Yesterday, on "Face the Nation," John Dickerson was moderating a panel discussion. He'd asked Ruth Marcus about Donald Trump's efforts to reach out to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the interest of party unity. Marcus said "some Republicans" were "getting to yes with Donald Trump" but a lot were "getting to OMG with Donald Trump."
There was some talk about GOP leaders plotting a 3rd party move or "piggybacking" on the ballot access of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. But even if that worked to keep Trump from winning the presidency, where would it leave the Republican Party going forward? Reihan Salam (of The National Review) observed that younger voters — 18-29-year-old voters — leaned toward Bernie Sanders, and:
The Republican Party needs to think around the bend. Donald Trump is - he's energized a lot of voters who are, frankly, not going to be the voters of the future."Frankly" = These people are old and therefore on their way off Planet Earth (if not quite soon enough to stop Trump).
Susan Page (of USA Today) revealed that the Republicans who are talking to her (off the record) assume they're going to lose the presidential election, and they're just trying to figure out "a way to lose the presidency but hold the Senate" or — at least — "lose the White House and the Senate but not have the party destroyed." With that as the goal, they can't agree on "whether Ted Cruz or Donald Trump is the smarter bet."
John Dickerson said he'd talked to Lindsey Graham about that and "the gap between what they say privately and what they're willing to do [in] public... is vast." Two other panelists — Page and Jonathan Martin (of the NYT) — back Dickerson up. The GOP leaders don't want to endorse Cruz. Martin says:
[I]'s hard for these folks in the party to get behind Ted Cruz. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are trying to make it easier, but it's - it's still very difficult.... But this is - this is - the state of the GOP in March of 2016 is, we have to lose with Cruz, it's important. That's astonishing, right, that they are trying to save their party by nominating somebody that they assume will lose the presidency.This idea that Cruz is the preferable loser triggers Ruth Marcus. She thinks Trump would be "a less strong candidate against Hillary Clinton than Ted Cruz," but then she says "the Clinton campaign is quite nervous about the prospect of running against Donald Trump." Now, that seems contradictory, but it makes sense if you think that both Cruz and Trump will lose to Hillary, but Trump will be a much more unpleasant opponent for her.
Dickerson prods Marcus to explain:
DICKERSON: Because why?The adjective "downscale" along with "white" and the too-casual "guys" felt so contemptuous to me. And that comes right after the inarticulate "be- because the rustbelt." So disrespectful, so revealing of waves of loathing roiling underneath. These people who should be dead already might get "energized" by Trump. He's the trumpet that blows on Judgment Day and wakes the dead. Could they just please remain in a state of suspended animation until they have the dignity to disappear? That's what I'm hearing in "all those down scale white guys." She's saying: Don't they know they're not needed anymore... how ridiculous they look heaving themselves up off their death beds and dancing to Trump's tune?
MARCUS: Because who knows.
MARTIN: The unknowns. Yes.
MARCUS: Be - because the rustbelt. Because all those down scale white guys, who knows what - you know with Ted Cruz sort of where he's going and what he's going to say. You don't know that with Donald Trump and you don't know what voters he can energize.
I didn't think I'd ever heard the adjective "downscale" to refer to a human being. It seems like something you'd say about a shopping mall or a neighborhood (if you were talking about a place where other people go). I searched the NYT archive to reinforce my impression, and it mostly did. But I found this July 2013 column by Paul Krugman, "Whites and the Safety Net" that used "downscale" to refer to human beings — white human beings — 3 times:
But if there really is a missing-white-voter issue — and I’d like to see some more analysis by serious political scientists before I completely buy in — what will it take to bring these people back out to play? Sean Trende, who has been making the missing-whites case, describes the missing as “downscale, rural, Northern whites”. What can the GOP offer them?Wow! We know the answer in 2016. The GOP could offer Donald Trump. Krugman continues:
Well, the trendy answer now is “libertarian populism” — but the question is what that means. And for a lot of Republicans, as Mike Konczal notes, it seems to mean lower tax rates on the wealthy, tight money, and deregulation. And this is supposed to appeal to downscale whites because, um, because.There's that "because" tic we saw in Ruth Marcus.
