t I come to my feelings about Hillary legitimately, consciously, logically? Are you saying that I am under emotionally induced hysteria…? Coming from a woman who is fighting just that, that feels doubly unfair.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:43 pm
yet she did not win a clear majority of the female vote! po
A clear majority …. hmmmm … is there such a thing as an unclear majority? How about a murky majority?
SwM, you’re right. This is RIL type deep thinking.
Time to go to the distillery
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:46 pm
Po, I think Obama offered hope and change in a time when everything was falling apart. Now that the economy has improved Hillary is offering stability while Bernie is offering change with a negative slant rather than a hopeful one. I started out being for Edwards in 2008 so did not have too much invested in Hillary or Obama.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 6:49 pm
Yes, blouise, 60% vs 51% makes the difference between a clear majority vs barely a majority…
SWM, good point. about hope vs stability. However, the economy really has not improved enough to assuage the fears people feel. We are actually more apprehensive about the future than we have ever been.
Socially, people are lost, confused and fearful, hence Trump’s appeal.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 8:12 pm
po,Do you really think “lost, confused and fearful’ explains the racism displayed at the the Trump events?
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 8:13 pm
Nate Silver Retweeted
Gabriel Debenedetti @gdebenedetti 15m15 minutes ago
Favorability among Hispanics, according to Gallup:
Clinton +33
Sanders +19
Rubio +6
Kasich +1
Cruz -4
Trump -65
http://bit.ly/1QKqWOe
View summary
268 retweets 188 likes
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 8:33 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/list-racist-things-trump-rallies_us_56d7019ae4b0871f60ed519f no coincidence
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 9:14 pm
In some ways (many ways?) the racism that has been unleashed IS Obama’s fault.
The instant opposition upon his election and the constant racial attacks he and Michelle endured from all segments of Republicans, including country club and establishment types, have fostered and nurtured and empowered hate and fear across this country. Much of the racism was dog whistle stuff. It was not called out by the press, and in fact it was encouraged by the number one network – Fox. So here we are today – racism is now unleashed and roaming the body politic.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm
po, I don’t think this nativist strain that rears its ugly head every so often has anything to do with the unemployment rate.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 10:45 pm
The people I associate with aren’t the least bit lost, confused or fearful. Quite the opposite which is why the angry rhetoric trumpeted by those who are is not received with any enthusiasm and dismissed as emotionalism run amuck.
I was not a huge Obama fan but his measured approach won me over. I am amazed, given the sheer stupidity of so many of the sitting Republican House and Senate members, that he was able to accomplish so much. Clinton is correct in deciding to build on that legacy. Given the state of the Republican Party at this time, her job will be easier than his was.
In a rather tongue in cheek manner (with a nod to IP), I thank Trump for pulling all this ugliness out of the bars, schools, churches, and country clubs and giving it an open forum to shout from the roof tops. The hatred, misogyny, vulgarity, and racism has been showcased to the extent that his followers and others who engage in his frenzied hysteria rhetorical style will never be able to find another dark corner in which to hide.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 11:31 pm
I was struck by the remark that Clinton was ‘often chastised’. Really? Sounds like something you do to a little girl.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 11:57 pm
Be a good girl.
The rhetoric chosen reveals a great deal.
And then there is the tribe reference.. Assigning people to tribes helps foster tribalism which aides conflict. I belong to far too many tribes to pick just one. I’m a multi-triber.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 1:01 am
swarthmoremom
March 11, 2016 at 8:12 pm
po,Do you really think “lost, confused and fearful’ explains the racism displayed at the the Trump events?
———————————————
SWM, there is never one single factor to anything but lost, confused and fearful goes a long way towards explaining much upheaval. That is why “these are the people who make your lives miserable” works so well to rally the bigoted and xenophobes.
“Keep the terrorist Muslims out” offers a semblance of solution to the fearful lot. So does “keep the Mexican rapists out!”
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 1:12 am
InsufferablePedant
March 11, 2016 at 11:31 pm
I was struck by the remark that Clinton was ‘often chastised’. Really? Sounds like something you do to a little girl.
blouise
March 11, 2016 at 11:57 pm
Be a good girl.
The rhetoric chosen reveals a great deal.
——————————–
Wow! This is rather fascinating! What is it with you guys (oops, I wonder what that says about me), and forcing us into a misogynistic straitjacket?
I noticed that every point MM advanced against Hillary was met with a Blouise dismissal as gender biased…now she is working me with the same tactics!
Worse yet, you are bringing up RIL as an influence upon my comments!
Come on, let us please have the decency to hold a civil discussion that doesn’t rely on these types of argumentation.
My anti-Hillary comments are as gender biased as your anti-Bernie comments, Blouise, are antisemitic!
I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 against Obama, does that make me anti-man or anti-black?
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 1:12 am
In victory for Sanders, Ohio judge says 17-year-olds can vote in primary
This is a victory for voting rights. Students brought this suit long before Sanders climbed on board and they were correct to do so. Seventeen year olds who will be eighteen before election day in November have always been allowed to vote in the Presidential Primary (since 1981) in Ohio.
Why this Republican Secy of State ruled otherwise is beyond me. I hope the higher court upholds this lower court ruling.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 1:31 am
Yes, yes, po, I know. Frustrating, isn’t it. A righteous angry rant deserves more than just a reflection of oneself in a mirror. What can I tell you? I’m just not angry or fearful enough. I guess you’ll have to be content with chastising me.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 1:41 am
Chicago Trump rally cancelled due to protests.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 2:01 am
No worries, Blouise, sometimes the most fearful are the ones who refuse to see…finger in ears, eyes closed and yelling lalallalalalalalala goes a long way toward making the world less fearful 🙂
Such a shame, so unfair that the empire ends right after the black man and the woman! As president, Hillary can finally finish the job she started in Haiti, Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya…etc…
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 2:07 am
SwM,
Some interesting quotes coming out of the melee:
“Siddiqui says he’s a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. He says it “feels amazing” to have stopped Trump from speaking at his own rally.” (FOX)
Then we have Sanders himself being quoted in the Washington Post:
“I hope that we are not in a moment in American history where people are going to be intimidated and roughed up and frightened about going to a political rally. … I hope Mr. Trump speaks out forcefully and tells his supporters that that is not what the American political process is about.”
Me thinks the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.
Remember Chicago in ’68?
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 2:28 am
Yes i was there.I saw people being beaten and bloodied. I was a chicken.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 2:37 am
SwM,
I was on the road with a jazz group so, thankfully, missed it all.
I wonder if this is a preview of things to come. If so, it’s going to be a long, hot summer.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 2:57 am
Cruz just had a press conference during which he said that Trump was ultiimately accountable for the tone he has set in the campaign and the resulting violence.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 3:24 am
And thus Trump keeps his brand front and center stage.
My poor host is getting more and more depressed over the state of his party. We are all resting up for a big dinner party tomorrow night. I will be trying to stay afloat in a sea of Republicans. He told me there are no Trump supporters invited.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:07 am
Turley must be thrilled to death. This gives him a whole new post to rip the liberal universities for shutting down free speech. He writes those when he is not posting headlines that Hillary is indicted and sentenced to twenty years for child rape. The third day he writes about child rape in Pakistan. Then all the right wingers praise him although he is a well-know liberal.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:31 am
po has just unloaded a pile of bullshit with the Salon article. This crap was from a book written by a Republican strategist – and one with a bad reputation. Be advised…po often uses truly terrible sources! One of his favorites is something called Washington’s blog – a real propaganda site. A favored writer there writes that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Here’s some info on Peter Schweizer
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:37 am
Jesus! Schweizer is an editor-at-large for Breitbart!
po owes us a fuckin’ apology for pedaling this crap. Use it over at Turley’s. There are lots there that will eat it up.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:40 am
IP,
I have not been back there in years. Once the crazies moved in, I moved out. When I first joined that blog it was a thing of beauty. There were some really great lawyers posting and they would have these arguments that just sparkled. It was a little intimidating at first but they were all happy to stop and educate the new kid then resume the argument. That’s where I learned not to bite on the bait or react with emotionalism.
Then the right-wingers started showing up and the discourse went from sparkle to ugly. I still miss Vince Treacy but it’s where I met Mike, SwM, gbk, and Slarti (they were already there when I came on board)and we have remained good friends. We have never met in person.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:42 am
Shit! He got me so mad I fucked up peddling…
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:47 am
Jesus! Schweizer is an editor-at-large for Breitbart! – IP
That’s why I never bite on po’s bait. It just reeks right-wing extremism. Unless he’s talking about Islam. Then I listen
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:49 am
Falling off a stationary bike hurts.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 4:57 am
blouise
The liken his blog to porn and unfortunately I’m both an addict and a judge. I judge Turley to see how low he has sunk, and it’s very low indeed, and to learn just how many insane people reside in the USA. po takes an awful beating over there but he is living proof that the insanity there is infectious.
Christ! He won’t read an article from the Atlantic but relies on bullshit from a Breitbart editor!
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:22 am
What was Hillary thinking when she tweeted that Nancy and Ronnie Reagan pioneered in raising awareness about AIDS? I get it that she apologized, but having had friends and co-workers die in the 80’s and also working with those who ran NYC’s AIDS program, I knew then that the Reagan involvement was too little too late. How could Hillary not know that? Look at Dan Savage’s comments and the video he embedded: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/11/23698621/hillary-clinton-the-reagans-particularly-nancy-helped-start-a-national-conversation-about-hiv-and-aids
And speaking about what was she thinking there’s this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen-ben-and-jerrys/what-was-hillary-thinking-a-history-of-poor-decision-making_b_9442158.html
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:36 am
He won’t read an article from the Atlantic but relies on bullshit from a Breitbart editor! – IP
There’s a lot of that goin’ round
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:55 am
IP, I quoted one of many articles drawing a link between Hillary and Honduras. Interesting that you assumed that I consciously and deliberately aimed to quote that Peter guy when the article byline reads MATTHEW PULVER . Linking me directly to Peter is deceptive, for I quoted someone whose article quotes Peter.
This is the only part that names Peter :”Republicans really hit on something when they started making noise about the Clintons’ relationship with foreign governments, CEOs and corporations, following the lead set by Peter Schweizer’s bestselling “Clinton Cash.”
With some reading comprehension, we know that the issue first got notice when Peter Schweizer’s book came out. The article goes on to quote various sources other than that book. Additionally, the claims made in that article have been vouched for by various other reporters and articles. Look it up.
As for my sources, I subscribe to such sites as Counterpunch, Consortium News, Truthdig and Information Clearing house, all of which offer daily emails featuring salient articles by any of over 200 bloggers and journalists. Additionally, I read the Guardian, NYT, watch Democracy Now daily, AlJazeera, NPR, All IN with Chris hayes…
Furthermore, I read anything interesting I come across on twitter and facebook and emailed to me by friends.My news sources are varied and range the spectrum of crazy to mainstream.
As for you, blouise, right wing extremism? Bait?
How quickly did I go from getting your agreement when I supported your anti-Bernie stance vs MM to now having a right wing extremist bent?
When have I ever stated anything that would support that claim?
When have I ever baited you? Asking for your “proofs” is now baiting? What, am I Frankly now?
I am completely lost as how you are choosing to manage this issue! I guess everyone has a touchy spot…MM’s is religion, mine is Islam, Mike’s Israel and yours is Hillary.
The difference is that we acknowledge our bias and you, instead, are blaming others for your bias 🙂
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:59 am
I ‘ve got to repeat this, IP, that was pretty low. I have lost something for you there. You created a bullshit argument out of nowhere and built much drama around it. You remind me of some people at RIL. Perhaps you ought to stay away from that site, you have taken very bad habits!
Pity!
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:18 am
Mike,
The Goldwalter thing again? Back in ’64 my husband supported Goldwater because Goldwater was pro Nam and I supported Johnson because he promised to get us out of Nam. My husband told me Johnson was lying and would get us in deeper. Guess what, he was right. That was the only time he supported a Republican. He was only 19 years old. I remember the time as well as you do and we were still innocent as all hell. Nam was just starting, MLK and RFK were still alive, the riots hadn’t begun … all the horror was ahead of us. My husband’s parents were republican so that’s all he knew. After all the horror began, he became a Democrat and never looked back. If LBJ hadn’t pushed Civil Rights so well, I would’ve become a Republican because he had lied about Nam.
As to the AIDS comment. She misspoke, she apologized. I don’t really expect that to be anything but fuel for those who don’t support her candidacy. I would use it too if the shoe was on the other foot.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 7:12 am
po,
It’s politics, po, and she’s my candidate. Call it any name you want but I describe it as zeal.
I supported her in the ’90’s and have contributed to all of her campaigns. I’ve heard all the hate speech, all the insults and watched her pick herself up and get back to work. She has grit, po, and none of the people running against her have demonstrated a tenth of the strength she has proven to have time and time again. I don’t dislike Sanders. He a typical opportunist, a typical politician who’s lived a typical politician’s life. I’ve known dozens of Sanders. There’s nothing more there and never will be.
Those of us who support Clinton see her grit, see her strength, and know she can do the job and do it well.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 7:18 am
po
I know who had the byline. It is the first thing I notice. Apparently you don’t give a damn about who writes the crap you post. You are a fool. You pronounce that believe nothing and no one, but you believe a political hack who has been found multiple times to have published falsehoods and is employed by Breitbart. You recommend an author who believes Sandy Hook to be a hoax. You have recommended another that I reviewed and posted and a third party agreed that it was lurid political propaganda. Now, you have served us another steaming pile of shit and it has thoroughly soiled your reputation, your credibility and your character. I will not spend my time following a trail of junk posted by a man with so little judgment and respect for his readers.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 9:57 am
I much prefer Bernie but I can say that his campaign has really screwed the pooch here in Florida. My daughter and almost all of her friends are pro-Bernie and when I asked one the other day if they were registered Democratic so they could vote for him in the primary all I got was a blank look. Most of these kids don’t understand closed primaries and if Bernies campaign was planning to win here they should have been all over social media explaining to younger voters on what to do. I was on facebook trying to answer questions to about ten of her friends on what they needed to do. Hope he has better luck (or planning) in Ohio (open primary).
