Past their prime...
I believe some politicians just don’t realize when they are no longer relevant.
So, I propose we let them know in a very gentle way,
so they can leave the building gracefully.
Here are my first two nominees:
Newt Gingrich
[ATTACH]52201[/ATTACH]
James Carville
[ATTACH]52200[/ATTACH]
They keep reading how youth flock to the elders for their accumulated wisdom, not realizing that went out with sword fighting and knickers.
Yes I'm old, and yes I've acquired a lot of wisdom. But that's only because I was to0 stupid not to have to learn all those lessons that leave scars. :facepalm:
:D McCain was already on my list too...
Here's my next two:
Henry Kissinger
[ATTACH]52207[/ATTACH]
Joe Lieberman
[ATTACH]52208[/ATTACH]
These 2 get my vote for retirement:
John Cornyn and Jim Inhofe
Why is there a picture of Gollum under Newt Gingrich?
From the third branch of government...
Antonin Scalia
[ATTACH]52242[/ATTACH]
Clarence Thomas
[ATTACH]52241[/ATTACH]
From the Democrats...
Harry Reid
[ATTACH]52250[/ATTACH]
Al Gore
[ATTACH]52251[/ATTACH]
.
And from the GOP - they get 3
Ben Carson
[ATTACH]52265[/ATTACH]
Chris Christie
[ATTACH]52266[/ATTACH]
Donald Duckorwhateverhislastnameis
[ATTACH]52264[/ATTACH]
.
I hadn't been paying much attention to these guys, but I saw a headline in the paper today that Trump is actually surging in the polls with his party as a result of his anti-mexican comments and the resulting publicity backlash.
You just have to shake your head. Give the extremists enough rope, and they will hang themselves and anyone around them. The better Trump does with the republicans, the more likely the republicans will lose.
People (not just conservatives, btw) get in an echo chamber and they have no idea they are in there.
Back to politics...
Mitt Romney
[ATTACH]52273[/ATTACH]
Joe Biden
[ATTACH]52274[/ATTACH]
I hadn't been paying much attention to these guys, but I saw a headline in the paper today that Trump is actually surging in the polls with his party as a result of his anti-mexican comments and the resulting publicity backlash.
You just have to shake your head. Give the extremists enough rope, and they will hang themselves and anyone around them. The better Trump does with the republicans, the more likely the republicans will lose.
People (not just conservatives, btw) get in an echo chamber and they have no idea they are in there.
It's true. I have a big L libertarian bacefook friend from high school who makes me reflect occasionally. I remember being that guy, it's great for personal motivation, and it makes perfect sense if everyone is on the same page. Since the rest of the world isn't libertarian you're doing the hard right's work for them advocating for a vacuum where government oversite would be in the mistaken belief that corporations will take personal responsibility for their actions. This disengagement from politics is perfect for the political criminals of all stripes.
kinda off the rails there... but yeah echo chamber bad
I remember being that guy, it's great for personal motivation, and it makes perfect sense if everyone is on the same page.
Libertarianism is great in theory, rewritten history, and Hollywood movies, but only works in the real world when dueling is legal. ;)
I'm going to nominate Hillary. I don't see her as relevant despite strong polling inside her party. More hawkisk and anti-union than Obama, she really only appeals in terms of willingness to say or do anything to be elected. This is where team play, "gotta beat the GOP" undermines representation. Will she actually represent working people?
Libertarianism is great in theory, rewritten history, and Hollywood movies, but only works in the real world when dueling is legal. ;)
Bring back the duel!
There's an aspect of this thread I find uncomfortable. Someone being irrelevant I can go with. Someone being in office for a long time and feeling like it's their God-given personal fiefdom, unaccountable to the electorate, I can go with. But there's an assumption that seems to be made about age in this context that I don't like.
Actually, I'm a Bernie Sanders booster so I'm cool with age as long as the mindset is relevant.
There's an aspect of this thread I find uncomfortable. Someone being irrelevant I can go with. Someone being in office for a long time and feeling like it's their God-given personal fiefdom, unaccountable to the electorate, I can go with. But there's an assumption that seems to be made about age in this context that I don't like.
