Main Menu

The occasional open thread: alarming edition!

Maybe I should set an alarm to remind me to create new open threads.

Put your Obama conspiracy comments, alarming or otherwise, that don’t relate to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

91 Responses to The occasional open thread: alarming edition!

  1. avatar
    Keith August 14, 2016 at 3:20 am #

    The open thread is closed, so this seems like the most likely place to put this notice.

    I have written an open letter to Donald Trump and his campaign, and his followers.

  2. avatar
    Dave B. August 15, 2016 at 3:24 pm #

    In other dog-bites man news, Joseph Farah comes up with novel conspiracy, demonstrates ignorance of Constitution:

    http://wonkette.com/605532/wnd-publisher-just-asking-will-obama-indict-hillary-to-stay-in-office-forever-yes-obviously

  3. avatar
    Dave B. August 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm #

    We’ve been getting a lot of poll calls lately, so I decided I’d have a little bit of fun with them, and I recommend doing the same to anyone else who gets these calls– when they ask my opinion of Donald Trump, I wait to see if there’s an option for “Don’t know who Donald Trump is” and push the button for that one. Never fails to deliver the tiniest little warm glow.

  4. avatar
    Keith August 16, 2016 at 6:35 am #

    Some guy named Evan McMullin just announced that he got on the Utah Presidential Ballot.

    When can we expect CRJ’s announcement, I wonder? I would have thought that Utah would have been the natural, most obvious, place to start his bandwagon rolling.

    (not).

  5. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 6:53 am #

    Keith:
    Some guy named Evan McMullin just announced that he got on the Utah Presidential Ballot.

    When can we expect CRJ’s announcement, I wonder? I would have thought that Utah would have been the natural, most obvious, place to start his bandwagon rolling.

    (not).

    He’s also on in Colorado.

    McMullin is actually a fairly serious guy, former CIA and worked for the House Republicans. He’s running as a Republican alternative to Drumpf. Colorado is already deep blue, so it won’t matter there, but it could swing Utah for the Dems.

  6. avatar
    Reality Check August 16, 2016 at 9:25 am #

    I think McMullin’s primary goal in running is to prevent Trump from winning Utah and winning overall of course. However, depriving Trump of Utah is something Mitt Romney wants very badly. McMullin is a means to that end. McMullin also happens to be a pretty impressive guy who should be taken seriously down the road.

    Scientist: He’s running as a Republican alternative to Drumpf. Colorado is already deep blue, so it won’t matter there, but it could swing Utah for the Dems.

  7. avatar
    Thrifty August 16, 2016 at 10:51 am #

    Utah going blue, even if just for 1 election, would be mind blowing.

  8. avatar
    Dave B. August 16, 2016 at 11:41 am #

    If enough people get him mixed up with that doggone cat, he might have a chance.

    Scientist: McMullin is actually a fairly serious guy, former CIA and worked for the House Republicans. He’s running as a Republican alternative to Drumpf. Colorado is already deep blue, so it won’t matter there, but it could swing Utah for the Dems.

  9. avatar
    Thrifty August 16, 2016 at 11:54 am #

    What is the hulabaloo with the Benghazi thing and Hillary Clinton? I’m having trouble finding decently non-partisan information on it. I know that Benghazi is a city in Libya, that it’s embassy was attacked about 4 years ago, and that the ambassador to Libya died. But I can’t figure out what Clinton has to do with it or why people get so angry at her over this.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

    FIrst a correction. It wasn’t an embassy. It was an American diplomatic compound.

    There were two areas I know of that critics go ape dip over.

    First, there is the false claim that the US restricted the military from going to the rescue. There was simply not time for any response.

    The second is that Clinton (or somebody) said that the attack was inflamed by a YouTube video, when it wasn’t.

    To my knowledge that’s the whole substance beyond the fact that the compound didn’t have adequate security to repel the attack. Congress failed to fund security for US facilities abroad, so they bear considerable blame.

    For more than you probably want to know on the subject, there is a Wikipedia article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

    and

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

    Thrifty:
    What is the hulabaloo with the Benghazi thing and Hillary Clinton?I’m having trouble finding decently non-partisan information on it.I know that Benghazi is a city in Libya, that it’s embassy was attacked about 4 years ago, and that the ambassador to Libya died.But I can’t figure out what Clinton has to do with it or why people get so angry at her over this.

  11. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2016 at 12:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The second is that Clinton (or somebody) said that the attack was inflamed by a YouTube video, when it wasn’t.

    Clinton never said it, at least not publicly. She initially said that “some people are saying” that the video provoked the attack, which was true, but within a few days she was convinced that the video had little to do with it. The original source who blamed the attack on the video was a Libyan official.

    Family members (Trump supporters) of two of the victims claim that when they met with Clinton she blamed the attacks on the video. Clinton denies this, and the families of the other victims say that she never mentioned the video. So it’s a “they said, she said” argument which is never going to be resolved. I find it unlikely that she would tell different families different things.

  12. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. August 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

    Its been a while. I figure that since we’ve entered the final stretch, there’s no harm in poking around the old stomping grounds again.

