Election Day

[AI Wessex]

Standing back and watching people get murdered and turned into sex slaves the way ISIS is doing when we can put a stop to it isn't any more moral than pulling the trigger or raping them ourselves.

I find this very narrowly focused concern for what's happening in the place where we get our oil very disturbing.  Do you not think that other parts of the world suffer just as greatly as they do, but don't have oil that Trump would just plain take?  Don't forget that we are responsible for a major portion of the suffering of Iraqi's over the past 25 years.  How much better (or worse) would the people of that country be today if we had never invaded the first time, which was used to justify invading a second time, which is being used by Trump as a reason to invade a third time?

[D.W.]

To AI's point, I didn't think you were referring to Iraq when I first read your complaint.

[cherrypoptart]

ISIS is attacking us though. Ever heard of San Bernadino?

Boko Haram is not.

Okay I can see some people being okay with sitting back and watching Christian women getting their throats cut and their blood drained into a bucket and not caring enough to do anything about it because it's way over there but what's harder to understand is how people can see innocent Americans getting butchered like sheep in San Bernadino by ISIS and not caring enough to do anything about it. To people like me and Trump that is war. Are those just crimes though? Just let the police handle it? Maybe send the LAPD into ISIS territory to make some arrests? I think that's a little out of their jurisdiction.

 Not to mention al-Qaeda is still there and the Taliban is as strong as ever. Is New York City really that far away? If people want to be pacifists that's always their prerogative. I just pray I'm never in a position of weakness and at the mercy of evil with my only hope being those kinds of people.

But in any case, that's the difference between Trump and so many others. He's not just going to sit back and take it and smile and ask for more.

And maybe I missed it but can't recall seeing the suggestion on exactly what the proper response is supposed to be here. What should we be doing and what will it accomplish?

[cherrypoptart]

Here's Bernie's position:

http://2016election.procon.org/view.source.election.php?sourceID=13496#question2050

"Should the United States Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS?

"Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about a group of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria."

Source: New York Times, "Full Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate," nytimes.com, Oct. 14, 2015

[Editor's Note: In addition to the above Con statement, Bernie Sanders also made the following statement in his Nov. 19, 2015 speech "Senator Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism in the United States," available at berniesanders.com:

"I’m not running to pursue reckless adventures abroad, but to rebuild America’s strength at home. I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses or into dubious battles with no end in sight...

To my mind, it is clear that the United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime, and to create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing...

A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with getting the Muslims over there to fight ISIS. That's a good plan. It's working to some extent with the Kurds. But Obama seems to have had the same idea for years now and it's just not happening. The King of Jordon made a good show of it in a moment of glory when one of their pilots was executed by ISIS but in the end nothing really came of that either. So even though that's a great idea what are we going to do if the Muslim countries simply refuse? So far for the most part they have because if they were serious, if even one major country over there was serious, ISIS would have been wiped out years ago. And that just hasn't happened.

It reminds me of the people always saying that the solution to border security is to solve all the economic, political, crime, corruption, disease, and lack of education problems of Latin America. Sure, that would be fantastic. Great idea. And until the day we finally enjoy that pie in the sky what do we do about the border? Just continue to leave it inadequately defended? Apparently, yes.

Or... maybe we don't wait until others solve our problems because that's just never going to happen. Maybe we need to solve them ourselves.

Edited to add: Just a good article that really nails it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427219/obama-still-convinced-his-isis-strategy-events-what-events-jonah-goldberg

[NobleHunter]

Note: there's an awful lot of space between invading Iraq, again, and pacifism. I expect most people who object to your and Trump's harebrained schemes are doing so because those plans are unlikely to work. As I implied earlier, what you are suggesting is immoral and it wouldn't even have the justification of being successful (which I accept counts for a fair bit in international affairs).

Furthermore, you're implying the US isn't attacking ISIS. They aren't "just sitting back" but are actively engaged in blowing stuff up. Even we (Canada) had climbed onto that particular bandwagon before we elected a government that's slightly less hostile to reality.

[Wayward Son]

Okay I can see some people being okay with sitting back and watching Christian women getting their throats cut...

Why do you keep harping about Christian women, Cherry? Christian, Jew, Yazidi and Kurds make up maybe 10 percent of those murdered by ISIS.  90 percent of those murdered are Muslim.  Why don't you mention the vast majority of those killed by ISIS?  Why only mention the religion of a relatively small minority?

It almost sounds like you don't think they count.

...what's harder to understand is how people can see innocent Americans getting butchered like sheep in San Bernadino by ISIS and not caring enough to do anything about it.

I can see several reasons for that.

First, Americans get butchered like sheep every day and we hardly do anything about it.  How many people were butchered in San Bernadino before those two ISIS supporters went on a rampage?  How many since?  How many Americans have been slaughtered since the San Bernadino massacre across the country by non-ISIS killers?  What are we doing about that?

50 times the number of people are murdered every year, but because those two were "ISIS," we should invade another country and risk losing a few thousand more Americans to "keep us safe?"  Considering the damage ISIS has done to us so far, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Second, IIRC, those two murders were merely ISIS supporters.  They were not directly supported by ISIS, did not follow any orders from ISIS, and basically did what they did on their own initiative.  Destroying ISIS probably won't prevent such people from doing harm; they'll just find some other radical organization to follow.  They didn't need ISIS to do what they did.

