Free Markets, Free People

So now what?

Now that it seems it will be Trump or Clinton – two sides of the same coin.  No.  Two of the same side of the coin.  What is America, you know the country that the Obama administration left badly listing to port and rudderless, going to do now with that … choice?

As I and many here have pointed out, it’s not the politicians fault that those are our choices, it’s the voter’s fault.  They do what is necessary to get elected and stay there – the voters enable both of those things.  And then don’t pay attention to what’s going on, become party bots and go to the polls to pull one lever or another … as instructed.

I’m also enjoying a bit of irony.  Mainly at the expense of those who, in the past, have always told me that a vote for a libertarian candidate or being not willing to vote for the prevailing GOP candidate is as good as a “vote for the other side”.  Now that it appears that Trump will be the GOP’s candidate, I’m hearing a completely different tune from many of them.

The GOP has been known for quite some time as the “stupid party” and that moniker seems quite accurate and appropriate at the moment.

As for the Democrats, well they have an equally disgusting choice as their candidate.  She’s a criminal and as big a con artist as is Donald Trump.  She is, in the parlance, a grifter.  She, like the joker in the Oval Office at the moment, has never accomplished a thing in her time of “public service”.  In fact, the only thing she has going for her right now is she’s a woman – for the first “woman president” vote.  Of course we’ve just suffered through almost 8 years of that sort of first and apparently the country has a masochistic streak that is yet unsatisfied.

I mean either one of these idiots is an abysmal “choice” so it is clear that if either is elected we’ll again be led poorly and ineptly right toward the abyss.

It’s the perfect ending for a once great republic – regardless of who wins, we’ll end up being led off the cliff by a NY liberal.  How … apropos.

In the meantime, the libertarian party’s membership is booming.  Of course those coming on board are no more libertarian than Donald Trump is conservative.  But then, its about the only reasonably agreeable and calm port the defectors can find in this political sh*t storm.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

78 Responses to So now what?

  • ‘Abysmal’, maybe. ‘Same side of the coin as Hillary’, If you believe that you’re in for a shock if Hillary wins.

    Is it the voter’s fault? I fault the party for purging true conservatives and for not reaching out to the base one bit. They thought they owned the process and they will present a short list for a proper public rubber stamping. If they had one candidate the public thought wasn’t a corrupt liar and/or cared one wit about what the voters cared about, even a little, Trump’s support would be down entirely to the Pro-Bill, Anti-Hillary Democrat defectors.

    The latter would be courtesy of a cross-over system the current Republicans use to keep the party Left of Center (for once that’s not a typo). And to boot, a crafted campaign system that has pretty much dispensed with Governors as the dominate prior occupation in favor of Senators or more famous House members. Crafted by, surprise, the Senate and House including Republicans. A system that rewards prior national recognition and free media coverage (Senators are recognizable nationally compared to Governors as a consequence media coverage comes easier for them). Surprise, Trump had national recognition ahead of campaigning, tons of it. John McCain has more to do with Trump’s election than anyone else.

    Let’s not kid ourselves, the GOP needs an enema. Is Donald Trump the best enema? Probably not, but he’s the only enema the system will allow.

    • I blame open primaries.

      Trump is what you get when you let the most motivated citizens, in this case .. the most angry, from across the political spectrum look for the demagogue that fits their prejudices.

      Let only those who are motivated enough to actually join the party decide what the party stands for.

      With Trump, we had front-loaded a bunch of open primaries that took the party where virtually nobody, except the “Let It Burn” contingent, in the party wanted to go.

  • Yeah, the libertarians might hit 2% this time! First, you are a criminal if you’ve been convicted of a crime. Hillary has not only not been convicted, but it increasingly seems she’s more the victim of character assassination for over two decades by a GOP focused more on trying to manufacture scandals than actually engage in solid political competition. Obama has saved the country from a disaster – when he took office we were near depression and two wars gone bad were still zapping our energy. The economy is much better, we’re respected internationally, and our foreign policy has moved away from thinking we could get our way all the time to recognizing the realities of a multi-polar 21st Century. A President Clinton will likely reinforce Obama’s policy victories, help reduce massive wealth inequality, and put the US on the right track going forward. It won’t be the America you like – but progress has been constant for centuries, and the world is being shaped by a new generation. And it’s not going to crash and burn – quite the contrary! I’m optimistic and bullish on the future, even if Trump wins.

    • “First, you are a criminal if you’ve been convicted of a crime”
      And therein lies the reason you and people like you should not be listened to when it comes to making laws and running the country.

      You either adhere to the laws and regulations (of which there are far too many) that are created, like the ones on maintaining government documents and secrets, or you don’t bother to have them.
      Not a system where you use them to beat the hell out of people you don’t like, and overlook them for people you do like.

