Friday, February 26, 2016

Cruising the Web

Well, I wasn't going to watch the debate last night. I was in a good mood after watching Duke comfortably defeat FSU and I had tests grade so I didn't really want to harsh my mellow by watching Donald Trump for a couple of hours. But I switched it on for a few minutes just in time to see Marco Rubio unload a large can of whoop-a** on Trump and enjoyed that so much that I stayed watching for the rest of the debate hoping to see more of Trump on the ropes and my time was well rewarded as Rubio and Cruz tag-teamed to confound, expose, and belittle the Donald. I think this picture summed up the night.The debate last night reminded me of that first debate between Romney and Obama when Romney demonstrated such a better facility with information and issues and exposed what an empty suit Obama is. Unfortunately, one terrible debate performance wasn't enough to defeat Obama and I've given up hoping that one terrible debate performance will kill off Trump's chances. His supporters seem so blind to any sense of logic concerning his lack of any specificity, consistency, or real knowledge concerning public policy. They just think that he's strong and he's a leader. What Rubio and Cruz were able to do was to attack Trump on his record and biography while ridiculing him. Maybe if some of the top clips from the debate get played over and over like Rubio's robotic couple of minutes in New Hampshire did, it will sink in to some of the less brainwashed Trump supporters that their guy really isn't strong, doesn't tell it like it is, and has no real idea of what he is planning to do.

It is well worth watching how Rubio goes all Chris Christie on Donald Trump and exposes Trump as not really having any idea of what he would do to replace Obamacare. Then Trump actually repeats "I don't repeat myself over and over." Trump's meltdown of thought occurs around four minutes into the clip.
All Trump is to say that Rubio had a meltdown back in the New Hampshire debate and he sweats. I guess that Trump thinks that sweating and drinking water is somehow a disqualification for being president. He keeps coming back to Rubio sweating, but it just doesn't resonate the way that calling Bush low energy does, especially when Trump is melting down in front of our eyes. Rubio was exactly right as he summed up Trump's basic selling points. (Iit starts at about 5:38 and it's a beautiful thing.)
Rubio challenged Trump to specifically articulate what his health-care plan entails, and Trump described — multiple times – ”get[ting] rid of the lines” around states and “bring[ing] in competition.”

After Trump repeated his plan to remove “the lines” separating insurance markets for the third time, Rubio interjected, “Now he’s repeating himself.”

“No, I’m not — no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I don’t repeat myself,” Trump responded. ”I don’t repeat myself … Talk about repeating, I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago –”

“I saw you repeat yourself five times four seconds ago,” Rubio shot back. He then accused Trump of repeating himself every night: ”He says five things, everyone’s dumb, he’s going to make America great again; win, win, win; he’s winning in the polls; and the lines around the states. Every night, same thing.”
But hey, Rubio sweats, who cares?

One reason it was so effective was that Rubio was able to turn his own bad moment in the Chris Christie exchange into a slashing attack on Trump. And it worked because Trump did exactly what Rubio had done back in New Hampshire.

Shop Amazon - Best Selling Products - Updated Every Hour

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

New Deals Every Day for Home and Kitchen

David Graham writes about that moment in The Atlantic.
“He’s repeating himself!” Rubio exclaimed with a grin, echoing the very attack Chris Christie used so effectively against him just a few weeks ago. “I’m not repeating myself. I’m not repeating myself,” Trump insisted, but he was practically drowned out by the huge round of applause sweeping the hall.

It’s a wonder no one thought to accuse Trump of repetition before. As Rubio noted, Trump repeats a familiar set of slogans over and over: Make America great again. Build the wall. Win. Stop losing at trade. Force Trump away from those mantras, and he tends to get lost and confused. Of course, it’s also a wonder that no one has attacked Trump so directly before in debates, and especially that Rubio hasn’t done so. Right from the start on Thursday night, though, the Florida senator unloaded line after line of opposition research. He noted that Trump had paid $1 million to settle a court case over use of Polish illegal-immigrant labor. He pointed out that Trump is being sued for fraud over the so-called Trump University, a glorified real-estate seminar. He said that without his father’s inheritance, Trump would be "selling watches in Manhattan."

