A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi

[Pyrtolin]

There is no evidence that the attack was a result of a spontaneous protest based on a video, there never was.

And? That's not related in any way to what I said.

They jumped head first into an immediate lie.

They were immediately asked and fell back on the initial talking points they were given. As more and better information was available, they use the better information in response instead. Speculation isn't lying, it just has a high probability of being inaccurate.

You['ve yet to show any evidence that any actions that were taken in regard to the attack were obfuscated in any way or even unreasonable enough to warrant trying to hide them to justify the accusation that they tried to cover something that they did up.

[AI Wessex]

Here she takes on Clinton for remarks about Sanders.

Here she criticizes Democrats over the XL pipeline.

You'll have to dig for more yourself.  You won't find her attacking social programs that Democrats support, because she thinks government does far less than it should.  You also won't find her attacking religious or sexual freedoms, as those are in her wheelhouse.  Almost all of the things she does attack involve discrimination, excessive punishment and institutionalized threats to individual liberties and well-being.  So mostly she takes positions where Republicans do harm or Democrats don't do enough good.

[Seriati]

This is untrue, and deceptively so.  The city of Detroit in a retaliatory measure, when Flint decided to switch its pipeline to a cheaper more direct source to the lake water, cut Flint more than a year before they were ready to switch to the new source.  That led Flint to invest in a plant to process River water, which was an expensive proposition. 

A miscalculation by the EM is the most charitable thing you could say about him?  How do you explain him not adding anti-corrosives to the water after being told they were needed?

Criminal neglect?  Switching to the Flint River was a total mistake for a town that hadn't run their own water, doing so incompetently was criminal.

Not true.  The Democrats in charge of Flint were responsible for completely screwing up Flint so bad that the state took over in the first place.

They were floundering under the weight of the infrastructure and revenue problems I mentioned.  That they were not perfect administrators is also true, but blaming them for the EM who is responsible for switching the water supply is off-base.  If you want to do that, then you should also excoriate the GOP-controlled state legislature, which has done everything possible to cut taxes even when it meant not providing necessary services to Flint residents, not to mention all other residents of the state.  Nobody comes off good, but you should follow the chain of events in as straight a line as possible.

But you only follow the chain of events till you find a Republican.  Flint was a mismanaged mess that was in terrible shape because of the Democrats that ran it into the ground.  That's no excuse for what happened to the water under the EM's control, but you never get there if an EM was necessary in the first place. 

If you're a one side partisan the assignment is "beyond question," otherwise, its pretty clear that no elected or appointed official from either party did their job.

Like I said, nobody comes off well in this fiasco, but I'll repeat that all of the events that directly caused the calamity were carried out or avoided by members of the Governor's office, the state legislature or their appointees.  The EPA could have and should have acted sooner, and the Detroit newspapers tried to raise interest in the problem, and GM took steps to protect their employees (as did the state), but nobody looked out for the safety and well-being of the city's population.

What about the petty decision by the Democrats in Detroit to force Flint out before it was ready?  If Detroit had just agreed to keep them on until their Lake Huron pipeline was finished NONE OF THIS ever happens.

[AI Wessex]

But you only follow the chain of events till you find a Republican.  Flint was a mismanaged mess that was in terrible shape because of the Democrats that ran it into the ground.  That's no excuse for what happened to the water under the EM's control, but you never get there if an EM was necessary in the first place.

I acknowledge that the city was in bankruptcy, but I can't understand how you connect the previous city management to the EM's decision.  The automotive industry supported union population abandoned the city over those decades, but the city remained and could not be managed.  I'm more comfortable saying they were ill-equipped to manage the city's long term demise and that the state refused to help.

What about the petty decision by the Democrats in Detroit to force Flint out before it was ready?  If Detroit had just agreed to keep them on until their Lake Huron pipeline was finished NONE OF THIS ever happens.

Here you're mistaken.  The switch occurred when both cities were under the control of state appointed EM's, thus both EM's were GOP appointees.  I know you want to find a Democrat with his hand on the throttle, but there aren't any.

