It isn’t too late to nominate someone who has a better shot against Trump.
9 Likes
Political prognosticator Nate Silver said Sunday that he gives Republican Donald Trump a 25 percent chance of winning the 2016 presidential election
Teetering dangerously close to the precipice here…
2 Likes
There’s an episode of the Simpsons where a bear wanders down the street, and people are terrified by the bear. The mayor, reacting to the fear, decrees that, despite this being the only case where this has ever happened, they are going to implement a Bear Patrol. Sure enough, after hiking taxes to pay for the Bear Patrol, no more bears wander down the streets.
Homer, of course, is quite proud of how the Bear Patrol is keeping them safe. Lisa, on the other hand, points out that it’s more likely that the reason that there are no bears wandering down the streets is that bears don’t generally wander down streets anyway.
Which is more likely?:
- the spy organization that keeps blaring publicly that they’ve entrapped another mentally ill person into planning a terrorist attack has secretly caught a bunch of domestic terrorists planning another “major 9/11 type terrorist attack” and kept completely silent about it, or:
- The TSA, which misses 95% of the things that they’re supposed to be looking for, has caught every domestic terror attempt.
- The domestic terrorists haven’t tried to plan another “major 9/11 type terrorist attack.”
I’d put money on the third option.
True. But then, nothing will. A single, lone-wolf terrorist with a pressure cooker could have blown up a plane (or, more likely, a train station) any time between 9/11 and the Boston Marathon. However, that still wouldn’t be a “major 9/11 style attack.” In order to kill that many people, they had to hijack four planes (and most of the body count was from two of those planes). That couldn’t happen today, for two major reasons:
- The cockpit door is now reinforced, locked and secured at all times.
- The passengers (who, in 2001, were used to terrorists hijacking planes and holding them for ransom) would go all United 93 on the terrorists and refuse to let them take control of the plane. This would be made even more true (and more likely to result in the survival of all involved) if you expanded the Air Marshalls.
In the book Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, three demons brag about what they’ve done to advance the cause of Satan. The first demon brags that he tempted a good man into sin. The second demon announces that he tempted a priest into sin. The third demon announces that he tied up every cell phone in Central London for forty-five minutes. The other demons scoff, but the third demon reflects on their stupidity - the widespread frustration caused by that act would make people hostile to their neighbours, who would, in turn, get frustrated and take it out, making a self-perpetuating wave of small evils which would have vast-reaching effects far beyond the corruption of one single soul.
The TSA is like the third demon. And who is all of that frustration aimed at? “The Muslims, who attacked us on our own soil!” And thus, the evil spreads, and we take out our frustration on the Muslims, and - oh, look! More home grown terrorists! I wonder where they came from?!
Compared to the instability in the Middle East which has persisted since the West broke up the Ottoman Empire and divided it badly among its population, and has kept intervening to keep the pieces the same size and shape? That’s persisted almost a century at this point, and largely because we keep kicking the hornet’s nest.
There was a law against that. What was that one? Oh, right.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, out of curiosity, what is your stance on encryption?
Nothing to hide? So you’d be fine walking down the street naked, shouting out your personal problems and sexual proclivities to all? Why should the government — why should anyone — have the right to look into the deepest, darkest corners of your life unless they can prove reasonable suspicion first. Not absolute proof, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but reasonable suspicion (which is what you need for a warrant).
Besides, remember Richelieu’s quote. If the wrong government gets into power, they can take things that look innocuous and hang you with them. I consider myself a largely law-abiding person, but I sometimes go 51 km/h in a 50 zone. I sometimes miss the week that I can replay a TV show I missed online, and so download it, watch it, and then delete it. I sometimes cross the street when the light is red.
I somehow doubt that you are “not doing anything illegal.”
Before you give the government any power, you should ask what a hostile government could do with that power. Let’s say that Clinton gets into power, and the government gets the ability to “monitor all known communication mediums” like you suggest. Let’s say that Trump manages to ride into power four years later on an even higher tide of outrage.
Can you not imagine what a Donald Trump would do with the power you describe?
(I was planning to put a series of descriptors there, but was unable to come up with anything that evoked the same horror as the name alone could).
You don’t give government power when the people you like are in power, unless you’re comfortable with it being used when the people you don’t like are in power.
