Prelude to the Apocalypse

[EmperorIng]

That's not really what's going on; you just didn't take a critical reading to what quash wrote (and misinterpreted what he meant when he used the phrase "devil's advocate," which, uh, doesn't mean "troll").

The larger point is that linking [modern-day] progressive politics and "logic" is not as straight-forward as it appears - if it's tenable at all (it's not). It's typical human psychology to justify actions based on what is perceived as logical and reasonable (especially when our society places such high import on those two words). Even when the two might not have anything to do with one another.

Just to take one of your examples: there is nothing "logical" in your reason for the acceptance of refugees; surely you realize that it is entirely built on an appeal to "man's better nature," - if not outright built on an ingrained Christian Samaritan mentality that, in Europe's case, has been present for millennia. The talk of reciprocity, as quash points out, is absurd. Not that Geneva is bad, but you can't call it logical - it's aspirational.

In this case, most Middle Eastern countries are acting far more "logically" because they recognize that they want nothing to do with refugees. Obviously more despicably - and it's hard not to morally judge the various Arabian emirates as anything but despicable - but it is coolly within their self-interest.

[Bitter Almonds]

That's not really what's going on; you just didn't take a critical reading to what quash wrote (and misinterpreted what he meant when he used the phrase "devil's advocate," which, uh, doesn't mean "troll").

Actually, arguing and questioning for its own sake is one of the definitions of trolling.

[Giest118]

That's not really what's going on; you just didn't take a critical reading to what quash wrote (and misinterpreted what he meant when he used the phrase "devil's advocate," which, uh, doesn't mean "troll").

Actually, arguing and questioning for its own sake is one of the definitions of trolling.

Noted. Attempting to gain greater understanding of politics is a bad thing.

[Bitter Almonds]

I'm of the opinion that one can have a discussion with others, but one isn't required to understand those ideas for them.

[EmperorIng]

This reminds me of those constant and aggravating misuses of the word "trolling," like when online headlines declared the "epic trolling" Trump received when a couple of Scottish people flew Mexican flags at his speech. That's not what it means you fucking retards.

[Mischief Maker]

That's not really what's going on; you just didn't take a critical reading to what quash wrote (and misinterpreted what he meant when he used the phrase "devil's advocate," which, uh, doesn't mean "troll").

Fair enough. Let's revisit his post:

Then why not euthanize them?

Please keep in mind that I don't advocate this, nor some other things I'm arguing here. I just want to hear a logical explanation for these things.

Boy, if that's not debating in good faith, I don't know what is!

[GaijinPunch]

Why should healthcare be a universal right

Can anyone that lives in a cuntry with some type of NHS show me something more costly than a US hospital emergency room bill? I myself went once for an IV (I had simply dehydrated). A student administered the IV. A doctor came by and hour later to make sure he didn't fuck up. $1500 USD. Mind you this is something I can get for free at the IV tent at Burning Man.

[Mischief Maker]

Why should healthcare be a universal right

Can anyone that lives in a cuntry with some type of NHS show me something more costly than a US hospital emergency room bill? I myself went once for an IV (I had simply dehydrated). A student administered the IV. A doctor came by and hour later to make sure he didn't fuck up. $1500 USD. Mind you this is something I can get for free at the IV tent at Burning Man.

Stop polluting this logical discussion about hobos going on shotgun rampages with your emotional appeals, you hippy!

[Bitter Almonds]

Wouldn't it be cheaper if they were just... euthanised?

[Giest118]

We should euthanize everyone, with no exceptions. That way, nobody can bitch about it being politically or racially motivated or whatever.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think that whole idea of a "golden age" of television with Walter Cronkite is just rose-colored glasses. They tried their best but they simply didn't have to contend with as many channels or as much information as today. Besides, using excitement to attract attention is a really really old human concept - we might as well work on becoming better cyborgs / computers if we want to excise showmanship and demagoguery from the news.

No, once upon a time news channels had reporters bringing home images of bleeding soldiers on stretchers in Vietnam. Once upon a time there were these things called "Investigative Journalists" who would do some actual digging to find a story. Once upon a time news stations had local offices in foreign countries to give the inside scoop on what's going on.

Nowadays, they hear about a story secondhand then put a bunch of assholes in suits on separate screens in front of the host and have them try to shout over each other about what it all means for five minutes. Otherwise they just Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V press releases.

So much more cost-effective!

Late response here, but I realized that I let slip by me the change in topic from what I wanted Clinton to do - throw a bit of mud back at Trump - not so much what I wanted the media to do.

However, I don't think many of the comparisons with Vietnam-era news work; for starters, the idea of active and bias-free media at the time is partially a nostalgic invention - I'll stick to that. (A bit off topic, but having footage from Vietnam broadcast into homes simply represented an opportunity which met a mostly receptive - and captive - audience, and it was a different conflict to begin with. In some ways it was easier to give a report like that than it would be to report from parts of Syria, even if we can figure out things with satellite imagery and get video footage from every party to a conflict - but even so it just doesn't have the same effect on today's population. Aside from the novelty, the Vietnam footage had a strong emotional impact that every human interest story and campaign has tried to capture since.)

As far as pushing the candidates to be truthful go, the '70 edition of Inside the System by Washington Monthly (I've mentioned it elsewhere before) has a pointed article by a journalist on the way Presidential candidates get treated. Some get a pass for no particular reason, while others get hammered, with no logical rhyme or reason. And the impacts were just as severe as they are today: Even the decision to report somebody as a possible Presidential candidate can decide their political fate forever. I expect things are mostly the same today, but today's multitude of outlets and formats haven't changed that dynamic but make it much harder to figure out who (or what) was responsible for the rise or fall of a candidate in the media, and also gives journalism of all stripes less leverage as a candidate doesn't need them as much anymore.

I have no problem with the idea that Trump didn't need such naive coverage to begin with, that the media needed to be hands-off, etc., but one has to admit that this has been a difficult thing for the media to get around given the two or more decades of condemnation of journalism by the right wing - and also the fact that the rest of the field were a bunch of low-energy bozos who didn't know how to work the media. The media didn't fill out all those ballots or push people to his rallies; they went of their own accord.

Meanwhile, the old truism is right - "news" has to be new! Clinton doesn't seem to get this much more than Sanders did. It's not a question of reliability and sanity, it's a question of running the campaign in a way that excites intelligence gathering outlets (at least including news, and social media). That Trump is a demagogue shouldn't scare us away from believing that a Presidential candidate is selling their ability to be our national spokesperson.

[BulletMagnet]

Then give me a logical argument as to why any nation should accept refugees.