      But as I’ve stated previously Scott, you’re an idiot, so do continue. There’s nothing like a dance by the village idiot to start a Friday morning.

    • “Obama has saved the country from a disaster…”

      He did nothing of the kind. He prolonged a disaster and turned it into a catastrophe.

      The Stimulus stimulated nothing but political loyalty (remember “recovery summer,” another one of Vice President Jester’s assignments?) and was intended to do nothing more than that. I particularly liked Barack’s joke about shovel-ready jobs not being as shovel ready as he thought. Haha. Wasn’t that funnee? The recession technically ended in June 2009. Employment continued to drop precipitously. Not as shovel ready as we thought! But the Stimulus remains the biggest heist since the last great sacking of Rome.

      The Obamacare push in and of itself suppressed economic growth by creating maximum uncertainty about one seventh of the economy, in addition to all the regulatory monkey wrenches deliberately thrown into the economy’s gear box, and here we are now, after a mediocre recovery, heading into another recession.

      Obama is a catastrophe. In many more ways than his dismal economic record. You are an idiot, but let me add something positive to that, you are a *useful* idiot.

      • Watch and learn, Martin. The country is moving forward, your way of thinking is the past. You can mutter insults, make snide comments, but that’s all evidence that you’re on the wrong side of history.

        • Sounds familiar – that’s been your delusional statement for 8 years.
          I laughingly recall you telling us the new President would fix up the GWB mess because he was pragmatic. One of your favorite go to words.

          Same guy who went on for 8 years without ever getting agreement for a budget.
          You realize that’s also one of his ‘record’ achievements.
          There’s no way to call that anything but dysfunctional.

          • Actually, despite stanch opposition from the GOP, Obama has accomplished more than any President for decades, has radically improved respect for America abroad, has the economy making over 12 million jobs, for a record series of months with job growth (better than that of the Bush economy so loved by Republicans before it collapsed). So the GOP wouldn’t agree on a budget with him and the best you can do is blame him? That meager criticism is the best you got – which means you got nothing. You should be thankful for his leadership, things are much better in the US and world today because of it. That’s why blogs like this are down to cherry picking attacks on free speech at universities or criticizing badly run third world states.

          • Funny, other Presidents have been able to manage budgets with the opposition party in complete control of the Legislature.
            I guess that’s another your closet racist low expectation coming into play, the idea that Obama just can’t be expected to work with the other party because they are just nasty racists.

            Jobs? Yup, 12 million sounds like a lot….except….
            12 million means….nothing, because you’re using a finite number when you have to look at percentages.
            The country is growing Scott, I’m sure if FDR had created 12 million jobs in 1930’s America we’d have all been living in houses with foundations of gold.
            But in 2016 America, it’s not a very impressive number when the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.8 percent, which is about a 38 year low.
            Go look that one up if you like Sparky, though you obviously don’t understand the significance.

            Abroad – last week Big Ears threatened the Brits on trade, which went over really well, and now Mighty John Kerry is threatening Syria.
            I imagine they’re using an erasable white board marker to draw the latest red line, which he’ll undraw once it become obvious Syria (and Russia) tell him to crap in his hat on the idea of Assad leaving.
            Then there’s the YUGE uptick in Russian posturing and belligerence that harkens back to the good old cold war days, the likes of which we didn’t see for years until… until Obama’s term of office.
            Must be more racists.

            Accomplishments – well here’s the thing in the United States, there are laws, and, especially lately, there are Presidential whims.
            Obama’s done a lot of whim-ing, not much law-ing, in fact, practically NO law-ing. Well, apart from that rickety healthcare scam that’s about to collapse like the house of cards it is.
            Any President that comes along behind him can undo all of prissy pant’s whims.
            I expect if PT Barnum becomes President in January, you can look for the bulk of the Obama signature accomplishmental whims to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

            Finally, the Blog – Good to see you’re interested in fighting QandO’s obvious irrelevance by coming here and using your acumen and political asstootness to see if you can piss anyone off , thereby promoting your vision for ‘Merica.

          • For you to pretend it’s Obama’s fault and not the Republican congress is funny. In any event, it’s not a big deal, the government still runs, and Obama has found ways to bring about major change even with the GOP trying to stop everything.

            Obama’s been better on jobs than Bush – and it’s good compared to the other industrialized states. You can poo-poo that, but you sound silly doing so. Face it, compared to 2008 the economy is doing very well. And the Mideast has some instability…gee, that’s new! The world always has hot spots. To use that to criticize a President is something someone can do for every President at every point in history. Face it – Obama is a success and you really can’t find much to counter that.

          • “compared to 2008 the economy is doing very well.”

