So on this day I want to remember the extraordinary men and women who gave of themselves to help others, who showed us the good that exists within the human spirit, if it is allowed to fly free. Without people like you we would be nothing.
Sunday 11 September 2016
The Wind Beneath my Wings
It has been fifteen years since the attacks of 9/11. We have launched a war on terror, been through a Great Recession, seen uprisings in the Middle East with millions of desperate people being forced from their homes by violence on a massive scale, and headlines that resonate with hate speech from one of our candidates for president, or the greed of bank employees.
So on this day I want to remember the extraordinary men and women who gave of themselves to help others, who showed us the good that exists within the human spirit, if it is allowed to fly free. Without people like you we would be nothing.
So on this day I want to remember the extraordinary men and women who gave of themselves to help others, who showed us the good that exists within the human spirit, if it is allowed to fly free. Without people like you we would be nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
134 comments:
Erdoğan has used his emergency powers over the weekend to depose 24 mayors of Kurdish cities in southeastern Turkey, and replace them with ‘trustees’ loyal to Erdoğan. link
And the Syrian peace deal worked out between Russia and the U.S.A. supposedly goes into effect today. (I don't think it'll work out.)
(I don't think it'll work out.)
Seriously? Now why would you think that?
Erdoğan has used his emergency powers over the weekend to depose 24 mayors of Kurdish cities in southeastern Turkey, and replace them with ‘trustees’ loyal to Erdoğan.
A good clean sweep, apparently.
Why do I suspect there has been backroom dealing with Russia over the makeup of the new Syria? And why do I think the US wasn't invited?
Lee:
"And the Syrian peace deal worked out between Russia and the U.S.A. supposedly goes into effect today. (I don't think it'll work out.)"
Seems your skepticism was proven right after less than an hour.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/world/middleeast/hours-before-cease-fire-assad-vows-to-recover-every-area-in-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0
Might still be worth something but IT doesn't look too promising.
The problem with drawing up peace accords for Syria is that the parties doing the fighting in Syria (and most of their financiers) don't want peace yet; they still want to win.
There are some serious allegations of fraud arising around The Donald J. Trump Foundation (WaPo) which may make it harder for Trump to hit Hillary during the debates about the Clinton Foundation (which has produced a lot of smoke, but no real fire, in contrast to the Trump Foundation, which has been found guilty of illegal campaign contributions). Gotta wonder if these charges are gonna get any publicity before the election (seems odd to me that they've skated on this so far, but Trump is outside the normal parameters pretty much all around). But, it will give Hillary something actual to hit back with if Trump thinks he's gonna bring up the innuendo that have followed the Clinton Foundation during the debates.
The problem with drawing up peace accords for Syria is that the parties doing the fighting in Syria (and most of their financiers) don't want peace yet; they still want to win.
*sigh*
Hence my slight sarcasm above.
The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not like other charities. An investigation of the foundation — including examinations of 17 years of tax filings and interviews with more than 200 individuals or groups listed as donors or beneficiaries — found that it collects and spends money in a very unusual manner.
For one thing, nearly all of its money comes from people other than Trump. In tax records, the last gift from Trump was in 2008. Since then, all of the donations have been other people’s money — an arrangement that experts say is almost unheard of for a family foundation.
Trump then takes that money and generally does with it as he pleases. In many cases, he passes it on to other charities, which often are under the impression that it is Trump’s own money.
Says a lot about the man.
I read this article to a co-worker and her response was that Hillary had done a lot of illegal things as well. I asked specifically what and her response was about the emails. She has said she is just considering not voting.
Why Obama should pardon me
If he wants to come home and face trial, I'm good with that. But a pardon? If Obama does that I will be seriously disappointed in him.
"I asked specifically what and her response was about the emails."
Yeah, except the FBI guy, James Comey, (who was a Republican appointee, and who was obviously not inclined to cut Hillary any slack) determined that there was no actual crime there. It's one thing to ‘violate policy’, which no doubt she did; it's something else, and something extra, to do something that's actually illegal.
The Falling Man
It's one thing to ‘violate policy’, which no doubt she did; it's something else, and something extra, to do something that's actually illegal.
Yes. I suspect she is one of those people who don't let facts stand in the way of their thinking.
The US to accept 110K refugees in 2017
I'd seen that piece of news before. I'm not exactly thrilled to hear ‘bout it, as you probably know.
Former U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, is claiming that the new Saudi government is finally recognizing that their support for Islamists has a downside. Politico.com
It is less clear that they've recognized the link between their own version of Salafi Islam, Wahabism, and the theology of the Islamists.
The new Saudi leadership, in other words, appears to be downgrading ideology in favor of modernization.
If true, it is a step forward. We would do well to encourage them.
I'm suspicious that it's merely a PR campaign. Since late July al-Nusra has been trying to rebrand itself as a ‘moderate’ Muslim organization, and I think this is just the Saudi goin’ ‘long at home with the ideas they're simultaneously trying to sell in their Syrian proxies, just fresh new packaging on the same old products.