It was an incredible barrage. Only Jeb Bush had tried anything like it, and Trump easily talked over him. Unlike Bush, Rubio kept hammering, interrupting Trump and getting under his skin. And unlike Bush, who seemed deeply unhappy attacking, Rubio seemed to be having a blast slashing Trump. It all raised a rather uncomfortable question: What if Rubio had gone after Trump earlier, before Trump became the clear frontrunner with Super Tuesday just days away?

Conservatives had been begging Rubio and Cruz to go after Trump and turn Trump's usual debate behavior back on him. And they finally did it. There were a lot of people in the post-debate analysis and on Twitter complaining that it took until the 10th debate for them to unload on him. I can understand their strategy in laying off while hoping for more of the candidates to drop out. But they needed to demonstrate that they have the strength to take on Trump. Perhaps the desperation of facing the March primaries with Trump taking such commanding leads in all the state led them to try the one thing they hadn't done much of before. Take Trump on frontally. Rubio especially came loaded up with enough oppo research to just hit Trump again and again.

The Rubio campaign had faked everyone out by saying before the debate that he was going to go after Cruz. I know that I was disappointed to hear that that would be his strategy. So it was even more of a pleasant surprise to see that Rubio, perhaps out of desperation, came out to win. Cruz also got in some good attacks on Trump on judicial nominations and Trump University. But then he'd fall back into lawyerly mode like trying to pin down the Donald on whether Trump had ever expressed support for single-payer or asking for an apology. That never works. It was much more effective for Rubio to make his attack and then tell the audience to Google Trump and "Polish workers" or Trump University. Apparently, there were huge upsurges in such Google searches on those two topics last night. Good.
Ee can only hope that the media will do its job and explain more of what Rubio was alluding to. But who knows? The CNN anchors certainly seemed ready to shut down the debate whenever Trump was doing badly by stopping the interchange or going to Kasich or Carson. Kasich would give some of his love mantra and Carson would complain about not getting called on (which was true, but Rubio and Cruz demonstrated that interrupting and interjecting is the only way to get time in these debates.

As Rich Lowry writes, the anchors were certainly running interference for Trump last night.
It was very important that Rubio came out punching for his own image. If he had taken a pass on Trump tonight, he would have seemed incredibly weak and not a leader. Instead, he went toe to toe with him and won.

Much of the night, Rubio and Cruz worked together, seemingly in a belated recognition that if they can’t slow and diminish Trump, neither one of them has a chance to be the nominee.

As for Trump, he was bruised, but he had stabilized by the end of the debate in part through — what else? — interrupting and insulting. He got de facto assistance all night long from Wolf Blitzer, who would cut short exchanges among Rubio, Cruz, and Trump to go to Kasich and Carson. Trump had his moments — “the wall just got ten feet higher” — and, as always, delivered the message, quite effectively for his purposes, that he is not just another politician.

It is true that the core of Trump’s supporters will stay with him, but there is a lot of room between 24 percent (Iowa) and 46 percent (Nevada). There is such a thing as a marginal Trump supporter, and he or she is susceptible to persuasion. At the very least, tonight opened up avenues for further attack on and examination of Trump’s tax returns, his hiring of foreign workers, etc. If there were a coordinated anti-Trump effort, ads on some of these themes would follow in short order and surrogates would be out hammering away at them. But it’s a step in the right direction that other candidates are fighting by the only rules that will make it possible to take him down a notch — namely, the rules the mogul himself has used to establish his current dominance in the GOP race.

Then Chris Cuomo right after the debate interviewed Donald Trump and all Trump could do to respond is to say that Rubio is a "choke artist" and give his poll numbers. Which he repeated over and over as if that is an argument and Trump hadn't just choked himself.

