Republicans Shackle Themselves to a Suicide Bomber
Back in the depths of WWI, the Germans woke up one day and found that their erstwhile ally Austria-Hungary, to whom they had given that famous blank check in the madness that led up to the war, was completely incompetent. Worse than incompetent, in fact, because Germany had to keep sending troops to bail them out of various military fixes, an oddly similar situation to what Hitler found himself doing with Italy in the next war. (This is a really interesting book if you have any doubts about how dysfunctional the Hapsburg Empire was in its waning days).
Anyway, Germans soon began to wonder if they were "shackled to a dead man."
I am reminded of that phrase as I see that the Republicans have officially nominated Donald Trump for the presidency, perhaps the worst choice the party has made in its history, Nixon included. I don't think "shackled to a dead man" is quite right. I think that "shackled to a suicide bomber" is more apt. Trump is not only going to lose big in this election to an incredibly weak Democratic candidate, but he is also going to kill the Republicans in the House and Senate and any number of down-ballot elections. Nutty over-the-top crazy talk that might have been mildly entertaining in the primaries is not going to be very funny to voters trying to pick who sits at the other end of the red phone.
As I said on twitter this morning, I almost wish I had not left the Republican party 30 years ago so I could quit today.
You didn't watch Cruz last night, did you? Could you imagine four years of slippery comments and trickery and trying to snow us with elaborate verbiage? You can do that stuff for awhile, especially if your platform is small but eventually you are seen for what you are a self serving ideolog. I don't see how fighting individual cases in a court of law is similar to Walkers accomplishments either.
No denying Cruz is very smart though, but I think his intelligence is working against him. He seems to have a lack of instinct for how to deal with people.
He will have trouble even winning his senate race in Texas now.
It happened then too. Bush was ahead by several thousand votes, and courts kept doing recount after recount and finding new ballots in liberal counties, and finding ways to disqualify Bush supporters - eg, disqualified military votes. In the end there were some 500 votes ahead. it all stopped because finally courts prevented any more recounts.
It is only because Bush fought hard that it didn't go negative for him.
AP did a full recount with the last set of fraudulent ballots, for the whole state, and found Bush won by about 500 votes. So the controversy should have ended, but falsehoods never die in lefty blogs.
Well except anyone but Clinton would be locked up at this point. I think the chant is more dissatisfaction with the justice system that seems to have a different set of laws for the elites.
If I had released one secret document via email, even accidentally I would have lost my job, and would be barred from working defense. If I had done it twice I would be in jail. Note that Hillary had to sign the same DOD and DOE documents I did, explicitly laying out the laws. I had someone read them before I signed - to make sure I understood the gravity. And all the excuses, are covered in the documents, if you create secret information, you are responsible for marking and protecting that information. I do coding for example - if I were to code up the details of a missile launch algorithm, the secret markings wouldn't be in, until I put them in, but I signed that that is not an excuse, and not putting in the markings is just as egregious.
Yes the woman, might not belong in jail, like ahem General Patreaus, who did much less, but at the very least she should have a day in court, to explain herself. She didn't even have to testify to the FBI under oath.
I understand the rank and file not understanding, but for those of us who had clearances - most of us are pretty pissed.
Especially union members. They are bombarded by leadership to vote for Democrats, but Clinton is talking the same old game, and then probably ignoring them for the will of the elite like they always do. Trump seems to be the only one talking policies that will help the blue collar worker.
Is a very well scripted interview with pre-planned questions, and extremely friendly hosts, really an interview, or a sit-com? I mean seriously, if there is a pre-planned script, it really isn't an interview, and that is how Clinton does these things.
Write as a Democrat, you know it is a living breathing document that can be re-interpreted at will to suit a socialist agenda. Trump doesn't believe that, so he must not know what it is.
I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me if it is Hillary or Trump. Individual cases like gun rights and state's rights are not self serving. I guess I don't find him using elaborate language, but I know that Trump speaks at about a 4th grade level and people love it. I find Donald Trump repulsive.
I did see Cruz in September in a small group setting. I didn't see or hear anything that scared me. I am not saying I agreed with everything or thought it possible to abolish the IRS. I don't think it was political suicide.
Really pissed me off that they went to such effort to disqualify military absentee ballots...
I'm not a Democrat. The constitution is a dead document, in the words of Scalia. There are means to change and adapt it, but not through the courts. I understand that. I just don't think Trump knows much about it. It is an observation I have made concerning the man, his comments, and off the cuff statements. I've watched him through the years when he was on Oprah, etc. The more I see and hear of him the more repulsive he is. I am also getting kind of tired of his supporters including those I know personally, not on some blog comment, and find I have less and less respect for their opinions.
If the only reason you're voting for a candidate is because of whom you think they'll nominate (and I emphasize that last word) to the Supreme Court, then you're not really voting for a president at all. You're voting for the Supreme Court -- in essence politicizing an aspect of federal government structure that the country's founders deliberately tried to depoliticize.
Most people were saying Trump had no chance at the GOP nomination. It's sickening, but I don't think you can rule him out yet.
Regardless of all the other dreck you NeverTrumpers and utopian idealist spew. There is really a choice of two. H or T. Any other vote is really a vote for one or the other (Johnson is vote for H, Green Party is vote for T). Either T or H will be the next president. Which one will result in a SC that protects more individual rights than the other? Everything else is secondary-- maybe, unless T actually stops immigration which has dramatically changed our society against our wishes. (1965 Immigration Bill debate said it would not change demographic make-up of US???--not until Dems figured they needed the votes). But SC is big issue, and distinct difference between two. H has said get rid of Citizen's United (1st Amendment) and just get rid of 2nd amendment. T put out a list of possible picks-- most very good. So for everyone arguing for H. Enjoy your serfdom... You will have helped bring it on yourself.
Trump appointments to the Supreme Court are more likely to protect individual rights.