Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

He's also wrong. RCP leans right-center when they write op-ed, and perhaps with what they select to post. But polls are taken across the spectrum and averaged. Maybe some left friendly poll had her up, but others went the other way. And the average was within a point.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

In Illinois, the democrats put up two fake candidates in the speaker's primary race. His challenger has the last name of Gonzales. The Machine put up "two sham candidates with Hispanic last names to split up the Hispanic vote". At least that's what Gonzales's lawsuit alleges.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...913-story.html

"The decision also indicates an interest in digging into the time-honored tradition of placing sham candidates on a ballot." Only in Illinois is this a time-honored tradition.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Hold on here. It's "numb nuts"? As in your nuts are numb? Almost 43 years on this planet and until today I thought it was numnuts or num-nuts. Huh.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Poll assistant. Said I had to vote all races or write in someone.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numnuts inconclusive

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...0%28num-nut%29

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

You have two outliers skewing the average. The poll from the closest city to Philly had her up 6 points. The most reputable of that bunch, Monmouth, had her up 4.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...633.html#polls

Whole lotta blue here thru October:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...633.html#polls

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

I was confident of it as well, and not much concerned about PA politics. Mathematically, it seemed to me that if the Philly ring counties went for Hillary, as predicted, it was impossible for Trump to win.

Philly + Pittsburgh + Philly Suburbs = Democrat win. It's practically a law of physics.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

In Montana a Green candidate was on the GOP payroll.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Why didn't you write in "Abstain"? Or A.B. Stain. Or Tyrone Slothrop. You're a lawyer and you couldn't figure that one out?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Oh I just wanted the opportunity to bash the Chicago Machine. I wrote to my D senators (Durbin and Duckworth) telling them how pissed off I was that they are supporting our unbelievably corrupt speaker of the Illinois house, basically saying that he (Michael Madigan) is the only politician in this country worse than Trump.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

slow down here- how are the two different? Especially, Ty the Dems are fucking another Dem in Illinois. You think it's okay because it's okay for the party to screw a man, and in such a racist manner? I don't think you do. Try typing the words "yes the dems were bad." I'm not asking you to post it, just type the words. Can you try?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I am only OK with Dems fucking other Dems, in Illinois and elsewhere, if it is consensual, which it sounds like it wasn't, and so that would be bad.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Trump doesn't lie, he bullshits.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

For years here the tradition was that when republicans thought they had a shot at a democratic race they would put up a third party candidate with the last name "Kennedy" to drain a couple percent. But there is a long tradition in Democratic primaries of trying to split the Irish vote with a couple well-named straws.

This one backfired because the Republicans were just too stupid about it. This about it - assume you're on the fence, but one side is too dumb to even cheat well.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Hopefully applies to McCabe too.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

An actual Kennedy might be the next governor of Illinois. Too bad he's up against a guy (Pritzker) who's much richer than him.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

This piece is very good.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

The real problem is not Trump so much as the many Republicans -- most of them -- who voted for him and continue to support him.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Generally an excellent piece, but I wouldn't say FA should be read over the NYT because of those differences in the two articles. Anne Bernard's work for the NYT on Lebanon and Syria is excellent, and she could have told you anything about Iran that was in the intercept piece (and the author ought to know that). But NYT made an editorial choice to drive the reporting out of Israel, and she's the third name on the list, and so the piece is empathetic to the Israeli view point rather than the Iranian. FA publishes such pieces too, just as the NYT also publishes some good stuff that doesn't take an Israeli perspective (this is a huge change from past NYT policies - twenty years ago, I wouldn't have said that).

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Also outrageously ridiculous.

TM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

(Nevermind. Accidentally responded to wrong post.)

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Agreed.

I think one could subtitle it with "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I particularly liked the criticism of think tanks and the press. They happened to hit me while I'm reading Taleb's latest, Skin in the Game, in which the author rips think tanks, pure academia, and punditry, and the dilettantes they attract, for a solid 40 pages of the introduction.

Abstract thinking has its place, but its track record in recent world affairs is deplorable. Robert McNamara? Iriving Kristol? Bastardizations of Milton Friedman's work?

And modern "journalism," captured as it is? (NYTimes's greatest sin was cheerleading for the Iraq war.) MSNBC? FOX? The Fourth Estate is a trailer park. And they're dumb as all fuck. Is anyone surprised a reporter is dim or lazy enough to think something is worth printing solely because it was said by someone who works for the "[Insert] Institute"?

I recall one politician asking the right question about Iran: "Why aren't they entitled to have a nuclear program?" We can argue, of course, about whether we have a right to prevent them from having one for our own interests. But there is no credible argument that a sovereign nation may not be allowed to pursue a nuclear program.

