Sasse on Trump/Venezuela:

I think that's just Trump being Trump. In another interview he also refused to take 'dropping the bomb in Europe' off the table too. He just hates eliminating his own options without getting something in return.

No rational thinker removes any option. Certainly not publicly.

We have a plan on file somewhere for virtually every imaginable scenario, you truly never know what you might need.

I can't wait for the scenario where launching great white sharks with catapults is a thing.

You laugh about the planning scenarios but take this extreme example. Its obvious that the government is concerned about a zombie outbreak without wanting to seem to be too concerned about a zombie outbreak so they put it out there as a supposedly spoof :).

If zombies, why not sharknado equivalent?

Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse | | Blogs | CDC

https://qz.com/950488/nasty-brutish-...ill-look-like/

Great analysis.

Polls are starting to look really bad for Obama. Looks like he'll have to start a war or major conflict to win. Don't put it past him!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

I used to think that we had our s*** together and all the smart people that the government it hired wrote all these books and manuals and memos on what we should do in certain situations. And then 9/11 happened and we literally had no f****** clue what to do.

Excusing Trump as 'him being him' is stupid - I don't hear anyone saying the same about the North Korean leader ... why because populist aggression is potentially dangerous and destructive ... all it takes is two such leaders to get into a pissing match until they escalate to the point where one of them feels he can't back down ...

(yes I'm somewhat concerned at present)

I personally believe that we are not going to be invading Venezuela anytime soon. After all what could we do to them that they aren't doing to themselves already? Trump just has a knee jerk reaction when it comes to taking things of the table.

Most people also realize that North Korea issues empty threats against the US constantly. Then someone gives Kim Jong-Un a cheeseblock and he takes a nap for awhile.

I'm sure Trump is simply locked out of his Twitter account and is awaiting a password reset. That surely is the only rationale explanation as to why he hasn't raged tweeted against the neo-nazis causing civil unrest in Charlottesville.

He's still trying to find the words for the mosque bombing in Minnesota.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"

Pretty sure ramming a car into pedestrians is what Terrorists do (see: Europe), but hey these individuals aren't Muslim so...

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell he's exactly talking about. That might be the most non-specific statement he's posted. I could read it as supporting both sides, that the other side is the one causing the problems and they could read into that he was supporting them.

It's not accidental.

He just made a statement about it as well and he made sure to say that the hate and violence "on both sides" must stop.

He will not categorically condemn alt-righters giving the Nazi salute.

Trump's tweet sure pissed off David Duke

Trump can't even say the words, "white supremacy terrorism."

He was specifically asked a moment ago by a reporter if he supports white supremacy.

He did not answer.

This is the normal state of affairs - mainly because the rest of the world steps back, acts like adults and ignores him ... which Trump unfortunately is unable to do ...

Didn't we already fight a war over this that included most of the planet? Thought we could all agree the guys who stormed the beaches in Normandy were the good guys.

His ear piece probably wasn't working again

So far 4Chan/T_D identified the wrong person as the driver of the vehicle and made up a story to go with it that he was there to counter protest and the counter protesters turned on him because he was white. They claim the white supremacists were there for a peaceful protest and the counter protesters are to blame for this. They also claim the neo-nazi's there are Bernie supporters because nazi's are socialists.

This is the same group the Trump Administration planted the Seth Rich story for.

We are in a state of affairs where the President of the United States in 2017 won't condemn white nationalists. Since when have we become ok with neo-Nazis and the Klan again?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

But North Korea might attack Guam, why are you all getting distracted from the biggest threat facing the US right now?!?

That's not a big deal. It's going to be a huge boost to Guam's tourism.

About the time a "Kenyan" became President.

Since they're a long way from the worst the country has to offer. Doesn't make 'em nice, good, or lovable ... but they ain't BLM either or some sort of pro-amnesty groups or something.

When you've seen so many groups that are more offensive, more indefensible, more abhorrent it's not tough to suddenly look "okay".

For the record.

Pro Amnesty Groups (going to include any person ever who suggested that ANY path to citizenship in here) >>> dangerous to real Americans than American Neo Nazis.

Of course you're defending white supremacists. Just like Jesus did.

Fuck off, Nazi sympathizer.

Ive seen no groups that are more abhorrent than hating someone simply because they look different than you. You obviously have a right to your opinion and you haven't broken any forum rules in posting it, but in my view it's disgusting and as a mod I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you that.

x1000.

I mean, not in the least bit surprised Jon would feel that way, but disgusting all the same. Not 'nice, good, or lovable'? Really? Would 'bad' be taking it a step too far? Not sure how much less defensible it gets than walking around with swastikas and giving the Nazi salute, tbh, let alone crashing cars into other protesters.

Makes sense. I know you are speaking for yourself. Certainly not me or all Americans or humans. So yes, to you I imagine the kkk is not too bad. To you, undocumented people and BLM does pose more of an physical and emotional threat.

However, given that, it just doesn't make your comment very interesting.

The question was asked, I'm ... pleased (?) to not be punished for answering it.

There's plenty of nuance to the answer I offered, reasons that one group looks less offensive to many by comparison to another. I obviously chose vanilla words such as "nice", "good" and "lovable" intentionally, I was seeking the mildest versions of positives I could think of at the time. The subtle point intended to be that you don't have to be anything good to simply be better than the worst.

The BLM crowd, socialists, various & sundry other elements of the lunatic brigade ... they make the Klan*, much less groups that border on parody of themselves like Stormfront, and so forth look like the fucking Boy Scouts comparatively to a very large number of people. Virtually no one I see pretends those groups are exactly normal, nor takes them particularly seriously, and most importantly isn't subjected to a media barrage trying to pretend they're anything except wrong more often than right. You'd likely see less leeway given to them if the same could be said about the dregs of humanity on the other side. At some point, the enemy of my enemy can become useful, even if you're not exactly "friends".