Krugman, of course, thinks the GOP really has nothing for these people. He doesn't buy the GOP's supply-side economics and doesn't think it has any power to win over anyone who's not already a believer. And what's worse for the GOP is that their attacks on safety-net programs threaten the downscale white people:
[N]ews flash: these programs don’t just benefit Those People; they’re also very important to downscale whites, the very people that will supposedly rescue the GOP.There's the theory. "Downscale white guys" — or "downscale whites" if you're in print — are on the dole. They should belong to the Democrats, who empathize with the vulnerable. The GOP wanted them, but only if they bought an agenda that made no direct appeal to them. And the billionaire saw them and spoke to them: We don't win anymore! And they came alive.
Posts
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260It's too bad Missing Pants, that you couldn't find even one sentence you could agree with. Really? That reveals a very closed mind and bless your heart too. Maybe you'll find your "pants" eventually, but you have to keep looking, otherwise you just wander around bare assed nekkid looking foolish.
Only one of you is "showing your ass," Amanda, and it ain't Pants.
Quoting large blocks of texts is somewhat inconsiderate and hyperlinking the whole large block quote is a bit rude. If you're using the a href="" /a tag all you have to do is only put a few words or a sentence or two inside the tagged area.
I'd recommend not quoting quite so much text to begin with, of course, but either way it'd be nice of you to refrain from posting in a rude way. A number of people are trying to actually talk with you about things you've said and you seem to want to just post new assertions/quotes instead. It's a little off-putting, really.
Amanda, are you ever going to realize that your habit of showing up, telling everyone they are dumb, posting long diatribes from biased and easily debunked sources is not ever going to win you converts to your way of thinking? You're wasting your time. There are smart people here. Stop telling them they are wrong and start listening to them. You might learn something.
p.s. I'm sorry that you don't know your Simpsons as well as you might ;)
Hoody Doody, I'm well aware that I don't need to hyperlink the entire excerpt. I want to, if you don't like it too bad. I find almost everyone of your comments rude, now you want to appear to be giving me friendly "advice"? Please. I generally choose to ignore your numerous rude comments and will continue to do so in future.
Missing Pants,
I don't think for a minute that all of the commenters here are unintelligent or uninformed, I'd estimate there are about half of them that are quite intelligent and well informed indeed. And I don't watch cartoons that often, so the reference to "missing pants" was lost to me. See I learned something new and very profound about The Simpson's today. Thank you, very entertaining! :D
At 11:29, mccullough wrote the comment I've been meaning to write for years. It was all over when the constraints on federal revenue were effectively lifted, and the feds moved away from actually doing things to directly redistributing income.
Is 'guys' relevant? Maybe when it comes to voting against HRC.
Is 'white' relevant? Maybe when it comes to voting against Dems.
If you want a better world, you have to understand what's really going on. So I'd talk about 'aspiring poor', or even the stale-funny 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires'. These are people on the dole or off the grid (consuming net taxes), thirsty for policies that offer them a self-reliant future. Jobs. Help them move from their ghost town, and reduce small-business job creation friction (not a complete solution!). They don't want the victim identity. If they did they'd vote Dem.
Within 'downscale', for every race+sex combo, you surely have some of each (aspiring vs aggrieved). So why 'white guys?' Is either the 'white' or the 'guy' pulling its weight? Hispanics seem aspirational to me. Single women seem self-reliant to me. Black Trump supporters seem aspirational to me.
NYT-author said 'white guy' for maximum permissible schaudenfreude. She's frustrated with these 'white guys' who should be pulling a D ticket ("What's the Matter with Kansas?"). She doesn't understand that it's necessary to adjust the platitudes a quarter turn in order to stop radiating contempt; as for policy, you'd have only to end anti-white discrimination in government+edu jobs, where upscale whites hog all of the racial quota. Downscale whites are equally deserving of assistance as downscale non-whites.