    I surveyed the usual sites. I noticed that Herr Smith’s blog has been completely taken over by Bruce, and is now wholly about suckling Adolph Trump’s bottom. Orly’s blog has become a run-of-the-mill right wing propaganda outhouse, and BR is seldom updated and visited primarily by chat bots. At least I think they’re chat bots. Almost all of the posts just seem to be copy/pasted repeats. Sometimes several in the same comment section. Fitting, as there is nothing new to saw on that front.

    It seems the only “live” birthers left are the few that still come here, to hopelessly argue against fact and reason.

  13. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 16, 2016 at 3:42 pm #

    Rickey: Clinton never said it, at least not publicly. She initially said that “some people are saying” that the video provoked the attack, which was true, but within a few days she was convinced that the video had little to do with it. The original source who blamed the attack on the video was a Libyan official.

    —-

    This was further complicated by the fact there was a secret CIA facility there. Clinton and Obama were in the unenviable position of having to answer questions publicly without leaking info about the CIA facility there. It’s general knowledge now, but initially–when the Benghazi events were still in play and in crisis–it was a secret, for months.

    And, indeed, after I first became cognizant of the “secret” CIA facility, I distinctly noticed how much Republicans were outrageously demanding answers to questions they knew the President could not properly answer. At the time, I thought they were trying to trick/force Obama into improperly leaking the info–so they could then accuse Obama of leaking secret info. Well, Obama and Clinton handled it best they could and didn’t leak anything. It was painful to watch — Obama kept his cool, while his opponents taunted him with unanswerable questions. And it seemed pretty treasonous to me, which is why I will never forget it or forgive it.

    I first became cognizant of the CIA facility because Rep. Jason Chaffetz did something stupid during one of the earliest public hearings. I was watching CSPAN and Chaffetz was questioning a state department employee. The state department employee showed a picture of the Benghazi neighborhood, so we could see the town and point to the general area where the Ambassador had been attacked. The picture looked pretty innocuous to me–just looked like a town neighborhood of buildings and streets–until Chaffetz jumped up and had a fit. He accused the testifying employee of wrongfully showing a secret photo during a public hearing. And he kept hammering her about it, while she nervously crafted proper answers that it is just a photo of the town… Anyhow, Chaffetz made it obvious to the casual observer that something top secret must have been going on in Benghazi, somewhere in that photo.

    Since then, I’ve wondered why the CIA couldn’t defend it’s own compound and the visiting Ambassador.

    Well, to this day, they are still at it, poking at the things Clinton purportedly said in the fog of war and while she was bound to not disclose information about the presence/involvement of CIA.

    As for the video — that video WAS a big deal. It had triggered–simultaneously–violent protests at/on embassies throughout the Muslim world so everyone thought the violence at Benghazi likewise was triggered that way. I guess the CIA in Benghazi knew more about the attack there, but Obama, Clinton, Susan Rice et al were not allowed to tell us about that.

  14. avatar
    Thrifty August 16, 2016 at 3:52 pm #

    I remember that video, vaguely. If Clinton had said that the uproar over the video led to the Benghazi attack, even as an intentional lie, I can’t see what the problem would be. Lying about the motivation behind the attack wouldn’t have made it any more or less deadly…. At worst it seems like it would have been the sin of lying, especially with no reason.

  15. avatar
    Arthur B. August 16, 2016 at 4:08 pm #

    Thrifty: If Clinton had said that the uproar over the video led to the Benghazi attack, even as an intentional lie, I can’t see what the problem would be.

    The Republicans struggled with this issue too. What they finally came up with was the convoluted notion that an actual premeditated terrorist attack would have revealed that the administration’s efforts against ISIS were failing, an impression that team Obama wanted to avoid because of the upcoming election, so they chose to put themselves in a better political light by attributing the attack to the video.

    That always struck me as a terribly weak argument, and I’ve been surprised to see how much traction it’s gained. In the first place, multiple motivations may have been at play; and, in the second, I don’t buy the claim that the public relations effect of one explanation would have been significantly more or less damaging than the other.

  16. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 16, 2016 at 4:33 pm #

    Thrifty: I can’t see what the problem would be.

    —-

    I think the bottom line is that the Republicans anticipated Clinton running for President, and took the incident as a vehicle for making accusations and innuendos against her. The fact there was no substance to any of it was besides the point.

  17. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 5:01 pm #

    Arthur B.: What they finally came up with was the convoluted notion that an actual premeditated terrorist attack would have revealed that the administration’s efforts against ISIS were failing, an impression that team Obama wanted to avoid because of the upcoming election, so they chose to put themselves in a better political light by attributing the attack to the video.

    A small point-ISIS had not emerged yet in 2012. The attack involved various groups, possibly linked to Al Qaeda, but not ISIS.

  18. avatar
    Arthur B. August 16, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

    Scientist: A small point-ISIS had not emerged yet in 2012.The attack involved various groups, possibly linked to Al Qaeda, but not ISIS.

    Ah, yes. Thanks for the correction.

  19. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 16, 2016 at 6:07 pm #

    Thrifty: I remember that video, vaguely.

    I think it’s worth the time to recall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

    The guy who made/released the video told the world that he was an Israeli and that the video was financed by 100 Jews. (He wasn’t and It wasn’t) Actually, he was an Egyptian Coptic-Christian living in the US who was on parole for federal bank fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula I still wonder who he was working for and why nobody seems to care.