            Oh, good grief. That’s just stupid.

          • No, it’s not stupid, Timactual. It shows that Obama inherited the worst recession since perhaps the great depression, and now we’ve had consistent job growth (at about the rate it was under Bush before the recession – back when Republicans claimed he was doing so well with the economy) and a growing economy. Moreover, you managed not to include my statement about how strong it is compared to other industrialized states – the US is doing pretty well. I think we need bipartisan work to address some of the structural problems that will require budget cuts AND tax increases. The 80s gave us the great Democratic and Republican compromise – the Democrats agreed to lower taxes and the GOP agreed to increase spending. That has to be undone. But no one can look at Obama’s performance not be impressed with how much he’s accomplished and how he has been able to implement both domestic and foreign policy agendas. As someone who agrees with his vision, I am thankful for his leadership. Those who think he’s wrong, well, they’ll call him names!

        • The historical facts are, orders of magnitude more people has been slaughtered, starved and jailed in the hands of Leftists, than Capitalists, hundreds of millions more.

          History is not kind to useful idiots.

        • Heh.

          Oh Professor Politically Ass-toot, remember the awesome Iran deal?

          “…senior White House officials gleefully confess they use friendly reporters and nonprofits as public relations tools in the selling of President Obama’s foreign policy — and can do it almost at will because these tools are ignorant, will believe what they’re told, will essentially take dictation and are happy to be used just to get the information necessary for a tweet or two.”

          They might even be talking about self professed political experts from Moose Colleges in Maine.

          • The Iran deal was brilliant. First, Obama did what Bush could not do – he unified the world on sanctions against Iran. It hurt the Iranian economy and he kept the regime going until Iran buckled and was willing to reach an agreement that would have been anathema to them just a year earlier. Even Netanyahu admits it pushes back any Iranian nuke by 10 years – and that is a lot of time to make sure they never get it. He then worked with the Security council to have a united front in negotiations with Iran. Brilliantly, knowing the GOP would try to scuttle it, he crafted it as a Security Council agreement not a treaty. Even if the next President were to reject it, the world has already moved on. The Iran deal is an example of deft, effective leadership – and it’s made the world safer while helping expand the potential of the Iranian opposition, which is on the rise.

          • Read. The. Articles.
            Both the New York Times article, and the New York Post one.

            But it’s good to see your usual reactions are in play – to just run your mouth without looking at anything anyone linked to.

            Oh, and feel free to find some documentation on when Netanyahu said it pushed Iran back 10 years – because you pretty much made that up Scott, which wouldn’t be the first time of course.

            Here’s some that I found –
            “While the president views the Iran agreement as having bolstered Israel’s security — along with that of the United States and the rest of the world — by restraining Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, the Israelis believe that the lifting of sanctions on Iran has only emboldened a government that directly threatens them.
            Or
            ““It’ll be left to history to see if Iran will modernize and reform under this clique,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “I have my doubts. I hope I’m wrong; I suspect I’ll be proved right.””

            He strongly objected at the UN in October, aside from recognizing we’re going to ignore his objections and therefore moving on, he hasn’t said that the Iran deal set Iran back 10 years, that’s all you sparky.

          • I realize foreign policy isn’t your strong suit, but quoting an Israeli poll to talk about a complex agreement is laughable. Even much of the Israeli security community supported the deal (and opposed Netanyahu). But the provisions of the deal are very good, and I could walk you through it if I thought you had any interest in learning. And I’m glad to see Obama reject Netanyahu – Netanyahu is wrong, and he should not stand in the way of progress with Iran, and a deal that goes a long way to assuring that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. In any event, I’m really happy that the critics of the deal are disappointed and the supporters delighted. The good guys won!

          • And we all realize reading comprehension is problem foryou Scott, so pretend the first quote wasn’t from a New York Times article, idiot.

          • I’m laughing at you Alan. You’re the one who needs a lesson in reading. I explained to you why the deal is good, and you say that you trust the New York Times so much that you think one article that doesn’t actually say what you think it does somehow counters that? That’s so absurd (and again, it doesn’t even do what you claim) that you should be embarrassed. If you can counter my argument and reasoning please do. Don’t pretend that some New York Times articles does what it doesn’t.

          • Oh, and hey, any time you want to provide a link to the quote from Netanyahu about Iran being set back 10 years by the Iran deal, you feel free okay Sparky?

            That was the contention that prompted illustrations that he didn’t like the deal, and didn’t grudgingly admit anything, other than that he might as well move on because Obama and Kerry were going to ignore him anyway.

            “The iran idea was brilliant!” – wow, hey, awesome reasoning.
            “even Netanyahu admits…” – admitted no such thing since you made that one up sparky.
            “I’m happy….The good guys won!” – yep solid reasoning, backed by superior evidence.