Also
I saw over at d kos that some people were having fits about Clinton saying at Nancy Reagan’s funeral that she helped people with AIDS.
She was at the lady’s funeral and somebody asked her to say something good about her. What else could she say? Oh boy, she sure married good? Or, “How about that Just say No”. Or maybe “Boy, she could sure pick good astrologists”.
Trump is trying to make the fourth reich, Cruz wants to change us to the U.S. of God and people are getting their panties in a wad because Hillary didn’t remember that 30 years ago Mrs. St Ronnie thought gay people deserved AIDS.
Priorities, people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
March 12, 2016 at 12:44 pm
Florida Democratic Presidential Primary Wash Post/Univision Clinton 64, Sanders 26 Clinton +38
Florida Democratic Presidential Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 62, Sanders 32I If those two polls are correct,
Bernie does not have a chance there and Hillary Clinton will rack up a large amount of delegates. The demographics of Florida do not favor Bernie and he is better off concentrating his efforts in the midwest.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Blouise
I supported Bill and voted for him.
I supported Hillary through all of Bill’s time in office and beyond despite the fact that I never trusted her. My intuition told me what it tells most people out there, according to the polls, that she is untrustworthy.
Yes, it is politics, and yes, zeal is fair, (until it isn’t ie Trump and his Trumpets) what isn’t however is to frame fair criticism as unfair criticism. Hillary has grit, no doubt, so did, Albright, so did Condi Rice, so does Samantha Powers (funny too that Powers called Hillary a monster 🙂 all of whom women who aided and abetted the oppression of women globally and whom I would be just as vehement about.
Monica Lewinsky too has grit. She was taken advantage of by Bill, savaged by Hillary and raped by the media and public opinion. She picked herself up and went on with her life.
Strength alone, picking up oneself of the ground alone (an uplifted, privileged ground that is) does not qualify one to be president. She got back to work making the lives of millions of people harsher, harder, and it benefited her standing, power and bank account. Those are fair criticism, but I do understand however that in politics as in real life we have to overlook some moral failings in our side in order to remain on that side, tribalism!
Politics is tribal.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Blouise,
The problem that I alluded to with her support of Goldwater wasn’t that she was a “Goldwater Girl”, but that she looks back fondly on that support. As I wrote on my last piece about Ayn Rand, there was a two year period in my teens when I though “objectivism” was a good idea because it fit in with my personal angst. I’ve looked back on that for years with ruefulness, not fondness. In the 90’s Hillary when asked about it, said she was proud of her work back then, in an effort then to show she had conservative chops. It was pandering and triangulation, which is what the Clinton’s did and do. Now the same thing happened with the Nancy Reagan comments. She made them in an effort to reach out to a broader base and that again is triangulation and inauthentic. Anyone who was an adult during the 80’s, with any modicum of political insight (which Hillary has in spades) understood that both Reagan’s had an awful record on AIDS. Nancy even shunned her close friend Rock Hudson in the time of his greatest need. Hillary was pandering again in her remarks about and this infuriates me and I’ll explain why.
As someone who is committed to voting for her if she’s the nominee, unlike MM for instance, I will do so with much regret. Not because I think her incapable, but because she and her husband were directly responsible for some terrible policies, which I knew at the time were wrong and foolish. They went that way not out of conviction, but because of political expediency. I believe that on so many issues she wants to do the right thing, but her judgment is modified by a timidity to get too out in front of the pack. This is where my distrust comes in. Barack Obama, similarly is a brilliant and to me very likable person. He has refused to draw the line when it comes to dealing with Republican intransigence. They ware willing to play chicken, on the budget for instance and he flinches and we get the Republican victory of sequestration. Hillary is of the same mold. I don’t doubt her commitment on Gay Rights, for instances, but like on other topics she “believes in,” it is all negotiable in the name of political expediency for what I see as short term gain. Her apology even for yesterday’s contretemps was tepid, “I misspoke?” Given the issue it should have been more effusive. I will vote for her, but it is hard to put my trust in her.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm
InsufferablePedant
March 12, 2016 at 7:18 am
po
I know who had the byline. It is the first thing I notice. Apparently you don’t give a damn about who writes the crap you post. You are a fool. You pronounce that believe nothing and no one, but you believe a political hack who has been found multiple times to have published falsehoods and is employed by Breitbart. You recommend an author who believes Sandy Hook to be a hoax. You have recommended another that I reviewed and posted and a third party agreed that it was lurid political propaganda. Now, you have served us another steaming pile of shit and it has thoroughly soiled your reputation, your credibility and your character. I will not spend my time following a trail of junk posted by a man with so little judgment and respect for his readers.
—————————————————
Insufferably pedantic
You chose your nom de plume well!
I was gonna respond in kind, calling you an idiot and the like, then I paused enough to wonder about your vehemence towards me, and as fitting the RIL tactics, you are rude and aggressive because that is all you’ve got! You are unable there as here to refute my arguments, therefore what do you do? What Trump does, rely on fallacies and aggression.
1- You accuse me of sourcing my article from Peter S. I show you are lying as not only did I not quote Peter S, the article does not quote him either!!!!
2- You went back in time and tied this supposed sourcing from a discredited writer to my having previously provided a source who believes Sandy Hook was a hoax. What does this have to do with that. What writer? In what context? Let’s assume that writer is wrong about Sandy, does it necessarily cause him to be wrong about everything else he writes? And regarding Washington’s blog, that 3rd party you name also vouched for it as a valid and valuable source!
3- You derived the conclusion that I am a bullshitter and therefore my arguments are not reliable. If your premise and argumentation is wrong, it is obvious your conclusion, more likely than not, is BS. And it is.
In summary, the only reputation, credibility and character ruined today, at your own hands I must add, is yours. Short of being able to defeat my arguments logically, factually, you have resorted to emotional attacks and fallacies… The good thing is you can only go up from here.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:28 pm
po,
Then she can’t count on your vote, right?
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:29 pm
And this brings me back to why I feel it matters little who is president as to what ultimately happens.
It becomes about whether what happens happens slowly of fast.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/former-cia-analyst-ray-mcgovern-obama-afraid-cia-nsa/214602/
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Blouise, as I said, I would rather vote for Trump than vote for Hillary. She is the devil I know… I know what she does as she has done over and over again, and she has promised to do more of the same. That would be immoral of me.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Mike,
My husband looked back fondly on that time supporting Goldwater too but only because Johnson turned out doing in Nam exactly what Goldwater would have. Remember the “Daisy” ad?
I will vote for her, but it is hard to put my trust in her. – Mike
I think she will surprise you. If she doesn’t then that means she surprised me.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 5:49 pm
po,
I’m sure Trump welcomes you support.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Blouise, thank God there are better options than Trump…and Hillary…including not voting 🙂
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Pete,
Re the primary in Ohio. Ohio is a semi-open primary. You do have to be registered and no, Sanders people have not done the kind of work that was needed to get the young people registered. They didn’t even sue about the most troubling thing that the Republicans did.
The Republican Secy of State changed the rules in December effectively keeping 17 year olds who will be 18 before election day in Nov from voting in the primary. They have always (since 1981) been allowed to do so. Students, not Sanders, sued and got a judge to rule from the bench in their favor but the Republican administration is appealing. It’s a mess and part of the ongoing republican voter suppression drive.
I can’t honestly blame the Sanders team though. We have been fighting the Republicans for years here over this voter suppression thing. That’s one of the reasons I recommend people be leary of Kasich. He is very much a part of this suppression movement.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm
po,
Write in your candidate. It will show up in the count as “other” but at least you’ll know your vote counted for something. Politicians do pay attention to the “other” numbers. I know two candidates who lost their party’s support because the “other” numbers were so high in key pricincts during their last election.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:37 pm
Good idea, Blouise, Jill Stein it is.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:37 pm
po,
I doubt Clinton or Trump will be bothered by the “other” numbers but your local politicians will be. Learn the system and play it to your advantage. You might find you get more satisfying choices down the road.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:43 pm
po,
Local politicians also get a breakdown of the “others” numbers which means they will see Stein’s numbers. If they are high enough they will have an impact at the local level.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:48 pm
In fact, that’s how Sanders got his start. He entered the Mayoral race and concentrated all his efforts on a few precincts where the numbers showed his best chances. He won the election by 10-12 (some reports say 10, some say 12) and he was off and running.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:58 pm
Great points, Blouise. I’ll pass along the message, a worthwhile reminder.
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 7:38 pm
I’m going to explain the tactics behind this particular voter suppression move and why Kasich’ administration did it.
Bernie Sanders is getting out the young vote and that young vote will be registering as Democrats so they can vote for him in the primary. That will increase the number of registered Democrats in Ohio which could impact heavily upon Ohio republicans in Nov at the ballot box. The impact would not be just federal but also impact republican local candidates and issues.
The time to stop this influx is the primary. Thus make it as difficult for new voters to register as possible. The republicans waited till Dec to change the law. That means that democrats only had Jan and part of Feb to go to court etc. Now given the fact that the new voters would have to register at least 30 days before voting and since even if they did register in Jan they couldn’t be sure they’d be able to vote in the primary … why bother. Voila … voter suppression. Hopefully, in the Republican mindset, the new voters won’t bother registering in time for the Nov election either.
Of course all this is done under the umbrella of “preventing voter fraud” and that, my dears, is the kind of democracy that Kasich supports.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 12, 2016 at 8:26 pm
I just posted this link on the comment thread for https://mikespindell.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/our-dystopian-future-based-on-libertarian-lunacy/.
It bears repeating here because of the ongoing discussion. If you remember that dystopian post it gave details as to the desperate situation in Honduras that evolved from running a “libertarian” society. This article shows how some of that came about under Hillary’s run in the State Department: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-honduras-coup-memoirs_us_56e34161e4b0b25c91820a08
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 8:46 pm
This was an Obama policy, right? The opinions on Zelaya are all over the place from authoritarian to freedom fighter.
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 2:08 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map?WT.mc_id=2016-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=115245&kwp_4=543329&kwp_1=289112 Maps of where both the dem and republican candidates have won.
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 6:49 pm
SwM,
I’m not sure MoveOn did Sanders any favors by organizing that protest in Chicago. I’ve counseled a couple young folk to not get involved. Trump will press charges and, if bad luck is with you, you could, quite unintentionally, get caught up in something. Such an arrest could have long term consequences when seeking employment. I know a young man who lost out on a good job because during a background check it was found that he had been arrested for stealing a pumpkin from a pumpkin patch as a fraternity initiation prank. He was shocked that a silly prank like that had such an impact on his future. Reality is a bitch.
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 7:33 pm
Blouise,
You’re right the Trump protest by MoveOn was a stupid idea, that could and probably has backfired.
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Blouise, It could back fire but it could also boost Sanders name recognition recognition. In some communities, he could be seen as the anti-Trump.
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 9:05 pm
“a background check it was found that he had been arrested for stealing a pumpkin from a pumpkin patch as a fraternity initiation prank.”
When I was a kid the way they took care of that was rock salt, a shotgun and your ass, no messing around with the police.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 12:55 am
Let’s have po’s favored journalists speak for themselves…
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/04/putin-send-troops-ukraine-finian-cunningham/
po often links paul craig roberts and thinks finian cunningham is a very fine journalist.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 1:25 am
po has also recommended this article
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/21/zim-shipping-evidence-they-knew-911-was-coming/
The article treads very very close to the Israelis did it.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 1:36 am
po believes this article backs up much of what was written in the veterans today piece.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44068.htm
This is published by his very popular information clearing house (a site also favored by Alex Jones). This article links Israel and the neo conservatives to 9/11 It also cites the possibility that the Shin Bet planned or allowed Rabin’s assassination.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 1:56 am
Mike and SwM,
I am 99.999% certain that Bernie Sanders would have never sanctioned organizing for the purpose of shutting down free speech, whether he approved of that speech or not.
What bothered me as much as the free speech issue was MoveOn purposely putting those young folk in jeopardy.
The ballot box is the place to register one’s displeasure with a candidate.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:01 am
And speaking of po’s post from Veterans Today, the SPLC says the following:
‘But start reading the posts, and you’ll find something else entirely: myriad claims that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 (Israel orchestrated it, in cahoots with the American government), that the American government is a puppet (of Israel), that the Holocaust never happened or was greatly exaggerated (Jews made it up to manipulate non-Jews), and, most recently, that Julian Assange, the man behind Wikileaks, is a pawn (of Israel)’
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2011/01/06/buyer-beware-veterans-today-and-its-anti-israel-agenda
I stand by my assessment of po and his sources. They are junk and taint all his ‘information’.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:02 am
When I was a kid the way they took care of that was rock salt, a shotgun and your ass, no messing around with the police. – bron
That’s how my grandfather would have handled it but this farmer was sick and tired of college kids stealing from his crop for it was part of his livelihood. He pressed charges against all 5 guys who were in the car. They were caught orange handed.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:04 am
IP,
You are what you read … or something like that
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:05 am
IP
I read articles by over 400 writers, bloggers and journalists across spectrum of journalism, PCR and Finnian are 2 of a great many.