Furthermore, is that really the standard we want to use to go after organizations?  That they "inspire" people to kill?  How about those that inspired the terrorist Robert Dear, Jr?  Shouldn't we go after them, too?  Or those that inspired the terrorists Jerad and Amanda Miller?  Shouldn't those bastards be stopped, too?  Or those that inspired terrorist Timothy McVeigh?  168 American men, women and children dead, more than 680 injured.  Why haven't we crushed those that inspired him?

It is because ISIS is "the other," while those other terrorists were inspired by people closer to home?

We are doing something about ISIS, just as we are doing something about the murders in our country and those that inspire them.  But we aren't going to go overboard.  We aren't going to break international law, have hundreds if not thousands of Americans killed taking and holding territory that we have no claim to, and justify everything that ISIS has been saying, just because they bloodied our noses.  Because ultimately, amid all the terror and murder and atrocities that go on in this world, the ISIS cockroaches are a minor player.  And while we will stamp them out, we will do so in a slow, sober manner that minimizes casualties (at least American) and hopefully does so in a lasting way.  We won't let our outrage lead us into ill-conceived plans (like Trump proposes*) that will end up hurting us more than ISIS has done.

No, it ain't perfect.  But if you've looked around, you've probably noticed that this isn't a perfect world.  And it's hard to be outraged when there is so many other outrages going on all the time.

[cherrypoptart]

I'm not going to apologize for caring about Christian women. Why would anyone have such a problem with it being highlighted that Christian women are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam?

Should we sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened like Mama Merkel did with the mass rape by Muslims against innocent young German ladies while the police did absolutely nothing to protect them because it exposes the lies we are being told?

Why don't I mention the others? Well for one thing I did. But if it concerns you so much go ahead and mention it. Going down the list of the groups ISIS and other Muslims are abusing and oppressing, murdering in the name of Islam and enslaving will get tedious because that's a lot of people.

If you go to Catholic.org you can see exactly what ISIS is doing to Christian women. And Yazidis. And children.

What I'm hearing is that you don't want to do anything. That's fine. That's one option. It's just not one I support.

And in America we don't generally just let murderers and rapists and other criminals get away with it. We go after them. That's why we have the police.

Similarly when crimes are committed against Americans in acts of war by foreign powers there is no law that says we need to let those people get away with it either. We can go after them and bring them to justice. That's why we have the military.

[cherrypoptart]

ISIS is directly calling for these types of attacks. It seems like that's some sort of crime to me but I'm no lawyer. Are you suggesting that is completely legal?

If someone did the same thing in America we would go after them. In fact, Obama's got his law enforcement apparatus all over them looking for any such excuse to take them out.

Remember this?

 "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

    Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities..."

[D.W.]

So, rather than making the world safe for everyone, why not focus on inviting in those who are being persecuted?  Put boots on the ground right along side those tires on the ground and passenger planes on tarmacs.  Keep them there just long enough to let anyone hitch a ride who wants out. 

Then we can defend our home and be the saviors, without antagonizing others by our presence and meddling.  Oh, right, because we are afraid those people we try to save are or may become terrorists who can't or won't integrate with our culture...

So lets go out there and "secure" their areas, then make a few bucks in the process because... hey, that's fair.  We are doing them a favor!  Ouch!  Hey, why are you fighting us?   

[Wayward Son]

Why would anyone have such a problem with it being highlighted that Christian women are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam?

Because by constantly emphasizing Christian women, you seem to be ignoring the Muslim women who are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to their brand of Islam.  Aren't they women, too?  Aren't you equally outraged that they are getting murdered, too?  Then why not mention them?

I mean, if someone was killing women in the U.S.--all types of women, but mostly white--wouldn't you find it odd and just a bit annoying if someone kept talking about how this person was killing "black women?"  Wouldn't you think something weird was going on when only, at most, 10 percent of the women were black?  That's just what you're doing.

What I'm hearing is that you don't want to do anything. That's fine. That's one option. It's just not one I support.

Sorry, but you're not hearing that.  That comes from your own head, not from me.  Yes, we need to do something.  And we are.  We are bombing them.  We are coordinating with local troops to attack them.  We are supplying the resistance.  And I'm sure we'll do more in the future.

But we can't just waltz in there and kick them out.  They are occupying territory of other countries, countries that are fighting them.  We can't just invade our allies because it's more convenient for us, or because they are not winning fast enough to us.  Especially when it will probably make the overall situation worse, not better.  And especially in a war zone where other groups are fighting each other, which will only make the situation so much more of a mess.  (Would we ally with Syria and Russia, or the Syrian rebels, some of whom are ISIS?)

One day we may very well invade the area.  But we're not the world's policeman, no matter how much we want to be.  We can't do anything that we want to.  We have to work with other nations.  We have to work with the situation.

I'd love to do more, to see these cockroaches stomped right now.  But not at the cost of being stuck in a quagmire, watching our American soldiers die year after year for nothing.  Not doing something stupid is not the same as doing nothing.

[AI Wessex]

Cherry, in your thinking you have to think of it like a cancer, particularly a cancer that is either embedded in vital tissue that you would kill the patient to cure, like pancreatic cancer, or one that so thoroughly infiltrates the healthy tissue, like glioma, that there is no real treatment for today.  ISIS is not something *on* the culture, but something *in* the culture.  You can't kill it, you have to find a way to confine and control it.  Bombs won't do it, as we've proven many times over.

[cherrypoptart]

Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

[Fenring]

Not to mention al-Qaeda is still there and the Taliban is as strong as ever.

Hey man, you need to keep yourself updated. These are our allies now, didn't you hear? They're on 'our side' against Assad and the Houthis in Yemen. Maybe some day ISIS will be on our side too, once 10 or so years have passed and everyone forgets that we're supposed to be at war with them.