[Seriati]

AI, thanks for the source, but your source says the DWSB was not under state control at the time of the negotiation and decision (hence not the state EM).  It seems to have been under federal control, do you have any detail on who actually was running the show?  Normally, the board would have been the Mayor's appointees, were they still involved?

[AI Wessex]

Federal oversight of the DWSD ended on March 13, 2013.  Kevin Orr took over as the Detroit EM on March 14, 2013.  The decision to switch to the Flint River was made on April 16, 2013. The head of the DWSD was still in charge at that time, so apparently Orr didn't make the decision.  If you read the second article you'll see that the decision apparently wasn't made to save money, as was widely reported (and I believed), but was instead a political one made for as yet unrevealed reasons.  The article notes that Rick Snyder has released thousands of emails about the Flint water decisions and discussions, but none from the 2013 period when the transfer actually took place.  This a scandal with a muddy bottom, and like many others evidence is being withheld and likely destroyed to protect the people who were responsible.  Note that the Michigan Governor's office is explicitly exempt from FOIA disclosures.

[Seriati]

Thank you, but your first source only makes it clear that the DWSD was in fact under the control of the mayor of Detroit, and was made up of his appointees.  The second, shows a bit of muddle around why Flint would join the KSA (though it ignores the history of the relationship with Detroit in trying to assign blame).  Anyone who's ever left their cable company because of crappy service and high costs, has gotten the "offers" to go back at a steep discount.  As you should know they're gonna look good on paper, even if you have to watch out for the hidden garbage.  That kind of last offer email is a cya email from someone in Detroit.

Nothing in there though about why the Democratic political appointees in Detroit cut them off. 

[AI Wessex]

Nothing in there though about why the Democratic political appointees in Detroit cut them off.

Who?  And what do you mean by cut them off? 

[Wayward Son]

Sure, it was a guess--but it turned out to be the right guess.

Only if you accept that extremely partisan article would that be true, like I said other estimates put them in place within 3 hours and with time enough to potentially save 2 of the lives lost.

Seriati, could you please show your non-partisan source for this 3 hour estimate?

And do you know when the source testified during a Benghazi hearing?  And what was the Administration's response to this 3 hour estimate?

[AI Wessex]

Yet more proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis:

The city of Flint couldn't rejoin the Detroit water system or lower water rates for residents under the terms of a loan the state issued to Flint's emergency manager in April 2015, show documents obtained by the Michigan Democratic Party under the state's Freedom of Information Act and provided to MLive.

Then-emergency manager Jerry Ambrose proposed the $7 million loan from the state's Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board as a way to pay down the city's remaining deficit.

Provisions in the document state that:

    "The City shall not decrease rates with City charges for water or sewer services" without approval from the State Treasurer
    "The City shall not terminate its participation in the Karegnondi Water Authority (the "KWA") before the KWA water supply system... is operational with all required regulatory approvals effective."
    "The City shall not enter into an agreement with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, or any successor entity, including the Great Lakes Water Authority, without the prior written approval of the State Treasurer."

Flint switched from Detroit water to the Flint River as its primary water source in April of 2014 as a temporary measure before the KWA was operational.

The more corrosive Flint River water caused lead to leach into the city's water supply, exposing an unknown number of children to the toxin. Residents were officially told not to drink the water due to that lead contamination in October 2015.

In early 2015, residents were protesting discolored water. Flint City Council in March of 2015 voted to do everything in its power to return to DWSD for its water supply -- a largely symbolic action, since a state-appointed emergency manager was still at the city's helm.

On April 29, 2015 that emergency manager, Ambrose, signed a $7 million loan agreement with the state that prohibited the city from switching water supplies without permission from State Treasurer Nick Khouri. The loan helped pave the way for the city to transition away from emergency management that same day.

Joshua Freeman, who was city council president at the time and supported the loan, said the prohibition on DWSD reconnection "wasn't part of the discussions."

Brandon Dillon, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said the contract locked the city into a bad water supply.