And I happen to agree with Cunningham, perhaps your eyes are closed and you are ignorant of the what who why of the Ukraine and why Russia is justified in its actions there. Read up on it.
As for the 9/11 articles, I posted various other links too, that also suggested the Saudis did it and that the US government itself was responsible. I made sure to stress that those are the range of theories offered by various sides, some of which are current/ex military and government officials. This, again, was one of many that range the spectrum of “”we don’t believe the government’s story so what else happened””!
I wonder why you did not link the sources I offered, instead you are cherry picking my sources outside of the context in which they were offered.
My challenge then as well as now is this, can you counter any argument I or the links I offered made?
Until you can, wouldn’t it be more honest and moral to cease the cherry picking and red herrings?
If anyone is interested, here is the link to that conversation we had, which shows exactly what I said. Interestingly IP, here you are smearing PCR when you yourself offered him as a valid journalist???!!!!
It starts here, but out of respect for Mike and not wanting to bring that here, I won’t post the link to that article and the subsequent conversation we had. Mike let me know if you don’t mind.
———————
po
1, February 21, 2016 at 1:38 am
L, yes, we are neither Syria nor Haiti but though this Haiti was always that Haiti, this Syria was never that Syria. Right now it would not take much for things to go haywire in this country. When a snow storm shuts a whole city down, imagine what a terrorist act would do?
AS for Lew Rockwell yes, I was chided by another commentator before…I did not know who he is but his site is an aggregator like information clearing house and truthdig, sometimes pretty interesting articles among the drivel…and some good ones on health too.
As for the religious, political and economic history of the ME, it certainly cannot be explained just by “”US propping up governments””, it is however a good start.
From Africa to South America, from Indonesia to the ME (including all of these theocracies) the US was either a creative force or a supporting one. It is quite well documented 🙂
Yes, the Palestinians too although, regarding the Kurds, I suspect that every bomb that goes off in Turkey is erdogan’s, another false flag operation.
As for the dollar, the reason oil prices were so low to begin with is the US recruited their allies, the saudis to lower them greatly in their ongoing attempt to sink Russia economically, while Nato sinks them militarily. The Saudis were glad to oblige, for they can out-sale everyone, and this enabled them to sink the shale oil industry in the US and canada, and even affect their rivals in South america.
Russia countered by selling to China and India. and by further diversifying their portfolio of exports.
Now that Russia is bypassing the dollar in its trading with China, AND creating its own trading block with China, India, Iran and still recruiting other neighboring countries, and heading to south America too, the dollar finds itself unused in a growing block of global trade. Furthermore, Russia is rejoining its former states of the USSR into an Eurasian trading block.
The answer to that, is the US pushing for the TPP and the recruiting of more countries into the asean trading block.
One has to read on the history of the dollar as global trade currency to realize that rather than it being a divine decret, it was a dishonest scheme that would ultimately have to be fought. And, ironically, it started with Saudi Arabia.””
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:11 am
Re Trump and Sanders
Well, it certainly gave Trump the opportunity to throw in the description, communist friend.
We will be hearing a lot of that if Sanders is the nominee. Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio … they’ll all slap that hammer and sickle on Sanders forehead and go to town.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:19 am
I’ve not been following your conversation about the shut down of the Trump rally. Nonetheless, I have an opinion. I lived across the street from the venue. UI-C is an extremely diverse and urban campus. They are core Bernie supporters. All the students and faculty are linked and would have had a thousand ways to tell their friends to meet up at the rally. They would not have needed MoveOn to plan or encourage protesters to show up. The idea is almost laughable. And forgive me blouise, but we betray our age if we are thinking ‘safety’. I haven’t any trouble in thinking the kids saw it as a great opportunity for a fun party. These are urban, street smart kids. They walk or ride the L and shop at 7-11. A thousand white supremacists are not going to scare them.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:20 am
By the way, IP, with every attack on me you are revealing how indecent of a person you are. Not only that, you are also revealing the intellectual deficiency you suffer from.
As we keep being distracted by your vile offerings, let us remember that you have yet to be able to counter any of my arguments. After the spanking I gave you earlier about that drivel you posted on my link re Honduras, you had the choice to either see the light or double down on the idiocy. Not surprising that you chose the second option 🙂
As for ICH, look on the right side of the site, some of the same sources you claim to get your news from are listed. I guess that makes you…me? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
If indeed, Blouise, you are what you read, you must have been reading the Hillary Clinton Campaign Newsletter: Hold Your Nose and DrinkThe Koolaid 🙂
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:34 am
IP,
I will take your word for it since you know the scene. Perhaps Moveon was just trying to grab some credit by claiming they organized it?
When I mentioned jeopardy, I was thinking legal, like an arrest, not head bashing. Of course, you’re right, I may be being too cautious. Misdemeanors are easily expunged, as long as there is only one. But even there, I could be wrong for that’s the law in Ohio. It could be different in Chicago.
In any case, I have been in a few protests that went from peaceful to violent. I’ll err on the side of caution and tell the students I know to stay clear.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:36 am
If indeed, Blouise, you are what you read, you must have been reading the Hillary Clinton Campaign Newsletter: Hold Your Nose and DrinkThe Koolaid 🙂 -po
Hey there, po. 😉 🙂 😉
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:44 am
Swarthmoremom
March 13, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Blouise, It could back fire but it could also boost Sanders name recognition recognition. In some communities, he could be seen as the anti-Trump.
——————————-
Good point, SWm!
If the media keeps covering it that way, the dynamic of Bernie vs Trump will soon establish itself, then polls will be offered pitting the two and before we know, it becomes a cage match between Bernie and Trump, and their supporters, thereby taking Hillary out of play.
Bernie has everything to gain, because while no Trump supporter will vote for Bernie, every Trump hater might give Bernie a second look, to join the independent and the Trump cold-footers.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:46 am
po @ 2:05 am
Your excerpt from Turley is poorly formatted The shift from italics to normal font may cause some to think a shift in authors. It’s all po.
Further, please show me where I said PCR was a fine journalist. Maybe one day he correctly told us it was raining in DC, but otherwise he is a nut.
As I recall, we only agreed on Scahill and briefly discussed Sy Hersh.
BTW, our conversation was cut short. Darren, fine free speech supporter that he is, cut me off. Further “Hillie”, is Hildegard, the leading conspiracy theorist over there.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:59 am
IP,
This is the kind of jeopardy to which I referred … I think we’re looking at misdemeanors and felonies.
“Two Chicago men accused of tussling with police Friday night outside Donald Trump’s canceled presidential campaign rally will soon be free on bail, their attorneys said.
Cook County Judge Laura Marie Sullivan set bail at $50,000 Sunday for Sergio G. Giraldo, 23, and Sohaan Goss, 21. Both appeared in court on charges of aggravated battery of a police officer and resisting arrest. Giraldo also was charged with aggravated assault of an officer.” (Chicago Sun Times)
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:02 am
po,
You read over 400? Oh great.. It makes your chosen links even more incomprehensible. They’re dreck.
Further, I posted YOUR links. Don’t like what they indicate? Post someone else that presents your argument without the ‘crazy’.
You are a conspiracy theorist, believe no one (except for the crazy people you link) won’t read an Atlantic article on the Obama Doctrine, and think Israel and maybe US officials are probably behind 911. I am NO fan of political Israel, but find you close to anti-Semetic.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:11 am
blouise
Oh, I don’t argue the jeopardy – it’s just that the kids wouldn’t consider it. They are too young to remember 1968.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:21 am
po
I repeat….please show where I said PCR was a fine journalist.
Once done, we can shift to information clearing house.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:48 am
IP,
True story but names not given to protect the guilty
Back in the late ’90’s 10 kids from a private university in Cleveland were out doing the bars in the Flats. All were under age. Ohio State Liquor officers raided the bar and all 10 were loaded into wagons, taken to the precinct, fingerprinted, photos and released with a court date summons. Word came down through their dorm advisors that they would travel to court together and that conservative business dress was required. (Suits for both men and women, no hats, no jewelry)
They were met in the courtroom by a lawyer who had been hired to represent them; no one ever said who had hired him. He told them to stand when their names were called, to be serious but smile politely at the Judge and not utter a single word for he would do all the talking for them. The Judge called their names, looked at them long and hard, then told their attorney that he understood an arrangement between these ten students and the Prosecutor had been reached. Their lawyer responded in the affirmative. Then the Judge said he was entering all of them into the Alcohol Youth Intervention Program and turned to his bailiff and said, “Next.”
In the hallway outside the courtroom the lawyer explained that they had benefited in a way that they probably wouldn’t appreciate till they graduated and went looking for a job. For the next three months they had to report to a parole officer once every two weeks. If he cleared them after three months, it was all over. Since no charges had been read in court and no pleas taken, they could honestly answer that they had never been charged with a crime when filling out a job application. This is a break, he told them. Don’t miss an appointment or be late to an appointment with your parole officer and don’t go out drinking again till you are 21.
Jeopardy
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:54 am
Here’s a Sandy Hook Hoax story from Washington’s Blog. Po thinks Washington’s Blog is first rate journalism.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/01/overwhelming-irrefutable-video-documentary-evidence-sandy-hook-another-false-flag-criminal-hoax-requiring-arrests.html
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:09 am
blouise
God yes. Jeopardy.. Wonderful two-tiered system we have here, isn’t it.
That’s not to say if it were my kid, my grandchild, I wouldn’t pay that attorney twice as much to have the same outcome.
These days I worry about the sex offender laws for dumb stuff young, hormonal, consenting kids may do. Those can really screw up lives forever,
God, I’m glad I’m not young anymore, but I sure as hell can’t wait for all my grandkids to get grown up. First one is going to vote for Bernie.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:14 am
LÓbserver, as I said, context being everything, here is the context to my statement :
“po
1, February 21, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Thanks for the link, PR, interesting theory, and seems to make sense at first glimpse. I’ll have to research it better.
As for the petrollar yes, I agree with your comments and wanted to wait to comment further about that thought until I tracked back my sources. Still working on that.
Regarding Mossad, I admit that their involvement is very likely anecdotal. I suspect the most salient “”evidence”” we have is the 5 Mossad linked Israelis who were caught recording and cheering the falling towers. They were detained then deported. h t t p://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
Still, still, to deny the ability and interest of the Mossad in creating false flag operations to benefit Israel’s aims is very naive. Their track record is long and well documented.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/21/zim-shipping-evidence-they-knew-911-was-coming/
AS I said before, there are enough coincidences to make one give it more than just a quick pondering.
This is also another very interesting article, and easily verifiable article linking much of the above.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44068.htm
And another one that digs deeper into the issue./i>
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:24 am
Issues with formatting, all of the above after statement is within the quote!
And regarding your approval of Paul Craig Roberts, perhaps your post was of those deleted by Darren but here is my reply to it with the time stamp.
—————-
po
1, February 22, 2016 at 6:45 pm
PR, I have no issue with anyone having a problem with Finnian, I just admitted that his tone is indeed virulent. It is however no less virulent than Paul Craig Roberts that L just quoted (and who happens to be featured on Lew Rockwell 🙂
I don’t know Ip,/L you seem unable to remember your own utterances yet are quite fixated on mine!
And below, let me offer what our 3rd interlocutor said about Washington Blog. I guess that makes her a conspiracy theorist too, eh? In that post, she even addresses your rebuttal about false flags operations.
You seemed to have disappeared after my challenge to you to rebut my arguments, meanwhile you were here, changed your name but resumed your game! Tsk, tsk!
———————————–
Prairie Rose
1, February 22, 2016 at 5:45 pm
Po,
I do have to agree with L’Observer that Finnian, at least based on the example he provided, is too strident and partisan. There is no way I would want to recommend him, even if I believed there were nuggets of truth. Could the US be participating in false flags or attempting to overthrow governments? Sure. They have in the past, shamefully.
Nonetheless, Finnian’s tone actually casts aspersions and doubt onto what might be truthful reporting. He is destroying his own credibility with unnecessary adjectives like ‘murderous’. Let readers draw their own conclusions based on the facts alone.
While L’Observer would be doubtful as to this source, I am more comfortable sharing info from Washington’s Blog. Washington’s Blog posts are mostly excerpts from msm articles with their links (articles that are buried or not emphasized in the msm–below the fold, back page stuff); it is easier to fact-check and he does not use the virulent tone Finnian uses.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:34 am
Lobserver, If you were to revisit the site of your original discomfiture, which you must have done in order to cherry pick through the many posts I offered, you’d have seen that there are quite a few rebuttals waiting for one to take a stab at them…would you please?
Finally, Ip, if you really wish to resume my smack-down of you that day, why not head back to the original champ de bataille, why not meet me at the no man’s land? Changing the field of battle is not gonna, magically, give you a better army and better weapons. You have no advantage here than you didn’t there.
I don’t want to try Mike’s patience and his hospitality by tainting this blog with RIL effluvia.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 5:11 am
God, I’m glad I’m not young anymore, but I sure as hell can’t wait for all my grandkids to get grown up. First one is going to vote for Bernie. – po
The first 5 of my grandkids are in their 20’s and past all the innocent screw up time with nothing more serious than speeding tickets. Four of them are voting for Clinton and one is hoping Kasich makes it. None of them have fallen for Sanders fairy tale.
The youngest is seven and hopefully I’ll be senile by the time she hits the danger age.
She tells me, “Grandma, do you know Donald Trump doesn’t like brown people? I think he’s mean.”
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 5:14 am
These days I worry about the sex offender laws for dumb stuff young, hormonal, consenting kids may do. Those can really screw up lives forever, – IP
TRUTH!!