In general, the aspirational mindset should be encouraged+rewarded (as should two-parent households).
Amanda said... I want to, if you don't like it too bad.
Ok, so it's poor manners on purpose and you're acknowledging you're "arguing" in bad faith, then, and we should all understand it to be in bad faith. You're being rude on purpose. Noted.
Hey, do know any candidates for their party's nomination for president who act rudely, make statements in bad faith, and tell others essentially they're being rude on purpose because the targets of their rudeness deserve it? Hmmmm..are you sure you oppose Trump's style quite as much as you say you do?
"ever going to win you converts to your way of thinking?"
I don't think that's it. I wonder if "Amanda" is getting paid by the word?
The left, including a couple of my children, tends to see disagreement as lack of information or intelligence. My two older lefty children know it's not intelligence but assume, because they are both lawyers, that they know more than I do.
I see that dismissive, sneering, tone as a reliable indicator of leftist sentiment.
Hoody Doody,
If you are disturbed by the blue color of the excerpt, I suggest you email Althouse. If she deems it rude to post the entire excerpt in blue and weighs in on it, I will gladly post it in black. Honestly I don't know why it seems to bother you so much, that seems a bit petty.
"I see that dismissive, sneering, tone as a reliable indicator of leftist sentiment."
Michael K,
I find it unseemly for a father to come on a public forum and speak negatively about his own children. I notice you do this quite often. I find it amazing that you don't recognize your own sneering, dismissive comments.
BTW, have you finally come to the realization that the black guy was the one who did the assaulting and the white guy in the the flag shirt was the protester who got assaulted? I think perhaps you owe me an apology, your comments were quite dismissive, without you even contemplating that you might be wrong about something. You got if wrong twice, even after watching the videos, that tells me something about you.
And Michael, did you ever consider that your children may actually know more than you? How arrogant to think that your own grown educated children may not know as much as you do. You don't give them a whole lot of credit, do you?
Amanda is making it harder to read comments that are not about her. She's our Trump.
Amanda said... If you are disturbed by the blue color of the excerpt, I suggest you email Althouse.
No need, dear Amanda, no need--I expressed my opinion, you expressed yours and confirmed that your actions/choices are intentional, we understand each other perfectly. I note the reflex/instinct to appeal to authority to decide a matter in dispute (and in fact to make a binding judgement) instead of working things out in good faith and with consideration for others...I'm sure I shouldn't draw any political/ideological conclusions from that, though.
[I mean, some people find the best way to handle disputes is to discuss, debate, and come to a consensus if possible (respecting the outcome and learning to live with disagreements where necessary--also known as "tolerance"). Some people prefer to appeal to authority, to have rules and judgments enforced by coercion and force decide who is right and who is wrong, using a legal or quasi-legal framework for even minor disputes/disagreements and making sure the losing side is "punished". Weirdly in the popular telling it's the libertarians (or libertarian-leaning conservatives like myself) who are often accused of being rigid, dogmatic, or of lacking empathy. Eh, whatareyagonna do?]
"I find it amazing that you don't recognize your own sneering, dismissive comments. "
No, I do use those two as examples at times but I don't hide who I am, like you do.
"You don't give them a whole lot of credit, do you?"
No, they are quite successful in their way but the left has a hard time, like you do, acknowledging that anyone else knows anything.
I am actually proud of the fact that my children have differing political beliefs. I consider it a sign of an intellectually honest upbringing.
Michael K, I have one grown child that is a conservative and one that is a liberal, so don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, you're not that unique.
Worst case scenario for Democrats and Republicans is Trump getting elected and actually being successful in job creation policys and restoring optimism in majority of Americans. Then, he begins attacking pols up for re-election who do not agree with his philosophies, while supporting like minded candidates. That would be the true revolution, occurring over the next eight to ten years.
I still want to know when it is ok for Liberals like Amanda to wear her KKK hood while simultaneously thinking black folks shouldn't get fighting mad at her racism.