Looking through the nominees, I'd say Lamps has mostly identified people whose thinking is not of this age. They are still relevant to the electorate because only retired people vote, but I think he was mostly fair about that.
... But there's an assumption that seems to be made about age in this context that I don't like.
Not likely considering who started the thread: it would be a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, I'm a Bernie Sanders booster so I'm cool with age as long as the mindset is relevant.
Hear hear, but I'm afraid congress would shut him down if he tried to do anything he wants to.:(
Aren't you running for Congress?
Were I elected, I fear the next mass shooting you'd hear about would be in the halls of congress. A carnage of smarmy lying motherfuckers, and their puppeteers. :rattat:
Speaking of Bernie, he was ahead of the curve in 1985. :thumb:
The thing I see in Bernie lacking in some other liberal politicians is respect for people. He has a long track record so I feel like we have an idea about what we're going to get.
Bernie and the punks.There's an aspect of this thread I find uncomfortable. Someone being irrelevant I can go with. Someone being in office for a long time and feeling like it's their God-given personal fiefdom, unaccountable to the electorate, I can go with. But there's an assumption that seems to be made about age in this context that I don't like.
It's odd, because I thought this too.
I didn't comment because it's not my field of play - I know little to nothing about those named.
I'm pleased that people I trust on here (which is most Dwellars TBH) have clarified the issue.
Dana - most of these people are both old and in the way. Those two descriptions can be and in these cases, are mutually exclusive.
There are young idiots too, but they are nowhere near as firmly entrenched as their 30+ year counterparts.
Past their prime...
And from the GOP<snip>
Donald Duckorwhateverhislastnameis
[ATTACH]52264[/ATTACH].
I stand by my co-optation.
... and now Huffington Post is following suit
Huffington Post to cover Trump as an entertainer, not a politician
CNN - Tom Kludt - 7/17/15
The Huffington Post will continue to cover Donald Trump, but the popular news site
is done treating him like a legitimate presidential candidate.
In a note to readers on Friday, two top editors for HuffPost said that coverage
of the brash billionaire's campaign will be a part of the site's entertainment section.
"Our reason is simple: Trump's campaign is a sideshow,"
wrote Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim and editorial director Danny Shea.
"We won't take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say,
you'll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette."
In a separate statement, Grim said that the site had
"erroneously been covering [Trump] as an actual presidential candidate."
"Now, the impact he's having on the Republican Party
and the immigration debate is itself a real thing,
and we'll cover that as substance, but anything that tumbles out of his mouth
will land on the Entertainment page," Grim said.
With Trump leading in the polls, I wonder if the G.O.P is finally getting a glimmer of Niemöller's poem.
Trump's latest campaign slogan...
Today's King of the Post-Prime business talking heads....
[ATTACH]52856[/ATTACH]
Ben Stein: Cell phones are a drag on the economy
Sunday Morning tv - 8/2/15 - CBS News
Worker productivity is how much each worker produces per unit of time.
It rose very rapidly for decades after 1941, and, recently, the rate of rise has been tepid.
Even if you don't believe the connection between productivity and wages,
(or between productivity and unemployment)...
productivity has continued to rise since the birth of the cell-phone...
So what I am reading here is... Gen X'ers want the babyboomers to retire from politics so that they can finally have their day.
I hear you... But here's the thing... Millennials have already discussed this - on the latest social media thingy that you still haven't heard about that will fade off by the time you will - and we decided we're skipping you guys. We've contracted the babyboomers - the ones we've taught to use email - and they agreed it's for the best. They are already expanding the White House basement.
Speaker John Boehner Will Resign From Congress
NY Times - JENNIFER STEINHAUER - SEPT. 25, 2015
WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, under intense pressure from conservatives in his party,
will resign one of the most powerful positions in government and give up
his House seat at the end of October, throwing Congress into chaos it tries to avert a government shutdown.
Mr. Boehner made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans Friday morning.
...
Is this a trick or a treat?
If he's being pushed out because he's not partisan enough, I can only imagine that his replacement is going to be swell.
[ATTACH]53892[/ATTACH]
Past their prime...
I stand by my co-optation.
...
Next in line for media attention is
Ben Carson
--- at least until the end of the Iowa Caucuses, then this too shall pass.