But... that politician was Ron Paul, so the media said, "He's crazy!" Nevermind the point made. The media killed the messenger, a la Bill Maher after 9/11 ("How dare anyone say the highjackers were not cowards!").

This article is truly depressing because it clearly makes the case that the high information voter often isn't that much more enlightened (in any manner that matters) than the low. In many instances, they've simply absorbed different qualities of opinion paraded as fact. Or in some instances, biased tripe.

If Iran wants reactors, it has every right to pursue their acquisition. If we don't like it, we have a right to do whatever we can to stop it. ...And then suffer the criticisms ensuing from doing so. It'd be nice if the press wrote that. It never will.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

"Rights" have nothing to do with it. It's a question of understanding another country's perspective so that we understand what they want and are likely to do. (Frankly, some degree of racism enters into it, because we are too quick to decide that Iranians and North Koreans are simply crazy and irrational, something we would not do with Iceland or Switzerland, for example.)

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Having read two of his prior works, I don't really fathom what would make someone want to subject themselves to more.

Technically, they are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which is a credible argument that a sovereign nation may not be allowed to pursue a nuclear program, but yeah. Probably fair to say that the subsequent revolution and actions to pursue weapons are effectively a withdrawal, though.

Anyway, they aren't "entitled" to nuclear weapons, and I don't think we should just throw up our hands and welcome it, but should be limits on what we are willing to do to prevent it that should stop far short of war.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I am as worried about fire arrows as the next caveman. Lothar and the Hill People aren't entitled to fire, and I don't think we should just throw up our hands and welcome it, but there should be limits on what we are willing to do to prevent them it that should stop far short of meeting between our caves to club each other.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Actually, Iceland has been embracing immigrants, so we're not likely to listen to them.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

What they need for a nuclear program is adequate fissile material, and its hard to imagine how they get that right now. I don't think they're a lot of evidence these particular hill people are trying to get fire right now.

Of course, the other tribe already has it, so it wouldn't be surprising.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Do you think the two aren't intertwined? If we understood Iran better, we'd grasp that they believe, correctly, that they have right to have nuclear reactors.

To understand someone includes the ability to grasp what he believes is the scope of his rights.

Agreed on a cultural/racism thing.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

He's flawed in some regards, but has the best bullshit detector out there.

They're entitled to do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves. Every nation is entitled to do that. In the same regard, we are entitled to bomb them if we have a legitimate belief their acquisition of nukes threatens us or our allies.

Regarding understanding, we'd do well to grasp why they feel they need nukes. We'd do well to understand that a lot of it has to do with our foreign policy in the middle east instead of running with the narrative, "It's those crazy Islamists! They'll kill us all, and must be stopped!"

Iran is no more likely to use a nuke than is North Korea. Pakistan, on the other hand... Oh, what am I saying? Pakistan is our ally! Silly me. They've always been on our side, and have no serious crazies in their government.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I'm not steeped in international law, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about a nation's "rights". To me, rights are a product of a legal regime which usually is created by a nation, not the other way around.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Probably less so. For whatever reason, though, righties see an existential threat to Israel in a nuclear armed Iran. Because, apparently, Iran will be willing to cease it's own existence as long as it can take out Israel in doing so? That does not sound right.

But having gone through this with Iraq, we know that they wills say "what if this regime falls and is replaced with ISIS, which really might do something crazy."

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

There are only two nuclear states in the world that could drop a bomb without immediate and existential retribution. And both currently have lunatics in charge.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

ZOMG, I love it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYst2t9VQAAk5zX.jpg

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Hey Sebby, you're a criminal justice reform guy, right? Have you checked your local urban DA out?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I know him. Great guy.

I love what he’s doing. Absolutely love it.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Ross Douthat is right here.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

2. But anything that harms Facebook is a benefit to humanity. So I'm cool with this witch hunt.

Snowden has my proxy on Facebook (most specifically, March 16 posts forward):
https://twitter.com/Snowden

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I was quasi sober through two courses of it in college. "Rights" is the wrong word, but I recall there is a general body of law (not much of it enforceable, but nevertheless written) barring preemptive actions.

Might Makes Right is the only real rule, true. But if we're talking about who holds all the greater equitable argument in a situation where we or Israel bomb Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear bomb, I'd have to save Iran. They're developing a deterrent technology. We're invading sovereign territory and bombing a nation that has taken no aggressive action.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

They're violating the proliferation treaty, arguable, while we're violating the UN Charter, not particularly arguably.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I’d be in favor of voiolating the UN’s lease and kicking it’s ass out. If that space became a mall or a food court I’d be able to run along the East River w/O having to leave up to 1st for a few blocks, just so a bunch of otherwise unemployable fucks can make anti-Israeli resolutions every few weeks. Also, when was the last time a leader of Israel or the US threatened to wipe Iran off the map?