Depends on the circumstances; letting swaths of people in who'll have no chance at settling in the least bit comfortably without assistance and then letting them sink or swim is not only cruel but dangerous, but if you have the resources to give at least some people language training, job placement, etc. then you're not going to find a more law-abiding, patriotic and "useful" citizen than the one who comes looking for a better life and actually gets it. If they're ever still in touch with any of the folks back home the news can spread; I recall the story of one baseball player from Cuba whose mother saw Americans tossing toilet paper out windows for a parade, and couldn't believe that something considered a luxury at home was so plentiful here. Again, I'm not in favor of admitting anyone and everyone at the gates just like that (and, to be frank, neither is anybody), but as a general rule, if you want to get along with the rest of the world, only tell them to get lost if you truly have no other option. Oh, and stop supporting, often at corporate behest, the despots that make the refugees' home countries hellholes in the first place...not like that's ever come back to bite us down the line or anything.

Or a logical argument as to why healthcare should be a universal right.

Because every remotely comparable nation to the USA which has adopted such a stance has managed to cover everyone while not only spending much less than we do (around half to a third as much per person IIRC), but also achieving equal or better results in most areas. And that's before you even get into the savings achieved by catching ailments earlier (thanks to more frequent doctor visits when cost isn't a concern) and prescribing cheaper treatments than the "just go to the emergency room when you feel like you're about to drop dead" non-solution. Yes, you hear stories of having to wait in a queue for an appointment, but to the best of my knowledge none of the places with universal health care (including those who also have private insurers in business) are vigorously debating whether or not to keep it; and no, the USA isn't exactly the same as everyplace else, but considering that nobody here who isn't a millionaire wants to get rid of Medicare (mainly because most old folks would simply be bankrupted without it; same goes for Social Security) methinks we could do a lot better than we are by simply taking a good long look at the conspicuous bulges in the HMOs' pockets and acting accordingly.

Or a logical argument for a standard living wage.

Because when things are left entirely to the whims of the market and the "greed is (always) good" mentality, you wind up with slavery, or as close to it as the law will allow; why should anyone in a corner office care if you or your entire town starve in the gutter, as long as he can get replacements, from halfway around the world if that's cheapest? In short, when business demands ever more control over the lives of its workers and ever more kowtowing from the government, it doesn't also get to say "oh, by the way, I have absolutely no stake whatsoever in keeping the civilized society that made me what I am afloat; I'm not running a goddamn charity here." When most people, "skilled" or not, work their tails off but can't afford the essentials, that's bad for everyone; at some point there simply won't be anyone left who can afford to buy the stuff the corporations are making. Telling businesses "guess what, you have a stake in this too" (not only via a minimum wage, but that's part of it) is the only way to keep them from eating us, and eventually themselves, alive.

The list goes on.

Indeed it does.

That Trump is a demagogue shouldn't scare us away from believing that a Presidential candidate is selling their ability to be our national spokesperson.

The fact that Trump is good at waving shiny things around isn't itself the problem - the problem is that this ability is literally all he has to offer, and moreover that the media, like his supporters, is treating it as a completely valid stand-in for the utter lack of policy sense he makes in every single area. Want to give him credit for being a "newsmaker"? Fine. But you'd damn well better also be asking "now that you're in the spotlight, can you lay out a path to anything substantive?" And if the answer is "Look over there!" it's your responsibility to say "This is not a qualified candidate for the nation's highest office."

[quash]

you're not going to find a more law-abiding, patriotic and "useful" citizen than the one who comes looking for a better life and actually gets it.

How about the children of the law abiding patriots who helped make the country such a great place to begin with?

Granted, I don't doubt that there have been and still are refugees that fall into this camp. But ultimately, if your grand repopulation scheme is dependent on opening the floodgates, you have bigger issues on your hands.

All immigration is transactional in nature, but ultimately, immigration from the Middle East has cost Europe far more than it's worth.

You may not support taking in people by the hundreds of thousands. Most people may not support that, either. But nearly every politician and all but one presidential candidate are set on doing just that.

Oh, and stop supporting, often at corporate behest, the despots that make the refugees' home countries hellholes in the first place...not like that's ever come back to bite us down the line or anything.

That's why we should all vote for Hillary, right?

Who do you think is behind Syria? Don't give a cop out answer like "the military industrial complex", name names.

Because every remotely comparable nation to the USA which has adopted such a stance has managed to cover everyone while not only spending much less than we do (around half to a third as much per person IIRC), but also achieving equal or better results in most areas. And that's before you even get into the savings achieved by catching ailments earlier (thanks to more frequent doctor visits when cost isn't a concern) and prescribing cheaper treatments than the "just go to the emergency room when you feel like you're about to drop dead" non-solution. Yes, you hear stories of having to wait in a queue for an appointment, but to the best of my knowledge none of the places with universal health care (including those who also have private insurers in business) are vigorously debating whether or not to keep it; and no, the USA isn't exactly the same as everyplace else, but considering that nobody here who isn't a millionaire wants to get rid of Medicare (mainly because most old folks would simply be bankrupted without it; same goes for Social Security) methinks we could do a lot better than we are by simply taking a good long look at the conspicuous bulges in the HMOs' pockets and acting accordingly.

At least you admit that there are enormous logistical hurdles to implementing this kind of healthcare in the US. Population size, for starters. Not to mention that the US food supply is loaded with all sorts of nonsense not found in most other industrialized nations (good luck finding HFCS outside of the US).

Of course, there's no excuse not to maintain a higher overall standard of living. That is what makes a first world country, after all. The question is where the money for this comes from, who stands to benefit from it the most, and how it can coexist alongside an ever increasingly competitive medical research industry.

Because when things are left entirely to the whims of the market and the "greed is (always) good" mentality, you wind up with slavery, or as close to it as the law will allow; why should anyone in a corner office care if you or your entire town starve in the gutter, as long as he can get replacements, from halfway around the world if that's cheapest? In short, when business demands ever more control over the lives of its workers and ever more kowtowing from the government, it doesn't also get to say "oh, by the way, I have absolutely no stake whatsoever in keeping the civilized society that made me what I am afloat; I'm not running a goddamn charity here." When most people, "skilled" or not, work their tails off but can't afford the essentials, that's bad for everyone; at some point there simply won't be anyone left who can afford to buy the stuff the corporations are making. Telling businesses "guess what, you have a stake in this too" (not only via a minimum wage, but that's part of it) is the only way to keep them from eating us, and eventually themselves, alive.

Minimum wage isn't the same thing as a living wage. Perhaps it once was, but at this point the distinction should be pretty clear.

I'm not against a minimum wage, more so the idea that the lowest of jobs in society should pay people enough to live what is (was?) decidedly a middle class lifestyle. Just because skilled labor isn't as abundant as it once was doesn't make it any less important in a societal sense. The welders, electricians, and plumbers of the world definitely deserve to be paid more than fast food workers and cashiers. If we can give everyone a bigger piece of the pie (raising all wages with minimal inflation), great. But understand that this is a function of the market, not some God given right.