Yes, but why is it worth protecting? I would say that it is worth protecting because of American values — like freedom, privacy, tolerance, respect.
How does it make sense to take away freedom with the goal of protecting freedom? To take away privacy in the name of protecting it? To promote intolerance in the name of protecting tolerance? To fundamentally disrespect your entire population by watching their every move, all in the name of protecting respect?
If America had done nothing in response to 9/11, had issued a declaration that you do not let terrorists drive you into terror, that they would not sacrifice essential liberty for the illusion of security, then they would have won against the terrorists. They would have protected the very spirit of America, which is far more valuable than any one, or ten, or thousand, or million lives are by themselves — and if you don’t believe that, then why do you support America having an army at all?
Instead, they gave in to terror, and America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, has become the land of those whose can’t escape their government’s eyes, even as they huddle in their homes, hiding from a threat which is far less likely to kill them than a simple car crash.
10 Likes
I wish “competent jurist” was an option. I thought that’s what Obama tried to do and the Republicans all recoiled in shock. I think John Oliver even had a clip of a Fox News host saying that Republicans should “call Obama’s bluff” and confirm Merrick Garland. It’s not a bluff, he nominated the guy. But if Trump gets to nominate Supreme Court justices with a pro-Trump congress, we aren’t going to get judges with obviously partisan anti-law records, we are going to get two guys Trump is friends with who aren’t even lawyers.
Unfortunately, Nate Silver gave Donald Trump a 1% chance of getting the nominations, so I wouldn’t be ruling out Nate Silver’s 25%.
7 Likes
7 Likes
Well, he was wrong about the nomination, wasn’t he? I hope he’s more correct now.
2 Likes
If it’s not a bluff, it’s a remarkably underwhelming nomination far removed from Obama’s previous ones.
2 Likes
Great post,
You put a lot of thought and time into it. I certainly respect your varied opinions, despite our difference of opinion. If you are concerned about Donald Trump being president and having control over the current security measures that are in place to protect America–that is yet another (of many) reasons to vote for Hillary or Bernie.
Hillary supports the security measures currently in place to protect America-- and she to date has received more votes than any presidential candidate republican or democrat, seeking the office of president in 2016.
Immigrants are now (and have always) flocked to America. I don’t see any examples of mass numbers of Americans fleeing America because it is a current police state.
Do you believe it is possible for the U.S. Government to listen in and monitor all 323, 839,274 million people living in the America today? United States Population (2024) - Worldometer
Bernie voted against it, however what do you think of the “U.S.A. Freedom Act.”?
https://judiciary.house.gov/issue/usa-freedom-act/
Ends bulk collection: Prohibits bulk collection of ALL records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA pen register authority, and national security letter statutes.
Prevents government overreach: The bulk collection prohibition is strengthened by prohibiting large-scale, indiscriminate collection, such as all records from an entire state, city, or zip code.
Allows challenges of national security letter gag orders: NSL nondisclosure orders must be based upon a danger to national security or interference with an investigation. Codifies procedures for individual companies to challenge nondisclosure orders. Requires periodic review of nondisclosure orders to determine necessity.
1 Like
Hillary will be the democratic presidential nominee. I will support and vote for her to become the next president. Bernie should release more than one year of his tax returns, while Donald Trump should release his tax returns–unless they are hiding something they do not want the voting electorate to find out.
It is certainly not to late for the following to stop-- like now! 
“I’ve been in politics for 50 years now,” said Gallagher, who ran for Congress in 2004. “And I think Bernie is losing control of his people. These are folks out there who have no concept about rational political discourse. Now a lot of Bernie’s folks are really good friends of mine and they’re embarrassed by this. But there are crazies out there that are truly a little scary.”
From the same article above is this interesting statement released by Bernie Sanders.
Sanders’ statement released Tuesday afternoon read in part:
Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place.
Sadly, not an option. I’m just a songbird nesting in your country’s hat.
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. You might as well say, “Hillary’s favorite colour is purple-- and she to date (etc.)” Unless what you’re saying is that people who are against government overreach should be voting for Bernie because Clinton is frighteningly close to winning. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.
