21 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-16-16

  1. In an otherwise pretty good speech on immigration, Trump proposed that all future immigrants be required to be pro-perversion. Laura Ingraham then bragged that Trump was now to the left of the Democrats on (perversion) rights.

    It’s time to put the kids in the fire and brimstone shelters.

    Like

  2. Frustration by one wanna-be Libertarian-friendly columnist on the Libertarian party’s lost 2016 opportunity with Johnson-Weld:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/

    _____________________________________

    “… All the Libertarian Party had to do was to put forward a candidate who could take relatively sane and defensible positions, particularly on the kinds of issues—like civil liberties and free markets—where you can usually expect a prominent Libertarian to think clearly and take a position in line with a commitment to liberty. Because that’s kind of what the Libertarian Party exists for, right?

    Yes, well, those of us who have followed the Libertarian Party over the years know they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So it’s no surprise that Johnson and Weld are doing their best to drive us away—and they’re doing it by not even being good at being Libertarians.

    Johnson badly flubbed a question about religious liberty, for the second time, coming out in favor the state’s right to coerce you into compliance with its notion of what your religious values ought to be. He wrapped up by declaring, “I just see religious freedom, as a category, as just being a black hole.” This sort of thing is Libertarianism 101, and Johnson just flunked it. …

    … So what went wrong? Actually, none of this comes out of the blue, and it reflects a basic problem with the libertarian movement going back to the beginning. …

    (the new flower children?)

    … (when the party began in the 1970s) there was also a large strain in the movement that saw itself as ideologically and culturally aligned with the Left, as an offshoot of the counterculture. Libertarianism wasn’t about reasserting an American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government. It was about smashing the system, man. …

    … That’s why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they’re opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don’t like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.

    Meanwhile, they’re letting the political opportunity of a century pass them by. A sizeable chunk of the Republican Party is there for the taking. They may not agree with the Libertarians on everything, but they would be open to a ticket that can emphasize areas of agreement on a few core issues, while presenting themselves as the sane and normal alternative in this insane election year. …

    This is an opportunity that any sensible, pro-free-market libertarian should be able to run away with. … ”
    _________________________

    Libertarianism has always rather confused me, I suppose. Its mishmash of confusing left-and-right (some of them extremist) ideas have pretty much led me to dismiss the entire movement.

    Perhaps it can seize an opportunity to re-create itself in what surely will be some national political vacuums existing in the aftermath of this dismal mash-up train-wreck of an election cycle. Maybe there needs to be separate libertarian-right and a libertarian-left parties (although I suppose that would only further emphasize the bi-polar image that third-party Libertarianism presents to so many of us already, but at least it would be logically separated within itself).

    Seems like someone needs to take control of the thing, to rein it in and define it much more cohesively. But then I suppose that notion itself is somewhat anti-libertarian? 🙂 🙂

    What a strange political year this is. Everything’s just upside down and sideways.

    As distressing as it all is, those of us who like to follow nuts-and-bolts U.S. politics will find the shifting landscape and alignments fascinating to watch over the next couple years. Changes ahead.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. McMullin didn’t make the California ballot. I can write a dog’s name in, I suppose. Or how about Annie Oakley my cat?

    In the real world, though, I fear we’re stuck with 2 trickster coyote-dogs: Trump. Or Clinton.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Donna,

    Exactly. They, like Trump, are their own worst enemy. Johnson is horrible candidate, with zero appeal. Where’s Ron Paul when the Libertarians really need him?

    McMullin? Please,………

    He’s a joke. He, and the Never Trumpniks couldn’t even get their act together in time to make the ballot in 2/3 of the states. If he wanted to be taken seriously, he should have been serious about the race. Zero points for effort, and personality.

    So it’s Trump vs. Clinton, anyone else, including Ricky’s grand-dog, doesn’t stand a chance. Voting for an “also ran” is a waste of time. You’re still just voting for/against Trump or Clinton, you’re just taking a round about way to get there.

    So again,

    Trump 2016
    Because we could actually do worse, as hard as that is to believe.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I still think the best way for Libertarian ideas to get into our political system is through influencing a viable political party. There are some good things about it, but left as a stand-alone 3rd party (that has such a wide range of disparate views) hasn’t been very successful from what I can see

    Like

  6. Michelle 9:45, I recently read a book called “Cyber Wars” by Richard A. Clarke. He discusses this extensively. We are in a precarious position in the world. As he says, we are the cyber superpower in that our technology is ahead of everyone else. But there are others who are capable, but there are no targets. North Korea, Iran, and even China are target poor. That is, they don’t have much to lose. We, OTOH, are vulnerable. As for the electric grid, Clarke says there is no reason for the electric grid to be on the internet. Our military has it’s own secure system (e.g. Their own “internet”.) However they depend on our transportation system and other parts of the infrastructure that are susceptible.
    And our next president hasn’t a clue about any of this. And, likely can’t be told.