            Keep dancing monkey boy.

          • You really don’t understand the Iran deal, do you? Here’s a conservative source – Netanyahu notes that “ten to fifteen years” passes very fast, and thus Iran is opposed. You can goggle Netanyahu’s reaction to the deal – I just choose this one because it was conservative – and everywhere he’s talking ten years in the future. But just a couple years ago he was saying Iran could have a bomb within a year. His argument is that ten years passes quickly and this deal just delays Iran’s act and allows the regime to remain in tact. As usual, I think Netanyahu is way off (as does much of the Israeli security community, which oppose him on a number of issues). Ten years is a long time for a treaty like this, and it buys time to change things on the ground. You really need to educate yourself before you speak out on things Alan! Here it is – quote from a pro-Netanyahu conservative site: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/04/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-deal-will-ensure-horrific-war-in-middle-east/

          • Here’s your claim Scott –
            ” Even Netanyahu admits it pushes back any Iranian nuke by 10 years ”

            Here’s Netanyahu –
            “And even if Iran decides to make the push for the bomb earlier, in violation of the nuclear agreement, the deal does not allow for inspections to check Iran cheating on the deal, Netanyahu argued.”

            He didn’t say it pushed them back 10 years Scott
            He said- ““harder for Iran to produce one or two nuclear weapons in the short term, but it does so at a terrible price.””
            Which doesn’t say it prevents them from building bombs in less than 10 years.
            He specifically says there’s no provision for determining if they’re cheating.

            What he also said was –
            “The deal “will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East – the most volatile part of the planet. That’s a real nightmare,” he stated.”
            And what’s Saudi Arabia mumbling about acquiring right now? That’s right kids, nuclear arms.

            In March of this year, AFTER the deal was signed –

            Yukiya Amano, IAEA Chief, responsible for ensuring Iran complies with the agreement, told reporters that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal.
            ““The report does not list inventories of nuclear materials and equipment or the status of key sites and facilities,” Heinonen said in his analysis, which was published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Without detailed reporting, the international community cannot be sure that Iran is upholding its commitments under the nuclear deal.”
            The IAEA’s latest report also failed to disclose information about Iran’s stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, which is supposed to be significantly reduced as part of the nuclear deal.
            Additional information about Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, the machines responsible for enriching uranium, also was withheld by the IAEA.”
            Amano has revealed that the nuclear deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight into Iran’s nuclear activities. In critical areas, it’s not even clear that the IAEA has been granted the promised access.”

            And then the peace loving Iranians tested out…
            “… missiles, capable of reaching Iran’s archenemy Israel, were marked with a statement in Hebrew reading “Israel must be wiped off the Earth,” Iran’s semiofficial Fars News Agency reported. ”

            Oh, and what was it Obama said about Iran and the deal in April of this year?
            “President Obama on Friday criticized Iranian leaders for undermining the “spirit” of last year’s historic nuclear agreement, even as they stick to the “letter” of the pact.”
            Damn that man! how dare he criticize!

            And again…today….the 9th of May, various sources in the Middle East announce that Iran has tested a mid range missile capable of…..reaching Israel.
            “…rogue nation conducted the test in defiance of a United Nations resolution that calls on Iran to cease work on its ballistic missile program.”

            The brilliance! I can’t see!

            And I’m sure YOU”VE already forgotten, so let me remind you that the very day of Obama’s last State of the Union, our new good friends and nuclear deal partners, Iran, took 10- US sailors into custody and did their best to humiliate them to remind President Brilliant and Sec State More Brilliant who’s running this farce.

            It’s all been kinda of a friendly Farsi ‘Yo Bitches!” thing since the ‘no one signed anything’ deal I guess.
            Brilliant!

          • Yeah, Asstoot, the mainstream report – repacked by CNN from what Netanyahu said – was where he admitted he was going to be ignored by Obama and Kerry, and decided that further complaining and bitching wasn’t going to be productive anyway, so he was moving on to what he might still have some influence over.

          • Hey, I forgot the part where the ‘deal’ allows Iran, and only Iran, to inspect Iranian sites to see if they’re illegally using nuclear materials in contravention of the un-signed deal they made!

            Brilly-ant.

          • Hey! and how about that ‘moderate’ Iranian regime Obama negotiated the deal with!

            Old Ban Ki-Moon states “No improvement in human rights in Iran under Rouhani “

            Woo hoo! Thank God for the moderate Iranian regime that allowed us to make a deal!
            Which built the model of an American aircraft carrier and then bombed it, making a video to show their peaceful intent and good will towards us.
            I’m sure we should trust these guys, they have nothing but good intentions.