Lee: "Since late July al-Nusra has been trying to rebrand itself as a ‘moderate’ Muslim organization, and I think this is just the Saudi goin’ ‘long at home with the ideas they're simultaneously trying to sell in their Syrian proxies, just fresh new packaging on the same old products."
I didn't think of the connection to the re-branding of al-Nusra myself but now that you mention it it does sound quite logical. The Saudi need their anti-Iran proxies and now that the more radical sunni Jihadists are definetly falling out of fashion with just about every other main player a new image might be urgently needed.
Two more bombings in Malmö this week. On monday night a car was blown up at about 0:30. That one woke me up. Last night a garage door at a private house was blown up. I didn't wake from that one but it's said it was heard over most of town so I probably just slept hard.
Not too much damage at the sites, amazingly little actually considering the sound of the (first) blast, and no people hurt. Still it's a bit unnerving that we've gone from knives to guns to grenades and now bombs in quite a short period of time. And while these bombs haven't done that much damage it would be another thing entirely if they were wrapped with shrapnel and set off in crowded places.
My take on it is it's probably criminals making statements against other criminals in competition of market shares of the black economy. A guess, but I think it most likely.
Pic from the bombing of the car:
http://www.pppress.se/images/pictures/15493/006-PPBOMB9-20160914.jpg
Pic from last night's bomb:
http://www.pppress.se/bilder/main.php?g2_itemId=513619
As you can see the damage is fairly limited but damn those things are loud when they go off in the quiet of night.
There's a fella writing in the New York Times who thinks Edward Snowden should be pardoned. I believe we can safely guess that Lynnette will continue to disagree with that proposition.
I don't feel up to passing judgement on the pardon/non pardon of Snowden because I don't know the details. Never delved into that.
But I do think it would need to be established with absolute certainty that he did do the "right thing" and basically that he revealed criminal behaviour of the state for him to be outright pardoned. If he committed a crime to reveal a crime - that can be pardoned. If he committed a crime to reveal things he disagreed with he needs to stand trial for it. That'd be my take on it.
I've not looked into the Snowden matter closely enough to have come to a firm opinion on the subject one way or another. Quite simply, Snowden's personal future is not and has never been a subject of compelling interest for me. It certainly never compelled me to study his past closely enough to pronounce upon the question of his future. (I do know that I don't share your precise criteria for a pardon; I may tend to be a little more liberal.) I do kinda think he's getting ahead of himself there, demanding a pardon before he's ever entered a plea or mounted a defense doesn't quite seem to be the correct sequence to me.
Listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu5_m2PHIZg
Are you hunting for a Trump supporter who actually knows what the hell he's talking about, maybe somebody who can get basic facts correct? That'd be more than Trump himself can do, so that search would probably be an exercise in futility
Edward Snowden not a whistleblower
If Edward Snowden had just made us aware of the data collection that the NSA was engaged in it might be that he did a public service. But he did more than that. Anyway, as this article points out, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so he really can't be pardoned. If he really believes he is innocent of any crime then he should come back and face the charges against him.
As you can see the damage is fairly limited but damn those things are loud when they go off in the quiet of night.
That would be a bit of a rude awakening.
"…he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so he really can't be pardoned."
Strictly speaking, it's not required that he be convicted. That's customary, but it's not strictly required. One might recall that Richard Nixon had not even been formally charged with any crimes when Ford pardoned him. The Supreme Court has previously said that acceptance of a pardon in such a situation is the legal equivalent of a confession.
Surprisingly honest letter from EU President Donald Tusk:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/09/13-tusk-invitation-letter-bratislava/
"People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them. Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.
People quite rightly expect their leaders to protect the space they live in and ensure their security. If the belief that we have abandoned this responsibility is further strengthened, they will start looking for alternatives. And they will find them."
Yes we will Donald, yes we will.
and:
"The migration crisis was the tipping point. Last year's chaos on our borders, new images every day of hundreds of thousands of people moving across our continent without any control, created a feeling of threat among many Europeans. They had to wait too long for action to bring the situation under control, such as the closure of the Western Balkan route and the EU-Turkey deal. Instead, all too often they heard politically correct statements that Europe cannot become a fortress, that it must remain open."
Yes Donald. We were on the verge of thinking piano wire and lamp posts were the only viable solution to cure this political correctness. Not quite but close to it.
And Donald. You ain't my President, I never got to vote either for or against you!
"You ain't my President, I never got to vote either for or against you!"
I'm given to understand that Sweden is still technically a monarchy and has no President, elected or otherwise. Lacking a President of your own, you are apparently suffering some misconceptions regarding the selection process for the E.U. presidency, and to whom he is responsible.
A brief history of drone warfare.
A couple of corrections seem in order.
The first drone I'm aware of was deployed in WWII when Joe Kennedy Jr. (older brother to John Fitzgerald Kennedy) tried to send one into a Nazi weapons bunker in northern France. Joe got himself killed on account of a wiring problem with the detonation circuit-board. (The plan back then was that Joe and his copilot lifted the plane off of the airstrip in England and then jumped out with parachutes--a trailing plane would then guide the explosive filled B-29 into the target using the newfangled gadget known as television to allow them to watch the attack plane's dashboard while they operated the controls remotely, and also look out through the forward window.) The circuit-board malfunctioned and the explosives went off over England, well before Joe and the copilot got their parachutes ready.