    Like

  7. I would agree with AJ to a point. At this time it looks like only two candidates can win. However, with one of the candidates being a lunatic, that could change.

    Then you ask yourself: Is one candidate clearly better than the other? This task is made more difficult because of the fact that Trump has made contradictory statements on virtually every issue, sometimes in consecutive sentences.

    On the whole I would expect Trump would be very slightly better on policy matters, though this is far from clear given his Sanders-like admiration for socialized medicine and tariffs.

    However, as hilarious as it sounds, Hillary would have to get the slight edge on sanity, temperament and character. Both are amazing liars. At least she is sane enough to know she is lying.

    So do you want a very liberal corrupt wife of a reprobate or do you want an insane version of the old liberal reprobate?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Being a strict libertarian in the US is difficult since both the left and right seem to think gov’t interference in certain social/moral/ethical issues is a good idea.

    Michael Moore has come out with a letter saying he has insider knowledge on the Trump campaign. Apparently, he ran as a candidate in order to gain leverage on his television contract negotiations. He never thought he would win and now is deliberately sabotaging his campaign to avoid a real job, living in a smaller house, revealing his taxes, etc. Not exactly inside knowledge — I think any sane person was thinking Trump ran for reasons other than actually wanting the job.

    I knew a Venezuelan engineer who was educated in the Soviet Union. One difference he noted was the low tech methodology in the USSR. Even in the early 80s, the Soviet space agency was using slide rules, etc. He mentioned the US was far too reliant on tech versus ability and knowledge. Smart phones have worsen this as we no longer rely on our working memory instead we google everything not too mention our inability to memorize phone numbers.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. The sabotage theory has been floating around since the primaries. If true, it’s not working

    Moral and ethical standards reflected in government only work from the bottom up — if a culture agrees on right and wrong. In the case of the US and much of the west, we don’t anymore. (Thus a libertarian hands-off, or stronger state rights, approach on those things is probably the best conservatives — for now — can hope for. It’s surely better than the strong-armed imposition of the opposite values

    Like

  10. HRW, Eventually, the US is going to lose a war to a low tech opponent willing to take casualties to offset technological superiority. The Russians did this to the Germans in WWII. We did this to the Germans in the tank war on the Western front. The Vietnamese did this to us, but the 1960s US military was not nearly as dependent on technology as the current version.

    The current version of the US military also has a very small tip of the spear. This was evident in Iraq, as we had to keep redeploying the few active and reserve units that could actually fight. Since Iraq, we have added more women plus homosexuals and transvestites to our military. If our next war is against anyone other than Arabs, we are going to be in trouble.

    Like

  11. Fighting Muslims is somewhat like fighting the Japanese in WW II. The Japanese soldier would willingly die for the Emperor. Very few were taken prisoner.
    The Muslim soldier is looking forward to an eternity of bliss, unlimited sex in particular, if he dies as a martyr.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world. Hard to make a generalization with those kind of numbers. If the Iraqi army is any indication, the Muslim soldier is not looking for martyrdom rather a quick exit.

    The US army similar to the Chinese and Russia army has large numbers of regular soldiers who quite frankly aren’t good for much other than cannon fodder. However, they do have extremely well trained professionals — SEALS, Marines, Green Berets, Airborne etc. The thing that sets the US armed forces apart from others is air power (the same thing which defeated the German forces in the western front). With aircraft and aircraft carriers they are able to extend their reach and support troops anywhere in the world. As long as they maintain this superiority, the rest is simply details.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. A couple things I think are funny (I may have mentioned these before):

    Conservatives are saying a third party vote is a vote for Hillary, while liberals are saying a third party vote is a vote for Trump.

    Conservatives warn that Gary Johnson is (personally) pro-choice, while liberals warn that his belief in states rights on this issue means he would support over-turning Roe v Wade.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. HRW, I am worried that our carrier groups are no longer invulnerable. In World War II we overwhelmed Germany and Japan with great numbers of aircraft. We no longer have those numbers. We have a relatively few, expensive, extremely high-tech aircraft.

    Like

  15. Overwhelming numbers — 19 carriers to one each in China and Russia. Three times as much aircraft as the Chinese and Russians combined. That alone is enough but technology and training are better. American fighter jets during the Cold War were far superior to the Russians not too mention far better training. I don’t think they have lost that edge. However, the current screw ups developing the “next generation” fighters should encourage the US to stick to the tried and true current generation. The heavy use of drones may benefit the US as they will have overwhelming numbers and can afford to lose drones yet still keep their pilots safe somewhere in Colorado.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s