Mean and Stupid Ain’t Enough

4-10-17

Why are Democrats ginning up a bizarre conspiracy theory to nail Trump when there are obvious causes right in front of all our noses?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

58 thoughts on “Mean and Stupid Ain’t Enough

  1. “There is, after thousands of articles and scores of hours of Congressional testimony, still not a smidgen of evidence (much less proof) that Russia influenced the election.”— Ted

    http://rall.com/2017/04/07/syndicated-column-why-is-trump-so-hated-its-the-tribalism-stupid

    “I never said anything about an absence of evidence, I’m talking about the evidence that is already present.”—CrazyH on April 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM

    To the point of Ted’s tribalism column: Ted doesn’t see evidence, and CH refers to the evidence “that is already present.”

    There is a world of difference in world view between tribes as demonstrated by differences in the popularity of populist rhetoric between tribes.

    I would like to see Trump controlled by the Democratic Party to the benefit of the people, but there is little chance of that happening because both parties are complicit in the same crimes against the people and Constitution, and those are off the table and beyond discussion.

    So the Democratic Party counters the populist attacks of Trump with populist attacks of their own, with the effect of the plebeians of both parties divided tribally against each other, to the benefit of the capitalist Power Elite, instead of the party oligarchs being divided against each other to the benefit of the people.

    • Glenn – when I first read this, I thought you were accusing me of tribalism. I’m glad I re-read it before responding. I hate Trump for the same reason as Ted: he’s an asshole.

      If Ted doesn’t see evidence, then one wonders how he managed to cite three pieces in the cartoon above. I do, okay, call it a difference of opinion. But from a strictly political-theater standpoint, harping on Russia is precisely the right thing to do: they already tried pointing out Trump’s ‘obvious causes’. The trouble is that his fanboys see them as strengths.

      > to the benefit of the capitalist Power Elite

      +1

      • To CrazyH:

        Those three items in the cartoon are “evidence” of what crimes, exactly?

        They, instead, ARE, precisely, tribalist hysteria.

        They are replicated almost exactly by the Dem establishment: i) WJ Clinton took $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow, ii) the brother of HRC’s campaign manager lobbied to get US sanctions rescinded for a Russian bank, iii) a US state dept employee under Obumma proudly described her direct role, and the cost to US taxpayers, in regime change in the Ukraine,
        iv) Joe Biden’s son was installed to the board of the largest Ukraine gas company immediately thereafter etc., etc., etc.

        IF those three items were true, they have absolutely NO connection with alleged Russian influence in the 2016 election, the starting point for said hysteria.

        My favorite is “Flynn lied to Pence.” Since when does Pence command anything but our total contempt?

      • > Those three items in the cartoon are “evidence” of what crimes, exactly?

        As I’ve said multiple times, we’re not sure there was a crime – but if there was, it was Trumpco colluding with Russia to get him elected. I note that Ted is cherry picking a little. Any one of the items he listed is circumstantial evidence when considered individually.

        There are several other stronger indicators, such as Trump himself lying about his ties to Russia. Such as the FIB investigating Russian hacking. That would be the same FIB that helped Trump get elected. They’re not exactly part of the liberal tribe, would they be devoting resources to a Facebook rumor? Then there are were all the Russian trolls trying to throw the election to Komrade Trumpski. American intelligence agencies have already stated their conclusions that the Russians did try to influence the election.

        As sec’y of state, it was Clinton’s job to talk to other countries; but why in the world would aides of a US real estate asshole need to talk to Russian Intelligence? Maybe she has Rooskie ties, too, but the trolls sure as heck weren’t pushing in her favor. Putin praised Trump in public, and reportedly denigrated Clinton in private.

        So, none of this is conclusive proof. But when I see so many arrows all pointing in the same direction, I start to wonder whether there *is* a fire under the smoke.

        Sure, maybe Clinton is guilty of dirty dealings; the Clinton Foundation stinks to high heaven. That would be a lot more interesting if Clinton was president; but she’s not. It would be more interesting if the Russians acted in her favor; but they didn’t.

        > My favorite is “Flynn lied to Pence.” Since when does Pence command anything but our total contempt?

        Agreed, Pence is contemptible, but since when does that have anything to do with Flynn’s actions?

      • It is all perfectly clear now:

        If person X did not reveal Hillary’s lies then Hillary would have won.

        Therefore, X must be Russian.