I agree with getting the Muslims over there to fight ISIS. That's a good plan. It's working to some extent with the Kurds. But Obama seems to have had the same idea for years now and it's just not happening.

You think the U.S. is allied with the Kurds against ISIS? Of all factions in Syria the Kurds are the one group not supported by the U.S. as far as I can tell, since they are enemies of a member of the G20. Gotta love Turkey. Whatever idea you seem to think Obama's had about arming Muslims to fight ISIS, I don't think the Kurds are part of it. But a great deal of effort has been spent on arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria (including Al Qaeda), so that's what you are perhaps referring to.

ISIS is directly calling for these types of attacks. It seems like that's some sort of crime to me but I'm no lawyer. Are you suggesting that is completely legal?

What in the world has American law to do with what ISIS does in its own territory? It may be against international law (which really only applies to recognized sovereign nations, which ISIS is not) but it certainly wouldn't fall under any criminal law unless ISIS is breaking its own laws within its own borders. You could make the case that it's not ok for them to call for attacks, but the legality of it is more or less irrelevant. Terrorist groups aren't concerned with law...

Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

Treaties of this sort (mutual defense) are invoked when a nation is attacked or invaded by another nation. It does not apply to terrorist attacks, nor to policing actions. Otherwise you would have seen the U.S. invoke such a treaty obligation after 9-11, which obviously it did not. Instead Bush had to use persuasion to get some other countries to help in Afghanistan and then Iraq 2.0. That doesn't mean a nation should blithely ignore when its ally is having difficulties of various sorts, but that's different from an obligation. No nation, however, should ever feel compelled to take an invasive action in foreign territory to help and ally when that ally itself is unwilling or deems it unnecessary to take such action.

Your main points seems to be that ISIS is a major threat to the U.S. and needs to be stopped, which is a rhetorical narrative that has been pushed for some time and has no basis in reality. They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all. The humane issues involved in what ISIS does to its local population matters, however as others have mentioned the only difference between ISIS and, say, Boko Haram would be that ISIS is dwelling in oil-rich areas, which would make a call to deal with them and not other groups mercenary at best.

I do, however, agree with another point you made, which is that there were several opportunities for the U.S. to take an aggressive posture against ISIS long ago which it clearly opted not to do. I think the reason for this is all too clear: Obama was hedging on ISIS taking down Assad and removing a problem for the G20 (as well as for Saudi Arabia and Israel), after which perhaps ISIS might have been dealt with. That didn't happen, of course, and then to further scuttle the plan Russia got involved and began to do what the U.S. was calling for but wasn't actually doing. Without addressing whether or not this was a good plan initially, it seems evident to me in any case that ISIS exists as it does now because it was deliberately allowed to. So I'm with you there. Where I disagree is regarding how much of a need there really is to take extreme action to deal with them. I don't think they're worth it. If anything I prefer Bernie's idea of trying to help local nations deal with them. Since this would include supporting Assad's regime in Syria this plan has been deemed unacceptable to many powerful people (especially Hillary and certain Republican groups) but I think it's the best option.

[AI Wessex]

Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

Those countries are responding with overwhelming public support against the threat to their internal security and well-being.  I wish people like you who would use isolated events here and over there to incite us to declare an all-out war against ISIS would apply your passion to far more sweeping problems we have long suffered from in this country.

Fenring:

They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all.

No strategic threat.

[Wayward Son]

Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

Cherry, we are at war with ISIS.  What do you think dropping bombs on someone means?

As to destroying them utterly, that is the ultimate goal.  But we can't do it willy-nilly.  This isn't your conventional war.

ISIS is not a nation.  They hold territory, but it's conquered territory.  Most of the people in the territory aren't ISIS supporters; at most, they are people who have sworn allegiance to ISIS in order not to be beheaded.  Which is why the idea of carpet bombing the area that some of our Presidential candidates have mentioned is so stupid.  It would be like suggesting to carpet bomb Paris during the Nazi occupation. 

Similarly, the idea of going in and taking ISIS' territory is stupid, because it isn't ISIS' territory.  It belongs to Iraq and Syria.  Coming in and taking the territory would be like coming into Paris, kicking out the Nazis, and then declaring it U.S. territory.  We would be no better than the conquerors we just kicked out, and we would be treated just like them.

So we need to defeat ISIS without alienating those who own the territory ISIS occupies.  The best way to do that is to let those who own the territory take it back themselves.  Easier said than done when one country is in the midst of a horrible civil war and the other country is tottering on the brink of one.

So while the simple solution of just declaring that "they can't take care of it themselves and we'll do it" sounds good, it will ultimately just make us the next ISIS that they will deal with.  Which means we won't just have ISIS survivors out to kill us, but every nationalistic Iraqi and Syrian and every person that sympathizes with them or fears a conquering U.S. and just needed proof.  IOW, a whole lot more people than before.

We are at war with ISIS, and ultimately we want to completely obliterate them.  But we have to do it the right way, the way that will decrease the number of people who want to fight us, not increase it.  As the old joke goes:

Young Bull: Hey, let's run down the hill and **** one of those cows.

Old Bull: No, let's walk down the hill and **** them all.

[Fenring]

Fenring:

They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all.

No strategic threat.

A nitpick, to be sure, but quite right. Thanks I guess.

[cherrypoptart]

You're all making some good points and I'll let them just stand. We don't need to go back and forth on everything we disagree with or even agree on when sometimes it's enough to just each say our piece and leave it be at that.