"The Snyder Administration effectively put a financial gun to the heads of Flint families by using the Emergency Manager agreement to lock the City into taking water from a poisoned source even after alarm bells were going off all over the Snyder Administration that lead and Legionnaire's disease were poisoning families," Dillon said."It is simply unconscionable."

Department of Treasury spokesperson Terry Stanton said the "there were several provisions in the loan agreement, which were included to ensure the city remain on solid financial footing going forward."

Freeman believes the inclusion of the provision was most likely due to the city council's vote a month earlier to try and reconnect to the Detroit system.

If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate.  Sometimes the more you know about something the less you wish you did.

[Pete at Home]

If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate

That's deplorable.  But if you are touting this as some sort of GOP conspiracy, rather than a state level decision, you are hardly in a position to lecture me on conspiracy theories for my suspicions about Trump et al. :p

[AI Wessex]

If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate

That's deplorable.  But if you are touting this as some sort of GOP conspiracy, rather than a state level decision, you are hardly in a position to lecture me on conspiracy theories for my suspicions about Trump et al. :p

I'm just pointing out the facts as best I can determine them from what should be reliable sources.  I don't see a conspiracy as much as a confluence of policy and process decisions that ignored or deprecated the safety and delivery of services that the people of Flint were entitled to.  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

[Pete at Home]

  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.

[AI Wessex]

  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.

Sorry, I'll leave you to do the research on this.  Google is your friend as much as mine.

[Pete at Home]

  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.

Sorry, I'll leave you to do the research on this.  Google is your friend as much as mine.

Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint. 

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.

[AI Wessex]

Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint.

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.

I have no idea what your point is.  First, I never used the word "conspiracy", so as you do way too often, you're making up something I didn't say just so you can argue with me about it.  Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.

Is it that important to you that you have to pick a fight in every thread and then backtrack when it's pointed out that you are misreading, misattributing and misdirecting?  Never mind, I guess it's just who you are.

[Seriati]

Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.

A law that prohibits felons from voting is written to explicitly target blacks?  That's pretty racist statement.

And again on this thread, you have tons of involvement by Democrats at every level, including running Flint into the ground, Flint's counsel approving the EM's plan (even though they were powerless), the constituent members of the Detroit water board appointed by its Democratic mayor and released from federal control (where they'd been for decades because of mismanagement and cronyism) that decided to cut Flint off prematurely in retaliation for its decision to switch water authorities, a good chunk of the EPA that sat by and watched, not to mention that state government includes countless people from both parties that touched on the crisis. 

There's no doubt that the Republicans involved boffed it, made it worse and have a big part of the blame, but only a ridiculous partisan would see this a Republican's doing something evil to poor Democratic voters given the actual history and facts.

[Pete at Home]

Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint.

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.

I have no idea what your point is.  First, I never used the word "conspiracy", so as you do way too often, you're making up something I didn't say just so you can argue with me about it.  Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.

Is it that important to you that you have to pick a fight in every thread and then backtrack when it's pointed out that you are misreading, misattributing and misdirecting?  Never mind, I guess it's just who you are.

It doesn't matter if you use the word "conspiracy" grand wizard.  When you attribute the actions of a couple Michigan Republicans to indict the national GOP party of, what is it now, "explicitly targeting blacks" to poison Flint's waters, that's a grander conspiracy than I've ever dreamed of.

Or have you confused that argument with the one about felons voting?

The fourteenth Amendment was written by Republicans, it is true.  But since the same group wrote the 13th and 15th amendment, I think it's extremely unlikely that they allowed for criminals to be disfranchised as some sort of trick to disfranchise blacks. 

If you were referring to some one state's law being written with racist intent, that would not surprise me.  But you'd be a fool and a bit of a racist to assume that the only reason to disfranchise any class of criminal would be to disfranchise blacks.  14a specifically targeted southern rebels, and I reckon them rebel boys was generally white.

[AI Wessex]

It doesn't matter if you use the word "conspiracy" grand wizard.  When you attribute the actions of a couple Michigan Republicans to indict the national GOP party of, what is it now, "explicitly targeting blacks" to poison Flint's waters, that's a grander conspiracy than I've ever dreamed of.