      • c’mon Glenn, you’re smart enough to realize I did not say that. If you’d care to discuss anything I *did* say, I will be happy to reply.

        Although I might ask the same questions you wouldn’t answer before.

      • @ falco

        Because: “from a strictly political-theater standpoint, harping on Russia is precisely the right thing to do,” is evidence of a populist us-against-them popularity contest running on all cylinders.

        It matters not if it’s true, it only matters that there is an emotional head of steam driving it forward.

        It may not be true that there is an all powerful being known as god, but it is true that pissing off the herd that believes there is can get you killed.

        It may not be true that there is a foreign agent that can see all, but it is true that pissing off the herd that believes there is can get one baited, McCarthyite style by conservative Democrats.

      • > evidence of a populist us-against-them popularity contest running on all cylinders.

        +1

        You use the tools that work, and it’s obvious the sheeple can’t be swayed by facts and logic. Scandal works wonders, though.

      • Back then to Leo Strauss and the “noble lie,” of the
        “Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq”

        Shadia Drury of Bush and the noble lie:

        “This was the ethic of resoluteness – choose whatever you like and be loyal to it to the death; its content does not matter.

        “The question of nihilism is complicated, but there is no doubt that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers).

        “They know full well that the line they espouse is mendacious, but they are convinced that theirs are noble lies.”

        “No reason to get excited
        The thief he kindly spoke
        There are many here among us
        Who feel that life is but a joke
        But, uh, but you and I, we’ve been through that
        And this is not our fate
        So let us stop talkin’ falsely now
        The hour’s getting late, hey”
        —J. Hendrix

      • It can only qualify as a ‘noble lie’ if it is known to be false to those who repeat it, and since we’re discussing US politics, ‘noble’ just ain’t on the table.

        My entire point on this thread – which has been largely misinterpreted – is that we should determine whether it is false. I have never once asserted that it is true.

        Are you claiming the ability to prove it false?

      • “It can only qualify as a ‘noble lie’ if it is known to be false to those who repeat it”

        No.

        One can falsely assert certainty to precipitate action without knowing whether the basis for action is true or false because of career and MIC profits and then justify it as a noble lie, whether you like it or not.

        Thursday’s attack on Syria was made after both Trump and Hillary called for it.

        This looks like a replay of the Democratic and Republican rush to war in Iraq with both parties willing to bomb without proof of WMD for fear of career damage caused by hesitation for investigation, because if the existence of WMD proved to be true in the scenario provided by Condoleezza Rice, of the mushroom cloud.

        Americans are poorly informed and easy to scare and fool so:

        “If person X did not reveal Hillary’s lies then Hillary would have won.

        Therefore, X must be Russian.”

        This silly syllogism could seem reasonable to most Americans if not stated in such stark terms because as you stated “the sheeple can’t be swayed by facts and logic. Scandal works wonders, though.”

      • @Glenn – I agree that most Americans could be taken in by such silly sophistry. I interpreted your reply as suggesting that I might be engaged in such.

        If I am incorrect in that interpretation, then I humbly apologize and offer to buy you a beer at the next opportunity.

      • «If person X did not reveal Hillary’s lies then Hillary would have won.

        Therefore, X must be Russian.» Now that, Glenn, is a syllogism of which Aristoteles himself would approve !… 😉

        Henri

      • «(friendly advice – talking down to people only works if they look up to you in the first place)» No, CrazyH, you’re no doubt so big and strong and intelligent and wise that I’m certain you don’t need to «look up to» anybody. But despite all that size and strength and intelligence and wisdom you’re remarkably thin-skinned, as shown by your inability to recognise or admit that since we have tangled so often before, you should hardly expect me to be surprised when we do it again. Something seems to be lacking behind the façade….

        Henri

        PS : Your «friendly advice» was hardly meant to be friendly, but rather supercilious – but you knew that when you were typing it, didn’t you ?…

    • Well, after Mr Trumps cruisemissiling (is that a verb ?) of Syria and dropping of an outsize bomb on Afghanistan, we can now see how successful the so-called Russia-gate campaign has been. Somehow, I doubt that Jesus’ words on the cross – «Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do» are applicable here….

      Henri

      • I read the article – trying to connect those particular dots is an even bigger stretch than The Moskovian Candidate.

        If it was a distraction brewed up by Komrade Trumpski, then he’s out of ammo unless he wants to start dropping nukes. My crystal ball tells me that he’ll need a new distraction at some point in the next three years and nine months…

      • @ mhenriday –

        Surely you aren’t suggesting that pubic opinion is being manipulated?