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Deals in Jewelry

I hope all those people Googling "Polish workers" will find out how the Trump used illegal immigrants from Poland to build Trump Tower.
Thirty-five years ago, a small army of illegal immigrants was used to clear the site for what became the crown jewel of Donald Trump’s empire.

The 200 demolition workers—nicknamed the Polish Brigade because of their home country—worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week with no overtime to knock down the old Bonwit Teller building and make room for Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

According to testimony in a protracted civil suit in federal court, the laborers were paid $5 an hour or less when they were paid at all. Some went unpaid after the contractor had financial troubles. A few never received even the paltry sum that was owed them for their dirty and hazardous efforts preceding the construction of Trump’s monument to his own wealth.

“They were undocumented and worked ‘off the books,’” Manhattan federal Judge Charles Stewart said of the workers after they became the subject of a 1983 lawsuit. “No records were kept, no Social Security or other taxes were withheld.”
Trump was speaking with more firsthand knowledge than his readers likely imagined when he wrote in his 2011 book Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again that “illegal immigration is a wrecking ball aimed at U.S. Taxpayers.”

How interesting that he would choose a wrecking ball as a metaphor.
And Trump's defense was quite weak, reminiscent of how he answers tough questions today.
During the 16-day non-jury trial, a number of the Polish workers testified that Trump underlings had threatened them with deportation if they caused trouble. They walked in to the job from Brooklyn when a transit strike hit the city. Some of them slept at the site.

Two workers further testified that they had approached Trump in person to demand overdue wages.

Trump took the stand, even back in those days sporting a red “power” tie, blue pinstriped suit, and that hair. He told the court that he almost certainly did not speak to the laborers, in part because he was fearful of venturing into so dangerous a workplace.

“I tend not to walk into buildings under demolition,” Trump said. “You have to be very brave to be in a building under demolition. I’m not sure I’m that brave.”

He added that he had no need to visit the site because “You can see it from a block away.”

He further testified that in any event he could not remember ever speaking to any of the workers or even being aware there were Polish workers on the site.
For a guy who promises us that he'll get the best people in the job for whatever question arises about what he'd do as president, he sure likes to blame someone else for what goes wrong in his business.
“It was never proven to me that they were illegal,” said the developer, adding that he only heard that they might not be in the country legally “sometime after the demolition work.”

At one point, he allowed that he had become aware that there were undocumented workers there, but only late in the project.

“Probably after the demolition,” he said.

He apparently was referring to having retained the contractor who hired the Polish Brigade when he said, “I can make mistakes. This was a mistake.”

The lawyer representing the Polish Brigade had reported receiving a call from someone who identified himself as “John Baron” and said Trump was ready to hit the lawyer with a $100 million lawsuit if he kept causing trouble.

Trump now acknowledged on the stand that he had used the pseudonym “John Baron,” as had one of his assistants. But Trump insisted that his use of it was only long after the completion of the Fifth Avenue tower, which became the first of many properties on which he so rapturously bestowed his real surname.

“Lots of people use pen names,” he told a reporter after he stepped down from the witness stand. “Ernest Hemingway used one.”
And this was the final result of that lawsuit.
The case was finally settled in 1999 and then sealed. That was 19 years after the demolition began, 16 years after the suit was filed.

Trump did not return a request for comment placed through a spokeswoman.

The tower that is his crown jewel and symbol of his wealth continues to stand on ground cleared by 200 undocumented workers who labored off the books, 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for no more than $5 an hour with no overtime.
The Washington Post reported just a few months ago about the undocumented workers at the site of Trump's International Hotel being built in Washington.
"The majority of us are Hispanics, many who came illegally,” Arellano said in Spanish. “And we’re all here working very hard to build a better life for our families.”

Interviews with about 15 laborers helping renovate the Old Post Office Pavilion revealed that many of them had crossed the U.S-Mexico border illegally before they eventually settled in the Washington region to build new lives.