I need the rule stated plainly.
Mark Twain in 1800's addressed mandatory higher wages in Connecticut Yankee..passing through town with higher pay than neighbors, he was run out for pointing out that the cost of their goods was much more than in neighboring towns with lower wages.
Also, many unions starting wages are based upon a multiplier of Federal minimum wage.
"you're not that unique."
I know. Unlike you, I notice things.
Economically, I'm a Downscale White Guy, and I'm a libertarian--you know, one of those weirdoes who believe their lives and property belong to themselves and not to Obama, Hillary, Trump, or whatever clique of legalized gangster hold the reins of power at any given time. I guess you could also say my philosophy is "resentment based." I resent it when people lord it over me, pick my pocket, and threaten me with the Mailed Fist. I'm funny that way.
William Chadwick:
You are far from alone. And amen.
SF: "I don't ]believe] people who vote for Trump are people who are actually suffering economically. They are people who fear is going down the drain, but don't feel it's gone down the drain yet, mostly. And they are not people who've lost their jobs, but who feel they might."
Brando said...3/21/16, 10:03 AM
I think that's right. It's not the people who have lost everything who are most motivated, but rather the people who feel they are in danger of losing. They tend to be the most revolutionary.
But the whole problem with that is that, mostly they're wrong. Because it is easy enough to perceive danger, or great danger, when there isn't any.
And when they are in fact in danger, they can be wrong as to where the danger is coming from, and how to prevent it, and what's going to prevent it, and who would prevent it.
Glenn Reynolds has an oped in USA Today today where he reminds our betters in the media that they had their chance for an orderly, constitution-focused rallying of these types of "downscale" whites...it was called the Tea Party. They called them every vulgar name in the book.
Now they've got Trump and the Trumpeteers, which is going to be much worse for them.
I first heard the phrase "downscale" on some conservative vs. liberal podcast several years ago. I think it was Jonah Goldberg vs. Peter Beinart. It seemed to be a very un-PC term to use, but I guess it was ok since Beinart was using it to describe Republicans.
FullMoon said...3/21/16, 2:18 PM
Worst case scenario for Democrats and Republicans is Trump getting elected and actually being successful in job creation policys and restoring optimism in majority of Americans.
Well, President S&Lick Willie did that, and still a Republican was elected president after him, albeit barely.
Bill Clinton completely lied about what it was he did that created jobs. It wasn't his 1993 budget which he contrived to get passed by one vote in both houses with not a single Republican voting for it. It wasn't, of course, also, the economic plan endorsed by Goldman Sachs that he ran on in the 1992 campaign, that he promprtly abdanoned right after the election. It was monetary policy.
Since Clinton wanted to keep prosperity a monopoly for Democrats, he never publicly advocated what he thought worked, but did it very quietly.
That president even lied about how much prosperity he was creating, always over-predicting the size of budget deficits and underpredicting economic growth, thus bringing about the California electricity crisis of 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
The point being, the state of California assumed, correctly, that demand for electricity would be proportional to GDP, but because they relied on federal projections of economic growth, it underestimated demand for electricity.
When Clinton couldn't hide the economic growth any more, he came up with the idea of putting social security in a "lockbox" He wanted to keep the budget in a state of semi-crisis, the better to get things that couldn't normally pass through Congress.
Franklin said...Now they've got Trump and the Trumpeteers, which is going to be much worse for them.
And quite likely much worse for us, one way or the other.
When the respectable Repub establishment joined with the Media to denigrate and dismiss the Tea Party they should have anticipated something like this, but then if they showed actual respect towards the people who were their supporters then Trump wouldn't have happened. Oh well.
Actually more a monopoly for Clinton. Although Obama has kept interest rates low. (through his appointments to the Federal Reserve Board)
"And they are not people who've lost their jobs, but who feel they might."
I'm retired and comfortable but worry about my grand children.
"That president even lied about how much prosperity he was creating,"
The GOP Congress created that prosperity and I have kicked my self that I did not invest in that bull market that followed.