        Readers would be well advised to check out the link you provided and learn more of MIT national security and technology professor Theodore Postol’s assessment (which I read prior to seeing your post here).

      • «I read the article – trying to connect those particular dots is an even bigger stretch than The Moskovian Candidate.» Good that you read the article, CrazyH – myself I find Mr Parry one of the more reliable analysts of US politics around – but I’m not certain what exactly you mean by «connect[ing] the dots». To my mind, the notion of Mr Trump «colluding» with Russia to win the US election is far-fetched in the extreme – Russia simply does not have the purchase on the US electorate to affect the outcome of such an election (I’m old enough to recall newspaper articles claiming that Fidel Castro had offered to endorse John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s opponent-to-be in the 1964 US presidential election in order to ensure Mr Kennedy being re-elected, but how much support there was for these claims is beyond my ken). Rather than a distraction brewed by Mr Trump, Mr Parry seems to suggest – and I agree – that the bombings indicate that the neocons are firmly back in control of US foreign and military policy and that any illusions that Mr Trump may have had about improving relations with Russia have been cast aside – or to put it in Mr Trump’s own vernacular, «fired». I suspect that Mr Trump’s policies are all about what he deems to benefit himself (in the short term, I doubt that he worries much about long-term matters), and thus I think it cost him relatively little to throw those deeply unpopular (i e, with the neocon establishment) notions under the bus….

        These are going to be an interesting four years, if we survive them….

        Henri

      • «Surely you aren’t suggesting that pubic opinion is being manipulated?» Public opinion manipulated ? Why Heaven forfend, mein verehrter Lehrer, would I suggest a thing like that (rolls his eyes) ?!! Not a chance !…

        Henri

      • The dots in question are Russia-gate and bombing Syria and/or Afghanistan. I find that cause/effect relationship tenuous at best. How does that work, exactly, GOP agents provocateur fanning the flames?

        Parry believes that the GOP colluded with the Iranians to get Reagan elected. (Iran doesn’t have much purchase over the US electorate, either.) Are you skeptical of that claim as well? All we really have is circumstantial evidence and ‘suspicious behavior’ on the part of Ollie North.

      • «How does that work, exactly, GOP agents provocateur fanning the flames?» As I see it, CrazyH, the «Russia-gate» campaign worked by showing Mr Trump, who seems to view matters in a transactional framework, that if he desired peace on the foreign/military policy front, he’d have to turn over the show to his neocon generals. As I understand it, Mr Parry views the matter in the same way….

        «(Iran doesn’t have much purchase over the US electorate, either.» Ah, but Iran did have something that the new Reagan administration desired very badly and was quite willing to pay for – the 52 US diplomats and spies, etc, held at the US embassy in Tehran between 4 November 1979 and 20 January 1981 (the day of Mr Reagan’s inauguration as US president). Their release was represented as a great foreign policy achievement for Mr Reagan, in contrast to the ignominious military failure suffered by the Carter administration on 24 April 1980 (one operation for which,. in so far as I know, that notorious big mouth Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, Mr Carter’s National Security Advisor, has never attempted to take the credit)….

        Henri

      • So you agree that ‘purchase over electorate’ is not a necessary requirement, thereby refuting your own argument.

        Russia doesn’t have any captured diplomats, but they do have hackers & shills. If they had any effect, then Komrade Trumpski was the beneficiary. He has motive, means, and opportunity – as well as a complete lack of patriotism or scruples. Putin got a fanboy into the oval office; he, too, had motive, means, and opportunity. (although he might have just found out how fickle fans can be)

      • «So you agree that ‘purchase over electorate’ is not a necessary requirement, thereby refuting your own argument.» Not surprisingly, CrazyH, you’ve failed to understand my argument. Purchase over the US electorate would be required to swing a US election – neither Iran in 1980 not Russia in 2016 possessed that (though it could be argued that by defeating the US military incursion of 24 April 1980, Iran helped to provide Mr Reagan with arguments against the incumbent). What the Iranians could and did do was provide Mr Reagan with a foreign policy «victory» on the very day of his inauguration – in return for that they received weapons with which they could defend themselves from Iraqi attacks (the US, of course, continued to provide weapons to both sides)….