And then there is this story about how Trump hired foreign workers to build his resort in Florida instead of hiring American workers.
Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired.

In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries.

In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Trump has stoked his crowds by promising to bring back jobs that have been snatched by illegal immigrants or outsourced by corporations, and voters worried about immigration have been his strongest backers.

But he has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, according to the United States Department of Labor, while hundreds of domestic applicants failed to get the same jobs.
It is clear from the story that there were Americans who were applying for and wanted those jobs, but Trump's resort continued to bypass them to hire foreign workers.

Let Trump explain to his crowds of adoring fans who applaud his stance on immigration today that his businesses hired foreign, sometimes undocumented workers, because these were jobs Americans didn't want even though they were applying for those jobs. The fact that this guy has become the leader of the tough-on-immigration crowd without much challenge until last night of his own history is a real mistake. This was an attack that anyone one of his opponents could have made.

The Rubio campaign has helpfully set up a site with all the stories of how "Donald Trump puts American workers last." Why did this take so long to do?

Featured Deals in Sports and Fitness

Today’s Deals at Amazon

Best-selling Vitamins

As John Podhoretz writes, we'll soon see if debates matter in this election cycle.
If debates can change the course of an election, we’ll learn it soon, because Marco Rubio utterly trounced Donald Trump last night in the most commanding performance we’ve seen in the 10 GOP scuffles thus far.

I use the word “trounced” advisedly. After an hour in which Rubio turned Trump’s own game on him with quick jabs and mocking counterjabs, and Ted Cruz joined in a surprising tag-team effort with his Florida rival, Trump was actually complaining he was getting too many questions and too much time to speak.

A frustrated Trump tried to flummox Rubio by calling him a “choke artist” and referencing the senator’s bad New Hampshire confrontation with Chris Christie, but the opposite was the case. Rubio came loaded for bear. He knows that his back is against the wall, that Trump leads in almost all of the 12 states that will vote on Tuesday and that he has to alter the trajectory of the race in his favor.

“If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Tower, he’d be using illegal immigrants to do it,” Rubio said.

“Make them in America,” he said to Trump about the ties and suits that bear his brand name, which are made in China.

“You have a fake university,” he said about Trump University.

“If he hadn’t inherited $200 million, you know where Donald Trump would be right now?” Rubio said. “Selling watches in Manhattan.”

Rubio said his mother was a maid in a hotel but if she’d sought a job in one of Trump’s Miami hotels, her place would have been taken by an illegal immigrant.

And that was just the first 10 minutes.

Throughout the debate, Rubio seized opportunities to hit at Trump with short, sharp and nearly unanswerable one-liners that entirely belied Christie’s characterization of him as robotic.

When Trump said he wanted to serve as a neutral negotiator in the Middle East, Rubio attacked: “The Palestinians are not a real-estate deal, Donald.” And when Trump came back by talking about his negotiating skills, Rubio asked whether he believed in negotiating with terrorists.
We're not going to get reliable polls between now and Tuesday's voting so we'll have to hear how Trump is leading in all the polls until we see what actual voters do. Maybe bragging about poll numbers will be enough. I sure hope not.

Deals in Bedding and Bath

Amazon Coupons

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.It's about time that the Republicans brought all this up, because we know that the Democrats won't be so dainty when it comes to taking on Trump. They're already preparing for that.
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will make that abundantly clear once Trump is the nominee. It won't be hard — they will just set up a camera, sit down with Trump victims and let these ordinary Americans tell the tale of how Donald Trump is a charlatan who enriched himself at the expense of ordinary people.

Democratic super PACs are already lining up Trump's victims for such a purpose, you can be totally sure. That's why any poll numbers suggesting Trump can beat Hillary should be doubted — they don't take into account the brutal campaign Hillary will wage on Trump....

Democrats could begin with the Americans who believed Trump could fix their financial woes by teaching them the ins and outs of real estate, at "Trump University."