    Anyhow, predictably, American and Israeli embassies/consulates were rioted against in numerous countries that day, Christians in Egypt were attacked/killed, and the attack on Benghazi was happening at the same time. I figure the State Dept must have been pretty busy that day.

  20. avatar
    charo August 16, 2016 at 6:44 pm #

    Wiki is not the best source for confirmation of facts. Here is only one of many more reputable sources: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fact-checking-clinton-critics-benghazi-emails/ Nowhere here is that Congress refused to fund security.
    More information:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/video-clinton-and-benghazi/

  21. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm #

    Thrifty: If Clinton had said that the uproar over the video led to the Benghazi attack, even as an intentional lie, I can’t see what the problem would be.

    —-

    The other thing to keep in mind–the video and riots became a political talking point–Romney et al emphasizing that Americans value free speech (including blasphemous incendiary videos) so it was wrong to blame the video’s release for rioting, and Clinton issuing statements to Muslim nations saying all parties must demonstrate more mutual respect for each other. The Republicans criticized her statements as disregarding free speech and an act of appeasement. You know, the usual.

  22. avatar
    Crustacean August 16, 2016 at 7:48 pm #

    “Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration’s target.”

    By “a little closer” they mean $270 million less than the Obama administration had requested. But even if they had approved that extra $270 M, how much of a difference it would’ve made in Benghazi is anyone’s guess. Would it have changed the decision on (regional security officer) Eric Nordstrom’s request for additional agents? Would those extra agents have been able to prevent the loss of life? I guess when finger pointing is the order of the day, there’s no point in considering such questions.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/

    charo: Nowhere here is that Congress refused to fund security.
    More information:

  23. avatar
    Keith August 16, 2016 at 9:25 pm #

    I quote from an article at ZSoft: Trump’s Benghazi Lie — You have no idea how wrong

    The book, “13 Hours: What Really Happened in Benghazi,“ now a “major motion picture” and DVD, has gone viral with Trump’s base. Trump hired the two CIA-agent heroes of 13 Hours for his main act on Day-1 of his convention. You might think the book involves Rambo-style heroes fighting off evil attackers despite a spineless government official who tries to hold them back. You’d be right on target.

    You might think that spineless official was Hillary Clinton—especially when CIA agent Geist, standing on Trump’s stage, wraps up their performance with this:

    The Trump Lie: “Had she done her job that night, [dramatic pause] had she done her job that night, … Ty, Glen, Sean, and Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.” — Spoken by Geist

    You would be dead wrong.

    A Clinton supporter asked me how to answer the charge that “Clinton lied; People died,” a popular right-wing meme. I had no idea, but perhaps like you, I was worried.

    So I read a few news articles. They spoke vaguely of a “stand-down” order. So I started reading the 850-page Republican Benghazi report. That made two things clear, (1) there was an order to delay the rescue, and (2) it was given by a CIA “base chief.” Not by Clinton.

    The spineless official of “13 Hours” was CIA Bob

    Mystified, I decided I had better read the book. What I found shocked me. The book is quite honest, and this is its story:

    * The “Quick Reaction Force” and its CIA agents were charged with protecting Ambassador Stevens in an emergency.
    * They were kept on a CIA base (the Annex) less than a mile away.
    * When the State Dept Mission was attacked, they were ready to go within seven minutes.
    * CIA base-chief “Bob” ordered them to wait, and wait … and wait.
    * After waiting 25 minutes, the CIA Force cursed him and left.
    * By then, Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were dead.

    Whether “CIA Bob” was justified in delaying in order to preserve the secrecy of his mission is for others to decide. But I would have thought that when your mission is to protect the diplomatic compound, it becomes a bit self-defeatist to muddle about with games to say that ‘our mission to protect the diplomats is so secret that we cannot risk blowing our cover to protect the diplomats’.

    Note that the CIA is NOT part of the State Department. Clinton was NOT in charge of the CIA – BUT the CIA was in charge of protecting Clinton’s employees.

    This whole Republican Benghazi foo-fa-raw is, in my opinion, yet another example, and an extreme example at that, of blaming the victim.

    One can assume that in a Trump administration, “CIA Bob” will be promoted to Director of the CIA to reward his great work in Libya.

  24. avatar
    justlw August 16, 2016 at 10:32 pm #

    charo: Wiki is not the best source for confirmation of facts.

    Presumably you mean Wikipedia. I would argue that it really is one of the best that anyone has immediate access to.

    The proper way to use Wikipedia is to note and explore the sources used for the article in question — and one of the key precepts of Wikipedia is that everything presented as fact in every article should be backed by reliable secondary sources.

    (This is not to say that every portion of every WP article is backed by reliable secondary sources, but that’s the intent, and anything not so referenced is subject to removal. Generally speaking, Wikipedia can be quite the research treasure trove; much moreso than, say, just Googling about.)

    In the case of the two articles Doc links to, one has 258 (!) secondary sources, the other a mere 49.

    charo: Nowhere [in the PBS report] is that Congress refused to fund security.

    The fact that “one of many more reputable sources” does not mention one aspect of the story is not exactly proof that that aspect does not exist.