        «Russia doesn’t have any captured diplomats, but they do have hackers & shills.» If, CrazyH, you really believe that Russian «hackers & shills» rather than domestic affairs determined the outcome of the late US presidential election – or that Mr Putin «got a fanboy into the oval office» (the notion that Mr Trump is a fan of anyone other than Mr Trump is ludicrous, as is the notion that Mr Putin was unaware of this fact), then it’s unlikely that either of us will profit by continuing this conversation. But perhaps other readers will find Mr Parry’s analysis as interesting as I did….

        Henri

      • Not surprisingly, Henri, you’ve failed to understand my argument while simultaneously supporting it. (as well as resorting to ad hominem attacks, quelle surprise)

        What the Iranians [allegedly] did was to refrain from letting the hostages go during the Carter admin, which in turn made him look weak while Reagan was acting like a tough guy. Yes, they did make him look good on the day of his inauguration, but in order to do so, he had to be elected in the first place. Ergo, a country without ‘purchase’ did indeed influence the election; and a GOP candidate did indeed collude with the enemy.

        > “if you really believe that Russian «hackers & shills» rather than domestic affairs determined…”

        Do I really need to explain the concept of a false dichotomy to one who has been ‘trained in logic”? your argument is fallacious on its face. Many factors influenced the election – as they always do.

        I, myself, have been ‘trained in math” – I can see that when presidential elections are usually decided by 50-49 vote, one doesn’t have to tip the scales very far to change the outcome.

        To close, I’d like to ask you to re-read all the statements I’ve made in this forum stating *explicitly* and *repeatedly* that I am NOT (repeat: NOT ) saying the Rooskies did it. Only that there is enough evidence to make an investigation worthwhile. If this is too subtle a distinction for you, perhaps your time would be better spent at the Spongebob Squarepants site.

      • «Not surprisingly, Henri, you’ve failed to understand my argument while simultaneously supporting it. (as well as resorting to ad hominem attacks, quelle surprise)» A bit tetchy, as usual CrazyH – what ad hominem attack did I launch against you ? Or do you refer to my comment to the effect that I wasn’t surprised that you failed to understand my argument ? You and I have a well-documented history of failing to understand each other, but if you really believe that pointing out an example of same to be an ad hominem attack, then perhaps you need to review your classic studies….

        While reviewing the classics, you might also want to review the nature of conditional statements in English ; please note that what I wrote that seems to have enraged you so was «If, [emphasis added, MHD] CrazyH, you really believe that Russian «hackers & shills» rather than domestic affairs determined the outcome of the late US presidential election – or that Mr Putin «got a fanboy into the oval office» (the notion that Mr Trump is a fan of anyone other than Mr Trump is ludicrous, as is the notion that Mr Putin was unaware of this fact), then it’s unlikely that either of us will profit by continuing this conversation.» I am well aware that you have taken care to write «*explicitly* and *repeatedly* that I am NOT (repeat: NOT ) saying the Rooskies did it». You will pardon me – or not – if I call this a transparent attempt to CYA, given the fact that these disclaimers of yours are always accompanied, as presently by «[o]nly that there is enough evidence to make an investigation worthwhile.» This is silliness and you ought to know it – what could such an investigation find that would constitute «interference» in the US election ? If Mr Putin had announced the Mr Trump was the best thing since apple pie and that he strongly recommended that US citizens voted for him, would that constitute «interference» ? (Recall that prior to the so-called «Brexit election», then US president Obama travelled to the UK and told the British people that they ought to vote to remain in the EU and if they didn’t they would go to the back of the queue when it comes to negotiating an economic treaty with the US – or was that yet another example of quod licet Iovi non licet bovi ?…)

        For an investigation to be meaningful, it would have to concentrate on rather more specific claims, e g, that those dastardly Russians had hacked US voting machines and provided tools to Mr Trump’s campaign which allowed voter tallies to be manipulated. Now that would certainly constitute Russian interference in the US elections (a step further than the US attempts to influence Russian elections by among other things, funding pro-US candidates) ; if there be any serious evidence that such occurred, than certainly the matter would warrant an investigation. So far as I know, none as yet has surfaced, and in the absence of such, these calls for investigations are nothing other than red herrings. There are far more important things about the Trump administration that cry out for investigation….

        Alas, CrazyH, not only am I less subtle than your good self, I am also less familiar with the «Spongebob Squarepants site». Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide a link ?…

        Henri

      • > Not surprisingly, Henri, … what ad hominem attack did I launch against you ?