Sadly, Gingrich got too interested in his book deal and then was harassed by the Democrats like Sarah Palin was in 2008. Dennis Hastert ruined the chances for a GOP Congress to really fix the economy. I blame him for most of what happened in 2006. Bush was the guy who invaded Iraq but there were other factors.
Hastert ruined the GOP brand. "The K Street Project. "
Sammy Finkelman said...Well, President S&Lick Willie did that, and still a Republican was elected president after him, albeit barely.
Worse is that with Perot's help Bill C. got elected to begin with-I listened with chagrin to a rpt on NPR last week where a person from some think tank explained that the economy (direction of GDP growth or recession status, I think) predicted the Presidential winner in all but a few cases going back to the early 19th century--one of the cases being 1992. I remember (vaguely) how the doom and gloom of the Bush economy suddenly turned in to the bright and sunny Clinton boom right after Bush left office. Funny, that.
Oh, shit. It's Sammy Finkleman happy hour. Everybody drink.
FFS
"But the whole problem with that is that, mostly they're wrong. Because it is easy enough to perceive danger, or great danger, when there isn't any."
Well, they're certainly wrong about the solution--erecting economic barriers has yet to prove beneficial in any modern economy, and giving power to a man who parades his ignorance like a virtue can't end well. But I can understand the fear.
For a lot of people in this "not destitute but economically insecure" demo, they spent their lives playing by a set of rules with the implicit understanding that it would work out for them--invest in a house, put money in a retirement account, invest in education--and over the past decade in particular a lot of that was upended. College degrees have gotten expensive and less of an "asset" at the same time, retirement accounts have taken deep hits as have housing prices, and in a lot of job categories real wages have gone flat and layoffs become common. Even those not directly affected by these things have a sense of forboding, like having a bullet just miss you while advancing across a battlefield. And we're noticing that the federal debt is in a constantly-growing state, even during a recovery--and entitlement spending hasn't fully taken the brunt of baby boomer retirement.
All that together and you can see why a lot of people feel insecure about the future, and the same old "cut taxes!" and "unionize!" Red Team/Blue Team battle seems irrelevant, if not insulting. Trump comes along, does his song and dance, and that's enough for people desperate for something that at least sounds like a solution. As his fans say, he may not be the answer, but no one else is either.
Now, I think he's far worse than "no answer" but clearly I'm in the minority.
Amanda-
If I'm a black man, and you show up in a white hood, you're getting punched, motherfucker.
Anyone have any idea how many Tea Pary folks are also blue collar folks? Also, how many are Tea Party folks are evangelicals? And how many blue collar folks are evangelicals but not Tea Party conservatives? Finally, how many people are in all three groups? I can't find any useful polling data on this.
It seems that Cruz is attracting the bulk of Tea Party conservatives and Trump is pulling the bulk of blue collar voters and although Cruz has the bulk of evangelicals, Trump has done pretty well with them.
The data I found is that 37% of Tea Party voters have a college degree. Also, 39% are evangelicals ( obviously some with college degree are also evangelicals but I can't get a breakdown of that). About 55% make above the median income.
EMD said...
If I'm a black man, and you show up in a white hood, you're getting punched, motherfucker.
So you'd attack people because you don't like their clothes? Cool.
But anyway, the black guy at the Trump rally attacked a protester who was NOT wearing a KKK hood, although at least one other protester was. The news articles tried to obfuscate that.
Fernandinande:
Do you think there is no speech so offensive that it would rise to the level of "Fighting Words" at which a reasonable person could expect an immediate, violent response?
Do you believe that is a majority position?
You can always test that hypothesis.
Was he associating with the guy in the KKK hood? Good enough. That guy was there to provoke a fight, now you see how it looks and disown him.
Some artivles from National Review and anoyther place:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432986/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-economic-populism-free-markets
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432989/free-trade-consumer-goods-economic-wealth?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432989/free-trade-consumer-goods-economic-
wealth?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/debriefing-mike-murphy/article/2001632
Mike Murphy follows the logic: If you are against trade, you also have to be against jobs getting automated or algorithmed out of existence.