  25. avatar
    Rickey August 17, 2016 at 12:03 am #

    charo:
    Wiki is not the best source for confirmation of facts. Here is only one of many more reputable sources: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fact-checking-clinton-critics-benghazi-emails/ Nowhere here is that Congress refused to fund security.
    Moreinformation:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/video-clinton-and-benghazi/

    The Republican-controlled House of Representatives cut Obama’s request for embassy security funding by $330 million for fiscal year 2012. The Senate reinstated some of the cuts, but the final bill cut embassy security funding by $270 million.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/

  26. avatar
    Lupin August 17, 2016 at 7:49 am #

    I understand Drumpf suggested that the terror attacks in France and Germany were our “own fault” because we’ve been “totally compromised by terrorism” because we’ve “allowed people in” — notwithstanding the facts that the terrorists in question were converted homegrown citizens.

    He also said that citizens of the countries could now be subject to “extreme vetting” entering the United States. I assume bearded / well-tanned people with funny names need not apply for a visa?

    I fantasize about banning all US citizens who will vote for Trump from entering France (and Germany) but it does seem impractical.

    The actual casualty is the image of the US whose elections now look increasingly like a farcical third-world banana republic Borat-type show that we would all laugh at, if the stakes weren’t so terrifying.

  27. avatar
    Arthur B. August 17, 2016 at 11:08 am #

    This morning’s big story is on the latest revamp of the Trump campaign, with Breitbart’s Steve Bannon taking over under what is reported to be a full-blown return to the “let-Trump-be-Trump” mentality.

    My question: What about the family? Ivanka and Jared are (or at least recently were) partying on a yacht in Europe. But they were reputed to be running the campaign — and pressing hard for the “presidential pivot.”

    What’s the back story here?

  28. avatar
    Scientist August 17, 2016 at 12:02 pm #

    Arthur B.: What’s the back story here?

    IMO, the Ukranian leak has exposed Manafort as Putin’s stooge (though most people already knew that) so he had to be placed in a less visible position. It’s not like career political professionals are lining up to work for the train wreck otherwise known as the Trump campaign, so they take whom they can get.

  29. avatar
    Reality Check August 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm #

    It’s hard to tell since you can’t believe a word coming out of the Trump campaign. I think there is a complete meltdown under way. Trump is probably apoplectic at the state of the race. Trump’s response always seems to be to go more crazy when things aren’t working.

    Arthur B.: What’s the back story here?

  30. avatar
    RanTalbott August 18, 2016 at 2:22 am #

    Lupin: I fantasize about banning all US citizens who will vote for Trump from entering France (and Germany) but it does seem impractical.

    Also unnecessary: no Trump voter (except for the “only because Hitlery is worse” ones) would even consider going to either country because they read on Breitbart that your resident Muslims have turned them into violent hellholes. 😉

  31. avatar
    RanTalbott August 18, 2016 at 5:24 am #

    Scientist: IMO, the Ukranian leak has exposed Manafort as Putin’s stooge

    Maddow had the WSJ reporter who broke the story on as a guest. She actually talked with Trump,. and he explained that he thinks he’s sinking because Manafort, et al, are trying to get him to act like a responsible adult instead of a loony buffoon (not his exact words, of course 🙂 ). So he wants to go back to doing it his way.

    Rachel also did a little digging and discovered that a few of Trump’s stranger actions seem to correlate with stories from Breitbart. E.g., his dissing of McCain, which most thought was beyond “beyond the pale”, seemed to be encouraged by a Breitbart series of rants. And his shout-out to Paul Ryan’s primary opponent coincided with a series of girl-gives-birth-to-alien-grade stories about Ryan’s imminent political death.

    It’s beginning to look like I might have been wrong about Trump cynically exploiting the looniness of his followers, and he might actually be a loon, himself.

    Giving Bannon a prominent role in his campaign could be a clue that we’re about to get a show even wilder than Gallups and Zullo.

  32. avatar
    Lupin August 18, 2016 at 7:09 am #

    Trump’s doom will not be caused by the fact that he is a racist or a xenophobe or a misogynist, but by the simple fact that he is know-nothing idiot, like the rest of the bithers.

    If he had 1/4 of the intelligence of, say, a Mussolini, the world would tremble.

    In a way its kind of sad.

  33. avatar
    Lupin August 18, 2016 at 7:15 am #

    RanTalbott: Also unnecessary: no Trump voter (except for the “only because Hitlery is worse” ones) would even consider going to either country because they read on Breitbart that your resident Muslims have turned them into violent hellholes.

    Good point! Maybe the French Tourist Board should use selected clips from this in its ads:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNyL1W9z6PA

  34. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 7:24 am #

    RanTalbott: Giving Bannon a prominent role in his campaign could be a clue that we’re about to get a show even wilder than Gallups and Zullo.

    Since this is a conspiracy site, I have to raise the question: “How would a candidate deliberately trying to lose act?”

  35. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 9:59 am #

    Lupin:
    Trump’s doom will not be caused by the fact that he is a racist or a xenophobe or a misogynist, but by the simple fact that he is know-nothing idiot, like the rest of the bithers.

    If he had 1/4 of the intelligence of, say, a Mussolini, the world would tremble.

    In a way its kind of sad.

    Alright Lupin, as you know I lived in France in the 1990s. I semi keep up with things there, reading Le Monde and Liberation on-line from time to time.

    How different is Trump from Le Pen? I would say from Le Pen, pere, not much at all. Marine has learned to disguise it better, but is she really different at bottom? I’m not so sure. And the latest polls have her at 29%, the top vote-getter in the 1st round. Would she win the second round? Probably not, but Trump probably won’t win the general election in the US either. I suspect their share of the vote won’t be all that different.