        Seriously!? Dude, you just quoted my parody of said attack. Do I really need to spell it out? You are implying that the reason I don’t understand your argument is because I’m not smart enough. This, in a rather silly attempt to deflect attention from the fact that I’ve already rebutted your fallacious arguments.

        (friendly advice – talking down to people only works if they look up to you in the first place)

        https://www.facebook.com/spongebob/

  2. First. The whole not speaking without immunity.
    Ask a lawyer. The request for immunity is a standard one. It’s like arguing that because he asked to see a menu he wasn’t serious about ordering lunch. “If he was hungry he shoulda known what he wanted already.”

    As to Trump. Take a read through the financial news for the past 10 years. There are multibillion-dollar corporations in Russia. The Natasha Fatale and Boris Badenuv era of 1950s Cold War mayhem is long gone. The silent Russian propellers? God Almighty, has no one studied warfare? Almost certainly, a way around their advantage has already been figured out–which is being kept as a secret so that the Russians don’t correct the defect. But even if it hasn’t, cui bono? The Russians might silently creep right up to the edge of New York City? And do what? Fire off an A-bomb? Good luck with that. Sure, you’ll wipe out a big hunk of Manhattan but all the other missiles the U.S. has will be in the air in roughly four minutes. The silent sub is an advantage, but only if sub warfare is the only thing going on.

    We’ve aged out of the realm of warfare by plane and tank. It’s too damned expensive. Look at what the military’s budget needs have done to the U.S. economy. And all those tanks and planes? They’re pretty frickin’ useless against an enemy who turns a big-ass SUV into a battering ram to kill a dozen people. THAT is the new face of warfare. And when that’s stopped? There’ll be something even cheaper.

    • @ Alex

      You didn’t get my meaning in reference to the silent propellers.

      My point was not in reference to the technology of war, but to the presence or absence of evidence, a point of discussion that now dominates the popular discourse of the Democratic Party.

  3. I agree with the other commenters here in that the Ds are using Russia as a way to mask their own incompetence, but also to undermine him. (Hey, it worked for the Rs vs. Obummer) Russia is a good choice, of course, because TPTB have been demonizing The Evil Empire for years. They already tried opposing Trump on his shear idiocy, yet he got elected anyway

    That said, I’m not convinced it’s a complete fabrication. We do know Rooskie Trolls exist, we had one in here (who mysteriously vanished after the election) As Ted ridicules above – there are several indicators that Trumpco is trying to hide their involvement with Russia. Note: “ridicules” rather than “rebuts.” Which not to say I’m convinced that Trump is the Moskovian Candidate, only that it warrants further examination.

    • Quoting Rumsfeld: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

      This also leaves open the case for leprechauns, unicorns, black swans, and weapons of mass destruction.

      It was once feared that the Soviets had developed a silent propulsion system for submarines, making them undetectable by the available means.

      The suspicious absence of any evidence of Soviet submarines in US waters was taken—by some—as proof that rumors of the silent propulsion system was much more than a hypothetical, particularly by those who “knew” that US waters was teeming with the same breed of fiendish communists one could routinely find under one’s bed, if only one would look there.

      • “WASHINGTON — Toshiba Corp., fighting to keep from being thrown out of a $2.3-billion share of the U.S. electronics market over the sale of sensitive submarine technology to the Soviets, said Wednesday that its workers had found similar equipment made by a French company in the Soviet Union.

        “The equipment in question enables the Soviets to manufacture submarine propellers that are virtually noiseless, a key factor in anti-submarine warfare.”

        http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-10/business/fi-6976_1_toshiba-machine

      • One does wonder why an innocent man would need immunity.

        “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Proverbs 28:1

      • Ask Freddie Gray.

        Just kidding.

        Freddie was killed before he could run.

        But he looked guilty.

        I know of a cartoonist who didn’t object to his treatment when stopped by police, and that silence was taken as evidence that he had nothing to complain about and nothing untoward had been done to him by the police.

        You might be familiar with that case.

        “You Have the Right to Remain Innocent”, by James Duane says police will take asking for Fifth Amendment protection will be taken as reason to arrest a suspect. Better to say firmly and directly, without anything that could be taken as less than a demand, that you want to talk to your attorney before saying anything more.