I have to tell you, ObamaCare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened
in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way.
Meanwhile the base is apoplectic.. Another Nigerian, oh noes. But Carson is just a tool to trip Trump, cause confusion and consternation, so when the power behind the curtain offers up the chosen, the base will gasp him like he's the messiah.
Are you saying Clinton v Bush?
:vomit:
No, I'm saying we won't know until the chosen is revealed.
It's like that study they did, where they put a particular scent on the first female that a male rat is allowed to fuck, and for the rest of his life he will show a preference for that scent, even if it's a horrible death/sewage smell. Our nation is always going to want to fuck Bush/Clinton again, no matter how many better lays might be out there.
Thanks for that visual image, Clod. I'm going to clear my mental palate with zombie death in Walking Dead.
That explains wacko extremists. They only believe the first thing they are told. So a wacko extremist has much in common with a rat. Both want to fuck others.
Mr & Mr Whiner lead GOP candidates in Denver...
Campaigns erupt over greenrooms at third GOP debate
Aides to Chris Christie and Rand Paul complain their work spaces look like bathrooms.
Politico - Alex Isenstadt - 10/27/15
DENVER, Colo. — Just hours before GOP candidates take the stage here Wednesday night,
tensions over the Republican National Committee’s handling of the debates are flaring anew.
...
During a tense 30-minute meeting at the Coors Event Center,
which was described by three sources present,
several lower-polling campaigns lashed out at the RNC.
They accused the committee of allotting them less-than-hospitable greenroom spaces
while unfairly giving lavish ones to higher-polling candidates,
such as Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
I'm imagining the responses of the other candidates:
Trump: Mine is bigger than yours ... It's so great.
Carson: A large mind needs a large space for intellectual reasoning.
Rubio: Gee, I don't know what to make of it ... yet.
:rolleyes:
That explains wacko extremists. They only believe the first thing they are told. So a wacko extremist has much in common with a rat. Both want to fuck others.
How fitting, coming from you. Your self reflection is improving.
Are you saying Clinton v Bush?
:vomit:
Absolutely.
Sadly, Clinton is the best Republican running. She simply has Bernie getting the uber left interested in the election and then when he gets his ass crushed in the primaries, he will hand all of that faction over to her with his endorsement.
Bernie getting the uber left interested in the election
Aren't you one of the ones who took an online quiz that told you Bernie was your man?
My sense of it is that Bernie gets a lot of independent support that won't be there for Hillary.
Aren't you one of the ones who took an online quiz that told you Bernie was your man?
Yup ... Just goes to show how much stock I put in "those" quizzes.
Those quizzes aren't going to tell you about the personality of the candidate and if they have the charisma that draws you in, but they are a good source for matching how you feel on the different issues to the candidate who has the same position on those issues.
I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?
That is an interesting point. I think about Reagan that way. The country was mired in pessimism. The country needed its optimism back, unfortunately that optimism made us ripe for military adventurism and the Bush hijacking. You can't put that on Reagan but he set the stage for smaller men to make bigger messes.
I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs.
Neither. It is about someone who can see a bigger picture.
For example Curtis LeMay was a brilliant General. When it came to tactical military decisions, he was among the best. But he could not see the bigger picture. He viewed war in terms of 'them vs us'. And not about the bigger picture of how we all coexist after the fact.
Kennedy was clearly a superb example of a leader. In an administration chock full of brilliant men, Kennedy saw things even they did not see.
Johnson was probably one of the best power brokers in office. If ever it came to getting political solutions, nobody was better. However he did not see the big picture overseas. He could not understand why he created the quagmire and why others would not negotiate with what to him was a sweetheart deal. He could see the big picture in domestic politics. But could not see the big picture worldwide.
Nixon is the classic example of a superb politician incapable of understanding that his job (and not his legacy) was more important. Much of what he did domestically and internationally was shrewd but undermined by what he wanted. Nixon saw big pictures, but was subverted by his own personal needs.
It is far more complex than strength vs charisma. The ability to see big pictures and to act upon them is critical. Kennedy's weakness was domestic politics. But he was the perfect leader for that time. In fact, most other men in that position probably would mean none of us exist.