            “New world, old ways are changing and that’s good, blah blah blah left behind, good guys won! I’m optimistic!”

            Demonstrating once again, ya don’t come here for the hunting do ya boy.

          • I have no problem with Iran having a mid-range missile capable of hitting Israel. Iran is a sovereign state with a right to defend itself, and Israel has many more missiles then Iran, and has threatened Iran. If I were running Iranian foreign policy, I’d do the same thing – any one would. Netanyahu said many times this pushes it back ten years, I gave examples. In any event, I am glad to have a President who made this deal – it advances peace (Netanyahu worries me more than the Iranians), and I’m glad he had the leadership capacity to force it through Congress and get it made into international law. Obama crafted this so well that even if the next President rejects it, Iran will already be doing business with the rest of the world and US actions would be impotent. And the quotes you give have nothing of substance, nothing to counter my claim. So yes, I will continue to claim, in class and in public talks I give, that as an expert in foreign policy, this was an excellent agreement and explain why. Right wing blog commentators may disagree, but so what?

          • Israel, well known for their constant offensive ballistic missile tests.
            Has threatened Iran – why is it the Israelis don’t threaten, say, Germany, or Italy?
            Could it be because Iran keeps threatening to blow them off the map?
            Could it be because Iran keeps supplying Hezbollah with weapons and support, which causes the death of Israeli citizens about every other month?
            I surmise there’s a cause and effect relationship going on here, what do you think my dear Professor Asstoot?

            No Scott, he said the words “10 years” in response to this bogus deal Obozo has initiated.
            He didn’t say it pushed them back 10 years. He specifically suggested they might cheat and continue development in the short term. You can’t have it both ways.
            You can’t find a quote of him saying it set their nuke program back 10 years, because he didn’t ever say that. Again, all Scott Erb.

            “and I’m glad he had the leadership capacity to force it through Congress ”
            Because Congress didn’t agree to anything, it was lied to and failed to act, furthermore –
            Congress now knows there was at least one secret side deal to the JCPOA that was not briefed to Congress as required by the Corker-Cardin Act.
            One side deal allowed Iran to inspect itself for evidence of past nuclear-weapons-related work; it was discovered when Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) questioned IAEA officials about the JCPOA during a meeting in Vienna last July.
            Another secret side deal appears to require the IAEA to dumb down its reports on Iran’s nuclear program and its compliance with the JCPOA.

            ” So yes, I will continue to claim, in class and in public talks I give, that as an expert in foreign policy, this was an excellent agreement and explain why”
            Yes indeed, you do that – you are a legend in your own mind, and in the eyes of the ladies library club in Skowhegan Maine.

          • Huh – go figure
            “Fox News White House correspondent Kevin Corke later confronted Earnest again about the administration’s attempts to sell the Iran deal.

            “Can you state categorically that no senior official in this administration has ever lied publicly about any aspect of the Iran nuclear deal?” Corke asked.

            “No, Kevin,” Earnest replied.”

            So first ObamaCare, and now, ObamaNukes.

            If Iran likes their nuclear weapons, they really can keep them.

        • You’re a crumb academic, looking down the wrong end of the telescope. You haven’t been exposed to reality in so long that you are less real than a character in a bad science fiction series.

        • Just because you win doesn’t mean you were right.

          • And just because people call names doesn’t mean they’re right. Heck, I only read blogs like this to see how others are thinking – I comment rarely, actually. I also read other conservative blogs like redstate, which doesn’t even allow those who don’t share the party line to comment. Unlike some, I don’t assume I’m right or that one perspective is always superior. Alas, that seems to be a rare trait these days. At Redstate someone criticized a Republican for having a Democratic friend, saying keeping friends with the enemy shows one can’t be trusted. Is that what we’ve sunk to in our political culture?

    • First, you are a criminal if you’ve been convicted of a crime.

      No, you are a criminal if you have committed a crime. Not at all surprised you tried to obfuscate the true meaning.

    • Al Capone finally got convicted on a tax evasion rap, no one doubted he was not breaking laws before that.
      If you are so thick or ideologically doped up as to believe HRC is not a criminal, simply because of an equally corrupt regime fails to prosecute and their minions in the malfeasant media won’t cover it, then you deserve all that the bad karma that goes along with electing the corrupt and incompetent. However, the rest is us who know better, don’t deserve that abuse.

    • The economy is much better

      Not really. There’s some good in the economy, but there’s plenty of bad. The last quarter GDP growth was 0.5% annualized. In the past 13 quarters, only 5 have had annualized growth of over 2%. The economy is anemic.