        “Guilty or not, suspects in the United States no longer have the right to remain silent. If they remain silent, moreover, that silence will now be interpreted as guilt and will indeed — despite what you see on television court and cop dramas — be used against that person in a court of law. Even, in fact, the highest court in the land.”

        https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15787-supreme-court-bombshell-no-right-to-remain-silent

      • Hey, Glenn, I’m not sure whether you are trying to debate a point here or not. I am perfectly happy to have a polite discussion on points where we disagree.

        With that in mind:

        I never said anything about an absence of evidence, I’m talking about the evidence that is already present.

        Nor did I say anyone was guilty – only that their actions are suspicious. i.e. if Flynn was merely trying to clear his name, he would not have a reason to ask for immunity. If there was nothing wrong with his contacts, then he would not have had a reason to lie about them in the first place.

        I most emphatically disagree the “Supreme” court statements concerning the 5th amendment as applied in court. In court, the onus is on the prosecution to *prove* guilt, not just raise suspicions.

        The cops can assume anything they like, just so long as they don’t pass judgement, execute the sentence, or otherwise violate proper police procedures.

        Their job is collect evidence, and to do that they must form hypotheses based on insufficient evidence, then dis/prove said hypotheses. By the very nature of the beast, some of those suspicions will be wrong.

        So, lemme ask you some direct questions. Say there is a bunch of scruffy white teens standing around the street light. As soon as a cop comes around the corner they all run different directions.

        Do they look guilty?
        I say yes.

        Does the cop have probable cause to give chase?
        I say yes.

        Does he have probable cause to draw his weapon? Oh, fuck no.

        Stop and frisk?
        I strongly lean towards no based on the running alone. If the teen he catches smells strongly of alcohol then he does have cause for search.

        Back to the Rooskies, I do believe that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation. I do not believe that there is enough to convict anyone. (But I most assuredly hope they find enough. :-D)

      • @ CrazyH –

        There are so many flaws in your argumentation, I don’t even know where to begin.

        Just take this one: Running when you see a cop is no cause for chase, suspicion, etc. etc.

        (Which teen does said cop chase?)

        You have to do better than that. 🙂

      • @derlehrer –

        When I was (X) years old, I was talking on the phone to a friend. I put the phone down, tip-toed over to the door to the living room, slowly closed it, then went back to my phone call whispering. My parents were suspicious that I was up to something.

        You’re a parent – would you be suspicious that your kid was up to something?

      • … oh, and both you fine, polite, gentlemen are welcome to point out specific flaws in my argumentation.

      • @CrazyH on April 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM

        “I’m not sure whether you are trying to debate a point here or not. I am perfectly happy to have a polite discussion on points where we disagree.”

        Again, I think you are intelligent and know as well as I do where we agree and disagree.

        I think your reply to me is tantamount to a polite discussion, so I will consider our polite discussion fait accompli.

      • CrazyH on April 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM

        “You’re a parent – would you be suspicious that your kid was up to something?”

        That’s precisely the argument made by the majority of conservative Supreme Court justices in the case that negated the Fifth Amendment!

        The big difference is that the Supreme Court can sentence one to death and a parent who attempted that would (at this time) still be prosecuted for child endangerment at the least.

      • > That’s precisely the argument made by … conservative “Supreme” a-holes

        Glenn, compadre – I’m happy to address your concerns, but it would be easier if you could answer my questions beforehand.

        “Do [the white kids] look guilty?”

        “You’re a parent – would you be suspicious that your kid was up to something?”

      • @ CrazyH –

        Apples and oranges.

        Teens nowadays (even the white ones) have every reason to fear cops. They know that they don’t have to be engaged in any “suspicious” activity to be targeted.

        Based upon your description of your actions, would your parents have been justified in being suspicious? Would they have chased you down in the street and possibly thrown you in jail?

        Your argumentation is specious at best.

      • derlehrer –

        I will be happy to answer your questions, but since I asked first I would appreciate it if you would answer mine first.

        “Do [the white kids] look guilty [to you]?”

        “You’re a parent – would you be suspicious that your kid was up to something?”

      • derlerher – boy, I sure wish you were my dad. My parents were indeed suspicious and rightly so. What I whispered was “did you get the cigarettes?”

        So no, my parents did not chase me down the street or shoot me; but I explicitly stated that my hypothetical cop did *not* have the right to shoot or even frisk said kids. So if that statement was meant as a counter-argument, it missed the mark.