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 6:16 am
You still do not provide my ‘quote’ that I thought that idiot Roberts was a reputable journalist or that I agreed with anything he published. All that you have recounted is that your man Finnian is as virulent as your other pal, Roberts. There, we are in agreement. But there is nothing you have posted or that I have read that supports your assertion that I think or said that Roberts is anything but an idiot.
Post it.
Regarding P Rose. She offered her opinion on the Finnian piece, the guy you thought was the best on the ME. She was a neutral party inclined to favor po. As such, I thought her opinion would have greater weight with you than say Karen’s. She didn’t like it and her reaction caused you to agree the article was (your word) ‘virulent’. I don’t think ‘virulent’ is taught in J school.
As you’ll recall, Darren, the guardian of free speech, barred me. It’s nice that he allows you to carry on – I don’t have the same privilege. If Mike is annoyed, he’s free to tell me to shut up and I will respect that.
I have no army. However, I do have some simple weapons – your words, your links, your resources. They’ll have to make my case – I find it too difficult to refute crazy.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 6:28 am
po said:
“If anyone is interested, here is the link to that conversation we had, which shows exactly what I said. Interestingly IP, here you are smearing PCR when you yourself offered him as a valid journalist???!!!!”
po, post my comment that offered your man, PCR, as a “valid journalist”.
Post it or admit you were mistaken.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 11:48 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2016-03-14/how-to-steal-a-nomination-from-donald-trump Could happen.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 1:46 pm
IP and Po,
My policy here is rather amorphous and laid back, rather than at other blogs. You guys want to fight over arguments that took place at Jonathan Turley’s, or Flowers for Socrates, be my guest, though I think them futile. My only objection is that if you want to engagement in an argument, or reference those sights, you do it clearly. Believe it or not, we have some followers who never followed either site, nor know what they are about. So they write me confused as to what is going on, which seems opaque. If you’re referencing stuff from those sites than please use their names, so others not familiar with them can get an idea of what you are talking about and if they want see for themselves.
Personally, as I’ve reiterated many times, I don’t visit either site and haven’t done so since I left. Sometimes I will link to Jonathan Turley’s site, referencing a post I’ve done there. I can’t do that of course with Flowers for Socrates because their editor has deleted everything I wrote there. In retrospect my leaving both those places has been a blessing, because here I am beholden to no one but myself and also not responsible for the lunacy that permeated both sites.
As far as Mossad being involved in a conspiracy with 9/11, I think that is nonsensical. I state that not because I am pro-Israel, though I am, but because it doesn’t make sense. Mossad leadership tends to be more liberal than Likud, or the other hawks in the Israeli government and that is historical. They also are probably one of the most efficient intelligence agencies in the world. There may well have been a conspiracy involved in 9/11 involving outside States using Al Qaeda as instruments of their own foreign policy. Tat only makes sense if you include the U.S. government into the mix, specifically the neocons running the G.W. Bush administration. WIKI PNAC to see why that might be a possibility, since 9/11 was exactly the disaster opined about in that 1998 document, that could be used as a means of moving the U.S. towards global hegemony. The closest allies of the Bush Administration were the Saudis, who had much to gain geopolitically by taking out Iraq. The Israelis had little to gain despite the rhetoric by taking out Saddam’s regime, because he actually was a stabilizing force in the region and a secular one.
What is missed always in the discussion of the Mid East is that the powerful parties there including the Israel, are far more sophisticated than the U.S. foreign policy establishment, which sees them as primitive. What we see, or what is discussed in our media is but a facade of the workings of the Mid East. The conspiracy theorists are right o distrust the facade, but for the most part miss the realities beneath the surface because they assume things like that U.S. and Israel are closely allied. The Christian Right Wing are the greatest non-Jewish supporters of Israel in this country. They drive the historically anti-Israel Republican Party. Their “support” though is tied to policies designed to bring on Armageddon and the return of Jesus. To say the Israelis are not at all interested in Armageddon would be an understatement. Netanyahu has ben thwarted as much as possible by Mossad and by the Israeli military, which realize the stupidity of him following the American Republican line.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Alright then, with Mike’s blessing, here is the link. https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/19/islamic-cleric-in-yemen-denounces-al-qaeda-and-isis-then-kidnapped-outside-mosque-tortured-and-killed/#comment-1524922
Anyone interested can go there and revisit the conversation I had with IP aka L’Observer, which started quite well until somewhat he took great offense to my “conspiracy theories”, notwithstanding the fact that those “conspiracy theories” were fair questions and items that are historically documented and available to anyone not willfully blind, or able to use the internet.
Then as for now, he is content with labeling me a conspiracy theorist so he can, as the blind deaf and dumb, refuse everything that does not fit his narrative.
And as for the Paul Craig Roberts endorsement, I posted the comment in which I was responding to your original comment offering an article of his in support for your stance. I am not in charge of that blog and unable to retrieve deleted comments, but the time stamp on that comment of mine clearly shows it to be a response to you and to you embrace of PCR. That you spend much efforts trying to take him down later shows your hypocritical nature.
“This was my offering about the Mossad :”Regarding Mossad, I admit that their involvement is very likely anecdotal. I suspect the most salient “”evidence”” we have is the 5 Mossad linked Israelis who were caught recording and cheering the falling towers. They were detained then deported. h t t p://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1.
And if you wonder what is the link between this link and the one from Veteran’s today about Zim shipping, it is quite evident to any non-ostrich, the Israelis who were widely believed to be Mossad agents claimed to work for Zim shipping. Any logical person may say, okay, who is Zim shipping. Of all the hits that came back the veteran’s today one was the most interesting BECAUSE it is the most thorough. Whether the conclusions are true or not is another matter, but the process is what makes it a worthy contribution to the conversation.
I do believe, unlike Mike, that the Mossad is very much a big player the ME geopolitical games. Such engagement is historically well documented. The Mossad is also widely blamed for the assassination of Iranian scientists.
I however agree with Mike that the Israeli intelligence services are actually saner players in Israel, and they have been quite clear in expressing disagreement with Netanyanhu’s extremist push.
I also agree with many people such as architects and engineers for 911 truth, along with the 911 widows, and also many military officials that the 911 story has holes, and there seems to be consensus that government was not completely unaware of the 911 plot and at least allowed it to happen, which fit their aim for greater involvement in the ME. That link I offered from Wesley Clark supports along the one about Tenet support that argument.
Finally most of the links I offered actually point the finger to the Saudis, and the redacted documents from the 911 commission, as I pointed out, as did most people in the know, accuse the Saudis.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:21 pm
Mike:
Your comments about conspiracy are interesting because I can think of 2 states off the top of my head that would have an interest in perpetrating 911, Iran and China come readily to mind. It would not surprise if at some point in time a link came to light.
In fact I read about a paper that was written by 2 Chinese colonels at the equivalent of their war college. They titled the paper something to the effect of asymmetrical warfare with the United States. There proposition was that China could not win a straight up shooting war with the United States so they would have to take a different tack.
The Chinese have had 15 years of freedom because of 9/11. We have been occupied by the Middle East at the expense of other areas of the world. Specifically Asia and China has been making hay.
All of our military budget has been going to all offensive actions rather than building up our Navy and our missile defense. Which in my mind is proper. The military should be used for defensive purposes and not to project power all over the world. It should only be used to protect against attack and also to prevent attack by hostile states.
We have squandered too much blood and treasure in the Middle East.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:45 pm
I do believe, unlike Mike, that the Mossad is very much a big player the ME geopolitical games … – po
“unlike Mike”? Nonsense. Perhaps you meant “like Mike”
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:54 pm
Trump has now indicated some of his supporters might show up at Sanders rallies.
“Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!” (Trump)
Oh boy, a stand-off between old and young angry white people. Nobody wins that one.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:57 pm
Oops, sorry , po, I forgot to include
😉 🙂 😉
There ya’ go. Better late than never, what-what?!
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Mike,
In an attempt to keep this thread from going down that endless road that is the Sunni/Shia/Jew debate, I am posting a link to a NYTimes contributing op-ed piece. I don’t know anything about the writer, but I am curious as to your thoughts on what he writes
Can Israel Handle a President Trump?
Tel Aviv — All Benjamin Netanyahu wanted in 2016 was a president who would be friendly toward his government.
For the last eight years, President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, have disagreed over Iran, Israeli settlements and just about every other issue. The Democratic Party has meanwhile drifted further from Israel. Its candidates in this year’s election are Bernie Sanders, who boycotted Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last year, and the more likely nominee, Hillary Clinton, whose history of thorny relations with Israel’s prime minister began in the mid-1990s, when her husband clashed with the first Netanyahu government, and continued through her tenure as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state.
So Mr. Netanyahu and his colleagues in one of Israel’s most hawkish coalitions ever have been biding their time, waiting for Mr. Obama to vacate the White House in the hopes that he’d be replaced by a Republican with whom they could finally see eye to eye. That shouldn’t come as a surprise: Polls regularly show that Republicans are much more supportive of Israel than Democrats, and Republican candidates tend to hold positions — on issues from Iran to the Palestinians — that parallel those of a majority of Israeli voters.
And then along came Donald J. Trump. ..”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/opinion/can-israel-handle-a-president-trump.html?emc=edit_ty_20160314&nl=opinion&nlid=23335697&_r=0
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:11 pm
Here is a fun first hand account of the UI-C Trump rally. The author is a 75 year old saloon owner of what Roger Ebert , an old pal, called the greatest dive bar in Chicago. The author is a crazy sex lovin’, Republican hatin’ bastard; sorta like an unrefined Larry David. blouise ought to enjoy this… P.S. “the genius’ is how the author refers to himself.
With malice in my heart I awoke from my nap yesterday afternoon. Donald Trump was holding a rally in the city of Chicago and I planned on attending the protest. Many years ago I was a political activist. I was an early member of SDS and the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. When I moved to Berkeley I became active in the California Peace and Freedom Party. It soon became clear that the Genius did not work well in groups. For the most part during the Vietnam War I tried my best to get along with the knuckle-heads, druggies, and egotists for the greater good. Since the defeat of the US by the undermanned North Vietnamese Army I have withdrawn from participating directly in leftist political groups. This has not stopped me from doing what I can as an individual. I vote, I participate in demonstrations when I believe in the cause, and most importantly I make an effort to stay informed. This, unfortunately, is three times more than most Americans do.
The only thing I knew about Trumps rally was that it was taking place at 6 at the University of Illinois Chicago Campus. It seemed strange to me that Trumps advisors had picked this venue. The campus is on the South Side of Chicago, and not some rich lily-white suburb, and it’s an easy place to get to for people with limited funds and no cars. Stepping out of the hot shower I stared in the mirror at my 75 year old body and was reminded of a line from Emerson: “The reward of a thing well done is to have done it.”
I took the El to Washington Street and tried to stay on the sunny side of the streets as I worked my way south. It was nippy, but I had dressed appropriately and was enjoying my walk. The West Loop is now a far different place than when I was a kid. New high-rises keep popping up like dandelions in the spring, and the sidewalks are teeming with pedestrians. As I crossed the river I considered the Trump phenomena: he is a narcissist who projects his prejudices and hatreds, not to mention his limitations, on his adoring followers. He perfectly represents the age we are presently living in. When you rip away the silliness and stupidity of what he’s saying, you become aware of the sheer sloth of the man. He is the cock crowing at the morning star of Americas descent into fatuous bombast.
I have spent very little time on the UIC campus. As I was cutting across the campus I was reminded of the controversy back in the 50’s when old Mayor Daley tore down the blue collar neighborhood homes to build it. It was an Italian neighborhood and there were a lot of protests and legal moves to prevent the construction. It turned out to be an excellent location. When I was in high school the campus was located at Navy Pier and it was a disaster. Old man Daley didn’t care much about libraries or schools, probably because he was a semi-illiterate demagogue.
I could hear a demonstration taking place in the middle of the quad. There where over a thousand people, mostly young listening to a slender black man with a hairdo that would have made even Trump blush. I was once again reminded of my advancing years when I attempted to scale a concrete planter box in order to get a better view of the action. I was directly behind the speaker now. His name was Khan. I thought he did a good job of revving up the crowd. He introduced a series of speakers. An attractive Muslim girl, several Hispanics, one of whom was representing undocumented students. The speaking concluded, Khan went over some chants. The “hey, hey, ho, ho, Donald Trump has got to go, ” was easy enough, but there was no way I could remember the Spanish chant. I’ve never been much for chants anyway.
I’ve always preferred being up front during marches. You have a better idea of what’s going on; I really dislike being in the back when something happens and not knowing where to run. There were lots of cops as we approached the Pavilion. The horse cops were having a lot of problems. A number of the horses were kicking their legs and giving their riders a hard time. About twenty bicycle cops were acting as a wall and forcing us into a narrow path with barriers on each side. One of the cops, a really big dude, got his foot caught on his seat when he got off his bike. I helped lift his foot off the seat. He gave me a grudging nod.
At this point I was perplexed. I hate being trapped in tight places, and this was now a tight place. Even if I had enough agility to scale the barrier there was a chain length fence between us and the parking lot. Apparently the cops wanted us in the parking lot. I’ve got to give credit to Khan and the other demonstration leaders — they weren’t budging. The dumbest thing about what Trump and the other Republican shit-eaters are doing is politicizing Hispanics. The Mexican kids are becoming more militant by the hour. Even semi-retarded George W. Bush and his fascist mentor, Karl Rove, understood that Hispanics are a constituency that will be needed if their party is to succeed nationally. The atavistic element of the Republican Party prefers to use Mexicans and immigrants as scape goats and in doing so created a Donald Trump.