Having said all that, can anyone say anything good about George Jr - other than he finally stopped listening to Cheney?
Neither.
So you're saying that when faced with such a choice, you should not vote at all?
Start a campaign...
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]If you're disgusted with government, how it's run, and who runs it, send a message, vote for glatt.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Kind of a long slogan, but you'd probably win.
I defy Diogenes to find an American who says, "Oh yes, the government is doing a fine job." At least one who isn't mentally ill.
Nobody is happy, they only vary on who to blame.
I'd like to think that I'm a poor leader who leads poorly in the right direction, but it's just as likely that I'm a poor leader who leads the country in the wrong direction.
That would have no bearing on the voters who are looking for any port in the storm. Like in TV viewing and in pornography, they just want something different.
Hmm... gotta find a shorter slogan.
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]"And now for something completely different, glatt"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?
Yes, this EXACTLY! :thepain::mad2:
... I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?
A poor leader can still be a good manager who chooses subordinates with strong leadership skills to move things in the right direction.
A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.
To thine own self be true.
A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.
That's what Cheney did. :(
Cheney did what? I'm talking about Presidents and Cheney wasn't President. I'm not sure what you mean.
He was running the country. Being a strong leader, the people under him obeyed or got the fuck out. Bush being a weak leader let it to Cheney to call the shots
So you're confirming my statement which you quoted:
A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.
You say Bush was a weak leader. That doesn't relate to my statement which specifies a strong leader.
You say Cheney was a strong leader who required that people under him go along with him or leave. That's the gist of my statement: a strong leader is unlikely to choose subordinates who'll go against him.
A poor leader can still be a good manager who chooses subordinates with strong leadership skills to move things in the right direction.
...
... and to move things in the wrong direction.
But, as "the people" did follow Cheney's direction,
they knew that ultimately Bush was still in charge.
And once Bush (and Cheney) left office,
Cheney's "leadership" went into the pits.
Had Cheney run for President, he would have failed
because "the people" recognized his direction was wrong.
A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates
ultimately are brought down by the followers.
.
... and to move things in the wrong direction. ...
That person would be a poor leader
AND a poor manager; or, a person whose beliefs don't coincide with yours. Either way, you shouldn't vote for them.
... A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates ultimately are brought down by the followers.
After what amount of damage is done, at what cost in money and lives? We're discussing selection criteria because an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.
So you're confirming my statement which you quoted:
Absolutely.
You say Bush was a weak leader. That doesn't relate to my statement which specifies a strong leader.
You say Cheney was a strong leader who required that people under him go along with him or leave. That's the gist of my statement: a strong leader is unlikely to choose subordinates who'll go against him.
Cheney is a good example of the quoted statement, your statement preceding that said a weak leader will hand off. Bush did that, unfortunately he handed off to a sociopath.
[COLOR="White"][/COLOR]Now you're mixing terms... "poor" vs "weak" "leader" vs "manager"
...at what cost in money and lives? ...
Ask Wayne LaPierre *
[COLOR="White"]* added just for L J's benefit[/COLOR]
Now you're mixing terms... "poor" vs "weak" "leader" vs "manager"
Not hardly. Either "poor" or "weak" can be used to describe an ineffective leader. One of the keys to being an effective subordinate leader is to have an effective leader over you. The affects of not having an effective leader at the top can be minimalized if that person is a good [or strong] manager.
While there is some overlap, the distinction between leadership and management has been established since Genghis Khan first wrote about it during his campaigns in the 13th century. The terms would only seem mixed to someone untrained in this area and that's why common core leadership training exists.
Ask Wayne LaPierre.
He's not running for President my faithful one trick pony.
The time has come," the Walrus said, “To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings--
But some may be surprised they are not speaking, or even being spoken to
Reince Priebus and Jeb Bush
[ATTACH]53959[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]53960[/ATTACH]
Exclusive: GOP campaigns plot revolt against RNC
Politico - Alex Isenstadt - 10/29/15
Republican presidential campaigns are planning to gather in Washington, D.C.,
on Sunday evening to plot how to alter their party’s messy debate process —
and how to remove power from the hands of the Republican National Committee.