    And Trump and Le Pen voters are very similar, too, I would say. Working class, less educated. In France, many were Communists 30 years ago. So, I’m not sure the phenomenon is unique to the US. It’s there in most countries-Austria almost elected a far-rightist and may do so on the re-vote. The Hungarian guy is a fascist, the UK voted for Brexit, Poland is pretty bad. Only Canada seems to lack an anti-immigrant party (even the Conservatives there are very pro-immigrant), but who knows what the future holds.

  36. avatar
    Lupin August 18, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

    Scientist: Alright Lupin, as you know I lived in France in the 1990s.I semi keep up with things there, reading Le Monde and Liberation on-line from time to time.

    How different is Trump from Le Pen? I would say from Le Pen, pere, not much at all.Marine has learned to disguise it better, but is she really different at bottom?I’m not so sure.And the latest polls have her at 29%, the top vote-getter in the 1st round.Would she win the second round? Probably not, but Trump probably won’twin the general election in the US either.I suspect their share of the vote won’t be all that different.

    And Trump and Le Pen voters are very similar, too, I would say.Working class, less educated.In France, many were Communists 30 years ago. So, I’m not sure the phenomenon is unique to the US.It’s there in most countries-Austria almost elected a far-rightist and may do so on the re-vote.The Hungarian guy is a fascist, the UK voted for Brexit, Poland is pretty bad.Only Canada seems to lack an anti-immigrant party (even the Conservatives there are very pro-immigrant), but who knows what the future holds.

    I don’t wish to find myself in the untenable position of having to defend the Front National, but if you have basic French, please peruse their program:

    http://www.frontnational.com/pdf/projet_mlp2012.pdf

    Yes,it is chauvinistic & nationalistic and racist, and frankly unconstitutional and unrealistic as well, but there is a reason why all the Communist old guard — as you rightly pointed out — flocked to their banner: it is, for lack of a better word, socialist.

    Remove all the turds from it and you’ll be left with something that Bernie Sander might endorse — nearly free healthcare for all, increase in social/public spending, etc, etc.

    Unlike the US and the UK, where the masses voted for a caste of millionaire-funded demagogues who are bleeding them dry through various austerity policies (at least with Trump you skip the middleman) in France our proto-fascists want the working class to do well — or at least pretend to.

    Finally I would also argue that while many of the FN’s projects are indeed utterly preposterous, when it comes to stupidity, none equal the idea of building a wall on your southern border or extreme vetting visitors based on religion.

  37. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

    Lupin: Remove all the turds from it and you’ll be left with something that Bernie Sander might endorse — nearly free healthcare for all, increase in social/public spending, etc, etc.

    Of course France already has nearly free healthcare for all and a very high level of social spending. It’s easier to talk about preserving what’s already in place than to put something new in. As for Trump’s economic policies, if you can figure out what they are and what their effect would be, you are a better man than I.

    What they have in common (and Bernie too) is being anti-trade, which I consider a very, very bad idea, no matter who pushes it. I would love to see the look on Trump voters faces if you explained to them that a 40% tariff wouldn’t mean more jobs here-it would mean everything at Walmart would cost 40% more.

  38. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. August 18, 2016 at 5:26 pm #

    So, I dunno if you guys have been following the news about the flooding in Lousiana. Some really scary stuff, but birther, and general scummy excuse for a human being, Tony Perkins, is now homeless due to those same floods. The ones he’s been chalking up as God’s judgement “because of teh gays!”. I mean, that’s what he called it, when it was happening to other people’s homes. Its something wholly different now that its happened to him apparently.

    Maybe if he prays really hard, High Chancellor Trump will wave his orange hand and the flood waters will recede from his property.

  39. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 5:31 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: Tony Perkins, is now homeless due to those same floods

    After what he did in “Psycho” I don’t have much sympathy.

  40. avatar
    Lupin August 19, 2016 at 4:34 am #

    Scientist: Of course France already has nearly free healthcare for all and a very high level of social spending.It’s easier to talk about preserving what’s already in place than to put something new in.As for Trump’s economic policies, if you can figure out what they are and what their effect would be, you are a better man than I.

    Point taken! 🙂

    Scientist: What they have in common (and Bernie too) is being anti-trade, which I consider a very, very bad idea, no matter who pushes it.I would love to see the look on Trump voters faces if you explained to them that a 40% tariff wouldn’t mean more jobs here-it would mean everything at Walmart would cost 40% more.

    I’m of a divided mind myself on the issue: like you I’m against tariffs and protectionism in general; that said I hate to see the US use those treaties to push its rules or no-rules (Monsanto, GM foods, health inspections, labeling etc.) on local folks who don’t want it.

  41. avatar
    RanTalbott August 19, 2016 at 9:02 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: Tony Perkins, is now homeless due to those same floods.

    Did his wife get turned into a pillar of salt as they were evacuating?

  42. avatar
    RanTalbott August 19, 2016 at 9:34 am #

    Scientist: “How would a candidate deliberately trying to lose act?”