      , we’re respected internationally,

      Not really. The Brits are hopping mad at Obama right now; his latest failure has been to piss off the country with his comments of sending them to the back of the queue if they opt out of the European Economic Community. Russia respects the US so much it’s been invading Ukraine and asserting its will in the Middle East. Iran is laughing at the US over the nuclear deal. China has been quietly moving against the US, and North Korea has been louder than ever.

      • He’s trolling really.

      • Some Brits are mad – most are not, and I suspect Cameron welcomed the statements he made, which are accurate. Russia invaded Georgia – a US Iraq war ally – under Bush’s watch. Russia follows its own self interest, but the invasion of Georgia was more directly a slap at the US as Georgia had been a vocal US ally (unlike Ukraine). North Korea is no louder than during the Bush years, and still as irrelevant. China has been growing for decades, remember the “spy plane” incident in 2001? Nope, there is no doubt that compared to 2008 the US is much more admired, respected and listened to on the world stage. Obama is a popular global leader. Again, if you compare him to his predecessor…well….it’s so funny watching people try in vain to cut down a successful Obama – and forgetting that for years they defended Bush!

        • You sound like one of Ben Rhodes “force multipliers” you mumbling stuttering pr-ick

          • Actually he’s one of the ones that don’t know anything that repeat what they’re told.

          • And you are unable to counter reality so you throw out a silly insult. I can’t resist a smug smile. 🙂

          • Erb confuses “not being able to refute him” with “not bothering to refute him”. We’ve all realized that there’s no point in trying to refute him. Even when confronted with absolute proof that he’s wrong, he will just move the goalposts. He is little more than comic relief, and rather tedious at that job.

        • No Steverino, I don’t confuse those. I know that the reason people call names is that they know if it were a real fair discussion, with evidence mattering and not devolved to the emotion of attacks, etc., I would easily defeat them – with facts, data and analysis. But because in the blog-o-sphere people have constructed the capacity to protect beliefs against reality by banding together with like minded folk and turning disagreement into personal animosity, people have found a way not to have to confront reality. I admit, I’m very good at debating these issues, and I don’t blame people for turning to personal name calling in order to avoid me. I am just amused by it – and the fact people think name calling in blog comments have any meaning whatsoever. Oh, and when people lose and don’t want to admit it – they say “you’re changing the goal posts.” Think back to the 00’s, when my arguments on this blog about Iraq have now all been proven correct, and the defense of the war is now seen as completely wrong. But no one wants to talk about that. Cover eyes, cover ears, but yell loudly! 🙂

          • Ah winning.
            You know it’s not about winning for me Scott, it’s about stopping the spread of sycophantic ignorance and mindless cheer leading and destruction of the country through promotion of leftist crap.

            It’s also about recognizing, as Shark pointed out, winning doesn’t make you right.

          • You misinterpreted support for our troops, and belief and satisfaction we’d clean their posturing clocks with agreement on the foolish policy that we could turn a country full of theocratic tribe following peasants into a carbon copy American Republic.

            You still are.

            So, case in point for you and your obsession with winning, we won the war, but that didn’t mean our policy for the peace was right.

          • No support on this blog for Bush and his war was strong – just as it was among almost all conservatives back in 2003 and beyond. I was warning that we’d get caught in a quagmire of sectarian violence and I was mocked for that pessimistic view. I never doubted we could defeat Saddam, but knew that the goals of the war were unacheivable. Luckily Bush finally came to his senses, dismissed the neocons, stopped listening to Cheney, embraced realism and fundamentally altered his goals after 2006. It is hilarious for the right to wash their hands of their defense of that war. They were wrong, people like me were right on with our predictions and warnings. Your claim about “destruction of the country through leftist crap” is hilarious and ridiculous. The country is moving in a direction you dislike. But that is good for the country and good for the future!

          • On the law and the facts, the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was correct, explained here. Excerpt from the preface:

            Here is my latest attempt to set the record straight on Operation Iraqi Freedom by synthesizing the primary sources of the mission, including the Gulf War ceasefire UN Security Council resolutions that set the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441), the US law and policy to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (P.L. 105-235), the conditions and precedents that set the stage for OIF, and the determinative fact findings of Iraq’s breach of ceasefire that triggered enforcement, to explain the law and policy, fact basis – i.e., the why – of the decision for OIF.

            The explanation includes:
            Answers to “What were President Bush’s alternatives with Iraq?” & “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”;
            Answers to “Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?” & “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom about WMD or democracy?”;
            Answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.

          • Alan Prendergast,

            When President Bush left office, the peace operations with Iraq were succeeding. The subsequent cascading failures have been due to President Obama’s deviation from President Bush, especially the premature disengagement from Iraq.

            See the sources and commentary at An irresponsible exit from Iraq.