I get it. I didn't say what you say I did, but I said it anyway.  So you deflect one gross misattribution to me with another that is equally untrue.  Please cite where did I indict the "national GOP" in this process?  Go ahead, tell me what else I didn't say that I actually meant.

You are incredibly exasperating to talk to and not nearly as much fun as you imagine.  Do you ever stop to think that you should really try harder to understand what people say to you?  You keep reinforcing my opinion that you only come here to start fights and play whack-a-mole with anybody you can bait into taking you on.  I think you don't care what you talk about or what you say as long as you can start an argument. 

[Pete at Home]

Please cite where did I indict the "national GOP" in this process? 

I already did.  You said proof that the GOP is to blame.  The GOP is the national GOP. 

Go ahead, tell me what else I didn't say that I actually meant.

Tell me where I accused you of meaning what you said.

  Do you ever stop to think that you should really try harder to understand what people say to you?

You ever stop to think you should really try harder to understand what you say to other people?  People don't read minds.  They read words.  Try saying what you mean, and I will probably respond less annoyingly.

[Al goes off in creepy Motive-reading ]

Sometimes I do, as do you.  Right now, I'm simply pointing out that what you said is absurd.  The GOP is a national party, and the supposed actions of a governor and a few state flunkies do not constitute collective GOP guilt, let alone intent to poison Flint to suppress the black vote.  (And I think you got your conspiracy theories tangled)

[AI Wessex]

Try googling "michigan gop" and see what comes up.

[AI Wessex]

Seriati:

A law that prohibits felons from voting is written to explicitly target blacks?  That's pretty racist statement.

I pointed out in my reference to that case that it was clear that the law was passed to target blacks.  Go back and read it again.

And again on this thread, you have tons of involvement by Democrats at every level, including running Flint into the ground, Flint's counsel approving the EM's plan (even though they were powerless), the constituent members of the Detroit water board appointed by its Democratic mayor and released from federal control (where they'd been for decades because of mismanagement and cronyism) that decided to cut Flint off prematurely in retaliation for its decision to switch water authorities, a good chunk of the EPA that sat by and watched, not to mention that state government includes countless people from both parties that touched on the crisis. 

Do you not understand that you are repeating your position that no elected Democrats had any role in any decision?  I get the feeling you would go back to 19th Century history to find a Democrat somewhere in the chain of events so you can say it's their fault, too.  Flint was in crappy shape for the same reasons that many rust-belt cities have been.  I'm sure there was some malfeasance and corruption somewhere along the way, but that's not a smoking gun or even smoke in this crisis.

Read this recent summary with a link to an email from the DWSD to the Governor explaining that Flint would save 48% if it stayed on Detroit water:

However, question marks are already emerging from the conventional explanation for the switch - that is, to save $2 million by selling polluted water to Flint residents. Journalist Steve Neavling of the independent newspaper, Motor City Muckraker, believes that the water pipes were not switched in order to save money, thanks to the release of a new email which appears to indicate that the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) offered Snyder a deal worth $800 million over 30 years, which would have been 20% cheaper than switching to the polluted Karegnondi Water Authority.

MCM also reports that "A high-ranking DWSD official told us today that Detroit offered a 50% reduction over what Flint had been paying Detroit. In fact, documents show that DWSD made at least six proposals to Flint, saying “the KWA pipeline can only be attributed to a ‘political’ objective that has nothing to do with the delivery – or the price – of water.” The deal was signed in 2013, and Governor Snyder refuses to release the emails from this period - refusing to offer up the paper trail of how, exactly this decision was made.

In other words, *if* the DWSD was composed of all Democrats (just because they *may* have been appointed by a Democrat elected official, that doesn't all or even any of them were themselves Democrats), they *tried* to avert the switch to the Flint River.  Note that the members of the board are all required to have extensive leadership experience in a regulated industry.  You'll be hard-pressed to find any political bias in their bios.