    Well, there are a million ways to die in the quest 😉

    You could stake out some positions that are not completely nuts, but just far enough outside the “Overton Window” that people would dismiss you as ahead of/behind the times. Like Huckabee (too much mixing of church and state) or Sanders (a bit more socialism than the mainstream wants). Since there are sincere people who act that way, you can force a loss without looking loony.

    Or you can go Full Metal Wacko, like Cain’s “9-9-9” tax plan. That gets you out quickly, so you don’t have to do a lot of campaigning to lose primaries.

    I think Trump may have been trying for the Cain approach, doing the campaign as a lark to get some ego strokes, and been surprised by the size of the response he got.

    But Scott Adams has been theorizing for a while that Trump has a Fiendishly Clever Plan™, and that what we see as gaffes are actually ways to manipulate people into supporting him. Trump says and does things that shock many/most of us consciously, but leave favorable subconscious impressions with a lot of voters. At first glance, it looks scarily credible. But it’s hard to tell without more examination that I’ve done whether it’s pseudoscience.

  43. avatar
    Reality Check August 19, 2016 at 10:45 am #

    So much for the Trump campaign meme that they aren’t replacing they were just adding to the team at the top. That lasted all of two days. Paul Manafort is out.

  44. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    Scientist: I would love to see the look on Trump voters faces if you explained to them that a 40% tariff wouldn’t mean more jobs here-it would mean everything at Walmart would cost 40% more.

    It would actually probably mean less jobs here. Because the first thing that happens when we pass a 40% tariff, is the world will pass a 40% tariff against us. So, our exports will cost 40% more on the world market, which will mean that they’ll buy less, which means less jobs here as well.

  45. avatar
    Reality Check August 19, 2016 at 2:09 pm #

    Protectionism and high tariffs were all the rage with the Republican party in the US in the 1920s. The final outcome was rather tragic. We never seem to learn from history.

  46. avatar
    Reality Check August 19, 2016 at 2:37 pm #

    I see Racist Rambo is still at it at BR and the other nuts like Nancy and James Smith have settled in comfortably there. Is BR on another round the world jaunt with a stop in Kenya? Will he be back with the goods on Obama in time to get him out of office and take us back to those wonderful days of 2008 with the economy in collapse and the market tanking?

    I wonder what all the folks at BR have to say about Trump hiring a foreign agent for Russia as his campaign manager? He would still be running things if the press hadn’t done it’s job. Oh that’s tight it’s crickets about that at BR isn’t it? It’s sad that those morons call a patriot and great President a traitor while supporting someone who values Russian interests over the US, is a pathological liar and completely immoral piece of human filth. That’s because most of them really don’t love America at all. They love a fictitious country that doesn’t exist that they want to replace the one we really have by force if necessary.

  47. avatar
    Dave B. August 19, 2016 at 3:04 pm #

    Everything old is new again over at Breitbart–

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/18/hillary-clinton-original-birther-accuses-breitbart-birtherism/

    Never mind how much birther Breitbart got all over themselves, and is still wallowing in, they insist they had nothing to do with it, because it’s all about Hillary– who in the real world, of course, never raised any birther issue, ever.

  48. avatar
    Dave B. August 19, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

    “The reality is Trump is clearly a racist,” he (Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak) says. “And this was the first sign. Obama being born in Kenya would have required a massive coverup. It was never plausible. But the media networks covered it breathlessly. Republicans had a chance to do the right thing and many passed. Many Republicans didn’t want to offend their base, which despised Obama for taking the country far left. But the base was wrong.””

    https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/gop-strategist-republicans-failed-morally-when-they-didnt-shun-racist-trump-after-birther-fight/comments/

  49. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2016 at 12:26 am #

    Reality Check:
    Protectionism and high tariffs were all the rage with the Republican party in the US in the 1920s. The final outcome was rather tragic. We never seem to learn from history.

    The irony is that the economists revered by conservatives during most of the 20th Century (Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt) were free trade proponents who loathed tariffs.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2016 at 10:46 pm #

    James Smith at Birther Report has an interesting theory of presidential eligibility: the president’s parents must be natural born citizens. Of course if a natural born citizen must have natural born citizen parents, then exactly where does the FIRST natural born citizen come from? Here’s what he said:

    Mr. Donald Trumpf’s father isn’t a natural born American citizen prima facie proving Mr. usurper Donald Trump is 100% NOT eligible to be president of the United States of America and never will be. In 1885, at age 16, Trump emigrated from Bremen, Germany, to the United States aboard the steamship Eider, departing on October 7[4]:32 and arriving at the Castle Garden Emigrant Landing Depot in New York City on October 19. U.S. immigration records list his name as “Friedrich Trumpf”, last place of residence as “Kallstadt”, country of birth as “Germany”, and his occupation as “farmer”.

  51. avatar
    justlw August 21, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In 1885, at age 16, Trump emigrated from Bremen, Germany, to the United States

    Of course, not only is the theory loony, I mean interesting, he’s also got his facts wrong. That’s Donald’s grandfather he’s referring to, not his father. (Who, judging from the photo in the article, turns out to actually be Will Forte — yet another sekrit celebrity vampire.)

    Then again, since it’s natural-born turtles all the way down, I guess this is still proof that if elected, Trump would be the first president evarr to have direct ancestors who were not born in the US. Or something.

  52. avatar
    RanTalbott August 22, 2016 at 9:00 am #

    Rickey: The original source who blamed the attack on the video was a Libyan official.