It was getting dicey and then the chant went up; “Push, push, push…” After about ten minutes the cops wisely let us proceed to the front of the pavilion. We were now at the intersection of Harrison and Racine. The last time I was in the Pavilion was to see my friend Freddy Cuevos fight another Mexican. After Freddy won the fight there was some booing. When I asked Freddy later why he was booed he smiled and said, “if you ever want to know who the illegals are at a fight, they’re the ones that boo a legal after he wins.”
I was fascinated by the people going into the Pavilion. Trump supporters tend to be genetically-defective, slack-jawed, troglodytes. I would say the long line of attendees that snaked all the way around the building was over ninety percent white. Probably eighty-percent male, and predominately middle aged. Other than a few of the Asian women, the women were all repellently ugly. I was surprised that the cops let me get close to the Trump people. It was easy picking out the people who were going into the Pavilion to demonstrate. The black people in line did not in any shape or form look like Trump people.
I enjoyed heckling some of the more retarded looking Trump supporters. It was only in the forties and some of them were wearing short sleeved T shirts with Trumps name. It was closing in on six and the line still extended all the way to Harrison Street. There was no way they’d all be able to fit in. The guys handling security were frisking everyone and weren’t allowing anti-Trump signs inside. The thought of standing for hours in line for a Trump rally in chilly weather was more than I could fathom. These are truly the dregs of the dregs. One old man wearing a Trump hat with long flames of jagged white hair shooting out from the side of his head gave me the finger after I laughed at his sign. Another heavy-jawed man with a protruding belly dared me to duke it out with him. Most guys that fat can’t fight longer than a minute if you can stay on your feet and dance.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:23 pm
Any bit of prose that begins, “With malice in my heart I awoke from my nap yesterday afternoon….” is worth reading.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:26 pm
Just a rambling thought:
If Trump and Sanders win their respective Party’s nomination, will their supporters take their physical fighting from the halls to the streets?
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm
IP,
Along the lines of the Atlantic piece, I thought you might find this article of interest
Why the United States hasn’t intervened in Syria. By Steven Heydemann (The Janet W. Ketcham 1953 Chair in Middle East Studies at Smith College and also associated with Brookings))
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/14/why-the-united-states-hasnt-intervened-in-syria/
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 5:26 pm
SwM: Reading that article (stealing the nomination from Trump), they say it isn’t even clear whether one can PAY a delegate to vote for you. It is legal for the nominee pay the trip expenses of the delegates and to cut deals with them for offices! So how does the richest by far nominee suffer a disadvantage here? Presuming he has lawyers that understand all this just as well as the author of this article, and that he has a few hundred million handy to bribe delegates and he really doesn’t care who holds what office within the Party, doesn’t Trump’s money trump anything Cruz or the Republican elite can offer delegates?
Trump has been quite good in the past navigating rules (or his white shoe lawyers have been), I would be astonished if he is out-maneuvered by such shenanigans at the convention. He won’t be outspent, and I doubt he (and his lawyers) will be outsmarted.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 5:56 pm
{Argument originating from Turley blog}
po
POST
my comment of what I said validating the idiot, Roberts.
Failing that, POST
an approximation of what I said that validated the idiot, Roberts.
Failing that, POST
what idea or article the idiot, Roberts, had written that I referenced and found evidence that he is anything more than an idiot.
Failing that , POST
your apologies.
{Argument originating on this thread)
Regarding Wesley Clark. He seems to have lost his mind. He currently is recommending that we round up and segregate (and I guess put into camps) disloyal Americans. I’m not certain that he had in mind bothersome trials or something like that.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:38 pm
blouise
Thanks for the Steve Heydemann article. I do not agree with him. I’m not crazy about people who call for more (did he say forceful?) American resources without being very specific about what they mean. Also, what the hell does he mean about ‘over-learning past histories’? I’ll need a lot of coaching to get over that one. Finally, he does not tell me what happens the day after Assad leaves. And another finally, today, the Russians said they are leaving. Is that good? bad?
I’m sticking with the low-risk Obama Doctrine.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:12 pm
IP,
Re Clark.
I think that was a purposeful statement meant to test the media waters. I’ve been watching this since 2005 or 2006 when Bush authorized several hundred million dollars to build DHS detention capabilities. Obama has continued the program. (Check out National Defense Authorization Acts and the National Defense Resources Preparedness,) And then there’s the Senate Intelligence Committee recommended legislation.
Clark may sound crazy but I suspect he’s carrying the water for the government and the government is serious. I also think we got a taste of it in Boston after the Marathon bombing for that shut down of the city and containment of citizens seemed to happen with the precision of something well planned. I’m not trying to engage in conspiratorial theory but I think Clark represents something much more than simple crazy.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:21 pm
I’m sticking with the low-risk Obama Doctrine. -IP
I thought it was a well framed opposition to Obama’s policy. I didn’t agree with it but liked the framing.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 8:50 pm
blouise
If what you say about Clark is true – not only am I going to take up smoking again, upping my wine intake considerably, and maybe checking out how available weed is these days – I am going to look forward to the sweet oblivion of dementia.
With regard to shut down Boston, I always thought it was just the usual American lack of resilience and over abundance of hysteria. Christ almighty. What if we were Ankara?
>Sigh< It doesn't bode well for those people we want rounded up.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 9:16 pm
If what you say about Clark is true -IP
I don’t know if it’s true but he is up there in the Democatic hierarchy. However, if you remember from the Atlantic article, “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.” It could also be a move by DHC/Pentagon etc. to push Obama more in the direction they want.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 9:29 pm
I think in talking about all this (foreign affairs, DHC, terrorism) I am trying to illustrate my genuine concern.. I try to imagine Trump, Sanders, Cruz, or Kasich sitting down in a room to listen to all these kinds of well framed arguments and first of all, understanding any of the nuances involved and second making any kind of intelligent decision. It’s ludicrous and fuckin’ scary.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Jeffery Goldberg is on Charlie Rose tonight talking about his interview with Obama. I’ll try to watch it online if he posts it – if I can bear Charlie’s interruptions.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 12:18 am
bron98
March 14, 2016 at 7:21 pm
Mike:
Your comments about conspiracy are interesting because I can think of 2 states off the top of my head that would have an interest in perpetrating 911, Iran and China come readily to mind. It would not surprise if at some point in time a link came to light.
————————————
Interesting points, Bron. I’d dismiss the Iran thing for various reasons, but almost for the same reasons, I would dismiss China’s involvement in 9/11. However, it is interesting that those 2 countries are the ones the benefited most, especially China which fell off the scope while we were busy in the ME, and meanwhile built up its military and economic powers, to the tune of now owning half of America and funding our quagmire in the ME.
Our invasion of Iraq turned out great for Iran, and to misquote Hillary: “”we came, we saw and we left Iraq in Iran’s hands”!”(that one was for you, blouise 🙂
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 12:31 am
InsufferablePedant
I’ll apologize when you do for putting your words in my mouth….
…for accusing me of holding thoughts I do not, including the suggestion of antisemitism (that was low and fitting)…
…for assigning intents to me that are not present in my words…
… for denigrating my sources and my conclusions… without being able to counter any single one of them…
… and certainly for linking me to a writer, his book and his lack of integrity, his organization and its deceptive nature in spite of the fact that the link I offered barely mentions said writer and takes no idea from his book…
It is also fitting that rather than quote my words in context, you link to noted journalists and offer the conclusion that because you deem them problematic, then my quoting them makes me and my comments unreliable…I am actually ashamed for you, for I did think highly of you at first.
I do hope you can find yourself back to the person you seemed to be at first…
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 12:37 am
Also, IP, what is it with shooting up any messenger you hear state something that disturbs you?
At this rate, it is not just PCR, Seymour Hersh or Wesley Clark who have lost their minds, it is anyone whose words challenge your head in the sand personality!
Blouise, one thing that really disturbed me about Clark was that I heard him on NPR offer solutions to ME conflicts that were the opposite of what any sensible person might have suggested. The problem was less his conclusions but the fact that those conclusions revealed that he did not have the grasp on the issues that someone of his caliber ought to have. I was dumbfounded, frankly!
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 1:16 am
po
POST it!!!
Or offer some explanation as I suggested.
Otherwise you are a liar.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 8:26 am
Blouise: over-learning past histories
I didn’t read that article, but I have seen this phrase in artificial intelligence research; perhaps it comes from a common source. In AI, it means the machine trains on past histories so much, trying to build up predictive certainty on those cases, that it takes irrelevant details as “predictive” elements, which are actually random bullshit that ruins the predictive power of their model.
“Over-learning the past” is the cognitive error (to which AI are particularly prone) of using what you should know is irrelevant data as if it were relevant. Or in some cases, ignoring data you know should be relevant because in the past, where it should have been relevant, it did not seem to be.
In more generality, it is an over-reliance on past patterns as strongly predictive of future patterns.
We (and AI) are particularly confused by truly high but irrelevant correlations. In 17 of the last 19 presidential elections, the Redskins Rule [I did not name it] has held true (but note the two failures are in the last three elections).
Before 2000, that would be a wicked strong correlation, 16 wins for 16 tests of a coin flip choice. Nearly all of us humans would assume if something flips HEADS 16 times in a row, the game is rigged and that is not due to chance alone.
But that is over-learning the past. Without a clear logical argument for exactly how a football contest involving one team either influences a presidential election, or is controlled by the same forces that determine an election, we should ignore that contest as irrelevant. Yet it is very hard to do, we truly crave knowing what is going to happen next, and even after we tell ourselves to ignore it that correlation keeps staring us in the face, because —- Well, it really happened dammit! Maybe we just don’t understand how, but should we really bet against something that has won 16 for 16?
It is actually rather difficult, for humans and AI alike, to apply context to learn valid lessons from the past and subtract the irrelevancies and outcomes that were dependent upon cultural or technological elements that no longer apply. Humans still do that better than machines, but they fail.
A recent example is Bernie’s win in Michigan; now considered the worst polling failure ever (in a primary election). The problem is, indeed, over-learning from the past. The several pollsters (at least 5) all made the same mistakes. They assumed their polling (by land line) that reached 18-29 year olds was representative of 18-29 year olds; but it was not on the face of it; most of them have no land line. So they estimated 25% of voters would be 18-29, which turned out to be 50% of voters. They estimated they would support Bernie about 2/3 to 1/3 for Hillary, closer to 90% voted for Bernie (and they were wrong about the 30-45 year olds, too, for a similar reason: 25% of them have no land line). On top of that, even with land lines, most people in this age group (18 to 45) are like me; they screen all calls. My wife and I are far from that age group, and we do own both cell and land lines, but neither of us answer a call from anybody that is not already in our call list. No caller ID goes straight to voice mail; and if I see any call appear on multiple days that leaves no message, I block it. If I get a message (as I have from the bank, or doctor, or a delivery service) I immediately add it to my valid caller list. Like most 18-45s, we cannot be polled by phone.
Pollsters have over-learned the past; their polling model, which used to work, is officially broken. It was optimized to be cheap by phone calling back when everybody had one and random call soliciting was nearly non-existent, so enough people answered to be a representative sample. But now there is no cheap way to poll 18-45 year olds that doesn’t have its own problems. The internet is too self-selected, college audiences are not representative of all voters (and are predominately 18-24 year olds, missing the 25-45). They pretty much have to be polled person-to-person, which is why entrance/exit polls at voting venues still work.
Pollsters haven’t figured it out: 18-45 year olds have made it intentionally difficult for strangers to contact them; they rely on social media (friends and a few select celebrities) to point out for them relevant information. This is how they have learned to deal with a flood of information that is 99% spin and ads: Ignore it, block it, mute it, and if anything important really shows up they tell their friends, and their friends will likewise tell them. So important news “goes viral”, and sociologists (like my sister) see these groups engaged in publicly visible collective reasoning, often processing literally hundreds of unique points of information and tens of thousands of opinions, to arrive at a consensus. Technology and social media is giving us the group mind. (Not a hive mind, a group mind, and there is a big difference.)
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 10:26 am
Regarding Wesley Clark here is what he is doing today: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/wesley-clark-retired-general-joins-blackstone-as-an-adviser/?_r=0 and also: http://wesleykclark.com/
What impressed me about him was always his rather Liberal social views and the fact that he appeared to be a foreign policy moderate. He is, however, a member of the Corporate-Military-Intelligence Complex and as such his foreign policy expertise must be weighed with a grain of salt, because who knows what is clarity of vision, or what is merely self-interest?
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 15, 2016 at 10:42 am
MM,
I believe it was IP who questioned the phrase “over learning past histories” (3/14 7:38p.m.) which in the Monkey Cage article was in the following context: “Effective strategy requires flexibility and a willingness to adapt as conditions change. Getting historical analogies right and not over-learning the lessons of the past are important.” The author was semi-criticizing Obama’s foreign policy regarding Syria.
However, if you were referring to the phrase in another context, please point to it as this thread is so long that I need some help in finding it and for that same reason may have forgotten a comment I made containing that phrase.
Otherwise, I was intrigued by your comment: “Technology and social media is giving us the group mind. (Not a hive mind, a group mind, and there is a big difference.)” That’s a subject with real discussion possibilities outside the context of election contests.