Trump University wasn't a university, and Donald Trump wasn't as involved as he claimed he would be, according to one federal lawsuit. Some of the students are suing Trump, calling the "university" a "fraudulent scheme" in a federal court filing.

"I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you," Trump said in the ads for Trump University. "We'll help you by teaching you how to profit from the $700 billion bailout that has opened the door for unprecedented investment opportunities," his ad said.

In a promotional video, Trump promised to handpick "professors and adjunct professors." People who paid five figures to attend these seminars are suing, claiming that Trump didn't really handpick any instructors and that none of his real estate secrets were imparted.
As Cruz pointed out, Trump will be forced to testify in this case in July, just as he might be accepting the Republican nomination.
Everyone who paid thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to attend this university is a potential Trump victim.

You can bet Hillary's people are reaching out to every one of them. They will be the stars of super PAC ads. And all the working-class voters who feel like Trump is fighting for them will realize that Trump is playing them like he's played so many before.

Trump has victims all over the country and from all walks of life.

Due to his serial business failures, Trump's companies have gone bankrupt four times. His bankruptcies all involve him not paying back the people who had trusted him to make good on his bets — and these victims aren't just banks and hedge funds.

Dixie-Narco is a vending-machine maker in South Carolina. It also makes bill-changing machines. Trump had ordered 1,350 machines from the company for the Taj Mahal. Dixie-Narco expected to get paid. When Trump sent the Taj Mahal into bankruptcy, he tried to shed some of his debts to bondholders by giving them an ownership stake in the resort. Part of his pitch to them: "Dixie-Marco's $6 million claim was worthless," as the New York Times reported it back then.
Why aren't Republican Super PACs running those ads now instead of waiting for Hillary to do it when it will be too late? The ads would basically write themselves. Trump's business history has been terrible for the little guy. If the Democrats could destroy an upstanding guy like Romney for his business record, imagine what they will do with Trump's records. So ignore those match-ups that show Trump doing reasonably well against Hillary (although Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich do better). Those numbers will decline once the Democratic attack machine gears up.

Rubio's Super PAC should be finding American workers who applied to work at Trump's Florida resort and got turned away so they could hire foreign workers and then blanket Florida with ads featuring those Americans who couldn't get jobs because Trump likes to hire foreign workers instead. Come on, guys. This shouldn't be so hard to figure out.


mark said...

How long will it be before Trump (and Christie) begin attacking Rubio's involvement in a for-profit college scam, as well as improperly using his influence to help his felon brother-in-law?

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

Maybe then that will free up the Wapo to take a look at the Clinton Foundation and that little private server thing.

mark said...

Aside from your post making no sense, I'd like to see ALL politicians and officials held accountable for their actions and words.

Now that yet another military-intelligence expert has denounced the Trump-Cruz plan to kill innocent people in the fight to defeat ISIS, perhaps it's time for you to finally acknowledge you were wrong to defend it. Or perhaps you'll denounce Hayden, as you did the other leaders.

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

My post makes sense in that the Washington Post is very selective about its investigations. They done exactly F***-all when it comes to investigating their girl.

As for Trump and his potential scandals, they cannot investigate it fast enough for me. Rubio too. I notice they've not come up with much on Cruz.

When it comes to accountability - I've never seen anything from you that suggested you even understood the meaning of the word. You happily gave Obama a pass on his healthcare scam. He lied to you and people like you because nobody with a conservative point of view, nobody with an understanding of the free market, or anybody with an ounce of common sense bought that "If you like your doctor" BS. You and chumps like you apparently thought that you would be able to keep the plan you had and would get thousands of dollars back! Oh, if only some of that were ever true but there's no need to hold Obama accountable, right?

Obama facilitated the transfer of weapons to drug cartels leading directly to the deaths of many Mexicans and more than a few Americans, including law enforcement officers. You've never wanted accountability for that.

The IRS was used to target and impede political opponents. Nobody has been held accountable. You're OK with that too.