    I’m wondering if you have a source for that, because it might explain a mystery.

    Back in October 2012, the GOP got all excited about what they thought was a “smoking gun”: a leaked email saying that Embassy Tripoli had reported Ansar al Sharia had claimed credit online for the attack. That was the start of the “Hillary lied” smear campaign.

    But, the very next day, some jihadi-watchers confirmed that AAS hadn’t posted or tweeted at all that day. Also, there were newspaper accounts from reporters on the scene at the time of the attack that the attackers had told them they were there about the video. Assuming that the intel folks also checked the AAS social media and read the newspapers (and the reference to “open source” intel in the talking points memos suggests that they did), it was known on 9/12 that it was about the video.

    I’ve been blaming the embassy staff (especially Gowdy’s pet “whistleblower”, Greg Hicks) for screwing that up for almost 4 years, so it’s important to me to know whether they were also just repeating an incorrect report like Clinton was in the infamous “she knew” email to her daughter.

    Rickey: Family members (Trump supporters) of two of the victims claim that when they met with Clinton she blamed the attacks on the video. Clinton denies this

    Clinton actually mentioned the video publicly, too. I think what she’s disputing is the claim that she told them she’d nail the video maker, but the claims back and forth are always vague in the reports I’ve read.

  53. avatar
    RanTalbott August 22, 2016 at 9:20 am #

    J.D. Sue: Since then, I’ve wondered why the CIA couldn’t defend it’s own compound and the visiting Ambassador.

    They didn’t anticipate the strength of the attack. Previous attacks on our diplomatic outposts had generally been committed by groups of about 5 to maybe 15 or 20. The security staff at the mission could have handled a smaller group on their own, and probably held off the 15-20 long enough for help to arrive.

    But abu Khatalla had pulled together somewhere around 150-200. There was no chance of even slowing them down much, much less stopping them.

  54. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2016 at 10:44 am #

    RanTalbott: I’m wondering if you have a source for that, because it might explain a mystery.

    Back in October 2012, the GOP got all excited about what they thought was a “smoking gun”: a leaked email saying that Embassy Tripoli had reported Ansar al Sharia had claimed credit online for the attack. That was the start of the “Hillary lied” smear campaign.

    But, the very next day, some jihadi-watchers confirmed that AAS hadn’t posted or tweeted at all that day. Also, there were newspaper accounts from reporters on the scene at the time of the attack that the attackers had told them they were there about the video. Assuming that the intel folks also checked the AAS social media and read the newspapers (and the reference to “open source” intel in the talking points memos suggests that they did), it was known on 9/12 that it was about the video.

    I’ve been blaming the embassy staff (especially Gowdy’s pet “whistleblower”, Greg Hicks) for screwing that up for almost 4 years, so it’s important to me to know whether they were also just repeating an incorrect report like Clinton was in the infamous “she knew” email to her daughter.

    Clinton actually mentioned the video publicly, too. I think what she’s disputing is the claim that she told them she’d nail the video maker, but the claims back and forth are always vague in the reports I’ve read.

    Here is the link to the AP story dated 9/11/12 which reports that Wanis al-Sharef, an interior ministry official in Benghazi, said that the attack may have been a protest against the video.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/libyans-angry-over-film-set-fire-us-consulate-211724778.html?ref=gs

    To my knowledge, he was the first person to suggest that the attack was a response to the video.

  55. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

    In other conspiracy news, Roger Stone is claiming that Chelsea Clinton has had four plastic surgeries in an effort to cover up that her real father is Webster Hubbell.

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/22/trump-ally-roger-stone-chelsea-clinton-got-four-plastic-surgeries-hide-identity-her-real-father/212568

  56. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    Mooney Times writes an article saying Clinton Machine started birtherism to defend pastor scott’s nonsense but then doesn’t actually prove their claim: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fact-checking-media-yes-clinton-machine-did-start-/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

    The article is completely devoid of substance.

  57. avatar
    Crustacean August 22, 2016 at 4:47 pm #

    Roger Stone says a lot of things.

    What people are saying now is that Stone is Donald Trump’s contact at NAMBLA. Spread the word!

    Rickey: In other conspiracy news, Roger Stone is claiming that Chelsea Clinton has had four plastic surgeries in an effort to cover up that her real father is Webster Hubbell.

  58. avatar
    RanTalbott August 23, 2016 at 2:20 am #

    Rickey: Roger Stone is claiming

    Y’know, by the time the Trump campaign is over, that could become shorthand for “there is absolutely no truth to the preposterous rumor that”.

    In other News of the Weirdos, Trump’s fellow vaxxer Michelle Bachmann has announced that she’s advising him on foreign policy. She was already riding in the clown car as a member of his “Evangelical Advisory Board”.
    I think we’re only two, maybe three, nutjobs away from waking up to a news story that the 5th floor of Trump Tower has been wrapped in tinfoil.