Second thing is that drones don't actually require satellites. A trailing drone or even a trailing airplane to serve as a spotter and signal rely will substitute. One can even launch the drone and control it from the ‘mother ship’ airplane which stays some distance back from the action. Satellite system not required; don't even need a close in airstrip if the mother ship has enough range.
Correction: It was a B-17, not a B-29 (shoulda looked it up I guess).
Just a brief comment before I have to run...
The Supreme Court has previously said that acceptance of a pardon in such a situation is the legal equivalent of a confession.
Interesting, I wonder if Snowden is aware of that? So if given one he could come home, but he would be, in essence, saying he was guilty of the charges, which would not sit well with many Americans. While he may not like Russia, he may not find living here again a walk in the park. If he were to come back and face trial and is found guilty his life in prison would not be very pleasant either. His only hope, really, is to come home and face trial and be found innocent. That is the only way he might, and I stress might, come out of this with some semblance of hope for a normal life.
Another example of someone who jumped before they thought everything through.
New bomb about an hour ago here. Seems to have been set off in the harbour area not near people or businesses. No idea what that was about but the third large explosion this week.
Or... I might say "loud explosion" instead of "large explosion".
Lynnette:
" His only hope, really, is to come home and face trial and be found innocent."
Or seek and get asylum in a to him more preferable country than Russia. There's a smallish campaign here that aims to grant him asylum in Sweden for instance, not that I think it will gain any traction politically. But perhaps in some other country it might.
Lee: "Are you hunting for a Trump supporter who actually knows what the hell he's talking about, maybe somebody who can get basic facts correct? That'd be more than Trump himself can do, so that search would probably be an exercise in futility"
Trump, I'm getting more and more warm to the guy. Who do you think his opponent will eventually be?
"Who do you think his opponent will eventually be?"
Rupert Murdoch, unless he surprises me and actually wins the election, in which case his chief opponent will probably be Paul Ryan.
"Trump, I'm getting more and more warm to the guy."
Not a surprise.
It seems Trump has admitted that Obama was born in the United States ( no doubt in a bid to curry favor with the African-American vote) and is trying to pin the start of that fairy tale on Hillary Clinton. Amazing the way that man's mind works. If he doesn't have the start of dementia I'll eat my keyboard.
Seems to have been set off in the harbour area not near people or businesses. No idea what that was about but the third large explosion this week.
Maybe it was just an accident of some sort.
"If he doesn't have the start of dementia I'll eat my keyboard."
He has merely discovered that the majority of the Republican voter base responds favorably to being lied to. (Surprisingly, he has also discovered that one need not conceal the fact that one is lying to them; they respond just as favorably if the lies are blatant and known by them to be lies--that one surprises me, but there it is.)
What absolutely amazes me is the poll numbers showing Trump and Hillary to be so close. How on earth anyone could believe that Trump has the ability to lead this country is beyond me.
People say they don't trust Hillary, she lies. Well, so does Trump, and as you said, blatantly. Yet they are still willing to vote for him. There was just now a talking head on CNN talking about Trump being a successful businessman. Is he? We certainly see him spending a lot of money, but so did Bernie Maddoff. He spent other people's money. So how much of his own money does Trump spend on charitable giving, how much money does he actually invest in his properties. How many other investors or donors has he sucked into his business deals? I am starting to wonder about his not releasing his tax returns, and not just because it is a Democrat talking point to hit him over the head with.
But you know what? I'm thinking that even if they were to investigate Trump and find him to be just another Bernie Maddoff voters would still vote for him.
I've said since before Trump even won the Republican nomination that he would get 40% of the general election vote in a match-up against Hillary. (Should he win the Republican nomination, which I didn't think he'd actually do at the time I was giving ya'll those percentages as his take against Hillary.) The Republican Hillary Hate is that broad and that great; they've stoked it for neigh onto 20 years now, and they got it goin’ on.
I am surprised that in the last month or so they've managed to get his numbers up over that 40%, but they have.
(And, so far as his ‘successful businessman’ persona goes: If he had merely matched the average for the Dow-Jones over the years since he inherited his father's fortune, he'd be way richer than he is now. If he'd just stuck his father's money in any of the standard stock index funds and gone off to chase European women he'd be richer than he is. (Assuming he didn't spend any faster than he has so far.) His most obvious success as a business man is that he has managed to not lose it all; although the same cannot be said of many who've invested in his ventures along with him.)
Post Script:
I do expect that flirtations with the 3rd party candidates (which younger voters are doing on a rather larger basis than I'd expected) will, as is customary, drop off as the election approaches and the spectre of Trump settles in with the younger independent voters. (But, I didn't expect Trump to win the Republican nomination either. I thought that Cruz would take it away when it got down to a one-on-one between him and Trump, but I was wrong on that, so ya never know.)