Hillary has violated the law by redirecting official government email to her privately owned server. She knowingly transmitted large volumes of classified materials and we've now seen the email where she directed subordinates to do the same. These are felonies and you don't want anything done about that, do you? Do you want Hillary to face prosecution? If you do, then say so.

As for killing "innocent" people. I have no idea what Trump has said recently but I wish you would show me where either he or Cruz specifically said that they want to kill "innocent" people. Is that the stated goal or are they saying it is a potential consequence of expanding the war? I know this: Failing to fight ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State, etc., has directly to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children at the hands of Obama's JV team.
Do you hold him accountable? I think not.

I'll remind you again, FDR and Truman destroyed entire cities in Germany and Japan. They are considered to be successful wartime presidents. If you want to condemn Cruz or Trump, for that matter, you have to admit your own hypocrisy first.

As for Hayden,

I agree with this: "Iraq no longer exists. Syria no longer exists. They aren't coming back. Lebanon is teetering and Libya is long gone".

"We are seeing a melting down of the post WWII, Bretton Woods order...."

Do you hold Obama and Clinton foreign policy and national security strategies (actually the lack thereof) responsible? "Accountability",anyone?

On this point I disagree: The use of the phrase "war on terrorism" is just ridiculous at this late date. It was coined 15 years ago to skirt offending potential Islamic allies but by now we should all recognize that our enemies are Jihadists supported by Islamists. If you don't understand that concept, do some research. Hayden does go on to make good points about the war being fought within Islam. I'd like to discuss that with you if you were someone capable of holding an intelligent conversation.

Your link includes a 2:19 clip where Hayden makes no mention of Cruz, Trump, carpet bombing innocents, or even the words "scary" or "scared", as the CNN headline suggests. Furthermore, the very short article doesn't quote him using those terms and in no place does it support anything you've said.

Honestly, mark the socialist, did you listen to the clip? Yes or no.
Did you read the tiny article? Yes or no. Are you so desperate for traction that you rely on CNN headlines that do not reflect the substance or content of the accompanying verbiage? Yes.

mark said...

Poor crumpet,
A while ago you claimed my criticism of Christie (for his comments about 5-year-old Syrian refugees) proved I had sinister motives towards children. Now you're flailing around pretending our military leaders haven't denounced Trump and Cruz' plan to target children and "carpet-bomb" as un-American, immoral and likely illegal.

tfhr said...

Well mark the socialist, you attributed comments to Hayden that do not appear in the article you linked or the accompanying video interview. If you want to make claims attributed to "military leaders", try to find them actually making the comment you want to believe because you clearly failed on your Hayden effort.

In summation:

You did not listen to Hayden

You did not read the article claiming Hayden said anything to support your claim

You also failed miserably to back up your claim that you want accountability from leaders all the while blowing off Obama's lies about his healthcare scam, the IRS scandal, the Fast and Furious arms trafficking scandal, and his pathetic secretary of state and her felonious handling of government documents, to include enormous amounts of Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential material, to say nothing of her deliberate mishandling of SCI. People go to jail for what she's done with classified and they go for a long time for a lot less.

I get that you're all about bringing little kids to the United States. I suppose you have your reasons but if you want to stay on topic - we started on accountability this time - try to stop thinking about the kids for a moment, Aqualung.

Also, try not to be a slime bag liar with these persistent, dark and disturbing fantasies of yours where you wet yourself over the fantasy that Cruz wants to target children. If he wanted to do that, he'd fund Planned Parenthood and you guys could make a fast buck!

tfhr said...

Hey Aqualung,

Here's one for the kids:

23 Year Old Ukrainian Man Posing As 16 Year Old High School Student Charged With Sex Assault…

Let's bring some more unknowable people in from countries rife with terrorists like Syria or criminal gangs like El Salvador. C'mon! Why not? Some of those MS-13 boys might just what you need to put some excitement back in your life. They've done a bang up job around the DC area. The police, those people that Hillary thinks are so awful, keep find bodies left behind by MS-13. Sometimes the bodies have heads, sometimes they don't and sometimes they just find the heads. Kids! What can you do, right? Well, you can start by not importing them.

mark said...