[You might, if Trump wins.] (http://www.maplematch.com)
I most certainly don’t, but I believe that [they’re trying to] (The crux of the NSA story in one phrase: 'collect it all' | Glenn Greenwald | The Guardian), and that attempt is crippling their ability to deal with actual threats.
I, like Bernie, think it doesn’t go far enough. The Fourth Amendment says that the USAnian government may not spy on USAnians’ private electronic data (the modern equivalent of “papers”) without a warrant. There’s no “National Security Exception” there, and the USAFA doesn’t do enough to reflect that.
If the former is true, why does the latter matter?
1 Like
Way to simplify David Brock’s story. He also spearheaded Troopergate against Bill Clinton, wrote hit piece after hit piece against Bill and Hillary Clinton. At the end of the 90s, he realized he was a political hitman and not a journalist, realized what he did was unethical and stopped. Then he apologized for his attacks on the Clintons and Anita Hill, wrote Blinded By The Right and The Republican Noise Machine, founded Media Matters and went on a anti-propaganda crusade for over a decade.
1 Like
Yes. the fact that you don’t means that you haven’t done your homework, or are not in a tech or data field. The government already had this capability even in 2006, when they were caught monitoring around 200,000 American phones. 6 years later whistleblowers were reporting that the government was monitoring and analyzing upwards of 20 trillion calls and emails between US citizens. Internationally, collection is on the order of 125 billion transactions every month.
To put this number in terms you might be able to understand, if every monitored email or phone call was inscribed on a sugar cube and stuck into the Great Pyramid of Giza, the pyramid would overflow in 4 months.
This act was a way to revive the failed (just-expired) Patriot Act. The bits you quote were attempts to make this Patriot Act more palatable, but if this act had failed the protections would have been even stronger. Sanders was right to try to keep Patriot Act II from passing, we were better off without this relic of the Cheney-Bush administration.
3 Likes
Thanks for posting this. I was going to post a new thread with lots of angry emoticons, but I’m glad I checked here first instead of adding to the noise.
I have supported Sanders (though not unequivocally), and donated to him, but this is Not Cool.
When your supporters commit violence in your name, the FIRST thing you do is to denounce them completely, before protesting about the exact wording of how your supporters are portrayed.
From Sanders and Democratic officials are engaged in an escalating dispute over Nevada violence
He said Sanders supporters had screamed profane insults throughout Saturday’s convention — they can be seen in YouTube videos of the proceedings — and at one point threw chairs, leading party leaders to shut down the event because of security concerns.
The following day, Schrager said, Sanders supporters defaced the party’s headquarters with graffiti. In the days since, party chairwoman Roberta Lange has been bombarded with hundreds of threatening phone calls and text messages after Sanders activists posted her cell phone number and home address online, he said.
Sanders, in his statement, said Schrager’s claim that his supporters have a penchant for violence “is nonsense.”
He suggested his supporters had the right to be angry, saying the DNC had ruled that some Sanders delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for some of them to be heard.
This is way too close to Trump’s “They just love their country so much” defense of violence.
Lest I be accused of false-equivocation, no, no one has been bodily harmed, like has happened time and again in Trump’s rallies, but let’s not even start to go in that direction. Denounce your supporters who have done this (not just “all forms of violence” in general), then move on.
2 Likes
If someone’s hobby was shooting puppies, then apologized, changed hobbies, and took up shooting people who disliked dogs instead, I wouldn’t have more confidence in their judgment. It doesn’t signify a change in the person, only in the direction in which to channel his sociopathy.
Speaking of Clinton’s friends and confidants, I see her BFF and evil war criminal Henry Kissinger is in the news again; he will now be advising Trump. That way whichever of the nominees wins the presidency we can have the benefits of Kissinger’s deep understanding of how to screw up the world. I eagerly await new presidential strategies for winning the war in Vietnam.
3 Likes
Why is Kissinger an evil war criminal? I’m honestly curious.
See Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (Verso, 2001)
3 Likes
Are you unable to summarize it for some reason?
Are you unable to do your own homework for some reason?
2 Likes
If you can’t give me a summary then for all I know you just used a random book and justification for an unsupportable claim. I might as well claim Henry Kissenger was the biggest proponent of peace of his era: see Kissenger: A Biography 2005.
So please. If you’re going to make a claim, at least be able to back it up in your own words.