I have to admit it is a little scary that Trump is still polling so well. I am truly disappointed in the trend. If he is elected it will be the first time in my voting history that I will actively dislike a sitting president. I may have disagreed with many, but I have never disliked them on a personal level. Even Clinton with his wandering hands had redeeming qualities. And that wasn't really my place to judge, anyway.I wasn't married to the man.
An attack at a mall in St. Cloud last night. Now that is a mall I have been to, although not recently. I don't know that it was terrorism or a local crazy. I know that the man has had a history of minor offenses, so...
"I have to admit it is a little scary that Trump is still polling so well."
Hard to find a bright side in notion that he's managed to get his numbers up over 40%, which I was thinking was gonna his ceiling, but hasn't proved to be. His RCP averages were up to 44% as of this morning.
You misjudged his ceiling Lee. You also told us that once the primaries were over and Hillary and her campaign could get their sights set on Trump they'd take him down. Not happening as far as I can tell. The Trumpinator steamrolls on. Probably gonna win too. If for nothing else then for the lulz it'll bring about. Yes, that's a meme:
http://rlv.zcache.com/trump_2016_for_the_lulz_campaign_election_gop_keepsake_box-rafec3c40c6e64b52b8a4dc50df696b23_ag9ey_8byvr_324.jpg
More seriously I don't think the Dems could have picked a worse candidate to put up against Trump than Hillary. Obama would likely have won with double digits over him. Hillary running is his only shot at the precidency, and it might be enough.
Mexicans agree with Trump about urgent need for wall:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790116/Mexico-wants-build-border-wall-Central-America-illegal-immigrants.html
Sort of.
"You misjudged his ceiling Lee."
I did indeed. But, I already said that. I still don't think he's gonna win. It's depressing that he's polling over 40%; but I guess I underestimated the desire of the Republican base to crash the system.
And, Hillary basically took a month off of the campaign trail to do fund-raising; she just wasn't doing any campaign events. I mentioned before, week or so ago, that it was a rather novel strategy, and now we can see the results. Not workin’ out for her. Also, right about then is when Trump got a new campaign team, finally went on the teleprompter and quit writing his own speeches. Between the two of those moves Trump is up to 44% now.
The debates will be crucial. For Trump, the ‘bar’ as they say is set low. If he manages to not piss on the floor his supporters will declare him ‘presidential’ and claim he won the debate. For Hillary the bar is set a little higher. The debates loom large now, and Hillary's got a higher bar to clear so…. We shall see what we shall see. (Donald has a history of doing particularly poorly in debates against women where he can't use his macho ploys, but all he's really gotta do is manage to not piss on the floor.)
Lee: "The debates will be crucial. For Trump, the ‘bar’ as they say is set low. If he manages to not piss on the floor his supporters will declare him ‘presidential’ and claim he won the debate. For Hillary the bar is set a little higher."
I'd add one more thing. Hillary needs to appear healthy at the debates. All eyes will be on that. If she faints on a 77 degree morning in NY a 1.5 hour debate against Trump under the heat of all them spotlights might prove a real challenge.
Could be that the "phnemonia" story is for real and all she needs is a bit of time off and some anthibiotics. Could also be that she's in worse shape than she lets on. The 9/11 stumble wasn't the first after all.
My bet is Trump is gonna do just fine in the debates btw. Not only not pissing on the floor but actually doing fine.
I'd bet the other way if I had to bet. It's one thing to recite the Republican base's radio-right-winger rants for the
Republican primaries (they're easy to memorize and
Republican base doesn't expect them to actually make sense), but it's a whole ‘nother thing to actually try to make sense about subject you know nothing about for a skeptical audience.
If he manages to not piss on the floor his 40% will declare him the winner, but he's gotta do better than that to solidify his improved position with that extra 4%.
We have an author from the PowerLine blog who's convinced that Marcus is right and that Trump is now starting to run away with the Presidential race.
First reports are that the bomber on the east coast was an Afghan immigrant who'd already been naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The Minnesota knife attacks were by an Somali-born Muslim whose citizenship has not yet been confirmed.
Thankfully, awful as the attacks both were, it does seem to be lone wolf attacks and the damage they did could have been much worse but wasn't.
It has occurred to me that the recent bombings in and around New York, and the knife work in Minnesota, are possibly just the harbinger of things to come between now and the November elections. They want Trump; Putin wants Trump; al-Qaeda wants Trump; Da'esh wants Trump. They think they help Trump win by making it seem that America needs the 'strongman' that Trump plays up for the masses. We may see all kinds of attempts in the next few weeks 'til early November, some of them not too well thought through, on account of they need to make the attempts in time for the election more than they need to make the attempts successful.
A rather strange side note to one of the bomb incidents on the east coast. It was a pressure cooker left in a backpack. What was odd was that two men picked up the backpack, removed the pressure cooker, and made off with the backpack. It rather looks like two thieves had a very lucky day.
Another thing I find odd is that Daesh is claiming responsibility for influencing the attacker in Minnesota, but I haven't heard that they have done so for the bomber on the east coast.