As to polling, I was always taught that the value of polling was in the movement or lack thereof … trending. I noted (privately, to myself) that Clinton’s campaign started to walk back the expectations of victory in Michigan on Sunday and didn’t seem surprised by Sanders 2% win. That suggests to me that their internal polling had started trending downward and they were prepared. I, myself, like exit polling because those doing the polling are talking directly to voters as they exit the pools. It is a good way to establish trending for the next contest.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 10:43 am
pools – polls
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 10:47 am
because who knows what is clarity of vision, or what is merely self-interest? – Mike
Good point
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 10:56 am
Regarding the issue of political polling today I think MM raises some very good points and the practice in our home re: answering phones is the same as his. The other thing I’ve found interesting about polling is that it seems there is something not quite aboveboard in how polling is being done and where it is being done. Regarding tonight’s vote, yesterday in discussing polls MSNBC reported extensive polling being done in Florida, but only scattered poll results from other States like Ohio. Why is that? Ohio is a pretty big and populous State, that has many urban areas, yet it seems the pollsters have had little interest in it. Is that the reason, or is it that the polling thus far hasn’t lived up to mainstream approval. We’ll know tonight. Today I’m voting in Florida, for Bernie, but according to the polls here that is supposedly a lost cause, we’ll see.
There is something that really pisses me off in the election reporting for the Democrats and that is the insistence on counting the super delegates early as an indicator of Hillary’s strength. Frankly, tht is nonsense. The super delegates are either party officials, or elective office holders. If Bernie came into the Convention with a clear majority of elected delegates, those “committed” super delegates would un-commit in a heartbeat. The reason being that they would know it was political suicide to seem to obstruct the “will of the people”. I don’t think that Bernie will come into the convention in that position, but also given the States yet to vote, California and New York let’s say, this race is far from over.
The Republicans would face the same problem with Trump. If he wins 1000 delegates, less that the majority needed, taking the nomination away from him would be conceding a lost election and they simply won’t do that.
All that said I think Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee at this point in time. I will vote for her, but she is really making me angry with her campaign, which I think is stupid in its attacks on Bernie and will undercut her support if she is the nominee. It’s about time she realized that her advisers have been making the same mistakes they made in 2008 and painting her into corners that make it harder for her. Anyone who attacks Bernie on his civil rights record, or his position on women’s rights is disingenuous, because his record is spotless. The NRA attacks are also ridiculous political fluff.
Hillary’s strength is to emphasize her own record, her commitment to economic and social change and her commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals. She has to a large degree co-opted Bernie’s message and that is fair. What she needs to do though is to convince Berni supporters like myself, that she is sincere in he co-optation and while I’ll vote for her if need be I’m not convinced. The other thing she needs to do is to be the Hillary who looks so smart and does so well in town halls and in one on one interviews. When she is doing public speaking she sounds just like another politician. I understand she doesn’t think of herself as a speaker of her husband’s class but se is wrong. She is capable of being genuine if she would put aside the typical rhetorical flourishes like: “The other day I was speaking to __________, a mother of 5, who’s problem is _________ and I saw how difficult her life is and I want to help because of that experience”. Tell us your empathy, don’t personalize it as if you’re merely one of the “common folk”, you’re not and we know it. Hillary is an excellent extemporaneous speaker, she doesn’t need the “canned” political bullshit.
That said I’m still going to vote for Bernie because I believe he can possibly ignite a political revolution and a political revolution is the only thing that can save us now from oligarchy.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 10:56 am
My host and I are binge watching Bosch and then will be touring another distillery. Gotta tell ya, guys, touring distilleries is waaay more fun than touring wineries.
Be back later and we’ll see who racked up more delegates, your guy or my girl. I’m also rather interested in how Kasich faired against Trump in Ohio.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 11:16 am
Mike,
Bernie has been a Democrat for a little less than a year. The super delegates know Clinton who has been on the team for over 40 years. These rules were in place when Sanders agreed to run as a Democrat in April of last year and joined the party. But leave the supers out of it and she’s still ahead of him by over 200 “regular” delegates. He needs to catch and surpass her in regular delegates and then he will be able to attract supers. In order to catch and surpass her, he needs to win big, by huge percentages, in big states. Beating her by small percentages isn’t going to do it and skipping all those southern states was his choice.
Back in 2008 Clinton made the mistake of not going after the supers early enough. She learned from that mistake.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 11:25 am
blouise and MM
Regarding over-thinking the lessons of the past … the author meant our history in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya – all pretty much a mess.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 11:31 am
Blouise: The context you provide for “Over-learning the past” is partly what I am talking about. Their beef is assumptive dissipation; like in polling, the assumptions that held statistically true in 1980 (e.g. “land line responses are statistically representative of all likely voters”) do not hold true 36 years later. Or “Wayne County voters represent all of Michigan.” All kinds of assumptions that were perfectly valid at one time may dissipate due to culture shifting, technology, economics and other factors.
But in general, “over-learning the past” is talking about trying to learn too much from the past by claiming, for example, that past statistical correlations are predictive with no rational explanation of why they are predictive (like whether the Redskins success or failure can predict who wins an election, or whether Groundhogs can predict the length of Winter, or whether a run of Red on a Roulette wheel tells you whether to bet on Red or bet on Black).
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 1:15 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730 A long list of Trump’s lies
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 1:50 pm
Blouise: I have no formal definitions, but in a discussion of intelligence the distinction between a group mind and a hive mind is that a group mind is much more intelligent than any of its members; while a hive mind is not. (Despite the fact that actual hive minds, like ants or bees, actually are more intelligent collectively than their members are individually.)
The idea is that a hive follows a queen; much like authoritarians follow a Leader they trust to make their decisions for them, decide their proper behavior, and so forth.
The “group mind” phenomena is more like a group of friends (for argument’s sake a group of long term friends with approximately equal levels of intelligence, not necessarily all on the same topics) tackling an IQ test together. They don’t know the answers, but if they can discuss the questions and choices and their fields of knowledge overlap to create greater coverage than any one has individually, then they can score better together than any one of them can score alone. In fact in tests this can be true even for strangers collaborating on a test, but the effect can be disrupted by individuals that act outside the “friendship” zone and effectively ruin debate. When you choose your own friends, as is the case for social media, the disruption is much less likely, so the effect is preserved of individuals being able to behave as if they are much more analytical, perceptive and well-informed than they would be if prevented from communicating with their friends.
I phrase that carefully; even if they are allowed to search the net, read books or articles, find evidence and so forth, a group of roughly 150 friends (Dunbar’s number and close to the typical size of a group of online friends) can search much deeper and read far more and see more logical connections; and thus filter for their friends the most important facts and arguments that should be read. That is the secret of the group mind; every individual gets the benefit of a 150 person workforce before making up their mind.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 2:31 pm
InsufferablePedant
March 15, 2016 at 1:16 am
po
POST it!!!
Or offer some explanation as I suggested.
Otherwise you are a liar.
————————————
IP, yes, decency demands I prove my claim or take it back, Though there is a pretty easy explanation as to why that post of yours is missing, I can’t state with certainty it happened the way I assume it did, therefore I take back my comment that you stated that PCR is a fine commentator.
As for an apology, let me quote my previous reply to such request:
” I will apologize to you when you do for putting your words in my mouth….
…for accusing me of holding thoughts I do not, including the suggestion of antisemitism (that was low and fitting)…
…for assigning intents to me that are not present in my words…
… for denigrating my sources and my conclusions… without being able to counter any single one of them…
… and certainly for linking me to a writer, his book and his lack of integrity, his organization and its deceptive nature in spite of the fact that the link I offered barely mentions said writer and takes no idea from his book…
It is also fitting that rather than quote my words in context, you link to noted journalists and offer the conclusion that because you deem them problematic, then my quoting them makes me and my comments unreliable…I am actually ashamed for you, for I did think highly of you at first.
I do hope you can find yourself back to the person you seemed to be at first…”
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 3:14 pm
MM,
Ah, now I find that fascinating and you explained it (hive/group) in a very clear manner.
I have a Facebook page to which I never post. I use it to read the pages of family, friends, and colleagues. One of my grandkids is friends with people all over the world. All these young people met on a game site years ago and continue to do so on a weekly basis. Three of them have crossed the ocean to visit us … each for a couple weeks. Initially the only thing they had in common was the game but as the years went by their conversations on their Facebook pages were less and less about the game and more about their individual likes, dislikes, etc.
I accepted all their friend request because I wanted to lurk … a protective instinct towards my granddaughter who was a teenager at the time. It’s been seven years and they are all now grown up, educated and working. At the present time they are all talking about Trump as the overseas members of this group try to understand his appeal which is something the young Americans in this group have difficulty explaining because they don’t understand it themselves.
I’m sorry, what you explained made me think of them.
At any rate, do you recall the pejorative phrase, group think? Could that be referring to the hive?
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 3:27 pm
SwM,
Interesting NYTimes piece … well balanced
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/opinion/campaign-stops/dont-trust-anyone-over-30-except-bernie-sanders.html?emc=edit_ty_20160315&nl=opinion&nlid=23335697&_r=0
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Blouise: I do recall the pejorative “Group Think”, but I don’t think it applies so much to Group Mind. Group Think is something that happens when a group needs to settle on a single action, as a group. Like Kennedy and his advisors contemplating the Bay of Pigs invasion. The problem there is that everybody must come to a consensus on the single action, so together they develop a “narrative” of argumentation that supports that single action and the narrative contains arguments refuting all criticisms of the single action. The group then basically memorizes that narrative and “agrees” their objections have been answered. Then, as Kennedy said after the debacle unfolded, he could not believe how many elements they had agreed were right that were completely wrong.
A Group Mind doesn’t have to agree; the individuals are free to take their own life actions, be it voting, drug use, taking a job at Walmart, buying a Honda or a Toyota, moving to Nashville to become a country singer, going to graduate school, applying for a scholarship, whatever. If their friends have similar interests the group discussion and available information to make such decisions gets multiplied. For example, “My neighbor bought a Toyota two years ago and it has already stranded her twice. Watch out for lemons.” It is just info, take it or leave it, or it is a clue to look up Consumer Reports or something.
It isn’t that everybody is deciding on one car they will all chip in to buy collectively. It more like having access to a hundred and fifty lives worth of ongoing experience, a text message away. And if you subscribe to the Small World interconnect theory, access to millions of lives worth of ongoing experience and analysis, if the decision is “big enough” or viral enough to power across the network (like who to vote for).
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 5:29 pm
MM,
As I said earlier, the concept is intriguing so I decided I would go looking for more info. Oh boy, I am going to need a filter. Google group mind and get anything from Freud to telepathic activity.
How about steering me to some more suitable material so I don’t have to wade through so much junk. Maybe a couple good key words for the search engine? Please.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Blouise: Google: Small World Network Collective Intelligence, check out some of those links.
I think the formal name would be Collective Intelligence; you can also search “Social media’ +”Collective Intelligence”. Although it is not precisely the same thing, you can look up the RAND corporation’s Delphi project back in the early 70s, which is where I first learned of a similar phenomenon of collective intelligence without demanding a consensus (to avoid Group Think).
Here is an excerpt from the “Handbook of Collective Intelligence” (a book): https://books.google.com/books?id=Px3iCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=small+world+network+collective+intelligence&source=bl&ots=nke-tX2nwp&sig=T8z4wW_cilyjzJaQLPah2FZG-vE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioxJu62sPLAhXCRyYKHXOGAR8Q6AEIKTAD#v=onepage&q=small%20world%20network%20collective%20intelligence&f=false
Here is a PDF describing a related project trying to formalize the power of social networks: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.2551.pdf
A Small World network is one with sub-areas that are well connected, with some of the nodes (people in this case) that have links to other sub-areas. An example might be my facebook account; I don’t keep up with facebook, but I have about 50 friends there, half family and half professors and other researchers; some as far away as Brazil, Japan, China, England, even one stuck in a foreign land called “Baton Rouge”.
Many of those professors are friends of each other, too. So I am actually a link between two otherwise separated circles, each of which is closely connected to itself but only loosely connected by me to each other. Of course, all my researcher friends are likely the same way; if I had news from my family circle that would impact their family circles, a person in my family is just two hops from informing families in six countries and in Baton Rouge! And if the “information” is big enough to share that far then everybody getting it would likely share it, too; some of them would be super-connections like celebrities with millions of followers.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
MM,
Thanks
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 6:31 pm
MM,
Once given the proper key words, I am off and running. For instance:
“Short-term memory uses small world networks between neurons to remember this sentence.”
Although my train of thought doesn’t completely derail, I do tend to get sidetracked.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm
Congrarulations, blouise, on on a Hillary Clinton victory in Ohio.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 9:15 pm
SwM,
Yep, it was big. Possible Chicago backfire? It’ll be interesting to see how his campaign spins the Ohio loss. He spent a lot of time and money in Ohio.
The exit polls might give us more of the story.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 9:45 pm
Looks like she won Chicago and the surrounding area so he will have to make it up down state.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 11:40 pm
“There may well have been a conspiracy involved in 9/11 involving outside States using Al Qaeda as instruments of their own foreign policy. Tat only makes sense if you include the U.S. government into the mix, specifically the neocons running the G.W. Bush administration. WIKI PNAC to see why that might be a possibility, since 9/11 was exactly the disaster opined about in that 1998 document, that could be used as a means of moving the U.S. towards global hegemony.””
Ip, this will give you nightmare, a CIA asset supporting the propagandist theories…crazy.. telling us that President, vice-president and secretary of defense were behind 9/11!!!!
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 12:32 am
SwM,
Good Lord, she won Illinois too and Missouri is neck and neck, less than .02% in her favor with 99% of the vote counted. What happened between Michigan’s primary and tonight?! Could Chicago have had that great an impact?