Not invited to the meeting: Anyone from the RNC,
which many candidates have openly criticized in the hours
since Wednesday’s CNBC debate in Boulder, Colorado
— a chaotic, disorganized affair that was widely panned by political observers.
...
All the money in the world may not save Jeb Bush's campaign
LA Times - David Lauter, Seema Mehta and Noah Bierman - 10/29/15
The one-time front-runner in the Republican race,
Bush has suffered a steady eclipse for months, first at the hands of Donald Trump
and more recently from his fellow Floridian and one-time protege, Sen. Marco Rubio.
...
As for the Democrats, two debaters had such poor (silly) performances they have left the race.
One seems to think he can get more speaking minutes by becoming a 3rd-party candidate.
The other will try a another approach to converting the US over to the metric system.
[ATTACH]53964[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]53965[/ATTACH]
Lincoln Chafee drops out of Democratic primary race
CNN - Dan Merica and Tom LoBianco - 10/23/15
(CNN)Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid
for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he announced Friday.
"As you know, I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace,"
Chafee said at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington.
[QUOTE]"But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today.
I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
Chafee spent most of his life as a Republican.
He was nominated to his late father's Senate seat in 1999 and then
was elected as a Republican in 2000.
He served only one term, losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006,
but then successfully ran for governor of Rhode Island as an independent.[/QUOTE]
...
—
Jim Webb exits the Democratic presidential race, weighs run as independent
LA Times - Kurtis Lee - 10/20/15
Former Sen. Jim Webb’s long-shot quest for the Democratic presidential nomination ended Tuesday
much the same way it began: on a defiantly — some might say unreasonably — optimistic note.
Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration
before representing Virginia in the Senate for one term,
said that over the next several weeks, he would speak with leaders from both parties
and weigh a run as an independent.
His later comment probably did not help his image with the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party.
I fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible
with the power structure and the nominating base of the Democratic party
Anyone who sees any porn can tell you bush is out of fashion.
A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.
A strong leader without a grasp of the big picture (a strategic objective) is often a poor leader. Cited were two examples - Curtis LeMay and Richard Nixon.
One's only strategic objective was defined by his rhetoric (ie We are already at war with the USSR. The American public does not know it yet.). Another's strategic objectives were defined by what was important to him (ie his legacy) and not interests of the nation.
A strong leader must have a well defined 'big picture' that is based in fundamental facts. Not based in personal biases, political rhetoric, and emotions. A strong leader without abilities to view logically, honestly, and as a moderate will be a flawed leader.
Cited were two examples of strong leaders who were poor managers. Leadership is about the ability to motivate people to accomplish goals. Management is about the selection of goals. There is some overlap; but, not to the extent you imply. Goals that you disagree with can still have long term viability with effective leadership to maintain them. Just look at all of the countries that don't have our system of government; yet, have been around for a long, long time.
Within each given type of system there is a moral component to leadership in which the selection of goals needs to reflect the big picture rather than limited interests; or, self interest. That's necessary to prevent what Lamplighter mentioned earlier: "A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates ultimately are brought down by the followers." His characterization of leaders who don't get the big picture was more accurate than yours.
For those without formal leadership training it may help to think of it this way: in the military, from corporal to general, leadership training stays the same; but, management training varies widely and by the time generals get a second star they're considered to be more like politicians.
For those with formal leadership training, the terms are already defined and discussing it with those who don't know the jargon becomes a game in semantics. Similarly, saying "a grasp of the big picture (a strategic objective)" is not the way I would put it. I equate "the big picture" with a comprehensive understanding of the way things are now and "strategic objectives" with a person of vision. The terms are not synonymous for me.
OTOH, I understand the gist of what you're saying tw, even though others may have said it better, and I don't disagree.
The D's process is a farce.
The R's is messy, but far more open. Though the moderators at the CNBC debate were Godawful.
I was waiting for the "So when did you stop beating your wife?" question to come out.
For those with formal leadership training, the terms are already defined and discussing it with those who don't know the jargon becomes a game in semantics.
It's always semantics, because that's the only way to discover exactly what the other guy means. If you don't explore that, you may agree with something and later find they actually meant something different than what you thought.