Let me help you, crumpet.

During his appearance on “Real Time,” Hayden cited Trump’s pledge to kill family members as being among his most troubling campaign statements.

“That never even occurred to you, right?” Maher asked.

“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

All better now?

tfhr said...

I'll address that at face value, Aqualung.

If Hayden said that, he's right. That said, I'd like the link to hear the rest of the conversation because your track record on links is pretty poor. Deliberately targeting innocent civilians is illegal and the order would be refused. If Trump said that he would target terrorists and that the potential existed for civilian casualties, that's realistic. You need to learn to distinguish the difference between rhetoric and reality but I understand in your world, that's not given a high priority.

I see you don't have anything on Cruz and that you still cannot answer the challenge I posed to you to explain the conduct of Truman and FDR. You always tuck tail and run on that one.

Further, you started this thread with some sort of "accountability" meme. Such BS from you and it evaporated pretty quick in the face of questions about ObamaCare, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal and I'll add Benghazi here if I didn't have it out there before. Of course that last one's not just for Obama since Hillary has not accepted her responsibility in that preventable disaster though she certainly thought it was bad enough that she had to lie to the country and the families of those she and Obama abandoned. Lying comes natural to Hillary - she's been doing it her entire political life, but this server deal may finally put an end to her corrupt obsession. I know you don't care about accountability but you should at least be honest enough to admit it.

mark said...

No, crumpet, I started this thread bringing up two issues that Rubio will likely have to deal with if he does well tomorrow at the polls.
Contrary to what you claim, I have criticized Obama and Clinton on a number of issues you mention.

I know you think your Truman/FDR comparison is clever. Not so much. Different time. Different capabilities. It's a bit like defending human-trafficking because George Washington owned slaves. Perhaps you'll note that none of the (actual) military-intelligence experts have brought up such a moronic point.

Your defense of Trump and Cruz' plans are a bit like your jokes about ISIS beheading Americans. It's time to stop embarrassing yourself.

tfhr said...


You're an avid socialist and your criticism of Obama and Hillary amounts to what? That they aren't socialist enough? If it were about their lies and corruption, these threads would be very different. Feel free to inform me of your criticism of their tenure. Let's hear it. [cues inevitable cricket chirping]

When it comes to fighting ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State in what's left of Syria, Iraq, Libya or Yemen, I think you should ask your experts if they would "carpet-bomb" them if they caught them in the open. That old term takes on a new meaning in that context, doesn't it? Carpet-bombing was used tactically to assist the Allied breakout from Normandy. Entire grid squares were carpet-bombed to reduces German defensive positions and to kill enemy troops. The same tactics were used in Korea and even in Vietnam. Most of the aircraft and weapons that delivered the very same effect were different in the first Gulf War but the end result, very much the same. Think of the highway from Kuwait City to Baghdad in 1991. It was a burnt out, linear killing field choked with incinerated vehicles and the people that were once alive in them. That's war on a modern battlefield and it traces its roots to WWII.

Nobody is suggesting that we need to raze a city like FDR or Truman did in WWII but in case you haven't noticed, much of Syria is already rubbled. (Let me know if you want a link for that because unless you've seen it, you cannot imagine what has happened there. Your experts would want to kill as many of Islamic State people as possible. They would be aggressive about it and would not hesitate to mass firepower against the enemy. The real question is why doesn't Obama? We have precision weapons to engage targets in cities but so many of the limited number of strikes the US launches are recalled with weapons still on board. When the Islamic State is on the move or fighting against the "coalition", we do very little to exploit the tremendous capability we have from the air, "carpet-bombing" or not. The bottom line is that this carping over what Trump or Cruz said and what you want to believe is just a smoke screen to obfuscate for Obama's lack of decisive leadership in this war.