But this can't make sense in the long run. And every job so preserved is really an econom,ic rent and/or a form of philanthropy.
I just cancelled The Weekly Standard. The guy was nice about it. I told him he didn't even have to refund my remaining months but he did.
Once I get the new NR I'll cancel them.
They have both gone crazy, after 35 years.
Sammy, maybe you should watch This James Goldsmith interview on GATT from 1994.
He pretty much predicted what has happened.
Flooding Africa with cheap western grain is also "free trade" but you tell me how it is better for Africa to have no ability to feed themselves?
Technogical advances have done more than trade to reduce jobs in the US.
The reason Trump is able to demagogue the issue about the disappearance of good paying jobs is that neither party has acknowledged the problem, much less put forth any solutions (plausible solutions or implausible ones). For example, a company like Google might be able to automate cars and trucks within 25 years. What happens to the 3.5 million truck driving jobs? Do they get replaced with similar paying jobs or do people who might have become truck drivers get a lower paying job in the service sector supplemented by food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid or have no job at all?
The faith in technology (and trade) to make life better for all is being tested over the last 25 years. A lot of people have been left behind and others are fearful for their economic prospects. Trade and technology bring big benefits but also create a net negative for many people.
'm pretty sure this will make folks here very angry, but maybe just maybe a few of you will see some truth here.
Sure Amanda, and your willfully obtuse style of debate is so engaging that we always want to read more of where you get the stuff you write here.... not.
I'm as disgusted and opposed to the GOPe as any conservative Tea Partier out there, believe me, but I've really had no problem with how National Review has handled itself this election season (with the exception of Rich Lowry, who has been a GOPe tool for a long time). I do wish they'd consolidated around Cruz as opposed to just opposing Trump a little quicker, but in the end they have done so. That delay doesn't rise to the level of "crazy" in my book.
I'm not aware of anything said by Jonah Goldberg or Kevin Williamson, as just a couple of examples, that has been beyond the pale or indicative of any great love of the Establishment. Most of them read as being as sick and tired of it as I am.
Williamson pretty much trashed everybody who could possibly interested in Trump as a retard.
As James B. Kelleher put it in The Huffington Post, would-be Walmart suppliers faced “an experienced workforce, and other shortcomings.” That’s a very polite way of saying that the stuff they sell at Walmart isn’t the kind of stuff that Americans make. Yes, China is an absolute powerhouse in the world flip-flop market — good for them.
Also iPhones.
Well, sorry, but I kinda have to agree that, if you are a conservative (and Williamson's audience is), and you trust Trump will do anything for you after he wins the primary, ever, well, I doubt he used the word retard, but rube would surely apply.
My big problem with NRO was the Johnny one note Trump bashing.
If I had to guess, I would say Trump plans to be Bill Clinton redux. Bill would be a Republican today.
That's twice commenting in one thread that Amanda gave herself away as a poseur.
The first was when she self-identified as a union member and praised her union for safe workplaces. That's the sort of thing lefties learn in class, but no modern union worker would write that. There really isn't much difference these days between union and non-union plants; what drives safety (and has, for at least fifty years) are the insurance companies. Do any of you think that management posts signs saying "X number of days with no accidents" all over the place because the unions make them do it? Or because insurance companies raise rates at plants that have accidents?
And now "she" uses the term "epistemic closure." Yup, the union plumber I hired to replace the kitchen faucet was telling me that as soon as he could get epistemic closure on the water lines I would be in business. Uh huh. Note to "Amanda," real people doing real work do no use the phrase "epistemic closure."
I put "she" in quotes because there's no way to confirm online that "she" is really named Amanda or that "she" is even female. "She" (it?) is probably (as in 80% likely) being paid by one of the fronts created by George Soros to boost the incompetent and feckless Barack Obama (Hillary Clinton's characterization) and now the even less competent and more venal Hillary Clinton.