Lee: "They want Trump; Putin wants Trump; al-Qaeda wants Trump; Da'esh wants Trump. They think they help Trump win by making it seem that America needs the 'strongman' that Trump plays up for the masses."
Do you think they think that hard about it? I would guess radicalization, maybe a feeling of discrimination or personal shortcomings. Then the atmosphere of the elections looming might trigger a guy like the mall attacker. But the bomber seems to have started his radicalization process long ago and planned the attacks for quite some time. I wouldn't be so quick to pin them on a wish to help Trump.
Besides, are you sure AQ and Daesh really want Trump given that Hillary is in bed with their main backers, both ideological and financial? After all Iraqis tend to call Saudi the "legal Daesh" and they bought Hillary long ago.
" But the bomber seems to have started his radicalization process
long ago and planned the attacks for quite some time."
And yet he struck somewhat prematurely. He did not have a good target list yet selected; obviously he had more planning yet to do, but he went ahead with it anyway.
In any case, he isn't known to have been in contact with Da’esh Central in the Mid-East, which is where that sort of strategic thinking would likely take place. But they will be thinking ‘bout it, whether they can take advantage or not, they'll be thinkin’ ‘bout it and wishin’ they could. (Ain't no coincidence that Wikileaks is releasing the stuff they got on the Democrats, however indirectly, from the Russian hackers, and playin’ up publicly the coming release of yet more juicy stuff-which they may or may not even have.)
"Besides, are you sure AQ and Daesh really want Trump…"
Trump will (already has) piss off Muslims world-wide. He'll be as big a recruitment poster as Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo, bigger even. Hillary may play into their hands by being over-eager. No doubt ‘bout Trump; ain't no ‘may’ ‘bout it; he'd be a God-send and they already know it.
Merkel admits poor election results were due to bad handling of the refugee crisis. Wishes she could "go back in time". Backs off from the "wir schaffen es"-comments she shoved down the throats of worried Germans:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/berlin-wahl-merkel-reicht-kritikern-die-hand-a-1112925.html
That's what I call a conversion under the gallows. She ought to just step down, apologize and disappear into anonymity. There's gonna be decades of mayhem on account of her, and also Reinfeldt/Löfvén in Sweden for that matter.
At least the tides are turning.
Lee: "Trump will (already has) piss off Muslims world-wide. He'll be as big a recruitment poster as Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo, bigger even."
I grant that you have a point but that's just exaggeration. That's just not true based on what Trump has said and done so far. You'd have to add anticipated future actions for that to be near true. The radical sort of muslims hate you so much already and Hillarys "we came, we saw, he died" comment followed by that psycho-laugh after bombing Libya to smithereens might just as well serve as propaganda.
And I don't think Trump's going to actually stop all muslims on all visas coming into the USA. I don't even see how that could be done with any certainty. But I do think he's gonna put a stop to Obama's refugee resettlement plans post haste, and were I an American I would have been fine with that.
Send the Corp of Engineers to Jordan instead and build up infrastructure, schools and hospitals to muslim refugees from Syria in their neighboring muslim country then work for the war to stop while providing basic necessities to those camps. Much better. We euroweenies should've done something similar BTW.
"He'll be as big a recruitment poster as Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo…"
As in, ‘He will be…’ As in future verb tense. As in things to come.
"That's just not true based on what Trump has said and done so far.
You'd have to add anticipated future actions for that to be near true."
Okay, I'm just gonna assume that your English failed you again, and you didn't actually intend to agree with me but start an argument on the subject in spite of agreeing with me.
"But I do think he's gonna put a stop to Obama's refugee resettlement
plans post haste, and were I an American I would have been fine with that."
Obama has been a disappoint to me in a number of respects, but I'd still vote for him again, run him a third term if that were an option, in favor of any of the folks currently running
Word is out that George H.W. Bush has let it be known to the Democrats in his family that he's gonna vote for Hillary (there are some Democrats in his family; they've inter-married with the Kennedy clan). But, he won't confirm it to the media just yet, doesn't deny it, but says he's got no comment for the public and won't have one before the election. I gotta think this is his way of signaling that it's okay for the boys, Dubya and Jeb, to endorse Hillary if they see fit to do so.
Lee: "Okay, I'm just gonna assume that your English failed you again, and you didn't actually intend to agree with me but start an argument on the subject in spite of agreeing with me."
No, but you also wrote that he "alreday had" pissed off muslims world wide. And as for what he'll do if elected that might piss off muslims more than what Hillary might do is only speculation at this point in time. So saying he's gonna be a bigger recruitment poster than Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo is IMO exaggerations or at the very least premature speculations. Them were huge recruitment posters both as you well know.
But Trump has used inflammatory language I grant that. And while that has been aimed at the domestic audience it might well be that some muslims have been more radicalised by it too. But frankly I think the muslims who protest most, and arguably rightly so, are the ones NOT bent on jihad, the majority.
The would be jihadists I don't think have changed their opinion on the US or the west much, one way or the other, by Trump's campaign speeches.
Lee: " I gotta think this is his way of signaling that it's okay for the boys, Dubya and Jeb, to endorse Hillary if they see fit to do so."