But I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims. The short answer is because when a Muslim does it to a Christian specifically because they are a Christian that is a hate crime. It has been beaten into us now for years that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes and more must be done about them. The same thing goes for genocide which we are told is worse than your run of the mill mass slaughter.

I'm all for giving Christians facing death and sex slavery at the hands of ISIS and Muslims in Africa like Boko Haram sanctuary in America or where ever they want to go but there is one big problem with that approach which is that it offers a resounding victory to the Muslims in their goal to drive the Christians out of "Muslim" territory, perhaps for the foreseeable future. Aren't liberals supposed to be opposed to that?

The only way to prevent that result is to go in there and secure the area and wrest control away from the Muslim oppressors like ISIS and others. Inviting in Christians and people of other religions from around the world, as well as peaceful Muslims, into the lands that ISIS and others are attempting to purge them from would offer poetic justice and a pleasing symmetry by not only thwarting the attempt at genocide and a religious purging but giving the genocidal Muslims the exact opposite of what they wanted and in spades with millions more Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who wants to come and defend their new home and the opportunity to escape whatever squalor is driving them from their home countries. All that's probably never going to happen of course but the least we should strive to prevent is ISIS achieving their goal of driving the Christians and others out of lands their ancestors have inhabited for over a thousand years and again the only way to do that is to go in there and soon to take ISIS out because the longer we wait the more final and complete this genocidal religious purging becomes.

[Greg Davidson]

I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims

Wrong about liberal theology in so many ways. Murder is murder.

In my view, hate crimes are in some ways like terrorism, the evil is both for the act of murder/violence and the additional political intent of the act of murder/violence.  I am not a huge fan of hate crime legislation because I think that the murder matters far more than the rationale, and that there aren't many "nice" rationales for murder.

[cherrypoptart]

Another expectation I have of Trump, and why the establishment of both parties may be so afraid of him, is that he will make public embarrassing things like this:

http://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/

Bush obviously instigated this coverup but Obama's hands are not clean either because after promising transparency he has had years to actually deliver but has instead only continued the coverup.

Nobody else will go after this kind of stuff the way I hope and expect Trump will. It validates everything he is saying and will prove to Americans that they were right to elect him when he shows us the lies our government has been telling us for years and across administrations in both parties.

A vote against Trump is a vote against the truth and a vote for perpetual ignorance of what the hell is really going on.

[AI Wessex]

A vote against Trump is a vote against the truth and a vote for perpetual ignorance of what the hell is really going on.

A vote FOR Trump is a vote for ignorance AND ego, hubris, narcissism and shallow thinking.  Everything you seem to like about him is based on one or or more those things.

[DJQuag]

Cherry I understand your excitement for Trump, and I even agree that he is more likely then the others to go digging for things.

But you keep on saying "When Trump is President." You do know his unfavorable ratings are historically high, like around s 70 percent? Short of Clinton getting the nomination and then being indicted shortly before the election, there is just no possible way that he carries a general election; hell, he's even beginning to have trouble with the GOP base.

The only reason the media keeps talking about him like he could win is that it scares the *censored* out of the majority, and gets the minority excited. In other words, it's good for business.

[cherrypoptart]

Al, we seem to be talking about different types of ignorance. There is the type you are talking about with being Islamophobic and racist and not knowing how to play the primary system with the delegates.

And then there is the ignorance graciously bestowed upon a populace by a magnanimous Orwellian government for our own protection and blissful happiness.

By voting against the former Trumpian type of ignorance that will be casting a vote for the latter type of ignorance. We will never know what we do not know and that is the worst type of ignorance there is.

----------------------------------------------------

Obviously I don't know for sure if Trump will win or not in a general election. I don't even know if he will win the primary. I could say "if" Trump wins the Presidency instead of "when" by I choose to be optimistic. I think he has a much better chance against Bernie or Hillary than Cruz does no matter what the polls say. I'm confident Cruz supporters will be more likely to vote for Trump than the other way around particularly if Cruz steals the primary the way he is doing now. Technically Cruz didn't cheat Trump, of course. That's just the rules. But he sure as hell lawyered him. And Trump supporters don't like that any better. Plus Cruz has absolutely no crossover appeal. And Trump will go after his Democrat opponent in ways that will make them squeal in pain unlike other Republicans who play only with kid gloves. For instance, Trump wouldn't hesitate to use this new Saudi 9-11 connection against Hillary. What did she know and when did she know it? He will hammer all of her scandals mercilessly. It's going to be HUGE. You're going to love it.

[AI Wessex]

By voting against the former Trumpian type of ignorance that will be casting a vote for the latter type of ignorance. We will never know what we do not know and that is the worst type of ignorance there is.

I can't help but think that your idea of finding out the dread secrets is like breaking the cookie jar to get at the cookies inside.  All you want is cookies, and you think having Trump wreak havoc will get you a tasty treat.  OK, after you've broken the cookie jar, binged on the cookies and the jar can't be put back together, what comes next? 

Seriously, all you have going for you is wishful thinking about how Trump will brilliantly solve all those problems, so after your wishes are granted, what do you think comes next?

[DJQuag]

I have no liking for Clinton, so I probably would get enjoyment out of it.

Clinton is beatable by Trump. Extremely unlikely, but possible. I don't think that Sanders is. The man doesn't have scandals, has a long record of correctly calling out America's dumbest mistakes, and positions like single payer healthcare, universal higher education, and regulation of the financial industry are not only no longer third rails, they become more and more popular as time goes on.