I gotta tell you, kiddo, I am in shock.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 12:55 am
SwM,
Before tonight she was 210 regular delegates ahead of him, now she is 316 in front of him. If she wins in Missouri then she’ll only get a couple more than he so not worth counting right now.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 8:13 am
Blouise: The Small World Network actually does apply to the entire brain; most neurologists subscribe to that and to the idea that consciousness itself is dependent upon the neurons that communicate between small clusters of highly connected neurons in the brain. There was a book, back when, called “The Society of Mind”, by researcher Marvin Minsky; in which he argues explicitly that the mind is composed of many (even many thousands) of nodes connected in a network that, subconsciously, are constantly negotiating most likely interpretations of various senses / thoughts / situations, informing each other and arguing with each other of their micro-findings in a small world network. So Consciousness is basically the moment by moment activity of this society, and why we can find ourselves arguing with ourselves. It isn’t just another voice in our head, it is thousands of unheard voices that sometimes fail to reach a single conclusion about what should be done next. That neural society can be partial victim to the Group Think you mentioned earlier and the dumb decisions it makes, because the brain only has one body and is generally restricted to one action at a time, so a consensus must be reached.
But there is still, within a single brain, much of the Collective Intelligence phenomenon. neural structures providing analysis of their inputs in a tightly connected neighborhood of hundreds of neurons, and then communicating the results as inputs to a larger conglomerate of hundreds of such neighborhoods, and so on.
Small World networks are a mechanism (naturally arising, obviously, not so much engineered as evolved) that solves what engineers consider a minimax problem; finding a balance between minimizing one thing and maximizing another. We have to minimize the ‘hardware” and the overall volume of communications traffic, while maximizing the spread of information. (The hardware can be biological cost; like growing axons or neural connections, or consuming the energy to run them, in a brain those are the transmitters, wires, and receivers mechanisms that are the output of neurons acting as inputs to other neurons.)
With zero hardware we are broccoli, with too much communication we are frozen (like when an epileptic has a seizure, an electrical storm in the brain caused by a failure of control mechanisms).
The same SW mechanism arises naturally in social settings and, with new communications methods like writing, books, TV, etc. The big difference with the Internet and social groups is that, unlike those one-way mass communications (almost entirely one-way), the social networks allow much greater feedback, a necessity for negotiation and resolution of disagreement. Which is why Collective Intelligence is a fairly recent emerging phenomenon and found primarily amongst the young that grew up on social media.
Some forums (like this blog) can offer something similar, my experience is informing you right now! But it isn’t quite the same thing as initiating an average of 20 communications per day to your friends and reading a few hundred messages sent by them. Even if those messages are tweets, innocuous or silly. That level of interaction creates a level of alignment and consensus with each other, that followers of a blog (or author or television show) do not get.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 8:46 am
Viralize…
So just after Eagles of Death Metal alleged that Paris attack was an Inside Job, the cops in Belgium have a gun fight with Paris ‘mastermind’ or his minions. How timely! Just to ensure you ignore the INSIDE JOB allegations from the man whose band member died in the attack.
Not to mention that the Bataclan owners (who owned it for over 40 years) conveniently sold it weeks before the attack…….funny that!…….Just like Larry Silverstein bought the wtc complex months before and insured it to specifically cover attacks using pl anes……………Oh and they were Jewish ( Anglo German Jews) in case people didn’t know.
Available also…is THE Irish writer Gearoid O’Coleman, who gives his views on the situation in Paris, as being false flag propaganda involving a “White , cleanly shaven male shooter.”
If that were not enough, a video:
Juan Hernandez about the 3 athletic white shooters in the San Bernardino shooting
Then if you Google images: SAN BERNADINO CRAFT, you can see the white mercenaries running to hide.
So…when you wake up dead…you know who to blame. Unless you love lies..then blame some innocent person, and have the patsy take the fall. I feel so sorry for the people these white terrorists have murdered so far…it never ends with these cowards…Just look at NSA headquarters..two SS lightning bolts. Need one say more as to who is destroying this world? And they are here also..hiding behind the net..posting disinfo to influence public opinion.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm
(naturally arising, obviously, not so much engineered as evolved.) – MM
Right there I was made aware of the multi-communications going on in my brain. I like to pick one remark from a post, to which I intend to respond, and use it as a kick-off. The small worlds in my brain were arguing with each other over which of your remarks was most appropriate to that purpose. The one in parentheses won because all this arguing was going on in parentheses. The consensus was reached.
Now … (long pause and deep breath) … how do scientists work this Small Worlds network into AI technology?
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 1:44 pm
SwM,
I have been thinking about this Chicago thing. It was the only change or situation that occurred in the last week and I think the violence that erupted crystallized democrats thought process. We got serious about the very real threat Trump presents.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 2:00 pm
MM,
Is the “zone”, as in “being in the zone”, a suspension of conscious control thus allowing the small worlds to make the decisions without said conscious controll? Trusting in them because the training has been so intense. The few instances I have been in the zone it is as if time has ceased to exist or slowed down to the point it might as well not exist.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 6:03 pm
blouise, I think you are right. People voted for stability.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 7:48 pm
SwM,
I think so.
All she has to do is run out the clock. He could win the next five states and still not come close to her “regular” delegate count. Anybody who can do elementary math has figured it out which is probably why the national media didn’t even bother to cover his rally in Arizona.
He’s just working for ego gratification now. Doesn’t want to go out a complete loser. I figure he’ll win 2 or 3 then say what everybody else knows now, I can’t get the number I need in the time I have left. Face saving.
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Her strategy was sound which is something one wants to see in a person who is going to be occupying the Oval.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 7:59 am
Blouise: The Zone. I have worked often in the zone; and yes time disappears, distraction disappears.
I am not sure what that is; but I know we are conscious; I cannot work without consciousness (and I think you are the same). (But also realize the conversation going on inside your head is not your consciousness.) For me, unlike a performance art that has been well practiced, in my zone I am searching for something. Stephen King talks about the zone; in his zone he is writing, immersed in the world he created and solving problems. For a musician I would guess (without actually playing anything) the closest thing to MY zone would be like an improv jazz musician in the zone, responding to and anticipating fellow players without seeming to. Now we have other learned actions outside of consciousness, (like my typing right now or driving a car), but I’d have to put them in true subconscious classes; I have driven for hours while day dreaming about something else entirely. At least for me, when working in the zone, I am not daydreaming about anything else, nor am I asleep and unaware.
The Zone states shares some characteristics with a hypnotic state, but I hasten to say that would explain nothing, because I don’t think anybody knows a damn thing about what is going on with hypnotic states. (They are studied and we know many things that are possible, but not really what the hell happens in the brain to create a hypnotic state. Outside of the “trance” phase when people are acting under the influence of hypnosis, their brain does not seem to be operating any differently, at least that was true several years ago, maybe measurement tech has gotten better since then.)
Perhaps the Zone is a quieting of the Limbic system (of which the amygdala, our emotional center, is a part). By eliminating fear (and worry, nervousness, concern) and the distractions of irritation and the emotional signals that create hesitation or second-guessing, I could see that. But a Limbic system effect explains nothing about a hypnotic state. So there are multiple global affect states of the brain of which we understand nothing at all.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 10:16 am
Blouise: Small World Networks (SWN) and AI.
I would like the understanding of the Small World network to the discovery of some fundamental mechanical principle; like using the raw heat of a fire to do serious mechanical work (via steam pressure forcing a piston to move). Put aside what you already know and adopt the position of a person before the steam engine was even an inkling to anybody, and the idea that a bonfire could haul tons of water for miles sounds crazy. That was a pretty astonishing discovery (leading to invention) that change the world; but (like small world networks) it is just a VERY widely applicable tool.
The greatest impact of SWN on AI is probably that they influence the architecture of anything trying to emulate the human brain or human pattern recognition ability. One does have to be careful; one of the research neurologists I work with is widely read in the biological side of intelligence research, and he says that everybody is always saying “the brain works like this! I have proof!” and they are all correct! Because just about any clever processing algorithm that saves time or energy that you discover, chances are pretty good evolution beat you to it and you will find it deployed somewhere in the brain.
The power of a SWN is efficiency, by reducing the total traffic necessary.
A simple example is this; suppose I have a million neurons dedicated to accomplishing a single assessment. If I have a dense connection, every neuron connects in one direction (output only to input only) to every other neuron, then each of the million neuron must connect to 999,999 other neurons, requiring 999,999,000,000 connections. However, suppose I find a way to divide this analysis into 1000 groups of 1000 neurons each, and within each group we have dense connections.
Now for a group; we have 999,000 connections. If we connect the GROUPS densely, we have the same number of connections between groups: 999,000 connections. So the total is 999000 x 1001 = 999,999,000, a thousand-fold reduction in the number of connections. In the actual human brain of 100B neurons; things are not quite that orderly, but the principle appies. Each neuron informs about 1000 others (some have only a dozen or so connections, some have tens of thousands of connections). This reduces the communicative load (== necessary bandwidth) by a factor of 100 million compared to full dense connection. This “mechanism” is an important component in taming the combinatorial explosion of “many to many” connectivity.
And it shows us, by the billions of working examples of human brains, that it is a reliable and robust tool that can help us capture both human intelligence, and most likely super-human intelligence (if we use a good definition of “intelligence” that does not include “consciousness”. We can largely agree on what constitutes “intelligence”, there is no real consensus (in my view) on what we mean by “consciousness.” Although medically speaking, when we know somebody (a normal person capable of communicating their remembered state of mind) is conscious we can see brain-wide communications happening, and when those same people are unconscious, that communication is dampened or non-existent but localized areas are still activating as before: they just are not communicating very well with other localized brain areas.
Which is part of what makes us believe that consciousness is a brain wide phenomenon (not itself localized to some particular structure within the brain). That, plus studies of people with strokes, tumors, brain injuries, etc, which (accumulated over thousands of patients) can cause damage nearly anywhere in a brain without permanently disrupting an ability to sustain consciousness.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm
MM,
Alright, I am in bonfire mode (excellent analogy by the way) and I am wondering if SWN plays a role in the following, and if so, how?
My favorite color is garnet, not red, garnet. A good friend of mine was raised in India. I can differentiate between red and garnet but he has names for several different shades of garnet and was able to pinpoint the exact shade of garnet that most appealed, give it a name and we were thus able to order silk for a performance dress from an Indian fabric wholesaler. He literally saw more colors than I because he had names for them. How?
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 2:59 pm
While watching the election returns on MSNBC Tuesday night I was absolutely astounded by Chris Matthews making a suggestion as to who should be Hillary’s running mate. Here’s what he said and some commentary about it: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/stop-helping-hillary-sorry-guys-clinton-doesnt-need-smile-whisper-or-have-john-kasich One of the things that my interest in this election has exposed me to, is to remind me that Matthews who’ve I’ve avoided watching for years, is a complete idiot.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Blouise: I am wondering if SWN plays a role in the following, and if so, how?
In a way but not so much; that is more a function of our childhood connective slaughter. A good analogy (for a musician) is the Chinese language. In Chinese, pitch has meaning; the exact same phonetic utterance can mean more than one thing depending on the pitch inflection used to say it. In English (and many other languages) very little meaning is assigned to pitch. (However pitch meaning is used to distinguish questions from statements, e.g. “America?” is said with a different pitch profile than “America.”)
In children, the connectivity of early neurons is very, very dense. This actually slows their thinking process down by a factor of 2-4 compared to an adult, and they are easily confused by distractions. As an aside, this biological phenomenon was the impetus behind the story strategy in “Blue’s Clues”, the creator (I think it was the host but I am not sure) was aware of such studies, and for adults the VERY long pauses between questions is irritating. But it matches perfectly the processing speed of very young children.
Around the age of 2, unused connections are slaughtered wholesale; the connectivity can drop by more than half. It takes too much energy to maintain. In the language arena (but also sight, hearing, etc) if pitch isn’t important to communication, pitch is ditched. Two years old is also the age of independence and strict rule following (when children in hunter-gatherer tribes are allowed to wander, and biologically speaking, because they may be choosing their own food and are less supervised, they tend to be very picky about eating only what they already know, and to follow established rules of behavior drilled into them, and to become very curious about everything).
So the pitches heard in Chinese speech can be undetectable to people raised in an environment where pitch isn’t an issue (but people raised in a musical environment or with another pitched language may be fine).
The same thing can apply to color distinctions or other distinctions (about rainfall, snow, soil conditions for farming societies). Distinctions that are important to a culture (or even just a family of artists, or jewelers) are learned and remembered from an early age; existing neural connections were recruited to learn and remember such distinctions; neurons were assigned to that function. I would presume that was true for your friend, and not for you, with regard to the color garnet. So on the way to a SWN, your brain was free to ignore such connections (and concentrate on something else), his brain preserved those connections while ignoring something else. It all comes down to how you were influenced to budget your neural connections; you can’t keep ’em all if you want to think at normal adult speed.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:14 pm
Poor Matthews doesn’t have a clue and is probably asking all his female friends and relatives, “What?!” “What did I say that was so wrong?!” “I don’t get it!”
And suggesting Kasich … my gott in himmel! He’s a tea party baby, a vote suppressor, a union hater and thin skinned to the point of being transparent which makes him more than just a little prickly with a pushy news media. He only looks good to republicans when juxtaposed with the Donald. Democrats wouldn’t stand for such an abomination.
If he wanted to suggest a male running mate then Sherrod Brown’s name would pop out of his mouth. But …. Sherrod is married to a very strong woman, Connie Schultz, who is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist so Matthews is probably flummoxed to the point of sputtering by that union.
We’re going to be hearing a lot of that cry echoing down the halls of news media land …
“What?!” “What did I say that was so wrong?!” “I don’t get it!”
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:19 pm
So on the way to a SWN, your brain was free to ignore such connections (and concentrate on something else) … – MM
Okay, now I get it. Thanks for your patience.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:26 pm
MM,
But I still don’t understand the science behind AI technology and I have read Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, cover to cover (777 pages) TWICE!