The fact that Trump is good at waving shiny things around isn't itself the problem - the problem is that this ability is literally all he has to offer, and moreover that the media, like his supporters, is treating it as a completely valid stand-in for the utter lack of policy sense he makes in every single area. Want to give him credit for being a "newsmaker"? Fine. But you'd damn well better also be asking "now that you're in the spotlight, can you lay out a path to anything substantive?" And if the answer is "Look over there!" it's your responsibility to say "This is not a qualified candidate for the nation's highest office."

While there are a few things he has not been clear on, he has been particularly forthcoming in the past month or so as he's now changing his campaign strategy for the general election. He wants to fight ISIS with Russia. He wants to audit the fed. He wants to lower corporate taxes and use tariffs to bring jobs back to the US. If there's anything in particular you'd like explained, feel free to ask.

[BulletMagnet]

How about the children of the law abiding patriots who helped make the country such a great place to begin with?

I could get really snarky and/or indignant in the response to that one (hint: at whose expense has so much of that "greatness" come over the years? Second hint: I already told you when you asked me about the New Deal and the middle class), but in the interest of keeping things semi-civil I'll repeat what I've said before, namely that it takes two people for an illegal hiring to take place, and only one side is ever the subject of "reform" on this issue (the other, apparently, is "great" as they are). You constantly hear from the "America first" bunch that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have - somehow that never applies to hiring illegal immigrants. Want to see change? Go after the hirers instead of just the hirees (and then watch them whine about how they need pseudo-slave labor to "stay competitive", and how the real problem is that they still haven't gotten enough tax breaks).

You may not support taking in people by the hundreds of thousands. Most people may not support that, either. But nearly every politician and all but one presidential candidate are set on doing just that.

If you go by Hillary's own page on the topic, it's almost entirely devoted to integrating/naturalizing the immigrants who are already here (a big enough job by itself, methinks), and says little to nothing in terms of letting more people in. It'd be fair to criticize her for being vague when it comes to what she'd do with refugees from Syria and the like (if she follows in Obama's footsteps, she won't admit many...and that's before you get into his record on deportations), but to declare that she's in favor of "opening the floodgates" without any hard evidence to that effect is disingenuous. By the by, the same largely goes for Bernie, and almost certainly for "nearly every politician" you could name - nobody wants to let absolutely everyone in, that's a figment of your imagination.

Who do you think is behind Syria? Don't give a cop out answer like "the military industrial complex", name names.

Easy - Bashar al-Assad. His people protested peacefully to call for changes on his part, and he turned the army on them; things escalated into civil war from there, and Daesh and company had the opportunity to move right in. Off to the side, presumably you're aware that Russia, in whose hands you're comfortable leaving the country's immediate future (along with Assad's continued rule in the longer term), repeatedly blocked UN attempts to impose sanctions on the regime for years before they outright sent troops in to prop him up.

Not to mention that the US food supply is loaded with all sorts of nonsense not found in most other industrialized nations (good luck finding HFCS outside of the US).

Hey, that's how "pro-business" government works - and if you think Trump, of all people, represents a paradigm shift in this particular area, I really don't know what to tell you.

The question is where the money for this comes from, who stands to benefit from it the most, and how it can coexist alongside an ever increasingly competitive medical research industry.

I already answered where the money comes from: switching to single-payer health care saves massive amounts of money over the profit-driven, administration-heavy model we have now (I remember reading one estimate which posited that if we switched to a government-run system and saved, just on average, as much as other countries have, our annual deficit would vanish almost overnight. Funny how you never hear the "deficit hawks" so much as bring up health care reform as a route to fiscal responsibility, let alone a "market-driven" aid to workers, who would be much more free to tell lousy hirers they quit when they don't need to worry about losing coverage). The HMOs will finally have some actual competition (yet another topic that funnily never comes up among the free-market faithful when it comes to instances like this), and will be forced to actually put more assets into care as opposed to stock payouts or leave the field altogether. I mentioned earlier that at least some of the countries with universal health care also have private insurers in operation, so it can be done, but you can bet they don't fleece their customers, or the government, anywhere near as badly as they do here.

As for who benefits the most, pretty much everyone who's not at the top of the current health care racket; whatever extra you might need to pay in taxes in a "Medicare for all" system, it's nowhere near what you're having carved out of your paycheck right now, even before you get into the hidden costs of the "just go to the emergency room" trickle-down and such. As for the research question, I honestly can't be particularly reverent towards it in the age of "new brand-name drug that works worse than a generic, but we'll advertise the hell out of it and pay your doctor off to prescribe it to you anyway", not to mention Martin Shkreli; heck, once the government has more power to negotiate drug prices you might actually see them starting to give us our money's worth once in awhile.

Minimum wage isn't the same thing as a living wage. Perhaps it once was, but at this point the distinction should be pretty clear.

I did cross over to a differing term there, but my overall point about businesses having a very real stake in the overall well-being of society, no matter how vigorously they and their apologists try to deny it, still very much stands.

I'm not against a minimum wage, more so the idea that the lowest of jobs in society should pay people enough to live what is (was?) decidedly a middle class lifestyle. Just because skilled labor isn't as abundant as it once was doesn't make it any less important in a societal sense. The welders, electricians, and plumbers of the world definitely deserve to be paid more than fast food workers and cashiers. If we can give everyone a bigger piece of the pie (raising all wages with minimal inflation), great. But understand that this is a function of the market, not some God given right.

Once again, nobody is saying that a doctor should be paid the same as a janitor, that's a "Cadillac-driving welfare queen"-caliber strawman. What is being said is that if someone puts in an honest day's work, whatever it is, they should have at least some reasonable expectation of being able to afford some small measure of comfort and dignity in their lives (forget the "middle class" thing, heaven knows that isn't what it used to be, much to our society's detriment). Again, even if you don't subscribe to the notion that nobody should have to work two or three jobs just to pay rent, when people have no disposable income the "demand" side of supply and demand flops over and dies - while we're on that note, let's dispel the notion that "the market" is any more sacred or incorruptible than "the government" (Exhibit A, once again, being the LIBOR scandal, whose media, political and economic ripples should all be infinitely more violent than they actually are). Both are, at their core, groups of imperfect, fallible people working towards various ends, and the results of their work are dependent on what their goals are - if "the market" and its advocates actually woke up and got over themselves (or, as has happened in the past, were forced to) we would see change nearly overnight (again, recall how the middle class was allowed to exist in the first place; that sure as hell wasn't a "market initiative" as we've come to know it). But until we stop letting them use "greed is good" as a cure-all excuse for absolutely everything that's not going to happen - and, once again, however little progress there is to be made in this area under a Clinton administration, there's infinitely less than that under the likes of Trump.