Would that hurt or help Trump though? Would it be of much use to Hillary? Dubya didn't exactly end his second term on a high note and Jeb might just come off like a sore loser. Plus they are both part of the political "establishment" Trump is getting followers by NOT belonging to.
"No, but you also wrote that he ‘alreday had’ pissed off muslims
world wide."
I'm assuming word has gotten around the Islamic world re: his plans to ban immigration the of new Muslims and to register and surveil the American Muslims we've already got.
"Would that hurt or help Trump though?"
Won't hurt him with his solid 40%, but there's the rest to consider.
"…or at the very least premature speculations."
Apparently your English hasn't been improved by my brief English lesson. That part was more of a prediction than a speculation. You may contest the prediction if you please, but I hardly think it's premature to make that prediction.
So given my now established low grasp of the english language how is it that you can say "prediction" and I can say "speculation" and you feel I have it wrong on account of language?
I say your "prediction" IS a mere "speculation", and I thought I had made that quite clear. Or do you have any evidence supporting your prediction? If not, isn't it mere specualation?
Lee: "Won't hurt him with his solid 40%, but there's the rest to consider."
Ya'll still give him just 40%? How bad it'll make you feel on Nov 8 when he wins.
Trump's packing stadiums and folks (Americans mind you) watch big screens from the parking lots because they can't get a seat inside.
Hillary might get a few thousands where the bulk are paid to be there. Snoozing as she makes her uninspring tirades.
She's lost this one already. Dead in the water. And I'm fairly sure the "polls" are almost as sqeuwed in the US as thay are here in Europe and the politically incorrect candidate will fare way better in the actual vote than in the polls.
I'm not foreseeing a landslide, but a comfortable Trump win. Hillary has already lost.
"I say your ‘prediction’ IS a mere ‘speculation’, and I thought I had
made that quite clear."
So, I was wrong. You were trying to pick a fight just for the sake of having one. And there's not going to be any evidence you'll accept on account of Trump's not gonna win. (Or, maybe you're just pissed off on account of you screwed up your English, and so now you're fussin’ for the sake of it.)
Well, this one's not worth the fuss on account of the evidence is never gonna come in and you're not worth the fuss just for your own sake.
And, since you're just fussin’ for the hell of it, me not joining in the fuss is punishment enough for you decidin’ to just fuss for the hell of it.
Will he?
Former President George H.W. Bush said in a room of roughly 40 people Monday that he would vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to sources close to Bush -- an extraordinary rebuke of his own party's nominee.
Guess that ‘no comment’ position wasn't proving workable for him.
CBS's morning news has picked up on the supposedly charitable Trump Foundation's highly questionable expenditures in Mr. Trump's interest. That may not blow over after all.
Lee: "And there's not going to be any evidence you'll accept on account of Trump's not gonna win."
So you've said and so you say. We'll see though. I'd set the odds at 60-40 right now in favour of Trump. That might change, but right now he's on a great trajectory.
I do anticipate a media blitz of some sort, a scandal revealed or whatever, closely before the elections. But I believe most people will see that for what it is - the establishment going all out to stop Trump. We've seen such schemes here are they don't seem to fool people. Poeple tend to get pissed of at it because it's so obvious.
Something like 65% of the ‘likely voters’ tell the pollsters that Trump is, by character and temperament, ‘not qualified’ to be President, and yet 44% of those same ‘likely voter’ folks say they're gonna vote for Trump.
Workin’ the numbers there, supposedly some 9% say they're gonna vote for a man they think is not qualified to hold the job.
I'll leave you to work on that one for yourself, on account of you're lookin’ too hard for a fight these days.
Your fellow Amerians simply hate Hillary more than they dislike Trump. Easy.
Also Trump supporters WILL vote. They are dedicated and will go out to vote. Almost every single one of them.
Hillarys supporters do not reach near that level of committment. Many anti-Trumipists Hillaries will simply stay at home and not vote.
Trump will bring it home for sure.
"Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come"
CBS's morning news has picked up on the supposedly charitable Trump Foundation's highly questionable expenditures in Mr. Trump's interest. That may not blow over after all.
It's not just that. There are other questions on his business dealings. I don't have time to dig up the article now, but I will try to later.
So I have to wonder at the people who are questioning the Clinton Foundation, yet are okay with Trump's questionable dealings. Also, Trump has been proven to be a blatant liar, which is what they supposedly don't like about Hillary. So what is the difference? Why support one, yet not the other, if they are two peas in a pod? In their view anyway.
Lynnette: "So I have to wonder at the people who are questioning the Clinton Foundation, yet are okay with Trump's questionable dealings."
Becaue people realise Trump was self-serving as a business man. he did what was good for himself. Hillary was acting an agent for her donors. She undid what would have been good for the people she supposedly served.
Big difference.
Him: opportunist.
She: Traitor.
Not the same at all.
"She undid what would have been good for the people she supposedly
served."
How did she do that? What did she actually do?
Becaue people realise Trump was self-serving as a business man. he did what was good for himself.
And they don't think he will be just as self-serving as President? So they will elect a man who may very well put his business dealings first rather than the country? No wonder he and Putin have some kind of love fest going on. Birds of a feather.