Your sliding scale for the conduct of war versus the institution of slavery is weak on so many counts but it is very interesting that you took this route when so many women and children are being bought, sold, raped and killed in Raqqa and other Islamic State controlled cities and outposts on Obama's watch. There's a lot of slave trading going on in Libya too. You should visit our embassy there for a closer look,...oh wait. Better not.

I'm appalled but not really surprised that you would try to hide behind George Washington to support your desire to bring children to the United States where they can become wards of the state, a growing portion of a permanent underclass to serve the aims of the Democrats and advance your dreams of socialism. Again, not really surprised. At least with Washington, he freed not only his slaves at his death, but also the dower slaves his wife inherited (and by law could not free). Go to the Mount Vernon site to learn about dower slaves. With Obama and Hillary, we see thousands upon thousands of women and children forced into this abominable existence, if they survive that far. You must be OK with this because, of course, you'd never "carpet-bomb" to protect them from that fate. "The horror. The horror." (I'm going to stick with Aqualung and socialist but maybe you do have a little of Colonel Kurtz in you too.) Hey, that Kurtz riff reminds me of Kurds. I bet the Kurds would use napalm and old iron bombs, if they had them. Do you think they would be immoral to defend themselves that way?

tfhr said...


I almost forgot to mention that your final comment reveals that you do not know the difference between a "plan" as you put it, and campaign rhetoric. (Given your slobbering love affair with Obama, I guess you realize now that it's a weakness you have)

Oh, and there's one more thing: I notice you're very fond of quoting me, probably because I own a piece of real estate in the fever swamp that is your mind, would you please show me where I joke about Obama's JV team beheading Americans? I think you're still trying to dig out from under comparing Americans killed in combat with a fish kill from your failed days in the Peace Corps, but I'd like to see what you think you've got.

mark said...

Are you claiming you didn't write (on multiple occasions) that "if you like your head, you can keep your head"? Or are you merely pretending that it had nothing to do with the ISIS beheadings that were happening at the time?

Whether it's your silly lie that Gore predicted the world would end a month ago, your insane conspiracies about body parts and child molesters or your constantly-changing claims about serving our country, I think you've become a bit brain-addled. I suspect you can no longer distinguish fact from fiction.

tfhr said...

"...ISIS beheadings that were happening at the time?" ~ Aqualung

We'll they haven't stopped, and like the Americans that died at the blood drenched hands of ISIS, many thousands of other innocent people in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen have died before and since. I lay that at the inattentive, morally disengaged, and feckless Barack Obama.

Of course it is only upsetting to you that I've crafted my criticism with probably his best known lie. The carnage - the ongoing genocide - is inconsequential to you if it can be swept under the rug for 2016. I don't see how you could like "your" foreign policy, much less want to keep "your" foreign policy, but you voted for it twice!

You don't seemed to have learned much during the past seven or so years. Intellectual in-curiosity has stunted you and even my mocking of you apparently cannot prompt you to read and learn anything at all about ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State. Maybe there is another reason for it. It is interesting that you feign to care about a handful of murdered white Americans but could give a flip about hundreds of thousands of...brown people. It's kind of telling and makes me have to ask if you are a racist? Probably but the real truth is you don't care about any of the people that have been slaughtered or enslaved by the Islamic State, so I guess your callousness leaves the question unsolved, at least on this issue.

As for Gore, read this WaPo article from 10 years ago (You can skip over the mention of Tipper, she's history):

Fat Albert, in his own words through CBS and AP:

And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.

He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”

“If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much,” Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”

Of course he was using that to hype his stupid movie to chumps like you but if you say it wasn't hype, then you should be taking it at face value, right? You believed it then and now you're backing away from it by trying to say he never used those words but there they are. According to Al, because we did not head the advice of climatology's savant, the man that settled science while inventing the internet, we're all dead and we just don't know it because we've "reached the point of no return".