[cherrypoptart]

Are you suggesting that if the Saudi government was involved in planning and executing the attack against America on 9-11 that this should, if it were possible, continue to be covered up for our own good? And Americans don't have the right to know other such dangerous information?

Now I don't think we have the right to know everything especially operational secrets that would put intelligence assets at risk, but I do think we have the right to know who exactly was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans on 9-11. Covering that up would be like FDR trying to hide the fact that Japan was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, if he could have gotten away with it. After all, didn't that knowledge end up leading us into a war that cost over four hundred thousand American lives?

[cherrypoptart]

Well I like Sanders. I don't think his proposals will work but it probably won't hurt too much to give them a shot and find out one way or another. Of course I had the same type of thinking with Obama except I trusted Obama a lot less. But when you think about all the money Obama just completely wasted many of the proposals of Sanders make a lot more sense. At least paying for college tuition gets you something for the money instead of throwing away the trillions of dollars like Obama did and having nothing at all to show for it. Did I make the joke about Imelda Marcos saying that even though she wasted loads of taxpayer money at least she had more to show for it than Obama with her room full of shoes? And some of what Sanders wants to do like taxpayer funded college only costs a drop in the bucket compared to the ten trillion dollars Obama flushed down the toilet. I think we were debating whether or not Obama doubled the national debt and before he technically hadn't but I'm pretty sure now he and his supporters can be very proud of themselves for achieving that goal. I feel confident predicting that even if Sanders could do everything he dreams about and even if it didn't work out nearly as well as he hopes it will still be a vast improvement over the last eight years. The reduction in corruption alone, if it happens like we all hope it will under a President who wasn't spawned from the Chicago machine, will be a huge improvement.

And if Trump can't beat Sanders, then I highly doubt Cruz would have beat him either.

[AI Wessex]

Are you suggesting that if the Saudi government was involved in planning and executing the attack against America on 9-11 that this should, if it were possible, continue to be covered up for our own good? And Americans don't have the right to know other such dangerous information?

What would you do with that information?  It should have been revealed right after the attack so we knew who and what we should be fighting against.  I'm assuming the Saudi government (the wrong word for their extended monarchy) did have some involvement and maybe even were indispensable to the plan.  I am guessing the reason we didn't go after them on 9/12 and during the Iraq war that followed is due to a calculation that going after them would hurt us even more than they already had done.  That's probably still true today.  Note the current bill being debated in Congress that would allow victims of 9/11 to sue foreign governments.  The Saudi response is that if the bill becomes law they will sell off many $$B of their US assets, which could throw our economy into a tailspin and expose our own government to international lawsuits.  You have to think about those things before you smash the cookie jar.

Now I don't think we have the right to know everything especially operational secrets that would put intelligence assets at risk, but I do think we have the right to know who exactly was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans on 9-11. Covering that up would be like FDR trying to hide the fact that Japan was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, if he could have gotten away with it. After all, didn't that knowledge end up leading us into a war that cost over four hundred thousand American lives?

I'm for sunshine laws, but like everything else, in some moderation.  The government does a lot of things that hurt some segment of the population, usually for some reason based on the larger benefit of the status quo that acting differently would upset.  We even have a significant history of illegal acts for which there are no possible moral excuses.  Many of those things -- but not all -- should be revealed.

The problem is that a completely open government is weaker in some respects.  For example, you're a big fan of invading foreign countries and stealing their oil.  Do you really want to know the nitty-gritty of how the decisions were really made that sent you and hundreds of thousands of other patriotic young men and women into the Mideast desert where thousands died and over 100,000 came back with lifelong injuries?  If you really knew, wouldn't you feel like an idiot?

The bottom line is you pay a price for telling the truth just as you do for lying.  In order to get you to believe that the second Iraq war was a "success" partly because of torturing prisoners, they told you a story and you did believe it. Trump wants to do all those things "and worse" when he is in charge.  Will you believe him when he tells you how incredibly successful and smart he's been?

He's a con man and you're his mark.  He's playing you like a cheap violin and loving every second.

[cherrypoptart]

I wouldn't worry about disruption to our economy from the Saudis selling off their assets. That's the same type of thing we hear all the time about the threat of the Chinese selling off our bonds. So what? They have to sell them to someone. Just like if you are fed up with paying your property taxes so you threaten to sell your house and move away does the tax authority care at all? Nope. Someone has to buy it for you to sell it and then they will pay the taxes. If a lot of people sell off then they someone still has to buy the property for them to sell, unless we are talking about mass bankruptcies and defaults which would be a different story.

Besides which, the problem of the Saudis selling may not be a problem at all if the law passes. They should of course be prevented from selling anything and their assets in America will be frozen until after their trial. If they lose, which this new evidence is suggesting they will, then those assets will be confiscated and we will sell them off to the highest bidders to pay the families of the victims of 9-11 among others including the expenses of our own government and taxpayers. Once you tack on punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering the Saudis won't have to worry about selling anything.

In any case, put me on record as having the position that our government was and is wrong regarding this massive 9-11 cover-up. All this time I honestly thought Bush helped the Saudis escape because they were innocent. If he did it because he knew they were guilty that is aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war. That is treason. Maybe the liberals will have their dream of seeing Bush in prison come true after all. And for his role in the ongoing coverup Obama can share his cell.

[cherrypoptart]

I suppose my character would be Watchmen's Rorschach who demands that people know the truth instead of living under the protection of a lie whereas others agree more with Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men: "You can't handle the truth!"

This is just the tip of the iceberg concerning all the lies we have been told and the vast of majority of the lies Trump will expose don't have this moral dilemma associated with them but are serving only to mask simple incompetence and outright corruption in our government. 