While there are a few things he has not been clear on, he has been particularly forthcoming in the past month or so as he's now changing his campaign strategy for the general election.

The thing is, even on matters where he has clarified himself to some extent, his ideas are, by any remotely objective measure, total fantasy: may I once again bring up the ten trillion dollars in tax cuts (mostly to his own bracket, naturally - and as far as lowering corporate taxes to encourage hiring, has that ever actually happened? It sure as hell didn't when Reagan gave them a big wet kiss [layoffs en masse coupled with huge jumps in executive compensation, actually], let alone after the no-strings-attached bailouts they got), with no plan to pay for them aside from the Republican boilerplate "cut waste" mantra (and if you think social services aren't at the top of the list you're deluding yourself). Blackmailing Mexico into building a wall that even you acknowledge will be ineffective, while hunting down the millions of immigrants already here at taxpayers' expense (and, again, doing nothing to those who have hired them, even as he thunders on about tariffs). Foreign policy dependent on tearing up treaties unilaterally (including prohibitions on torture) and increased nuclear proliferation. Going back and forth across literally a matter of hours on abortion and slews of other subjects - the list simply goes on and on, and is always somehow ludicrously dismissed as a "red herring" from the real story, whatever the hell that's supposed to be. I've brought up this stuff countless times, but in the end I'm always told that for some reason it doesn't really count - I'm just playing right into Trump's hands by even mentioning it. How, I really have no earthly idea.

God knows, I already promised myself I wouldn't get myself into this same cycle of nonsense, but I guess I'm trying to buck the trend of liberals snootily dismissing their counterparts as "beyond help" when it comes to basing their political decisions on things that can actually be proven to some extent...but I'll be damned if, when one moment I'm told to defend my own inclinations logically, and the next told that facts don't matter anyway, it can be hard not to give in to cynicism.

[BryanM]

Supposedly the interview is tomorrow.

I'm not highly optimistic about an indictment. And I'm certainly not optimistic enough that the correct person will end up the nominee if there is one.

It's pretty hard to believe in hope when you've already resigned yourself to the fact Donald Trump is the president.

hope

The most repulsive and traitorous of emotions.

See: If the FBI indicts her on Monday, July 4, then it truly would be our independence day. Indeed. For sure.

Now observe the poisonous endorphins rushing through your brain. They're useless chemicals, with no power on altering the outcome.

[ED-057]

Easy - Bashar al-Assad. His people protested peacefully to call for changes on his part, and he turned the army on them; things escalated into civil war from there, and Daesh and company had the opportunity to move right in. Off to the side, presumably you're aware that Russia, in whose hands you're comfortable leaving the country's immediate future (along with Assad's continued rule in the longer term), repeatedly blocked UN attempts to impose sanctions on the regime for years before they outright sent troops in to prop him up.

I have a few questions about this fairy tale.

1) What were the people protesting?
2) How exactly did protesters morph into a military force?
2b) Do weapons and ammunition grow on cacti in Syria?
3) What was it that supposedly justified sanctions against Syria?
3b) How would sanctions have helped the people there?

What a load of horse feathers. Not only is it not accurate, it also does not in any way explain WTF the US has been doing there or what is behind the various words coming out of politicians' mouths regarding the place.

When there was talk about Syrian refugees potentially coming to the US, the response from congress was pretty clear. "No, fuck 'em." Any claims that the US has been involved or should be involved for the sake of "helping" the Syrian people are obvious bullshit. No shits are given here about the Syrian people. Not during the previous decade when unrest was building up because of droughts, not now.

The US wants to replace Assad with their own puppet for their own gain.

[BulletMagnet]

1) What were the people protesting?

In the beginning, at least, it was apparently a handful of arrests and beatings by government police around the time the "Arab Spring" started, which eventually expanded into demands to end the "state of emergency" that Assad and his father had used to justify their repressive policies for nearly 50 years, and from there into calls for his resignation.

2) How exactly did protesters morph into a military force?
2b) Do weapons and ammunition grow on cacti in Syria?

I, along with everyone else, am aware that the US and others, including Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states, eventually started lending military support and training to the more "moderate" rebel factions, yes, as Russia/Iran/etc. have done for Assad's side. Whether or not you think this was a good idea is your call (heaven knows, nobody is going to call it a resounding success), though it's been posited that offering support earlier on might have lessened the impact of Daesh and other radical Islamist factions; how much water that theory holds is impossible to know for sure, in any event.

3) What was it that supposedly justified sanctions against Syria?

Um, the fact that he deployed tanks against his own citizens to break up their protests? And no, not all of them were peaceful as things heated up, but it didn't really matter, he cracked down hard either way (as if anyone was expecting anything else, honestly).

3b) How would sanctions have helped the people there?

At the very least it would have definitively placed Assad in opposition to the international community at large, as opposed to knowing that a handful of countries still had his back and would shield him from any restrictions on trade, monetary aid, etc. (let alone military intervention) that the UN could impose on its member states. How much it would have actually done in the end is, again, impossible to know for sure, but it was apparently potentially enough for Russia and China to feel compelled to kill the resolution even after several watered-down revisions.

Any claims that the US has been involved or should be involved for the sake of "helping" the Syrian people are obvious bullshit.

Was anybody claiming otherwise? The question I was answering was not "were/are our actions in Syria justified?" but "how did it start"? Everything I've read posits that, while the US opportunistically stuck its nose in once the ball started rolling (whether it intended to insert its own puppet in Assad's place I honestly don't know; one would hope they'd grown skeptical of that tactic at this point, but who knows), it wasn't involved, at least not directly, in the events that led up to that point. By all means link me if I'm missing something.

[ED-057]

I, along with everyone else, am aware that the US and others, including Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states, eventually started lending military support and training to the more "moderate" rebel factions

So armed rebels appeared out of nowhere, AND THEN foreign powers decided to help them. Just like how we invented horses because we were tired of wearing saddles on our own backs.

3b) How would sanctions have helped the people there?

At the very least it would have definitively placed Assad in opposition to the international community at large, as opposed to knowing that a handful of countries still had his back and would shield him from any restrictions on trade, monetary aid, etc. (let alone military intervention) that the UN could impose on its member states. How much it would have actually done in the end is, again, impossible to know for sure, but it was apparently potentially enough for Russia and China to feel compelled to kill the resolution even after several watered-down revisions.

Please reread the question.

Any claims that the US has been involved or should be involved for the sake of "helping" the Syrian people are obvious bullshit.

Was anybody claiming otherwise?

Don't play dumb. You just said that because Assad did this or that against his own people that gives "the international community" an excuse to retaliate against him. Humanitarian concerns are regularly trotted out as justification for interventions that end up causing massive destruction and death.