You can understand more quickly someone who's had the same formal leadership training, which is an advantage to the military to have everyone understanding quickly and correctly. However someone with different formal leadership training may not attach the same nuances, or indeed meaning as you, to the same terms.
Well, we can make military service compulsory so everyone speaks governmentese; or, have hackers doing time develop jargon translation software instead of making license plates. :D
It really hasn't been semantics so much as the lack of a working knowledge of the fundamentals which don't change with venue.
I just watched a video on TV that was posted on FB by Huffington Press.
It was of Chris Christie speaking for about 5 minutes to a small group of people,
about being "pro-life" for all of life, not just the 9 months of pregnancy.
I was very touched.
I hope someone will post that video here so others can see it too...
.
Just remember you were touched by a politician. :haha:
And a politician on the campaign trail. Even if he truly believes it, what about the guy on the other end of the leash, the one with the keys to the war chest?
I may sound skeptical, I may even sound bitter, but that's only because I am.
Why am I skeptical, you ask? Yes you did. Well, you were going to.
1974, Dick Nixon at the Naval Academy...
He declared that his policy of “détente precluded interference by the United States in the domestic affairs of other nations.” “We cannot gear our foreign policy to the transformation of other societies,” he said. “In the nuclear age, our first responsibility must be the prevention of a war that could destroy all societies.”
Nope, no transformation. Did you hear that Cambodia? :eyebrow:
[youtube]LrynbOL3cgA[/youtube]
Thanks, Griff.
I didn't realize what I was saw was just a replay of a Christie stump speech.
I guess I should have known. :right:
In any case, his speech reflected my distaste of "pro-life" advocates
who seem concerned only about the 9-months of prior to birth,
and then afterwards ... not so much.
What I saw were two short videos, the first was almost a replica of this stump speech.
The second was a much more personal account of a friend of Christie
who became hooked on Rx pain pills after a jogging incident.
It was this segment that touched me, because Christie seemed to be genuinely promoting
lifelong "pro-life" support for treatment of mental mental illness, drug addiction, and rehabilitation, etc.
So I'll cynically add:
Maybe this theme will spread to others in the GOP :rolleyes:
Isn't it remarkable how so often politicians are strong political conservatives,
until something happens within their own circle of family or friends.
...and then they suddenly change their political position on that particular issue.
.
Interesting that the moment we noticed Christie actually being reflective he gets demoted to the Lilliputian debate.
Although Ben Carson says that 4 of the Founding Fathers of the US Constituion were physicans,
so he would appoint more physicians to the top levels of all government agencies.
And even tho he has not yet said he could see Russia from his front door,
there are disquieting rumblings among his campaign's foreign policy handlers...
Ben Carson Is Struggling to Grasp Foreign Policy, Advisers Say
NY Times - TRIP GABRIEL -NOV. 17, 2015
Ben Carson’s remarks on foreign policy have repeatedly raised questions
about his grasp of the subject, but never more seriously than in the past week,
when he wrongly asserted that China had intervened militarily in Syria and then failed,
on national television, to name the countries he would call on to form a coalition to fight the Islamic State.
...
“Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about
the Middle East,” said Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security.
He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy
so “we can make him smart.”
…
[youtube]3uH2PyZAx-0[/youtube] Hillary does Family Guy.
Trump would 'certainly implement' national database for U.S. Muslims
CNN Jeremy Diamond, CNN - Nov 20. 2015
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Thursday called for the creation
of a national database to register all Muslims living in the U.S. to protect the country against terrorism.
...
Ben Carson: 'We should have a database on everybody
CNN - Cassie Spodak and Jedd Rosche, CNN 11.20/2015
"I think we should have a database on everyone who comes into this country,"
the retired neurosurgeon told reporters from the New Hampshire statehouse Friday,
adding later, "Hopefully, we already have a database on every citizen who is already here.
If not, we are doing a very poor job."
...
Yes, I know. I have cherry picked from these articles.
.
The obvious solution is to make sure all Muslims are firearms owners with concealed carry permits in case registration is a prelude to rounding them up and putting them into detention camps.
Nawwww, that could never happen in this country; or, could it?