[TheDeamon]

But I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims. The short answer is because when a Muslim does it to a Christian specifically because they are a Christian that is a hate crime. It has been beaten into us now for years that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes and more must be done about them. The same thing goes for genocide which we are told is worse than your run of the mill mass slaughter.

Actually, what ISIS is doing almost specifically meets the criteria for genocide, as their intent is to deliberately alter the demographic composition of a region. But then it also can be (somewhat) classed as "a domestic issue" which has unique carve outs under international law.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm
(part 2)

Article 6: Genocide

            For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

            (a)     Killing members of the group; 
            (b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
            (c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
            (d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
            (e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Check on (a), check on (b), check on (c), check on (d), and check on (e). Looks like ISIS has a clean sweep.

Now lets continue.

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1.         For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

            (a)     Murder; 
            (b)     Extermination; 
            (c)     Enslavement;
            (d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
            (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; 
            (f)     Torture; 
            (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 
            (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
            (i)     Enforced disappearance of persons; 
            (j)     The crime of apartheid; 
            (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

I'm pretty sure the only one that ISIS didn't get on THAT list was (j) but even that can be argued, given the definition they use for it, as detailed below( 2 (h) ).

2.         For the purpose of paragraph 1: 

            (a)     "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
            (b)     "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; 
            (c)     "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
            (d)     "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
            (e)     "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
            (f)     "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy; 
            (g)     "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity; 
            (h)     "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; 
            (i)     "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 

3.         For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Article 8: War crimes

1.         The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2.         For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

            (a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

                    (i)     Wilful killing;
                    (ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
                    (iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; 
                    (iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; 
                    (v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; 
                    (vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; 
                    (vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
                    (viii)     Taking of hostages.

            (b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

                     (i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
                    (ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; 
                    (iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; 
                    (iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; 
                    (v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
                    (vi)     Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
                    (vii)     Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
                    (viii)     The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
                    (ix)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
                    (x)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
                    (xi)     Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
                    (xii)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;
                    (xiii)     Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
                    (xiv)     Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; 
                    (xv)     Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; 
                    (xvi)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; 
                    (xvii)     Employing poison or poisoned weapons; 
                    (xviii)     Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; 
                    (xix)     Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; 
                    (xx)     Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
                    (xxi)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
                    (xxii)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
                    (xxiii)     Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
                    (xxiv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
                    (xxv)     Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
                    (xxvi)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

            (c)     In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

                    (i)     Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; 
                    (ii)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
                    (iii)     Taking of hostages; 
                    (iv)     The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. 

            (d)     Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

            (e)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

                    (i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
                    (ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
                    (iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
                    (iv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
                    (v)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
                    (vi)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
                    (vii)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
                    (viii)     Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
                    (ix)     Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
                    (x)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;
                    (xi)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
                    (xii)     Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

             (f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

3.         Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

[TheDeamon]

Oh, it should be noted, the previous post was quoting the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. You know, they lovely organization that is the Pride and Joy of Western Europe, that the United States went to great lengths to avoid having our troops falling under the jurisdiction of.

[AI Wessex]

Inching ever closer to locking down their Party nominations, Clinton and Trump are gearing up for full frontal battle.  Trump opened it up last night by saying if Hillary were a man she'd be getting only 5% of the primary votes.  I can't wait for her to dump on him.

Meanwhile, Bernie is now shifting his focus to amassing as many delegates as possible so he can push for his "progressive agenda" at the convention.  I think that is a meaningless objective, since all Hillary needs is to have one delegate over the top.  If he wants to influence her he will have to align himself with her first (sort of like a loyalty pledge).

On the other side, Cruz is playing the "long game" of trying to corral enough delegates to win on the second ballot.  That is not out of the question, given it is still hard for Trump to go to the convention with enough committed delegates to take the first ballot.  Even though he clobbered Cruz in PA last night, the majority of the delegates who were elected are uncommitted and presumably can be bought. 

I heard a story about a group of GOP party operatives who moved to the Virgin Islands, which will send 9 "soft-pledged" and unpledged delegates to the GOP convention this year. It's a mess, but basically John Yob moved to the VI specifically for the purpose of becoming a GOP delegate to Cleveland, and is working behind the scenes with 5 other delegates to shop their votes to either Cruz or Trump.  That's a particularly overt bit of chicanery, but we shouldn't assume that all leaning or uncommitted delegates will actually vote the way their favored candidate expects.  If Trump falls one vote short on the first ballot, the odds swing in Cruz's direction.

[DJQuag]

Man, am I ever sick of Team Clinton and her supporters telling Sanders and his supporters that they need to just shut up now and act like good Democratic drones.

I'd be happiest if Sanders didn't concede until every last delegate was counted on the convention floor. He talks about things and ideas that Clinton doesn't. Good ideas.

This movement is the left version of the Tea Party. And the Democrats have the same choice now that the Republicans did back then. Either start paying serious attention to it, or run the risk of losing a large amount of voters. The only reason it won't hit full force in this election is Trump.

[D.W.]

Meanwhile, Bernie is now shifting his focus to amassing as many delegates as possible so he can push for his "progressive agenda" at the convention.  I think that is a meaningless objective, since all Hillary needs is to have one delegate over the top.  If he wants to influence her he will have to align himself with her first (sort of like a loyalty pledge).

Early on I was of the mind that either of these two would work.  Then the more I watched/read the more I realized how strongly I prefer Bernie.  Even then, if Clinton was “winning” then I’d get over it.