Anybody that seriously questions why there isn't more angst over those groups popping their heads out of their holes today has grossly underestimated just how fed up a significant & growing part of the population is with groups we hold in far lower regard. So underestimated in fact that they're possibly completely disconnected with reality.

*which is actually an entire discussion on its own, considering the different experiences many people who grew up with them in their area actually saw/had. The current variants, honestly, I haven't seen them except on TV in a couple decades. The Klan I saw growing up though -- a shadowy organization that probably popped its head up in public once or twice a year -- there was virtually no racial aspect to their activities. There were, what, maybe 50 non-whites in my entire county in those days. There wasn't anybody to be racial against, that was the practical reality. The Klan in those areas & those times wasn't feared by anyone nearly so much as by "white trash", specifically those who spent their family food money on booze & drugs. I saw, I believe, one cross burning (randomly driving past on a country road after a family road trip) and the aftermath of 2-3 others. Every yard involved belonged to a white person. You can pretty easily find a lot of people of/past a certain who have those same recollections, whether they're bold enough to admit to them is a whole other question. Same would be true of admitting that the feelings toward those groups wasn't particularly negative then, so it isn't a stretch that it wouldn't be now either.

To whom are you referring to when you say "we"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really does seem like you are taking personal experiences and making nationally generalized conclusions.

Again, that seems fine, it just seems illogical that you seem to violently(?) dismiss a conclusion to the contrary that based on your same process.

I am guessing those 50 non-whites probably have an incredibly different take on that period in their history. 50 people is more than enough to serve as the basis for racial hate in a small town, so that all sounds particularly ridiculous to me. I grew up in '80s-'90s Portland, which is & was the whitest large city in the country, and it was packed with racist Skinheads who were more than happy to visit most of their violence and chaos against other white folks, simply because there wasn't much else available, but they were certainly able to make time for any and all non-whites they ran into along the way.

You mean the same black residents who met a contingent of NAACP folks at the county line & told them to turn around and go back to Atlanta because they were neither needed nor wanted there? Among those was the leadership of the local NAACP chapter.

A conversation that took place at the same time a {cough} committee of white folks blocked the road at the other end of the county & delivered the same message to a contingent of North Carolina based Klansmen who were hoping to do some recruiting during the NAACP visit?

Were there some incidents involving race in that corner of the world you might think I'm painting as some sort of Mayberry? Sure there were. Difference in those times & now is that most everybody applied some common sense to figuring out who was at fault and didn't run around trying to defend the indefensible. Probably a lot easier to do since common sense appears to have been a lot more common back then.

You would certainly know that particular community infinitely better than I do, but I don't particularly see any kind of crucial connection between rejecting national NAACP and necessarily accepting the local Klan as mostly harmless and/or community enforcement. Regardless, the crux of your Klan defense seems to be that they've been around forever, and didn't do that much bad in your local community, which isn't particularly convincing.

Let's hope nothing comes of this

Powerful Venezuelan lawmaker may have issued death order against Rubio, US memo says

If Venezuela does manage to kill a US Senator, how would Trump respond?

ETA: This could also help explain why Trump made the military option comment on Venezuala

A couple of older things I meant to reply to:


We're in 100% agreement here. Frankly it's the kind of thing that needs a Constitutional Amendment of some sort, since it's not exactly the same kind of situation in terms of timeframe that you had when waging 18th century conflict. But yeah we've been ridiculous on this for generations as a nation.


You were very much correct here. I was trying to quickly summarize and what I wrote definitely conflated points of view that shouldn't be. I stand corrected.


This is important, and a modern misunderstanding of what "conservativism"(it wouldn't have been called that at the time) historically tried to do. They were very much in conflict with Social Darwinists and didn't see eye-to-eye with them at all. Darwinists held that the poor deserved to be poor basically, and that is was wasteful to try to help them. The view I'm describing, as I mentioned, was that the poor could be improved or damaged; they could move up to prosperity, or down to pauperism(a permanent state of no longer trying to improve one's lot, earn their own way, etc.). Poverty was not considered the bottom rung and it was not viewed as a waste of time or inherently bad to help the impoverished. Broad-based governmental programs were viewed as harmful though, with a focus more on personal solutions(family, friends, correcting behavioral issues such as rampant alcoholism which were the primary cause of poverty at the time, etc.). Workhouses were as common as bars in that day, and it wasn't because nobody cared what happened to the underclass.

As mentioned I don't favor that approach, but it doesn't deserve being described as Social Darwinism. There was a lot more compassion and thought behind it than that.

Yo panerd, your boys are on some good stuff.

Trump knows who his enemies are. He tweets about them all the time and how dangerous they are. He does not tweet about how dangerous Neo-Nazi sympathizers are, or that they are enemies (to him or otherwise, the US as President) at all.

This is one of my main takeaways. So much of things with him is looking at what he does and doesn't do. Like JPhillips said above, he ad libs when he really feels what he believes and his standards are so low that he will actually say whatever he might need to say to achieve an end, whether or not he believes it. So pinning him down on stuff like this shows his truer nature.

"In times such as these, America has always shown its true character -- ... division with unity,..." Trump said.

Releases this ad on the same day


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

We Fight for the Users - DreamHost.blog

Interesting use of the DOJ.

Two days to call out white supremacists.

50 minutes to call out someone who resigned from the President's Council

Yeah, it's easy to see where his priorities are

He isn't going to go after his base.

Whew ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-k...eat-1502751054

Waiting on him trashing Under Armor.