[Mynnion]

Why do we believe this is an issue with one party or the other rather than a group of individuals who made a series of bad decisions and then tried to cover it up?  This us/them mentality is a major part of the problem we have with Washington.  The majority of those that support either party find what happened in Flint horrible if not criminal.  The problem is that no one ever really gets held responsible when the issue is used for politics.  In this case those from the GOP side who might find what happened criminal if the a DEM were governor feel obligated to back up their "SIDE."  The DEMs are no better.  Hold those accountable who should be and stop playing games. 

[AI Wessex]

Because it is systematic.  Every Republican governor and the state legislature since the 90's has siphoned money and services away from SE Michigan, which is where the majority of black and poor residents live.  They repeatedly cut taxes rather than recognize that the bad policy was destroying the state.  The Governor did one or two things I can get behind (I voted for him the first time around, but not the second), but he is behind the Emergency Manager explosion that undermines the democratic process, has supported underfunding the Detroit public school system, and even when he tries to do something everybody in the state would benefit from he can't get the legislature to fund essential road and infrastructure repairs.  It's not a few bad actors, but party principles and party discipline that keep repeating the mistakes.  Michigan is suffering from the market crash, but more from the leadership and legislative agenda it's followed since then.

[Pete at Home]

Try googling "michigan gop" and see what comes up.

The Michigan Republican Party is the state affiliate of the national Republican Party in Michigan. It is sometimes referred to as MIGOP, which simply means Michigan Grand Old Party.

Ronna Romney McDaniel is the chairman of the party, having been elected in 2015 by delegates to the Republican State Convention, and Jeff Sakwa is co-chairman.[1] Its Republican National Committee members are Dave Agema and Kathy Berden. Its party Vice-Chairs are Administrative Vice-Chair David Wolkinson, Youth Vice-Chair Michael Banerian, Coalitions Vice-Chair Adi Sathi, Outreach Vice-Chair Kelly Mitchell, Grassroots Vice-Chair Wendy Day, and Ethnic Vice-Chair Darwin Jiles Jr.

At no point do I see anything about it being called just "the GOP," Al.

Every Republican governor and the state legislature since the 90's has siphoned money and services away from SE Michigan,

Do you mean every Republican governor of Michigan and every Michigan state legislature since the 1990s?  Because that would be the MGOP, not the GOP generally.

[AI Wessex]

You keep hoping that I meant something I never said and never intended.  I only ever referred to state politicians in my comments about the Flint problem.  Since it's the state's Republicans and they refer to themselves as the Michigan GOP, why don't you just take the fact that I have repeatedly told you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.  It's not a national conspiracy, it happened, and elected Republicans and their staff and their appointees made the decisions.  Seriati is straining to say that Democrats are equally at fault (or greater if you want to drag decades of local Democratic elected officials into the mess, and you straining even harder to delegitimize my pointing out what happened by making it seem I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Pretty weak.  Get over it, it's tiresome.

[D.W.]

Maybe it's a 'soda vs. pop' thing.   I knew what he meant... 

[Pete at Home]

You keep hoping that I meant something I never said and never intended.  I only ever referred to state politicians in my comments about the Flint problem.  Since it's the state's Republicans and they refer to themselves as the Michigan GOP, why don't you just take the fact that I have repeatedly told you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Honest to Dawkins, Al, the only word I've been trying to put into your mouth is "Michigan."  I was hoping you intended that, and have begged and encouraged you speak more clearly.  But if you have to pretend that I want to distort your meaning in order to say what you actually mean, then sure, use me as your magic feather.

[AI Wessex]

No, to be clear, you have repeatedly claimed that I said it was a conspiracy, which I have denied just as often.  It's pretty significant whether the national GOP singled out the city of Flint, Michigan for the treatment they received.  I doubt very much that happened, which means if there was any sort of conspiracy, it was carried out by the state's Republicans who controlled every political position involved.  Now, that *could* have been a knowing conspiracy, but nobody has turned up any evidence showing that and I doubt any will be found.  Instead, the GOP in Michigan fumbled, bumbled and screwed the pooch through a mixture of incompetence, disregard for public safety and a political agenda that didn't value the city of Flint or its potential recovery from the severe economic straits it has sunk to.