Amanda - LOL. Just LOL, whatever. I'm gonna smoke some more pot and laugh at you.
"Note to "Amanda," real people doing real work do no use the phrase "epistemic closure."
I asked it once how the pay was. More than minimum wage ?
"you trust Trump will do anything for you after he wins the primary,"
I keep saying I have no idea what he will do.
First you have to tear down the rotting hulk of the ruling class. Then you can build something.
It would help a lot if a few people I respect would join and help him avoid serious mistakes.
Sessions is one. Gingrich seems to be on board but I don't trust him like I do Sessions.
"Yet you persisted to believe what your mind wanted to see."
No, I looked at the video a couple of times but I was wrong. The black guy was a Trump supporter, much as you hate the idea.
---If you make some magical minimum wage of, say, $15 an hour, what happens when you start paying twice the taxes you used to?
Bingo!
It's a Ponzi scheme to extract more taxes at the expense of those who can least afford it. States do considerably better than the feds as they usually have multi-layered taxes that cannot be offset or clawed back by federal minimum income credit schemes.
I clearly recall being thrilled at receiving my first significant raise. Reality set in when when I saw my new net and the deduction increases to SS/SSD, federal and state income taxes, state disability and state unemployment benefit taxes. Even the company clawed some of it back in increased pension contributions. It was a good lesson and motivation, within five years I started my own business.
TSA? That was a gift from Sen. McCain at the request of the Airline industry for some palliative that would save their then going-out-of-business when the obvious answer was not acceptable to the leftists so McCain threaded that needle implicitly putting the GoPe in the position of taking responsibility since the left wasn’t going to do anything effective and let this be known in congressional negotiations “nice business you’ve got there.”. And this from someone who gave it all up after being tortured (water boarded) in a North Vietnamese hell hole, with the Russian military and spies present and helping. Someone whose superiors tried to keep out of combat because he lived in a house with the top two U.S. admirals who were responsible for everything in the Pacific, war plans, Strategy and assets.
Then he pulls this nonsense of being against torture (or something he chooses to define as torture which is more a form of very uncomfortable coercion (ask any senior military who went thru training to teach them they'd give up their own mother so don't you or your superiors let you risk capture, and knowing this don't go crazy when you give it up, many would suicide after they got home because they thought they could resist), that he knows always works at making someone “cooperative” which has nothing to do with personally giving up a secret during the procedure, as the Soviets taught the Koreans 60 years ago. Which is why many captives that know something important try to suicide somehow, including starving themselves, and why making sure someone who knew something important never saw combat where they might be captured, so you were put on the BIGOT list in WW2, which meant if an allied or British VIP needed to travel to the Mid East they were only allowed to go through Gibraltar. They tried to keep McCain from flying, and to get him back asap after capture, because we knew what was guaranteed to happen given the Korean war. Sad thing to happen to a young courageous man, who knew he carried a gun for a different purpose but couldn’t bring himself to use it as his plane went down. Which is why Mr. pTb’s “linguistic “kill shot” shut down the Senator much more effectively that bringin up the Keating Five where he was stupid and childish and exploitable mark to be fleeced. A brave but foolish man. A greek tragedy, those things we do to ourselves, knowing exactly what the outcome will be.
A simpler and more effective answer to TSA was to provide incentives for frequent flyers to arm themselves, carrying weapons they already had with little more than a few textbook lessons, including upgrades to business class, and public demonstrations that even a shotgun can't hurt a plane at altitude which is losing more air all the time than a few more holes in a cabin wall. Problem solved. Wager your pTb would have tried this first thing rather than militarizing or “super max-ing the” airports. And if it didn't work, try something different. Where each one made the customer more comfortable than the current nonsense which is theater at a terrible cost, since the only asset of value is the educated and market motivated application of human talent, integrated over time.
Blogger I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
Oh Amanda. That screed is the most ignorant, silly thing I'll read all day. Bless your heart.
And she believes every word of it. That's what makes it funny.
Sounds like a euphemism for "poor white trash."
Post a Comment