        I did intentionally use ‘white kids’ because innocent blacks most assuredly do have a reason to run. The cop chases the slowest one, of course. 🙂

        I do realize that many cops are too quick to interpret ‘walking while black’ as ‘suspicious behavior.’ I most emphatically disagree with that assumption, and believe that ‘stop & frisk’ is a blatant violation of the constitution regardless of the colors of the participants.

        I do believe that those in charge of protecting others have not only a right but an obligation to investigate ‘suspicious activity’ which may result in harm to their charges. You evidently disagree with that statement or with the idea of ‘suspicious activity’ altogether.

        It doesn’t matter which; either way we are at an impasse – but I thank you for an interesting discussion.

  4. Democrats use the Russian flag as if it were a bullfighter’s cape: to hide and distract from their naked perfidy.

    Hillary got caught flagrantly pissing on the electoral campaign of Sanders, and now attempts to shame witnesses to her grotesque exhibition of being perverse voyeurs.

  5. Given the fact that the evil nature of everything that is Russian is one of the most persistent memes in US politics, the Democrats – like the Repubs (consider Messrs McCain and Graham) – are on to something. «Mean and stupid» – that’s just par for the course ; one can’t build politics on opposition to the quotidian….

    Henri

    • @ mhenriday –

      Does that include flagrant disregard and abuse of the “Supreme Law of the Land” (the U.S. Constitution)?

      Oh, it slipped my mind for a second: GWB declared it “… just a god-damned piece of paper”!

      Case closed.

      • «Does that include flagrant disregard and abuse of the “Supreme Law of the Land” (the U.S. Constitution)?» Well, to my regret, I’m hardly an expert, mein verehrter Lehrer, but a quick perusal gives with hand that Article I, Section 8, reserving the power to declare war to the US Congress, and Article VI, Section 2, which stipulates that «all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land» – in particular the UNO Charter and the provisions in Chapter VI for the pacific settlement of disputes – are the ones most frequently and flagrantly disregarded and abused, most recently by Mr Trump’s attack on Syria. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose….

        Henri

      • @ mhenriday –

        I smell the stench of impeachable offenses in the air — more pungent than those committed by the Shrub (who should have been held accountable).

      • @derlehrer – if lying about a purely private sexual matter is an impeachable offense, then bragging about sexual assault most assuredly is. (not to mention the assaults themselves)

        I’m sure every single honorable Republican in the Senate is considering a call for impeachment.

      • @ CrazyH –

        “I’m sure every single honorable Republican in the Senate is considering a call for impeachment.”
        *
        1) Is there such an animal as an “honorable Republican”? I thought they, like the kiwi, were extinct.

        2) The House is responsible for impeaching a president; the Senate is the jury. (I’m sure this was just a brain fart.)

        😀

      • Brain fart of my own: I was thinking “dodo” and typed “kiwi” — two consonants and two vowels make them equal.

        😀

    • @derlehrer
      Easy to confound the two. Both the Dodo´s and the Kiwi´s flight are/were very beautiful, quick, agile and rational, almost exactly like the big Cheetos governing…

      Gals, guys: Thanks for all the enlightening comments. English is not my mother tongue and I appreciate being educated simply by reading your thoughts.

  6. Quick answer: the Dems feel the need to divert attention away from their own corruption and incompetence. (At the following link Chris Floyd suggests HRC promoted Herr Hair during the GOP primaries to “help” her chances. tinyurl.com/nyvmemu [scroll down]
    What would the EC vote have been otherwise, 454-84?)

    It is truly, if morbidly, hilarious that the side that picked the blatantly wrong candidate, then saw her waste $1.2 billion on a campaign even worse than Kerry’s of 2004, is now quite sanctimoniously pissed that the person who beat them 1) is a capitalist 2) has high-level ties to governments of other countries via the otherwise peachy “global capitalist economy” in which one can only survive with said ties, and 3) possesses the most “offensive” of those ties with the country the US spent literally decades, $trillions and tens (hundreds?) of millions of lives, forcing it to drop its godless economic system and convert to the one, true, holy capitalism.

    But not to fear, victory is at hand!!! Herr Hair has attacked Putin’s ally in Syria. It may not be the kinder, gentler WWIII that the experienced, seasoned politician, HRC, would have delivered but it IS glorious war all the same!!!

    • «It may not be the kinder, gentler WWIII that the experienced, seasoned politician, HRC, would have delivered …» No doubt after being wakened at three in the morning, Falco…. 😉

      Henri

Leave a Reply