We also know that many people at the highest levels of the state government knew of the problem long before it was revealed and did nothing to correct the situation.  The only action they took that I know of when they found out was to supply bottled water to state workers in the city.

Call it a conspiracy if you want, but stop trying to make it sound like I'm the one saying it.

[Pete at Home]

First of all, she's more than a supporter.  She's her husband's former strongman, known to drop cluster bombs on kids on Easter Sunday when she's bored and the weather allows.  Second, Hillary specifically asked her to come help her with her woman problem.

[AI Wessex]

And that is stronger than Trump getting everyone at his rally to swear to vote for him?  You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment. 

Pete, it's not like we have to agree to disagree.  It's that I can't stop you from finding something to rebut every thing that comes up that goes against your preferences.  Albright apologized immediately after she saw the effect her remarks had.  How has Donald followed up?  Many in the audience raised their arms in what looked like a Nazi salute.  Here are some headlines about what Trump did (again, of course, you could Google these things for yourself.  I wonder why you say stuff without ever looking for additional information):

Donald Trump asks backers to swear their support, vows to broaden torture laws
This Donald Trump Rally Looks Like A Scene From Nazi Germany
Twitter Has a Field Day with Trump Supporters Raising Their Hands at Rally
Donald Trump’s supporters swear their allegiance in Orlando
Trump asks rally attendees to swear to vote for him
Trump Calls For Loyalty Oath From Florida Supporters
...

How did the media respond to Albright?

Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton Booed at Debate for Madeleine Albright’s ‘Special Place in Hell’
Rebuke Swift After Albright Declares: 'Special Place in Hell' for Women Who Don't Vote Clinton
Madeleine Albright Apologizes for ‘Special Place in Hell’ Comment
Albright: 'Special place in hell' comment came at 'wrong time'

You can (and clearly have) drawn your own conclusions about this "controversy", except that it's not.  What both did was wrong.  One of them realized that and apologized.

[Pete at Home]

You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest

[Fenring]

You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest

Talk about a one issue voter. If literally the only thing you see wrong with Hillary's record is her view of the Kosovo war then you should probably vote for her anyhow rather than hold one arbitrary opinion against her.

[NobleHunter]

Abstaining is at least half a vote for Trump.

[Pete at Home]

You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest

Talk about a one issue voter. If literally the only thing you see wrong with Hillary's record is her view of the Kosovo war then you should probably vote for her anyhow rather than hold one arbitrary opinion against her.

I'm a many issue voter. But we're talking about TRUMP being the alternative.  Two issues keep me from voting Hillary even if Trump is the alternative: Domestic thuggery and international thuggery.  I need to know she's not going to put in a Janet Reno or a Mad Albright.  Because I don't like civil war, and I don't like fighting on the side of slave-trading terrorists.

[Pete at Home]

"Nazi salute" is the freaking American pre-ww2 salute.  What, you think this guy is Hitler?  More like Charlie Chaplin.

[Pete at Home]

Thanks for the headings, Al.

"The comments came a day after feminist icon Gloria Steinem said in an interview that young women were supporting Bernie Sanders because "that's where the boys are.""

Holy *censored*.  THAT used to be called a feminist"  Good gravy.  Why have so many of the old guard feminists turned so sour and misogynistic?

Don't worry, I don't blame Hillary for that turd of a statement.  But I did tell my girlfriend's daughter, a very independent minded Bernie supporter, and asked he to cc me on anything she sends. 

[AI Wessex]

One more note about the (imaginary) equivalence between Albright and Trump.  I can't find any site that supports what Albright said, but I can't find any site that condemns Trump for what he said.  Conservative/Republican sites simply report it, and Liberal/Democratic sites shake their hands in sad wonder.  He can say anything, it seems, and we try to take it in with a wry chuckle, but what he says still means something.  To be clear, the leading Republican candidate has now called for his followers to swear their loyalty to him, and he says he is going to change international laws to allow his Administration to torture people.  Which part of any of what he said is in any way in keeping with the Constitution? 