Hillary was acting an agent for her donors.
By what? Meeting with them?
She undid what would have been good for the people she supposedly served.
Specifics, please.
She: Traitor.
Strong accusation. Most people would need proof of that kind of accusation.
"Specifics, please."
Specifics indeed. I was gonna wait and bring this up later if it needed brought up, but since you've already breached the subject…
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on
confession in open court."
Article III § 3 -- United States Constitution (emphasis added)
…overt act…
That'd be the question there. What did she actually do? What's the allegation here?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort.
This is the part that some people accuse Snowden of.
I think the charges against Snowden consist of violations of the Espionage Act rather than treason.
The notion that Trump isn't qualified to be President has some interesting ramifications. Trump doesn't seem to get any bounce from from fear of an actual terrorist attack on the United States' homeland. Slate That may not be what Trump expects given that he's running as a ‘tough guy’
Rich Lowry, Republican pundit, has a theory on how Trump can win Monday's debate. Basically it comes down to Trump doesn't piss on the floor; Trump wins.
I think the charges against Snowden consist of violations of the Espionage Act rather than treason.
Legally speaking, I suppose. But emotionally speaking, maybe not.
Have to check out the links later. Busy today. *sigh* It's tough when key people retire.
Ah, OK "traitor" was over the top. A damn shame too because I think I basically had a good argument going there and then I went and ruined it by exaggerating. Corrupt would be a better word there.
"Corrupt would be a better word there."
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with what Trump's been doing with his supposedly ‘charitable’ Donald J. Trump Foundation.
(And, if the Googling of that subject is too much for ya, you just get back with us; I'm sure Lynnette or I can either one help ya out there. And we can provide specifics on that, which you apparently cannot do even with the lesser allegation of ‘corruption’ tryin’ to carry the water for ya. Question still pends, ya know: What, specifically, did she supposedly do?)
Oh, and you don't have to go over the ‘Trump gets a pass on account of he's just a businessman’ routine again. I absorbed that the first time--but they were corrupt practices, plain and simple; wasn't mere opportunism. But, that's a minor point at this point.
Real question though is, ‘What are the specifics on the charges against Hillary? What, specifically did she supposedly do’?
Missed a comma there on that last one, but I'm gonna let it pass.
Interesting observations from Bloomberg News. Those angry old white folks that Lindsey Graham noted weren't being born fast enough to keep the Republican Party in business in the future--they're living longer than ever and they're voting in higher numbers than ever, and they're gonna be votin’ for Trump-types for years to come. Ain't enough of ‘em to vote him in, but they may be able to keep puttin’ guys like him on the ballots for quite awhile yet to come.
WaPo: ‘Signs of panic and rebellion in [Mosul]’ Headline pretty much describes what's in the story.
Pat Buchanan has a theory on how Trump can win Monday's debate. (reprinted in RCP from original in The American Conservative)).
The gist of of it is: Trump doesn't piss on the floor; Trump wins.
One of the things that worries me about Trump is the prospect that we might be electing one of Putin's oligarchs to the American Presidency.
When Trump sells the Baltic States to Putin for $10 Billion for Trump (on account of they didn't come up with the protection money he already warned them about) we can tell ourselves that we should have seen it comin’ on account of, ‘Wadda ya expect; he's just a businessman, and he really, really wanted to be worth that $10 Billion he was already claiming (probably falsely) as his net worth. Poland would probably worth a lot more than $10 Billion. I wonder if The Donald would haggle after the first offer, or just take the first sum offered that's outrageously higher than anything he ever figured to make between now and his own dyin’.
Just a thought (just a worry actually).
Dang, I wanted to catch up last night, but I was tired and ended up falling asleep. *sigh* I'll get to what I can before I have to do errands.
To date the United States Secret Service has paid Trump $1.6 Million for the privilege of protecting him. Link
Just a thought (just a worry actually).
It's a thought, and a worry, that I have also had.
His behavior with his charitable foundations does not inspire confidence that he would act above board in his future financial dealings.
To date the United States Secret Service has paid Trump $1.6 Million for the privilege of protecting him.
Jesus, that guy really knows how to work the angles. A con man to the nth degree!
Protests in Charlotte, NC. I hear they are talking about moving the Vikings/Panthers game.
Gotta run...
Ooops, one more...
Corrupt would be a better word there.
Seriously, Marcus, take a closer look at Trump. He's more likely to fit that bill.
Honestly, I could see the man eventually being impeached if for some horrible reason he is actually elected President.
"His behavior with his charitable foundations does not inspire confidence…"
His business behavior does not inspire confidence. People who invest in businesses along with Trump way too often end up on the short end of the stick, and way too often they discover that stripping them of their money was the whole point of the business from the beginning. Donald took take his cut out up front, and when he bankrupted their remainder, he was already clear.
Yeah, yeah Lynnette. Have you finished watching "Clintons Cash" yet or did you turn it off once it became uncomfortable?
I well know Trump has flaws, it's just that I believe basically that #anythingbuthillary is the only sane way to go here.