BTW, when is the vote on sanctions and regime change for the US? Maybe Canada can sneak in some RPGs and give them to Cliven Bundy.

Oh wait, America's shit doesn't stink.

The question I was answering was not "were/are our actions in Syria justified?" but "how did it start"? Everything I've read posits that, while the US opportunistically stuck its nose in once the ball started rolling (whether it intended to insert its own puppet in Assad's place I honestly don't know; one would hope they'd grown skeptical of that tactic at this point, but who knows), it wasn't involved, at least not directly, in the events that led up to that point. By all means link me if I'm missing something.

The US is involved with 80% of wars, of course according to them it's never the US that started it, always somebody else.

The Sauds want Assad gone because he is Shiite, and they would like to build a pipeline through Syria. US neocon idiots are in bed with the Sauds. The US is insisting at UN talks that Assad should not be allowed on the ballot if/when elections can be held in Syria to form a new government. Despite what they are saying in their smear campaign, the US knows that the Syrian people mostly don't like having their country overrun with jihadis, and they could very well vote for Assad to stay in power.

The US and Russia both claim to oppose ISIS, and accuse the other side of aiding them. One side is lying. There is no question that ISIS is receiving aid from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The US is allied with these countries. Russia is not. Hmmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria

[BulletMagnet]

Uh, before this goes any further, methinks I'd better state for the record that I'm really not sure how I wound up as this topic's designated defender of the US's actions in Syria, because that really, really wasn't my intention. About as far as I'll venture, frankly, is to (re-)declare that, while it's definitely had its fingers in some nasty pies in the region, I don't believe the USA deserves to be labeled the "primary" culprit in the mess over there - are there people here who use Daesh as a convenient boogeyman to shout down their own opposition? Absolutely and always. But attempting to finger Hillary or anyone else as an honest-to-goodness "supporter" of such a group in any meaningful sense, if you ask me, crosses the same line as existed between "Bush built his presidential legitimacy on 9/11" and "9/11 was an inside job".

[Bitter Almonds]

Well, the 9/11 terrorists were saudis who received support from saudi arabia. That regime is in bed with both the bushes and the clintons.

[BryanM]

Everyone stop talking about how we gave weapons to terrorists to fight a corrupt dictator and place your bets on when the FBI will announce their decision on what we should do with our own corrupt dictator.

I have 15 internet bucks on July 15th, 11:45 PM news dump to minimize how long it gets to stay in the news cycle.

More gutsy sorts might bet on it coming in as our second Independence Day, so get them in early.

[EmperorIng]

Loretta Lynch will announce her appointment as CFO of the Clinton Foundation, so she can have more time to talk with Bill about the grandkids.

[BulletMagnet]

Well, the 9/11 terrorists were saudis who received support from saudi arabia. That regime is in bed with both the bushes and the clintons.

Heaven knows I'm no fan of the Sauds (who are, in many ways, as repressive as Assad), and would very much like to see the US take a more hard-line stance against them until they address their numerous human rights issues, but if you're going the alliance route things get more complicated. Apart from their prominent American allies, Saudi Arabia is also allied with Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, and numerous others - feel free to criticize any and all of those countries for that fact, but does it really parse to label them de facto co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks, as you would do with the Bushes/Clintons? I'm not saying that there isn't plenty to be upset and concerned about here, but it's a question of degrees, in both rhetoric and proposed response; sure, it's a nice bit of personal catharsis to call Bush/Clinton terrorist sympathizers and have everyone in the room harumphing in approval, but IMO that sort of talk might as well be an extension of Godwin's Law, and just as effective at diverting focus away from responses that might actually improve the situation (but, tragically, also make it less worth feeling self-righteous about).

[Bitter Almonds]

Clarity would help. Start with the redacted portions of the 9/11 Report and if there are any names directly tied to the bushes and the clintons.

[quash]

Easy - Bashar al-Assad. His people protested peacefully to call for changes on his part, and he turned the army on them; things escalated into civil war from there, and Daesh and company had the opportunity to move right in. Off to the side, presumably you're aware that Russia, in whose hands you're comfortable leaving the country's immediate future (along with Assad's continued rule in the longer term), repeatedly blocked UN attempts to impose sanctions on the regime for years before they outright sent troops in to prop him up.

There are a lot of dots that need to be connected for this to begin to make sense. With the way the discourse on this is going, it warrants its own thread. I have my own theory on how complicit Assad was, but I seriously doubt he was the main architect behind it.

For now I'll leave it at this: follow the money. Nobody had any problem linking Iraq to Cheney, and I think a similar line of reasoning works here. Granted, this is a much more complex situation than Iraq for many reasons, but someone has to benefit from this for it to continue as it has. I can think of at least one person who has a vested interest in keeping the conflict going.

I could get really snarky and/or indignant in the response to that one (hint: at whose expense has so much of that "greatness" come over the years? Second hint: I already told you when you asked me about the New Deal and the middle class)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, so go ahead. Lay it on thick.

but in the interest of keeping things semi-civil I'll repeat what I've said before, namely that it takes two people for an illegal hiring to take place, and only one side is ever the subject of "reform" on this issue (the other, apparently, is "great" as they are). You constantly hear from the "America first" bunch that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have - somehow that never applies to hiring illegal immigrants. Want to see change? Go after the hirers instead of just the hirees (and then watch them whine about how they need pseudo-slave labor to "stay competitive", and how the real problem is that they still haven't gotten enough tax breaks).

And which party is primarily responsible for keeping this gravy train going? Let's have a look.

States with E-Verify laws that have expired or been rescinded:

California
In October 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB1236 into law. The law prohibits state municipalities from passing mandatory E-Verify ordinances.

Illinois
HB 1744 bars companies from enrolling in the E-Verify system until accuracy and timeliness issues are resolved. On Aug. 24, 2009, Illinois enacted S1133 prohibiting the state or localities from requiring employers to use an employment eligibility verification system. Illinois also enacted HB 1743, which creates privacy and anti-discrimination protections for workers if employers participating in E-Verify do not follow the program’s procedures. As of January 2012 employers can voluntarily use E-Verify.

Rhode Island
In March 2008, Gov. Carcieri issued an executive order requiring executive agencies to use E-Verify; and for all businesses, including grantees, contractors, subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify. Shortly after taking office in 2011, Gov. Lincoln Chafee rescinded Gov. Carcieri's executive order.

Really makes you think.

If you go by Hillary's own page on the topic, it's almost entirely devoted to integrating/naturalizing the immigrants who are already here (a big enough job by itself, methinks), and says little to nothing in terms of letting more people in. It'd be fair to criticize her for being vague when it comes to what she'd do with refugees from Syria and the like (if she follows in Obama's footsteps, she won't admit many...and that's before you get into his record on deportations), but to declare that she's in favor of "opening the floodgates" without any hard evidence to that effect is disingenuous. By the by, the same largely goes for Bernie, and almost certainly for "nearly every politician" you could name - nobody wants to let absolutely everyone in, that's a figment of your imagination.