However the media’s treatment of Sanders as well as seeing in practice what I’ve always known about the two party system has left a very bad taste in my mouth.  The independents, fence sitters as well as people who just want you to EARN their vote rather than demand your loyalty, just don’t have a voice in the primary system.  At least the Democrats don’t have the truly awful “winner takes all” delegate system the Republicans put up with.

But no, Bernie doesn’t need to do anything to influence her.  He’s already said as much.  He needs to prove that there are enough people out there whom she cannot take for granted.  People who SHE needs to court, and maybe even try to represent.  He just needs to pull in enough delegates (he already has) to shine a light on these people and show her that while she may still have an advantage given the rules of the game, she cannot afford to ignore this group.  A group I’m convinced would be the majority if the primary elections were all open and not party restricted.

But hey, why think about all that when you had “dominating wins” of 4 of 5 states?  It was interesting to learn what constitutes “dominating” by the media now.  It’s not enough to say she gained 58 delegates on her lead?  I’m bummed out Bernie lost when honestly he did need to win by that amount or more, but still the media continues to attempt to force the man, and more importantly, his voters, into irrelevancy. 

His loyalty pledge doesn’t mean *censored* to me were he to make it.  She needs to be the one making pledges to win me over.  My vote was not given to someone so that he could hand it over to the person I declined to cast it for.  I’ll make up my own mind again, once I know who my choices are and know as much about them as possible.  The longer the primaries continue (hopefully up until the end) the more we’ll know.  And it’s not like there is anything Bernie can do to damager her that the Republican’s won’t.  Smear all you want, they aren’t so inept that they can’t come up with an attack strategy without Sanders’ help.

[AI Wessex]

This movement is the left version of the Tea Party. And the Democrats have the same choice now that the Republicans did back then. Either start paying serious attention to it, or run the risk of losing a large amount of voters. The only reason it won't hit full force in this election is Trump.

I don't think they are anything like each other.  The Tea Party has a set of representatives in Congress that uphold the same so-called principles.  They wreak havoc with orderly governance at both state and federal levels.  Bernie's team is just Bernie, who has been beating his drum for over 30 years to no avail.

But no, Bernie doesn’t need to do anything to influence her.  He’s already said as much.  He needs to prove that there are enough people out there whom she cannot take for granted.  People who SHE needs to court, and maybe even try to represent.

He only needs to influence her if she thinks she needs those votes.  To be clear, if Trump wins the GOP nomination and his polling numbers stay down where they are with the general electorate, Clinton won't need Bernie's voters.  That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.

[D.W.]

Good point.  with 56% support of her party's voters,  thanks to Trump, she can rest easy.  Bank on the boogyman to scare people into supporting you?  While Trump is a gift to the Democratic party in terms of claiming the white house, I think it's a bit naive to suggest she doesn't need Bernie's voters.

She IS going to get a lot, or even most of them by default.  Party loyalty and voting against Republican rather than FOR Democrat is absolutely a thing.  Telling voters their opinion doesn't matter and they aren't necessary is a fantastic message to push. 

/tinfoil_hat Maybe it's not just about winning.  Maybe the media demanded a "close general race" in return for their favoritism. 

[AI Wessex]

I totally agree that the press is no longer a passive voice that informs the populace.  They are yet another beast that demands to be fed.  A blowout depresses ratings just like a lopsided football game loses viewers in the second half.  They will do whatever they have to to make it more "exciting" to the bitter end.  Even now CNN has 11 different analysts dissecting every primary even when the outcome is a foregone conclusion, as it was yesterday.  Those people need to feed their families, too.

[Seriati]

He only needs to influence her if she thinks she needs those votes.  To be clear, if Trump wins the GOP nomination and his polling numbers stay down where they are with the general electorate, Clinton won't need Bernie's voters.

That's a funny way to look at it.  He's hoping to influence her regardless of whether she thinks she can win without those voters (she can't, but she doesn't reasonably expect them to stay home either).  More, he's hoping to influence the party, its platforms and its other political candidates, and how could it not?  Clinton's coattails are demonstrably smaller with the support that Bernie gets, and other party members have to see an opportunity to get the support of really excited young workers and voters with a Bernie endorsement.  The bigger he is at the convention the more the party has to move, period, and honestly that's almost as much a win for him as getting the nomination (at least from the point of view he had when he decided to run).

That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.

She doesn't have a centrist position.  Or maybe you'd like to articulate exactly what she's in the center of.

[AI Wessex]

You first.  What is she if not centrist?

[Fenring]

That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.

She doesn't have a centrist position.  Or maybe you'd like to articulate exactly what she's in the center of.

I was going to say something along these lines too.

[Seriati]

Lol, you're like her number one fan on here AI, don't tell me you made a claim about her positions without a basis.

[AI Wessex]

I can say this, I guess.  Let me know if you find it convincing .  if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

[TheDeamon]

I can say this, I guess.

I saw war on women as the leading issue and not worth my time after that.

You're asserting the position, and I'm not wading through metric tons of political BS to find these alleged centrist positions.

if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

I don't think anyone ever claimed he was. Haven't followed the campaigns much, Trump's just damn near impossible to avoid and has been since he announced, as I expected to happen.

The previous positions for Cruz have trended towards strict Constitutionalist, almost Libertarian on many fronts, while holding strongly to social conservatism. I've just been amused that he somehow became the "establishment" candidate, considering the Republican Powers that be in Washington hate him too.