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Sometime Matthews makes some wise comments but that remark about Kasich was so off the mark that I was taken aback.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 4:55 pm
SwM,
It’s my opinion that Matthews is too easily and too often swayed by his own emotionalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm
SwM,
Sanders may be getting the message. He is, after all, first and foremost, a canny and shrewd politician. With Trump as the republican nominee, it is highly likely that many local democrats may be able to ride Clinton’s coattails and change the dynamics of the House and Senate. Sanders could enjoy a Committee Chairmanship far above his actual seniority pay grade. We will wait and see but my money is on the shrewd politician leaving the “authentic” curmudgeon crusader persona behind to don the robes of the wise, senatorial statesman.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 11:05 pm
gbk,
This is gone!
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 6:35 am
Blouise: Awesome video. >> But I still don’t understand the science behind AI technology
Well, there is too much science, AI is a field beyond the point where all the nuances are easily explained. So let’s try!
First, understand what we consider “intelligence.” This is completely divorced from “consciousness”, intelligence is the ability to learn on your own “patterns” of sensory input, recognize them as part of a model (or multiple models), and mentally complete the model. To take an obvious example, while walking the dog yesterday I saw something peeking out of a partially closed tied-down car trunk; and recognized it as the handlebars of a bicycle, so I believe with high confidence this person was transporting an entire bicycle in their trunk, somewhere or another. Now such models can be temporal, so when I recognize the pattern, the complete mental model may predict the future. We share a mental model about cars and drivers and how quickly they can stop and how fast our own cars are; using such models we can simulate an intersection and, with good but not perfect accuracy, predict whether it is safe to pull out in front of an oncoming car; we are predicting the future positions of that car and our own. Or other cars, it is why we cringe right before near accidents (or actual accidents); our mental simulation of model interaction tells us when an accident is imminent.
The “learn on your own” condition makes fields like weather prediction, physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering or even chess-playing robots, not exactly AI. The reason is the patterns are not learned by them, they are learned by humans and converted into machines (or programs). Most weather prediction programs (to my knowledge all of them, but it isn’t my field) use plain old CFD (computational fluid dynamics) to predict the weather based on sensor readers. They don’t “learn” by example of previous outcomes, they are just a simulation. Physics simulations follow the rules physicists have found, they don’t discover new rules by looking at examples. Early chess playing robots did not learn chess or the value of pieces or strategic squares on the board, those were programmed. (Later ones are learning some of this on their own, by playing tournaments against themselves and against humans online.)
So explicit modeling is not “intelligence”. However it can be difficult to separate. Medieval archers, through endless and varied target practice, learned by examples patterns of bow behavior and arrow flight, including parabolic arcs, wind drift, archery in the rain, cold, heat, etc. That is intelligence at work! Now if I (hypothetically) encapsulate all that into a robot using explicit modeling so the robot does as well as the archer, or even better, is the robot intelligent? No. Intelligence is not about what is known, but how it came to be known.
After the Break: Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 11:51 am
Blouise: Neurons!
There are two good methods for developing intelligence, and both are natural phenomenon; the neurons and evolution (Genetic Algorithms). Other methods some call AI are borderline or not really AI, to me the potential is in neural simulation and evolution simulation; and a hybrid approach is used by nature.
There are many types of neurons; but basically it is useful to think of a neuron as a cell that matches a pattern. It has inputs from many other cells and it has an output that can signal many other neurons. The inputs can encourage it to signal, or discourage it from signaling. Like all living things it can grow tired, it requires nutrition and oxygen and it produces waste that must be disposed of; all of those are important for various reasons. (in particular, our sleep is generally a side effect of periodic waste disposal; the waste can interfere with neural operations, and the waste disposal method dilates arteries in the brain, creating pressure on neurons that cause them to cease their signal function and expel waste into the blood stream for disposal. The primary purpose of Sleep is literally for brain washing; without it the waste builds up until it kills the neurons. But because sleep is necessary, other functions take place too, like memory and learning consolidation.)
Back to neurons. To anthropomorphize a bit, the neuron “recognizes” patterns on its inputs and signals other neurons of that fact. This is data compression: A variety of inputs is converted into a single input. For a well-studied example, neurons attached to just a few retinal cells fire when the contrast shows just ONE certain kind of “line”, horizontal, vertical, diagonal. Those neurons provide inputs to other neurons that recognize specialized parts; loops, corners, endings, etc. The visual cortex is very highly ordered and consistent, and near the end we see neurons firing that recognize actual letters, numerals, etc in the visual field. And what is interesting is if we trace their inputs back to the visual field; we can see that, for a scrawled handwritten letter “A”, what the firing neurons would have responded to most strongly is a perfect sans-serif letter “A” in that spot. Of course it can be confused; a hand-written “1” and a hand-written “7” can be tough to tell apart; and in such cases the neurons corresponding to each will both signal.
(A simulation of the human visual cortex is actually a component of automatic hand-writing recognition for the US Postal Service).
Neurons learn to recognize patterns. Without getting into the mechanics of how (because it is still very fuzzy), individual neurons learn patterns, and inform other neurons when those patterns appear. Or sometimes, in negative, when a neuron has learned a certain input is usually accompanied by another input; the first input primes a signal, the second input inhibits it, so the effect is if the unexpected happens [the pattern is violated] then the neuron signals — this is the source of ‘surprise’, one of our fundamental building blocks of attention; whether it is something like a button falling off as we try to fasten it, or a car braking hard ahead of us, or something being unexpectedly hot or cold. Our brain is constantly processing literally millions of expectations of what will be sensed each moment; any one of which can surprise us.
The micropatterns recognized by neurons build up to major patterns. We remember these patterns by biological growth, the actual creation like vines of physical fibers connecting neurons (why our learning takes so long). The patterns form into “models” of the real world, for everything, millions of them. You have a mental model for a coffee cup, a car, a skateboard. Most importantly, for other people: my neurons still encode what was once a pretty accurate predictive model of my father. I know my best friend so well I can order from a new menu in a different country what he would order (and it is different than my order).
The Neural Network science began by just trying to simulate neural activity, as measured in the lab, with computer code that models it. Then to connect them up like we can see them hooked up in actual brains (fruit fly brains, mouse brains, human cadaver volunteer brains) and see WTF they do in response to stimuli. Freezing and micro-slicing is how the structure of the human visual cortex was mapped out.
But once we had a rough understanding of the mechanics of biological neural network training and learning, we can streamline that, make it digital, simulate by mathematical formula what the “chemistry” was doing, and prove that it can learn, too, using digital inputs (like pixels, numbers, etc), and it can develop predictive models, too. That was true artificial intelligence, and with a lot of refinement that has become quite useful. Like the visual cortex it does not require any consciousness, or goal, or a human-devised predictive model (like weather prediction does); with training by examples the machine can figure out for itself the important patterns and combinations that produce predictive outputs.
It can still be a lot of code by programmers, but we aren’t coding the model; we are coding simulation of a brain that, like a mouse, can derive generalizations from examples and construct a temporal model of what it sees, how it behaves, and what is coming next. That is the type of model that tracks trading activity in the stock market 5000 times per second and makes bets on the future a few hundred milliseconds in the future, the “high frequency trading” algorithms; processing tens of thousands of inputs every 20 microseconds looking for patterns it knows will be followed shortly by rises or falls of a few cents in the price of a stock.
After the Break: Genetic Algorithms.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 11:57 am
MM,
Re video Wasn’t she great?! Gives a whole new dimension to coloratura.
I am leaving to experience what my host promises will be the best sushi ever. We’ll see. At any rate, I will read the AI info this evening which will, hopefully, be the full seminar. I do appreciate your taking the time to explain the basics.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Blouise: Darwin!
The basic idea of evolution is that the fittest survive, and fitness has a random component to it during reproduction. It is not a tautology (e.g. “Those that reproduced, reproduced.”), because such tautological phrasing ignores the random component that can influence survival: mutations that are almost always harmful, but in rare instances are beneficial.
In organisms mutations occur in genes; humans have about 20,000 protein coding genes (and likely millions of “control sequences” and “signal sequences” in the genome that are never expressed as part of a protein).
The idea behind a genetic algorithm is to steal the idea of evolution to create a solution to a problem. It has nothing to do with figuring out proteins or biology, it is just the pure idea that if I can formulate a “solution” as a combination of parts, and can quantify how well different combinations of parts work toward the solution, then I can make different combinations compete, simulate mating and offspring and death as if the solutions were organisms, and eventually find good solutions as the most successful of these organisms.
So take a famously hard problem, the so-called traveling salesman problem. The puzzle is that he needs to visit every one of a hundred cities; he can travel from any city to any other, and he wants to take the shortest route that visits all the cities. Well, we can represent one path as a random list of the 100 cities in a particular order. We can easily generate a thousand such lists, and compute the total distance traveled.
That lets us sort out the lists, from “best” (shortest distance) to “worst” (longest distance).
Knowing that, I can delete the 650 worst candidates, and look at the top 350 and replace those 650 with 650 “matings” of the best lists. What is a mating? Well, presumably each list has some pretty good sequences of city visits, so we want to preserve some of those city-to-city connections; and without getting too mathematically technical I can devise a way to do that, so a “mother” and a “father” produce a “child” list that looks similar to both but visits the 100 cities in a slightly different order. On top of that, I can “mutate” some of the children (maybe 100 of them per generation), perhaps by swapping the order of two randomly chosen cities, or reversing the order of two adjacent cites.
In any case, after we have restored our population of 1000 with new members, we score them all (by total distance traveled), sort them, and do the same again: Kill the worst 650, and replace them with matings from the top 350, score them all, sort them all, and repeat. About 1000 times. it will take about one second per generation, so in 20 minutes we end up with a pretty good sequence of cities.
It isn’t guaranteed to be perfect, but like genetics, the top contenders will likely be pretty hard to beat; in experiments this can get within a few percent of the known minimum possible distance traveled.
That is the idea of a genetic algorithm: random generation, random mating, random mutations, with a scoring mechanism so the worst random solutions are discarded and replaced by “matings” of the best random solutions.
Another (real life) application has been component analysis; so say I can get some measurements of an unknown chemical compound. Now I know this is some mixture of maybe 30 chemicals, in some proportion, with probably only a few of them present. With analysis I can compute, for such a combination, what my measurements would read: But I cannot do the reverse, take the measurements and figure out what the combination must be.
My “gene” for such a problem would be the list of potential ingredients, with a weight for what percentage of the compound it is. I can generate a bunch of random compounds and test them to see how CLOSE I get to the actual readings, perhaps with some favoritism for fewer compounds. Then I discard the worst, mate the best, and test again. Eventually I can evolve compounds that (by analysis) produce readings very close to the actual readings or even exactly the actual readings; and in tests (where researchers know what the mystery compound actually was) this approach will often identify exactly what the mystery compound actually was.
-The End
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 7:22 pm
I saw the Charlie Rose – Jeffery Goldberg interview on the Atlantic piece. It was very good. Man. I’m in favor of a third term… Hope you have time to see the show.
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60700174
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Intelligence is not about what is known, but how it came to be known. – MM
Alright, here’s what I’m going to do. Tonight I am going to go to bed and while my brain is washing I will engage in some learning consolidation. (BTW … my masso therapist routinely gives me a lymphedema treatment that involves the brain. She trained in Switzerland where emphasis on brain washing and the lymphatic system have long been taught [Glymphatic?])
I have taken in all you wrote, now it is time to consolidate allowing my neurons to recognize some new patterns.
How did this new info come to me? I asked you. 😉
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 11:02 pm
IP,
My brain is fried tonight so I am going to save Charlie for tomorrow. And thank you for the link.
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 6:26 am
Blouise: So, silence tends to mean too much information, shall I presume I failed this explanation?
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm
i wish more people had write my Washington Post article on Trump and Hitler comparisons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 5:01 pm
I have always thought of Godwin’s law as if it were a physical statistical law. Heated discussion invites hyperbolic vitriol, and as you say in that article, calling some position Nazism is about the worst thing people can think of calling it; so of course the probability of it being deployed will approach 1.
I hear “Slavery” invoked in discussions of taxation or coerced civic responsibility. Yet the Holocaust was straight up extermination of millions of innocents including women and children, that has to be considered worse than even slavery. I think Godwin’s Law holds (probabilistically) because the Holocaust is the worst thing most people know humans are really capable of doing.
That doesn’t absolve the accused of any wrong-doing, of course. Hitler might be hyperbolic, but the accused might be advocating for a policy that would victimize or even cause the death of many innocent people.
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Well Mike Godwin
If that is indeed you, but the picture does look correct, I have read your article. You’re right, too much of what is deemed discourse today online is merely ad hominem attacks, that offer little evidence. It is something of which I’m aware and dislike as well. My post above is grounded in a fairly good knowledge of history and some research to put emphasis on the points I’m making. In that respect I wonder if you had actually read the piece you are commenting on? If you had done so, then you would understand that I am presenting evidence of Trump’s action’s mimicking Adolph Hitler’s. Now one doesn’t have to believe that Trump is on the cusp of bringing the Shoah to the American shores to avoid calling him Hitler. Then again, if I were Latino or Muslim I might think differently.
Incidentally, what I did call into question with your formulation, is that it bears such a close resonance with the concept of PC. My personal feelings is that PC serves the function for bigots to turn the evidence of their bigotry back on their accuser. Now having been involved with the “Movement” in the 60’s and also with a radical fringe of the labor movement also back then, I’m well aware of the hyperbole often used by far leftists upon those they disagree with. I thought it was overkill back then and I think the same of it now. Sometimes thought the appellations of Hitler, NAZI and Fascist do fit people being described.
LikeLike