Going back a bit to the first thing I mentioned, the strings are being pulled on numerous politicians to get them onboard.

I guess in a sense, I misspoke. They may not want it, but it's what's going to be forced upon them.

Admittedly, the US hasn't taken in very many yet. But there are already forces at work looking to change that.

Hey, that's how "pro-business" government works - and if you think Trump, of all people, represents a paradigm shift in this particular area, I really don't know what to tell you.

Wasn't the corn subsidy created to protect smaller farm owners from losing boatloads of money in the off season? In any case, this is something that matters tremendously on a societal level at this point; even the DoD is starting to groan about how unhealthy young Americans are these days.

I already answered where the money comes from: switching to single-payer health care saves massive amounts of money over the profit-driven, administration-heavy model we have now (I remember reading one estimate which posited that if we switched to a government-run system and saved, just on average, as much as other countries have, our annual deficit would vanish almost overnight.

Source, please. I'd like to read this.

I mentioned earlier that at least some of the countries with universal health care also have private insurers in operation, so it can be done, but you can bet they don't fleece their customers, or the government, anywhere near as badly as they do here.

I believe I mentioned earlier that I don't necessarily oppose one or the other, nor do I think they're mutually exclusive.

Once again, nobody is saying that a doctor should be paid the same as a janitor, that's a "Cadillac-driving welfare queen"-caliber strawman.

Your hyperbolic example is indeed a strawman. My example is quite practical and is already starting to happen in places like San Jose. Thankfully, they weren't entirely stupid in their implementation of increasing the minimum wage since they're adjusting for CPI.

Here's a study outlining potential effects of raising the minimum wage in San Jose. One point of interest here:

77.8 percent of workers in the restaurant industry in the private sector would receive a wage increase, compared to 11.5 percent in manufacturing.

I realize we like to act like American manufacturing is completely dead and literally everything is imported from China anymore, but this is much less the case when it comes to industrial grade products. What happens to the skilled labor jobs when entry level service jobs pay close to, or perhaps even the same?

Again, even if you don't subscribe to the notion that nobody should have to work two or three jobs just to pay rent, when people have no disposable income the "demand" side of supply and demand flops over and dies

Just take out a loan you can never pay off. Surely, if it were that bad of a thing to do, the government would prevent you from doing it.

while we're on that note, let's dispel the notion that "the market" is any more sacred or incorruptible than "the government" (Exhibit A, once again, being the LIBOR scandal, whose media, political and economic ripples should all be infinitely more violent than they actually are). Both are, at their core, groups of imperfect, fallible people working towards various ends, and the results of their work are dependent on what their goals are

Indeed.

if "the market" and its advocates actually woke up and got over themselves (or, as has happened in the past, were forced to) we would see change nearly overnight (again, recall how the middle class was allowed to exist in the first place; that sure as hell wasn't a "market initiative" as we've come to know it).

Frankly, we're long past the point of having a free market or anything resembling one. Not saying this is a good or bad thing, it's just a matter of fact.

But until we stop letting them use "greed is good" as a cure-all excuse for absolutely everything that's not going to happen - and, once again, however little progress there is to be made in this area under a Clinton administration, there's infinitely less than that under the likes of Trump.

The populist candidate who wants to audit the fed is somehow worse than the crony politician with strings reaching up to the highest echelons of the financial sector (of which, Trump isn't and never was a member of, but this isn't a bad thing if you ask me). Guess you can put whatever spin you want on anything if you really put your mind to it.

The thing is, even on matters where he has clarified himself to some extent, his ideas are, by any remotely objective measure, total fantasy: may I once again bring up the ten trillion dollars in tax cuts (mostly to his own bracket, naturally - and as far as lowering corporate taxes to encourage hiring, has that ever actually happened? It sure as hell didn't when Reagan gave them a big wet kiss [layoffs en masse coupled with huge jumps in executive compensation, actually], let alone after the no-strings-attached bailouts they got), with no plan to pay for them aside from the Republican boilerplate "cut waste" mantra (and if you think social services aren't at the top of the list you're deluding yourself).

The difference is Trump wants to start trade wars with countries that can't live without the US. He really isn't a neocon and it'd be a service to everyone if you (and others here) would stop holding him to that standard.

Blackmailing Mexico into building a wall that even you acknowledge will be ineffective, while hunting down the millions of immigrants already here at taxpayers' expense (and, again, doing nothing to those who have hired them, even as he thunders on about tariffs).

I think it would actually be more effective in the long term than in the short term, but I digress.

Foreign policy dependent on tearing up treaties unilaterally

Are you talking about NATO? If Europe refuses to defend its own borders, why should we bother to continue to support them?

For that matter, while we're on the topic of demographic change: does anyone really think a non-White majority US would continue to support, say, Israel? This is a critical juncture in the course of world history and should be treated as such.

(including prohibitions on torture)

One of the things I don't agree with him on.

and increased nuclear proliferation.

This again? He said he wasn't opposed to the idea if countries like SK and Japan don't want to pay more for US presence. Which of course, they would, because they have no choice, but even assuming they wouldn't, it's not as if they aren't already the closest non-Anglosphere allies the US has. Japan may even be the US' only unconditional ally, at this point.

Not to talk down to you or anyone else, but a lot of what's reported (and perhaps more importantly, what isn't reported) on the affairs of this region is designed to mislead you into believing that the US has some kind of estranged relationship with SK and Japan. While they may have their own issues with each other, they both rely almost entirely on US presence to fend off China. This trifecta isn't going anywhere any time soon, but it is more likely to see some action if we elect Hillary.

Going back and forth across literally a matter of hours on abortion and slews of other subjects - the list simply goes on and on, and is always somehow ludicrously dismissed as a "red herring" from the real story, whatever the hell that's supposed to be.

Destroying globalism is the real story. Everything Trump wants to do is a means to that end. Why do you think the vast majority of the media and both parties are so vocal in their opposition to him?

I've brought up this stuff countless times, but in the end I'm always told that for some reason it doesn't really count - I'm just playing right into Trump's hands by even mentioning it. How, I really have no earthly idea.

"Any publicity is good publicity", in the words of the God Emperor himself. Getting people arguing over whether or not Ted Cruz is actually the Zodiac killer does more to get them talking about Trump than discussing anything that actually matters. Disagree if you want, but the news cycle of the primary election begs to differ.