            I’ll highlight these four:
            Is Syria Obama’s Fault? by Syrian pro-democracy activist Ammar Abdulhamid who explains that President Obama’s deviation from President Bush in particular and American leadership of the free world in general has gravely (and fatally) harmed reformers in the Middle East;
            Security Council Takes Action to End Iraq Sanctions, Terminate Oil-For-Food Programme as Members Recognize ‘Major Changes’ Since 1990 (15 December 2010) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council;
            Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan;
            How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.

            The sectarian issue was known. The UNSCR 688 (1991) humanitarian mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire responded to the Saddam regime’s transformation of Iraq, beginning in the mid-1980s, from its one-time secular path to a radicalized sectarian path that primed social fissures and exploited them to control Iraqi society for the sake of Saddam’s corrupted hereditary regime, such that “The [United Nations] Commission on Human Rights … Strongly condemns: (a) The systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (19APR02).

            The sectarian issue was familiar because US had worked with the Iraqi opposition in and out of Iraq since the Gulf War. It was understood since the HW bush administration, and in fact codified by Congress (see sect 7, PL 105-338) under Clinton, that strong American leadership would be needed to help the Iraqis heal their society after Saddam. However, the longer that the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement kicked the can on the mandated Iraqi compliance, including with UNSCR 688, the more that pre-Saddam Iraqi society was lost to the Saddam regime’s “all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror”.

            As it was, we, as the chief UNSCR 678 enforcers of the UN mandates for Iraq, allowed the Saddam cancer to metastasize during the ceasefire enforcement far longer than we should have. Much of the challenge we faced during the peace operations derived from the underestimated residue of the Saddam regime, such as Saddam’s alliance with jihadists. See The Islamic State Was Coming Without the Invasion of Iraq (or How Saddam Hussein Gave Us ISIS) by Kyle Orton.

          • And even after having it explained to you, you still can’t get it.
            No one here thought Iraq was going to become America once we kicked their asses.

          • Who said Iraq was going to become America? Face it, you guys were wrong on Iraq – in almost every way, shape or form. I was ridiculed here, but turned out being right. Iraq would be a model democracy, lead to change in the region, have oil revenues pay for the war, would signal US strength, become an ally with American bases to lead to stability. Oh the fantasies. And now it’s the same thing with saying Obama is bad, etc. All one false narrative that you seem to believe with a gusto. Oh well, no harm done, I guess. Believe what you want!

          • Wow. Now that’s funny. Ott Scerb may have some competition here. I am starting to think that he may have intentionally got a job at a glorified community college in the hinterlands; no competition. “Big frog in a small pond” and all that.

          • In other news from the same universe far, far, away; Alex Jones calls Glen Beck a psychopath.

          • Scott – you might want to develop your ability to counter facts with something more than – uh uh, no sir!

          • Oh, puhLEEZE, Erb. I’ve proven you wrong before. You simply moved the goalposts to say something different from what you had originally stated. I don’t bother with you, because you lack the intellectual capacity and honesty to engage in a genuine exchange of ideas. You’re nothing more than comic relief to me, like an old Bozo punching that I slap around for the fun of it.

          • While I would love for it to work I do not believe we’re going to make democracies of Islam, no matter how good our policies are.
            At least, not the version of Islam that prevails (versions….) right now.

          • Alan Prendergast,

            Unfortunately, due to President Obama’s deviation from President Bush (see references linked in comment at May 7, 2016 at 12:09), we can only speculate now on the long-term prognosis had Obama stayed the course per the Eisenhower post-WW2 peace-building precedent. But we do know the peace operations with Iraq were succeeding when Bush conveyed the mission to Obama.

            At minimum, we know that President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was correct on the law and the facts (see answers linked at May 7, 2016 at 11:13).

            Casus belli was established by the Saddam regime’s evidential material breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates, including and especially the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688. The principal trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” that confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).

          • I had no particular problem finishing what Bush Sr had started with Desert Storm. What we repeAtedly see is the failure of world powers to follow through on what they start.
            Saddam had violated a number of the strictures and only in the mind of a left wing whiner could someone claim that the various chem weapons found, old or not, didn’t qualify as weapons of mass destruction.

            No the asshats mean nukes when they say weapons of mass destruction, and if it’s not a nuke it doesn’t count.

        • There goes Prof. Pangross again, bloviating about how wonderful things are in this, the best of all possible administrations.

    • More of that non-ideological pragmatism from prof. Pangloss.

  • Yay!. The libertarian party membership list will get 2 commas someday soon.

    I used to call myself a libertarian, until one day I realized that all the Libertarian Party wanted was legal pot. I subscribed to Reason, until the day that every article and column in the issue was about making drugs legal.