Interesting stats:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/23/breitbartgravis-poll-clinton-holds-national-lead-at-44-trump-40/
"Broken down by ethnic groups, Clinton leads Trump with African-Americans at 81 percent, compared to his 12 percent, and she leads with Hispanics with 50 percent to his 33 percent.
Trump is the leader with Asian-Americans with 49 percent to her 38 percent, and he leads the former first lady with whites — 49 percent to her 33 percent."
I'm not sure but looking at "white countries", "asian countries", "black countries" and "hispanic countries" in general, it does seem to be you'd (apart from a few outlier exaples like Norh Korea) rather live in one of the first two, no?
And perhaps that's a reflection of the social/political mindset of the people living in those countries. No? Is that to racist a question? Can I at least ask it?
Breitbart? Really?
Lee: "Breitbart? Really?"
I don't know muck about it. Is that a "bad" source? Is it so because it's innacurate or actually false?
Because what I posted about was a poll. Are you saying that poll can't be trusted on account of where I found it?
"Are you saying that poll can't be trusted on account of where I found it?"
Yeah, pretty much.
How the h-ll am I gonna keep up with all these merkin news sites and which are OK (or PC enough to be deemed OK) or not. There's a gazillion of 'em.
Lee: "Yeah, pretty much."
OK, so we won't debate it then. I can't vouch for it and it you say it's bad I guess I have to, reluctantly, take your word for it.
So Bretibart is a no go place for info. What else? Politico? How 'bout that one?
And are there any solid sources/news blogs you can direct me at? Not "Lee-friendly" but honest ones.
First thing to do is remember the name Breitbart and avoid that one. (Breitbart's CEO, Steve Bannon, is also the CEO for the Trump Campaign; he replaced the Putin-friendly guy, Paul Manafort about a month ago when Manafort's financial interests in Putin's Ukranian proxies came to light and that got to be a problem.)
So what about conservative/rightist/even Trump friendly news outlets that are serious. Because I can't ONLY read liberal crap you know.
I can say that after Hillary made a big deal about the so called "alt-right" I did some Internet browsing and came across that fringe of Trumpinistas on the far right that are seriously unpalatable. I don't think though that they seriously believe Trump will further their cause. And I confess it's not with a good feeling I tend to favour the same candidate they do. I do believe however they are a very small although loud contignent.
OK, no answer, So you're basically saying that anything to the right of Vladimir Iljitj Uljanov Lenin is "rightwing propaganda". Good to know. I think I'll trust Breitbart more than you going forward. Commie bastard.
If you're looking for polling organizations, Real Clear Politics keeps an average of public polls which they find usually credible. You can see several of the names listed here just about any time. (Names will change as new polls come out and some ‘age’, but they'll all be generally credible organizations.) The names listed on the ‘four way’ race won't always track exactly with the names on the two way race on account of different publishing dates and they keep the list current--polls age off. But, the name that appear there will generally be credible polling organizations and you can start keeping your own list by copying names from there periodically. (Politico does not do their own polling; they report on polls.)
You should have more patience…
"So you're basically saying that anything to the right of Vladimir
Iljitj Uljanov Lenin…"
Vladimir Lenin, not so much; Vladimir Putin is right-wing.
Ted Cruz finally came out and endorsed Donald Trump. Politico.com
Of course he is right wing. That's why we like him.
Yes he's a despot. Yes Russia is a dog-eat-dog country. That is unfortunate but a fact.
But it's way better to have a nationalist like Putin in charge than any of the old Internationalist-commie-bastards who thought they were to conquer the world and spread out with nukes as an argumet.
The film ‘Clinton Cash’ was, just by the way, commissioned and funded by Steve Bannon, (he of Breitbart fame, now sitting in for the Putin-paid strategist, Paul Manafort), and by Breitbart Corp., jointly.
"…way better to have a nationalist like Putin in charge than any
of the old Internationalist-commie-bastards…"
Really low bar there; really low.
Lee:
"Ted Cruz finally came out and endorsed Donald Trump. Politico.com "
What could he do? Now that Trump's set to win he pretty much had to get in line.
The debates on Monday will be the clincher and it's very doubtful if sickly Hillary will even be able to endure that without fainting, or worse. well see.
Kinda like praising Putin on account of Hitler or Stalin were both worse. (Fun Fact: Putin is trying to rehabilitate Stalin among the Russians and has had some success in that endeavor.)
Of course, Stalin wasn't a communist either. He just pretended to be.
"I think I'll trust Breitbart…going forward."
You worked it way too hard trying to rationalize that one. Shoulda just gone straight there and been done with it.
Lee:
"Of course, Stalin wasn't a communist either. He just pretended to be."
I know. He was one of YOUR boyz. Too bad for you that dedication just isnt there anymore.
"He was one of YOUR boyz."
I can't figure that one out. Gotta suspect it's an indication that you've gone completely off the tracks. It probably makes sense in your world.
And, of course, we never did get around to Marcus tellin’ us what, specifically, did Hillary supposedly, actually do?
I don't think he knows.
Post a Comment