By mentioning how he may or may not have lost money on a golf course, all you're doing is giving people more reason to talk about him. Even, and perhaps even especially, if it's something that only reinforces the negative views of those who were never going to vote for him anyways. Did you all not learn about this when you spent an entire year bashing Bush, on some pretty legitimate points at times, even, and still lost an election that was yours to win?

God knows, I already promised myself I wouldn't get myself into this same cycle of nonsense, but I guess I'm trying to buck the trend of liberals snootily dismissing their counterparts as "beyond help" when it comes to basing their political decisions on things that can actually be proven to some extent...but I'll be damned if, when one moment I'm told to defend my own inclinations logically, and the next told that facts don't matter anyway, it can be hard not to give in to cynicism.

I don't know if I ever insinuated that facts don't matter, but I certainly don't subscribe to the school of thought that statistics are inherently infallible evidence.

In any case, I really don't have an issue discussing things with you or anyone else here. If nothing else, a third party can read this and take something away from it.

[BryanM]

Well there you go. Donald Trump is president.

Fuck us with a cattle prod. Bend over and accept it already.

[EmperorIng]

What's harder to understand is that Comey and the FBI flat-out said that
a) some classified info was sent, and that Hillary "should have" known better
b) if it had been anyone else, there would have been "sanctions" or punishment

That second point really gets me; out-and-out admitting that the law applies differently to HR[H]C. That statement must have contained the last embers of Comey's spirit before it was forcefully stamped out by the White House. Will the FBI ever be able to seriously investigate someone again with such a blaring contradiction (if not cow-towing) for everyone to see?

Fuck it. I'm glad Lynch and Bill got to learn about each others' grandkids. And I'm glad that the precedent of a president endorsing someone under active criminal investigation was not complicated by that awkward phase of prosecution. The president really dodged a bullet there!

[BulletMagnet]

I have my own theory on how complicit Assad was, but I seriously doubt he was the main architect behind it.

Uh, the dude opened fire on his own people, and that was just the final straw after decades of oppression. As far as the response to that particular action is concerned feel free to theorize over who or what precisely led to the chaos of the moment, but for god's sake spare me the ever-popular "false flag" get-out-of-jail-free card.

I can think of at least one person who has a vested interest in keeping the conflict going.

As much of a no-thought-required, all-purpose boogeyman that Soros is for a lot of people, I certainly wouldn't doubt that anyone in a position like his (including, of course, many of his critics) has more than a few skeletons in his closet...that being said, the allegations in that article border on "new world order" conspiracy theory, and the outlet in question has a somewhat dodgy history (oh, and the author not only believes that Bush Jr. orchestrated the Arab Spring but that global warming is a hoax). Methinks it's also worth repeating that Trump's motivation to be for or against Iraq in real time was a bond deal, so if you think he brings a different geopolitical mindset to the table I'm not sure where you're getting that impression.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, so go ahead. Lay it on thick.

As I said in the post I refer to, the middle class - a "Socialist" construct if there ever was one, since "pure" capitalism is only supposed to involve big winners and big losers - only came into being via a great deal of government intervention, most notably the New Deal, which by design largely limited its services to white males. So for you to suggest that the current/fading middle class (i.e. mostly white men) got where it is solely by its own power (and that immigrants and others having a hard time should just shut up and work harder) is both ignorant and self-indulgent; sure, the people who rose into the middle class worked hard and played by the rules, but too often fail to acknowledge that their rules have been different from everyone else's. What you see now, with workers' rights being dismantled, wages/benefits being slashed and jobs being directed to other markets entirely, is simply a realignment with every other demographic that self-styled "great" America has been largely shielded from for decades...and, in a rational world, perhaps their frustrated, furious reaction to it would signal some common ground with those they've largely dismissed as "looking for a handout" all these years, rather than simply doubling down on blaming them (instead of the Trumps of the world) for everything that's gone wrong - or, at the very least, convince them that it's the "middle class" part of the equation that has been in the crosshairs for so long, not the "white" part.

And which party is primarily responsible for keeping this gravy train going?

I can't help but chuckle that conservatives (well, minus farm lobbies and libertarians who don't want their supply of wage slaves cut off), who constantly beat the drum about "slippery slopes" when it comes to government databases and the like, are the ones who have absolutely no problems with a program like this, and it's the liberals who cite "accuracy and timeliness issues" as reasons to put the program on hold...but y'know what? Ignore all that. Let's just assume that E-Verify is the way to go on matters like this and leave it off to the side. More relevant question: if "great" or "real" Americans, or whatever you care to call them, really are as patriotic and God-fearing as you and others make them out to be, and are merely victims of those conniving immigrants and their enablers, why would we even need a program like this? Why should the government even need to get involved in this, when theoretically hirers should be taking care of it themselves? Who is truly responsible for "keeping this gravy train going"?

I guess in a sense, I misspoke. They may not want it, but it's what's going to be forced upon them. Admittedly, the US hasn't taken in very many yet. But there are already forces at work looking to change that.

The only "force at work" I saw mentioned in that article is the UN...so apparently they're also in on the New World Order conspiracy to destabilize sovereign nations by flooding them with immigrants, huh? Funnily enough, I found the most interesting footnote in that article to be the fact that pro-Assad Russia hasn't bothered to take a single refugee in; I guess you'd praise them for that?

Source, please. I'd like to read this.

Here's a more in-depth take on that figure; even if that's not of much interest to you somehow, please click the last link at the bottom of the article, just for a glimpse into how badly Americans are getting screwed when it comes to health care costs compared to countries with universal coverage.

I believe I mentioned earlier that I don't necessarily oppose one or the other, nor do I think they're mutually exclusive.

Follow-up question: in situations where private insurance does manage to co-exist on some level with single-payer coverage, what do you think is the x-factor that differentiates them from the profit-bloated nightmare we've built over here?

What happens to the skilled labor jobs when entry level service jobs pay close to, or perhaps even the same?

The best-case scenario would be for the former's wages to rise as well - heaven knows that almost nobody's wages have kept up with inflation for a long time now, even as both productivity and profit margins have skyrocketed...funny how nobody seems to care much about how the market "should" theoretically work in this case, eh? - but in all honesty, when the biggest number the lower-end jobs are striving for amounts to a measly 30K a year before taxes and other deductions are taken out, I don't think too many welders will be quitting to flip burgers. On the other hand, more service workers might be able to actually afford a home repair (or a home!) if they got paid more, but never mind.

Just take out a loan you can never pay off. Surely, if it were that bad of a thing to do, the government would prevent you from doing it.

Now there's a good-faith reply if there ever was one. In case you actually care, some parts of the government have honestly tried to do something about the worst types of predatory loans, but have of course been rebuffed (trigger warning: John Oliver) at almost every turn by "free-market advocates".