And then you look to his right and there is Cruz, whose father believes he was anointed to be God's hand, whose wife has said that she (and he) believes that the Constitution is an extension of the bible, and that government isn't nearly Christian enough.  I can't even come close to a wry chuckle over anything he says.  As his college roommate pointed out, being loathed was his superpower.  Frank Underwood's is nothing compared to Cruz.

[Pete at Home]

I never said there was "equivalence" between Trump and Albright. Albright has actual human blood on her hands.  The fact that you are caught up in what ignorance of history calls "the nazi salute" suggests Trump has none.

[Pete at Home]

"he says he is going to change international laws to allow his Administration to torture people"

If he means waterboarding, then i disagree with him.  Otoh if he means interrogating gently while suspects are recovering from anaesthesia from needful.surgery, then i agree. Internationaal law has misidentified that as torture, when it actually inflicts no pain or physical or mental damage other than release of information,   engaging rather than ignoring international law (as Clintons are wont to do) is a relatively good thing.  Nevertheless, I cant see myself voting for trump.  In your eagerness to condemn him, you have missed his scariest aspect.  RightLeft may have grasped it; i hope he will be more specific.

[D.W.]

He means waterboarding.  More importantly, he is allowing his audience to take part in mass revenge fantasies.  I don't believe he will take action to try and deliver on these promises.  He's just giving people an excuse to express their outrage and not apologize for it.  A lot of people (more than some would have expected) are taking him up on that offer. 

People don't like to be shamed.  (even when societal norms dictate we deserve it)  Trump is shameless, and more importantly, tells people they they shouldn't feel shameful for their anger.  That others are to blame for their troubles and it's OK to be angry at them for this.

That doesn't excuse the things other politicians and leaders have done (and will likely do).  What it does is gives up on the idea that we can or should hold them to account.  Instead, we just lower our standards as a people.  Do we simply give over power to those who sells us a story that casts us as the down trodden heroes set upon by aggressors we've either been ignoring or trying to fight with one arm tied behind our back?

We (or at least a surprising number) apparently don't even care if it's a believable fiction.

[Pete at Home]

He means waterboarding.  More importantly, he is allowing his audience to take part in mass revenge fantasies.  I don't believe he will take action to try and deliver on these promises.  He's just giving people an excuse to express their outrage and not apologize for it.  A lot of people (more than some would have expected) are taking him up on that offer. 

People don't like to be shamed.  (even when societal norms dictate we deserve it)  Trump is shameless, and more importantly, tells people they they shouldn't feel shameful for their anger.  That others are to blame for their troubles and it's OK to be angry at them for this.

That doesn't excuse the things other politicians and leaders have done (and will likely do).  What it does is gives up on the idea that we can or should hold them to account.  Instead, we just lower our standards as a people.  Do we simply give over power to those who sells us a story that casts us as the down trodden heroes set upon by aggressors we've either been ignoring or trying to fight with one arm tied behind our back?

We (or at least a surprising number) apparently don't even care if it's a believable fiction.

Very well-argued.  I cannot refute those arguments that Trrump iss a serious threat, rather than merely a manifestation of something ugly heretofore repressed among the voters.

But by those arguments, is Trump not dangerous whether elected, unelected, or assassinated?

[NobleHunter]

He might not take action to deliver on his promises but that doesn't mean someone else won't. Perhaps even especially if he doesn't take action. But he doesn't get to complain about a meddlesome priest and then act surprised when there's blood on the cathedral floor.

[D.W.]

Having a hard time articulating my answer to the dangers of Trump and what he stands for.  I’ve deleted several paragraphs so far…

Even up against as polarizing a figure as Hillary, I don’t see him winning.  IF he did, hypothetically, I think seeing him fail to achieve his goals would most likely result in total defeatism in his supporters.  Then the question becomes, what remains of the GOP after being stripped of this group’s support.  If he miraculously won, I don’t see how anyone who out Trumps Trump could possibly win some sort of referendum on the man. 