    Reality: the world works the way it actually, y’know, WORKS — not the way you wish it worked. And the way the world works is that there are only 2 real political parties — Democrat & Republican. All the others, Libertian, Constition, etc. are just clubs where they pretend that they are real American political parties. They aren’t.

    A vote for any thing besides the Democrat or Republican is just futile shaking your fist at a raincloud. It doesn’t have any real effect, it just allows you to fool yourself into thinking that you have some effect.

    • You mean the way the world works today that was crafted by the Democrats and Republicans.
      I don’t think they’re good to plan it, they just observed the prevailing currents and nudged the barge in the right directions.

      But it’s no more a given than any other collection of leading groups through the ages.
      It’s not impossible for something like (being small “l” myself, mostly) Libertarians to rise up. The current just needs to run in the right direction long enough for the nudging to work.

      The present situation shows that there’s going to be a lot of oars flailing, and water splashing to prevent the barge from changing course though, I won’t argue about that.

  • I rather like Trump. And I find McQ’s “everybody knows” style argument, ah, disappointing, but not surprising. Will Trump bring back coal from its EPA hammering? That will be an early test when he’s President. Will he get the NATO deadbeat countries to cover their arrears? Another early test. Will he put an end to China having more power in D.C. than Americans? Tough one. He’s in the middle of a mine field there. The Republican establishment’s think tanks, lobbyists, and publications all suck down a lot of China Lobby money. And trillions of dollars are at stake for the Chinese.

    Anyone capable of sanity (contact with reality) no longer buys into the idea that forcing a 100 million American workers to compete with a billion Chinese is really wonderful and character building. It is, rather, abject sadism. Ignores American economic history.

  • “Is that all there is, is that all there is?
    If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
    Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
    If that’s all there is” -Peggy Lee

  • Heh – look! A tin foil lining in the dark cloud.
    The Washington insider lobbyist crowd is allegedly depressed by the whole thing.

    That’s gotta be good in some way.

    • Yeah, how do you bribe the man who’s got everything already? And who really doesn’t need you?

      • To complete the set, maybe he could offer to make Ross Perot his VP.

        “Here’s how it works see? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out…”

  • I don’t know what to say, if you think Hillary and Trump are the same, will have the same domestic and foreign policies….

    Look, you know what you’ll get with Hillary and I don’t think you’ll like it. Trump is going to be something different. A is not B.

    • Trump has stated he was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, and that the US should not be so involved in military actions around the globe. Hillary supported the war and seems a bit more militaristic. So there’s that.

      • Yep, she dodges sniper fire to stand over flag draped coffins and assures us that spontaneous riots in Benghazi Libya are caused by little known YouTube movies.
        All she’s missing is being on that helicopter with Brian Williams.

  • Lots wanted the GOP destroyed because it was deserved.

    No tears will be shed.

    I’ll take Trump every time over Hillary. At least Trump is pro-America.

    He won’t get a single thing accomplished in 4 years- both parties will oppose- and we can move on after.

    • If all it meant was they suspended NEW spending it would be an accomplishment.

    • Actually, he might do very well. He might govern like a conservative. He might be very liberal. He might create chaos and cause unrest. He might be cautious. We don’t know – what he says has no necessary correlation to what he believes or what he does. I do prefer him to Cruz though. But I can’t help but think he might be to the left of Hillary.

  • Scott must have a graduate assistant. Who else would keep pulling the Chatty Cathy cord in the back of his neck:

    “Barack Obama is wonderful!”

    “The Iran deal is wonderful!”

    “The economy is terrific!”

    “The world really respects us now!”

    “My diaper is very full!”

    “I like to dress in Muslim clothes!”

    “I own five copies of the Quran!”

    “I’m very spiritual!”

    “Would you like to pull my bra strap!”

    • “You didn’t build that!”

      “That’s not al Qaeda! That’s the JV!”

      “You’re clinging to guns and religion!”

      “This isn’t a reality show!”

      “David Cameron messed up in Libya!”

  • “Smug” is your default aspirational mode, Scott. I’m sure it works on the freshmen, until they say something about it and a sophomore says, “Oh, don’t pay any attention to that a$$hole. There’s something wrong with him.”

    You do much better with just the Mr. Goofyballs approach. “Want a chocolate chip cookie?”

    “Let’s pretend we’re all from different non-European countries and we’re trying to understand American foreign policy. O.K., I’m from North Korea. Lance, where are you from?”

    • Uh, uh, Maine.

    • You’re falling all over yourself Martin. It sends a message opposite of what you intend. I love it. Have a great weekend! (soft chuckle)

      • “soft chuckle”?

        Is it a coincidence you posted that one minute after 4:20?

        Martin and Ott Scerb dismantle you with brutal efficiency. It’s always worth reading their comments, just for the comedy.

        (hard guffaw)