The populist candidate who wants to audit the fed is somehow worse than the crony politician with strings reaching up to the highest echelons of the financial sector (of which, Trump isn't and never was a member of, but this isn't a bad thing if you ask me). Guess you can put whatever spin you want on anything if you really put your mind to it.

Sorry, but simply saying "I'm a populist" (even if you do it really loudly) doesn't automatically make it so. Believe it or not, the reality actually has something to do with the policies you support - but that stuff's all just a "red herring", right?

The difference is Trump wants to start trade wars with countries that can't live without the US. He really isn't a neocon and it'd be a service to everyone if you (and others here) would stop holding him to that standard.

Check the link above - Romney wanted to do much the same thing. And sure, Trump's not much interested in "exporting democracy" or whatnot (as if any neocon ever really was), but he is, by any and all indications, very much interested in making himself and those like him richer, and really doesn't care who he has to screw to do it - which, in the end, is the defining characteristic of the party he's aligned himself with, no matter how much he and his supporters insist he's a "maverick" on this front.

It would also help his case if his company's own products weren't manufactured overseas and he didn't import foreign labor for his casinos...oops, red herring again!

I think it would actually be more effective in the long term than in the short term, but I digress.

Oh no, please, I want to hear this one.

Are you talking about NATO?

According to Trump, any agreement he decides to label "bad" in some fashion is on the chopping block, so think bigger.

For that matter, while we're on the topic of demographic change: does anyone really think a non-White majority US would continue to support, say, Israel? This is a critical juncture in the course of world history and should be treated as such.

I suppose it could well be, but considering how you're both against immigration and against too much global involvement on America's part I'm not sure where you're going with this particular point.

While they may have their own issues with each other, they both rely almost entirely on US presence to fend off China. This trifecta isn't going anywhere any time soon, but it is more likely to see some action if we elect Hillary.

This is, frankly, an issue I'm not particularly well-informed about, but off the cuff I'd be hesitant to say that military action (assuming that's what you're insinuating) would be in China's best interests in the foreseeable future, when most of its power, as Trump repeatedly says, comes through trade, which would plummet no matter who's allied with who if such a scenario came about.

Destroying globalism is the real story. Everything Trump wants to do is a means to that end. Why do you think the vast majority of the media and both parties are so vocal in their opposition to him?

First, would you seriously come off the whole "the media hates Trump" thing already - heaven knows if they hadn't been grading him on the most generous curve in the history of presidential politics ("He hasn't insulted a major demographic group in two days, he's pivoting! And executing a genius-caliber manipulation of his own coverage!"), not to mention giving him millions in free airtime and treating his most worrying statements and actions as entertainment rather than anything worthy of serious consideration (all while openly crowing about how much profit his constant onscreen presence brings them) he'd be the real-life equivalent of a "Mickey Mouse" vote. Whenever he or anyone backing him complains about how "unfair" his coverage has been, they might as well be beating themselves over the head with a hammer for all the sense it makes in any context outside of "everything that doesn't go 100 percent my way must be a conspiracy".

As for globalization, if he's really that serious about the topic he ought to go into the proven, existing advantages that "destroying" it would take away, alongside the theoretical ones that would supposedly pop up in their place - to the best of my knowledge all he's managed to puke out are variations on "we'll tell everyone to screw off and then we'll be winning yeeeaahhhhh." Frankly, he's striking exactly the same pose as the pro-"Brexit" politicians in the UK who turned a hugely complicated issue into a sports stadium chant and then scurried off the sinking ship before they could be held accountable for its consequences - and if you think that a self-pitying crybaby like Trump would stick around to see through all of the crazy shit he's proposed, you're out of your mind.

"Any publicity is good publicity", in the words of the God Emperor himself. Getting people arguing over whether or not Ted Cruz is actually the Zodiac killer does more to get them talking about Trump than discussing anything that actually matters. Disagree if you want, but the news cycle of the primary election begs to differ...Did you all not learn about this when you spent an entire year bashing Bush, on some pretty legitimate points at times, even, and still lost an election that was yours to win?

The problem isn't that people are talking about Trump, it's that too many of them are refusing to, in your own words, "connect the dots" with the stuff they're talking about - Bush is indeed a perfect example of this, if you'll recall the time in 2000 he misstated his own numbers during a debate and Gore called him on it, but all the (mainstream, not Fox) media cared about was how Gore had apparently "sighed" when Bush refused to acknowledge his error ("that's the real story here!"). In 2004, of course, Kerry was most severely undermined by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", most of whose claims turned out to be total bunk - not that anyone cared, it was fun!. Now, as then, the less that tangible facts matter as opposed to how well one can distract from them, the better empty-shell candidates like Trump will do - and the worse the country will be for it (as someone so opposed to foreign meddling, how happy were you with the way those two elections turned out?).

I don't know if I ever insinuated that facts don't matter, but I certainly don't subscribe to the school of thought that statistics are inherently infallible evidence.

"Infallible" is the claim of absolutely nobody - "easily dismissed when they don't fit your preconceptions, no matter how high they pile up" is another matter altogether.

[BulletMagnet]

b) if it had been anyone else, there would have been "sanctions" or punishment

I'm pretty sure that's a willful misreading of what he said.

Link me to a quote if I'm wrong, but from what I've read on the matter, what Comey said was that if someone currently employed at the State Department was found to be doing what Clinton did, they would face internal disciplinary action, but NOT criminal charges, because for the latter to stick they'd have to present evidence of willful wrongdoing (as opposed to carelessness) and/or malicious intent, i.e. actively attempting to harm national interests, and the FBI found no evidence of either of those. Hence, why it reached the conclusion it did: Clinton and her staff were, in his words, "extremely careless" when it came to their handling of classified information, and very much earned the rebuke they got, but that in and of itself isn't enough under the law to merit criminality.

So - whatever legitimate criticism you, Trump, or anyone else have of Clinton and what she did here, let loose, I certainly won't be the one to defend her. Heck, if you want to argue that the law's current threshold for criminal action is too lenient, go for it; I'd be half-likely to agree with you, assuming you'd be willing to apply the same standard to corporate criminals as well as government officials.

The whole THE FIX IS IN nonsense, however...sorry, you, Trump, and the rest are just jerking yourselves off.

[Mischief Maker]

Man, this election went from "Yaaay this is so exciting!" to "Oh fuck, what other choice do I have?" so quickly I've got whiplash.

If the DNC ever does get its paws on Bernie's mailing list and sends out a message asking for donations for Hillary, the onslaught of unsubscribes will crash the internet.

Maybe I'll say fuck the man and vote for... the face of the birther movement?

Sigh...

EDIT: Hold the phone! I just saw Hillary's Vine! I never realized she's so hip! She speaks to my generation, now she's got my vote.

How wonderful to see Al Gore's campaign strategists are still getting work.