Now if we want to explore the scariest hypothetical, Trump gets in, puts on a good show but unlike Obama facing a pure partisan opposition, Trump faces a bipartisan “establishment” opposition.  He rallies his supporters to vote out as many GOP establishment seats as possible and replace them with those sympathetic to or loyal to him.  I don’t see this happening.  He IS a good showman.  He IS a personality people are drawn to.  Maybe they don’t all like him, but it’s just hard to look away when he gets the spotlight.  I don’t think he can simply lend out or bestow that type of support to others.

So what about losing?  First, the GOP establishment can go, WE TOLD YOU SO!  They are even given the opportunity to cut this group loose.  Now possibly, that’s not their decision, maybe this group becomes so disenfranchised that they just crawl away and are no longer a political variable.  I doubt either would happen though.  I think that volatility and hand biting be damned, they will still court these voters.  Maybe I’m wrong and the establishment will finally try and reinvent itself.  If they trim off their more extremist edges and promoted fiscal conservatism and state rights that sounded realistic rather than just lip service, I think they could still grow the party.  And their cases for State’s rights can’t be pandering to those fighting social issues.  In fact, they need to raise the white flag on some social issues.  Pandering to those who long for the bad ol’ days is no longer worth the gains.  If you can’t sell a group on your whole platform, or at least the vast majority of it, you are vulnerable to someone who panders to them harder than you.  They are learning right now that taking fringe elements of your party for granted is dangerous.

Then lastly we have the scenario that Trump becomes a martyr to his cause.  I’m not sure what my take on this is.  I don’t see his supporters as having a goal.  What happens when you have an angry mob given proof that the others are out to stop them?  Do they get more angry?  I guess it depends a lot on who martyred him…  Then, who can co-opt them to their side? 


Had to edit train of thought derailment which was contradicting myself...

[AI Wessex]

I never said there was "equivalence" between Trump and Albright.

Yes you did, by raising her as the counter to Trump.

[AI Wessex]

"Nazi salute" is the freaking American pre-ww2 salute.  What, you think this guy is Hitler?  More like Charlie Chaplin.

Actually, I've always called it that, as have most of my family members who have talked about it, and have read other people calling it that. If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.

[Pete at Home]

Well i know plenty of people who refer to Spaniards and Hondurans and Chileans "Mexicans" but that doesnt make it so.  Do your relatives visit 3000 year old HIndu temples and demand that the ancient swaztikas be taken down?  the world doesnt revolve around your prejudices and ignorance.  Call it the nazi salute if you must, but when you put more horror on this ambiguous symbol than in the systematic murder of Serb Orthodox children , your chauvenism approaches Chabadnik levels.

[Pete at Home]

[If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.

Did Wessex Just call me a Nazi because I dont see the chest salute as more threatening than the legacy of Albright's Kosovo war?  pathetic.  And he used to be a moderator....

[D.W.]

Granted the whole "which is worse?" question is silly, but regardless of what was intended, there is symbolism and optics that a US presidential candidate should try to avoid.  You may not have seen it but it took a fraction of a second for me to make the connection between the pledge and the Nazi salute.  Unfair?  Maybe.  Confirmation bias?  Probably... but it doesn't matter.

Any reasonably savvy politician and their staff, a staff which contains people paid to help you avoid such optics, would know better.  Now, maybe he's the exception, maybe he chooses to ignore or shuns such "advisers" to promote his rebellious persona.  I think it was intended.  Yet another example of dumping chum in the water for the media feeding frenzy.  And, as Pete is pointing out, it CAN be dismissed as harmless, coincidental or an unjustified reaction by those already looking to vilify the man.

The man trolled us... again, and the media, if not we, fell for it... again.  Trump's got serious game.  It's just a game we don't all grasp the rules of yet.

[AI Wessex]

[If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.

Did Wessex Just call me a Nazi because I dont see the chest salute as more threatening than the legacy of Albright's Kosovo war?  pathetic.  And he used to be a moderator....

This is deeply offensive.  CUT IT OUT!