Re: rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a fe

Post #409,851 by Another Scott 5/5/16 5:41:03 PM 5/5/16 5:41:03 PM Reply	Re: rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a fe spent more - What does that mean? W fought a war off-budget. Obama put it on the budget. And how is "spending more" not a social gain? The US federal government doesn't spend enough. killed more americans sans judiciary - What does that mean? Are you referring to al Awlaki and so forth? There was a court process. You may not like the outcome, but the courts were involved. destroyed Libya - Libya was a complicated mess. France and the UK did most of the breaking there. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[27][28][29][30][31] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[32][33] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[34][35][36] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011. Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[37] but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[38] and is still getting american soldiers shot in battle 12 years later - Yeah, funny how invading a country isn't as neat and clean and easy to exit as it used to be. :-/ And it's funny how so many who oppose Obama do so from the perspective that he needs to have more Americans over there. As for me I am out of it. The greasy rat is gone, and he WAS the greater evil. - I'd be interested in hearing your reasons why you think Cruz would be worse than Trump. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,861 by jake123 5/6/16 8:23:27 AM 5/6/16 8:23:27 AM Reply	Why Cruz is worse than Trump "He sold us out!"(TM) ;) He's worse because he's a true believer in Christian Dominionism. Trump has all the usual levers that can be pushed to modify his behaviour; he's not interested in dying, or really in being discomforted, plus rewards are also able to move him (in fact, his problem is he's probably way too biddable; a summit with Putin and an evening with a bunch of Russian teens would probably move mountains). Cruz otoh is a believer. Those mechanisms (up to and perhaps even including continuing to live) are not so motivating. Cruz strikes me as a person who would be willing to accept martyrdom and a hero's memory for turning the US into a theocracy. They are both sociopaths, but sociopaths that are driven by the comforts of the flesh are far easier to manage than ones driven by a neo-Calvinist religious ideology. I disagree with Bill; if I were to be a US citizen I'd be pulling the lever for Clinton and down ticket this November and sleep the sleep of the just. But when it comes to his assessment of which of Cruz and Trump are more dangerous the US as a going concern... he's absolutely right. Trump is scary in a 'mob enforcer who has a job to break your legs' kind of way... the mob enforcer can be bought. Cruz is scary in a 'I'll crucify your children to get your religious compliance, and I'll only believe I've got it after they're crucified' kind of way.
Post #409,869 by Another Scott 5/6/16 8:40:08 AM 5/6/16 8:40:08 AM Reply	Good points, but... They advocate many of the same policies - huge tax cuts, packing the courts with Teabaggers, gutting the budget, gutting reproduction rights, etc. Trump mumbles a bunch of platitudes when it suits him ("everyone loves me and I love everyone"), but then contradicts them 5 minutes later. He's a coward and a narcissist. Cruz is reviled by his colleagues. While he would love to turn the US into a theocracy (one where he wouldn't have to live by those rules - rules are for little people after all), he would have more opposition than Trump. Trump would simply roll over when presented with bills from the Teabagger legislature. Each of them would be a disaster, just in slightly different ways. Fortunately, we won't have to live in the futures they advocate. :-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. ("... shot or being poisoned.")
Post #409,874 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:15:40 AM 5/6/16 9:15:40 AM Reply	The SCOTUS issue is a non-starter after pro-Super Pac Merrick Garland.
Post #409,877 by Another Scott 5/6/16 9:38:50 AM 5/6/16 9:38:50 AM Reply	SCOTUS decides hundreds of cases a year. Purity kills.
Post #409,879 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:50:29 AM 5/6/16 9:50:29 AM Reply	Point: Merrick IS the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
Post #409,884 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:41:19 AM 5/6/16 10:41:19 AM Reply	Re: Point: Merrick IS the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear. AFL-CIO's Trumka: Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit brings impeccable credentials and deep experience to this nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland’s career shows a deep commitment to public service and to the rule of law. These qualities are why he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit 18 years ago by a bipartisan majority and with the strong support of then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Judge Garland is a superbly qualified nominee who deserves prompt consideration and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Working people deserve and expect no less. Oh, but holding out for Judge Roy Moore is the better course. The contradictions won't heighten themselves, amirite? "Purity" forever!!!1 :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,895 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:14:55 PM 5/6/16 12:14:55 PM Reply	He had Orrin Hatch's support? Well, that makes him less onerous. NOT.
Post #409,897 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:17:04 PM 5/6/16 12:17:04 PM Reply	Keep flailing. That'll get Roy Moore on the SCOTUS faster!!1
Post #409,910 by malraux 5/6/16 1:30:32 PM 5/6/16 1:30:32 PM Reply	Significantly better than Scalia and progress in the right direction I'd gladly take further left, but he'll do in a pinch. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #409,913 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 1:38:08 PM 5/6/16 1:38:08 PM Reply	Goering over Adolph then.
Post #409,914 by malraux 5/6/16 1:39:46 PM 5/6/16 1:39:46 PM Reply	roll Purity kills. I'll take incremental change over backsliding any day. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!