[Fenring]

I can say this, I guess.  Let me know if you find it convincing .  if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

None of the top four candidates are centrist, although Trump is probably the closest since he had to lean right to pass as Republican at all. Bernie is a centrist on some positions (foreign policy and civil rights) but is obviously far left on a few choice topics. Hillary is for the status quo, which I wouldn't call the same by any means as centrist. It would be centrist if the status quo had been designed by centrists, but it wasn't. I won't even address what Cruz is.

[AI Wessex]

None of the top four candidates are centrist, although Trump is probably the closest since he had to lean right to pass as Republican at all.

TheDeamon responded reasonably, but your response is why I didn't take the challenge all that seriously.  The skew in your and Seriati's thinking is so severe that it would take a magnet stronger than I could find to bring your judgment back to a neutral setting.

You're asserting the position, and I'm not wading through metric tons of political BS to find these alleged centrist positions.

Not altogether reasonably, I suppose.  Her voting records are included in that laundry list, too.  They give as decent an indicator as you can find for a long-term government representative.  If that's also BS there's nowhere left to go to answer the question.

[Seriati]

I can say this, I guess.

Which positions in the list do you think are Centrist?  My goodness, it's like pulling teeth with you, you can't answer even simple questions.  Is it your assertion that she's centrist on everyone of these (nonsensical)?

This site used to really come down hard on people who couldn't or wouldn't support their claims. And to be clear your claim requires not only that you know her positions, but also that you know where the center is.

Pick the ones you think are centrist, and we'll take a look.  Given your claim on her, it should be easy, as it should be the majority or at least a significant minority of the positions.

Let me know if you find it convincing .

If you make an argument, or just engage in the minimal courtesy of supporting your assertion, I'd be happy to.  It's not like I have a reputation for disengagement.

if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

In what world would Cruz be a centrist, the guys incredibly extreme and liar to boot.  His ends justifies the means philosophy is something I've come to associate with Democrats, but that I find even more repugnant and hypocritical is someone who claims to be a moral/religious conservative (rather than a fiscal one).

As far a "centrist politicians" I find the idea nuts, there's really no such thing.  There are positions that are "centrist" on some issues, and there are politicians who vote some left and some right, and there are ones that try to mediate for compromises.  Any of which or none of which could be deemed to be centrist.  Of the ones who are left, Trump is closest to the center on the biggest number of issues, but that's because like Fenring pointed out, he's tacking from the left in a party that prefers the (extreme) right.  Best you can say for Hilary is she's try to tack from the extreme left, for a party that prefers the extreme left, because she's always seen her goal as a the general election where theirs a preference for the slightly left of center.

Of the total candidates in the election, I thought Christie was most in the middle, tough to be sure on some of the others where they had less history.  Most North-Eastern Republicans fit the bill as well, particularly younger ones for whom the social rights (gays rights for example) issues have already been decided in the liberal direction.  There are definitely Dems in the middle as well, though I don't see it as much in their leadership, which tends to have the politicians in the middle not be the idealistic ones but rather the realists.

[AI Wessex]

Is it your assertion that she's centrist on everyone of these (nonsensical)?

No.

As far a "centrist politicians" I find the idea nuts, there's really no such thing.

Then why would I try to convince you?  I couldn't even convince you of the obvious facts on the Flint water crisis.  You see why I'm reticent to put a lot of effort into this?  You can peruse what I linked to and decide if anything strikes you as something other than radical.

Of the ones who are left, Trump is closest to the center on the biggest number of issues, but that's because like Fenring pointed out, he's tacking from the left in a party that prefers the (extreme) right.  Best you can say for Hilary is she's try to tack from the extreme left, for a party that prefers the extreme left, because she's always seen her goal as a the general election where theirs a preference for the slightly left of center.

See, I think he's an extreme right-wing on many issues, brain-dead on others and occasionally reasonable seeming by accident of his personal history.  And, of course, he has famously changed his opinions on a great many important issues, so it's even harder to predict where he'll land on any given day.

Of the total candidates in the election, I thought Christie was most in the middle

Sher he is .  Why don't you compile for us a list of his positions that demonstrates that?

[Seriati]

Thanks for clarifying that your claim is just an unsupported claim, I'd preferred if you'd have clarified whether that's because you can't support it, or whether it's because you're parroting someone else's marketing efforts for the campaign and don't understand it, but what can I say.  And, specifically on Flint, I went to great lengths, including citing to primary sources to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about, and never made the claim that "my side" had no responsibility, yet it's seems to be a part of your fundamental character that any contribution of "your side" (of which there were many) must be systematic ignored or hidden.

[D.W.]

Isn't "centrist" going to always be a subjective title/claim?  It claims you know what the mid point is between the two parties.  Makes a personal decision of how much of each party's fringe to ignore to set that scale.  Then states your opinion on who most fits your arbitrary criteria.

AI is right not to try to pin this down, I just don't get why you are wasting your breath (keystrokes) talking about it.  Is anyone still running MORE centrist than Hillary?  I don't think so.  I don't think that makes her particularly centrists, just more so than those left.

[Seriati]

AI is right not to try to pin this down, I just don't get why you are wasting your breath (keystrokes) talking about it.  Is anyone still running MORE centrist than Hillary?  I don't think so.  I don't think that makes her particularly centrists, just more so than those left.

And if it came down to Bernie and Cruz would you have to pick one as the centrist?   Hillary isn't a centrist, neither really is Trump (though he has more of the positions on both sides of center than could characterize a "centrist").  Kasich?  Maybe.

AI's point was that she would govern as a centrist and that's absolutely false and unsupportable.  That she may be closer to the center than other extremists doesn't change that.