  59. avatar
    jdkinpa August 23, 2016 at 10:36 pm #

    Who knew? Does anyone want to bet this will make it on the front page over at BR?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-rudoy/trump-bombshell-hillary-w_b_11636002.html

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 7:43 am #

    I think that birth certificate is a forgery (of a forgery).

    jdkinpa:
    Who knew?Does anyone want to bet this will make it on the front page over at BR?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-rudoy/trump-bombshell-hillary-w_b_11636002.html

    jdkinpa:
    Who knew?Does anyone want to bet this will make it on the front page over at BR?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-rudoy/trump-bombshell-hillary-w_b_11636002.html

  61. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 24, 2016 at 11:27 am #

    Anyone know what Rudy Davis has been up to lately? He have a heart attack yet?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 12:00 pm #

    The last YouTube video, I think, is this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iJiklhJdJg

    Where he claims that YouTube has made his life hell by requiring him to break up his videos into segments 15 minutes or less, and that he will have his revenge in the afterlife.

    He also seems to be under the impression that copyrights expire after 2 years. Not sure what he’s talking about there.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Anyone know what Rudy Davis has been up to lately? He have a heart attack yet?

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    Carmon Elliott’s Ted Cruz eligibility lawsuit was distributed for Supreme Court conference this Friday.

  64. avatar
    bob August 24, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Carmon Elliott’s Ted Cruz eligibility lawsuit was distributed for Supreme Court conference this Friday.

    September 26 (the “long conference”).

  65. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 24, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

    Rudy has a lot of misconceptions, including that he at any given point knows what he is talking about.

  66. avatar
    RanTalbott August 24, 2016 at 11:34 pm #

    J.D. Sue: As for the video — that video WAS a big deal. It had triggered–simultaneously–violent protests at/on embassies throughout the Muslim world so everyone thought the violence at Benghazi likewise was triggered that way.

    The reason everybody thought that is that it was. The attackers, themselves, told reporters as it was happening that they were there about the video. The guy who orchestrated the attack told friends at the time that it was, and told law enforcement when he was captured a couple of years ago.

    It’s a lot like birtherism, in that it persists despite having all available evidence debunking it. The big difference is that the GOP mainstream has also been pushing the myth, because it scores points with their base, and isn’t as obviously bat(bleep) crazy as birtherism.

  67. avatar
    RanTalbott August 24, 2016 at 11:38 pm #

    Given the similarities in silliness, tactics (invented “anomalies”, fake “experts”, being pushed by the wingnut “lack-of-thought leaders”), and believer demographics, is it time to start calling the latest batch of conspiracy nuts “healthers”?

  68. avatar
    Keith August 25, 2016 at 6:11 am #

    Open letter to Lupin…

    What is this crap I’m hearing about France banning Australian swimsuits from the beach?

    A hundred years ago you (and darn near everyone else) was banning swimming costumes that didnt cover you from ankle to neck. Now you can’t even protect yourself fron getting skin cancer?

    And what do you have against Australian designers?

    WTF?

  69. avatar
    Lupin August 25, 2016 at 8:14 am #

    Keith:
    Open letter to Lupin…

    What is this crap I’m hearing about France banning Australian swimsuits from the beach?

    A hundred years ago you (and darn near everyone else) was banning swimming costumes that didnt cover you from ankle to neck. Now you can’t even protect yourself fron getting skin cancer?

    And what do you have against Australian designers?

    WTF?

    Actually, it’s not “France”, it’s (local) city ordinances (so far). Because we all know mayors have never spouted any crazy sh*t. cough*Giulani*cough. There hasn’t been a constitutional/higher court review (so far/AFAIK).

    Two, we’re in 2016, not 1896. Society’s standards have changed. So the “they did it in 1890” argument is silly. A much better argument would be, Why are Nuns on the beach in habit tolerated?

    Three, it’s a gut reaction by local politicians to what happened in Nice earlier. Because all know countries aren’t prone to crazy gut reactions after terrorist attacks. cough*9/11*cough.

    Four, and more seriously, despite my numerous posts here on this topic, folks seem to forget that freedom of expression is limited in France and Germany by a number of laws against hate speech, laicity (in our case), etc, etc.

    The proper legal way of looking at this issue is to understand that the lawyers drafting these ordinances are equating the wearing of burqas in public with a public display of an offensive symbol, say, like the flying of nazi flags.

    Now you may well argue that the two aren’t the same thing — and I, myself, would indeed argue that such an ordinance is fundamentally stupid and counter-productive (but we all know a bunch of local laws that are stupid and counter-productive, say, laws banning various sexual practices or regulating the sale of alcohol after certain hours).

    But from a purely legal standpoint, if you can make the case that wearing a burqa in public is the equivalent to propagandizing for islamic extremism, jihadism if you will, then the case is open and shut under French Law.

    That’s the issue, legally speaking.

  70. avatar
    Lupin August 25, 2016 at 8:26 am #

    PS. An an aside, not only do I think that those ordinances are an overkill, but I’m not convinced that wearing a burka in public reaches the level of a call for jihad. So if I were a judge, I’d overturn those ordinances.

    But as was the case after the CHARLIE-HEBDO attacks, I am somewhat dismayed by the seeming inability of anglo-saxon media to properly understand and frame an issue taking into account the local standards and laws, and not yours. This is not rocket science and a modicum of research beforehand would be proper.

    When DSK was dragged openly in front of the US media after being charged in the Sofitel case — something that would be illegal in France — the French Media took care of explaining to their readers/viewers that this was the norm in the US, and therefore not shocking. Some here thought it was a bad thing, but we understood that each country has its own way of doing things.

    The kind of rubbish I’ve read in the last 24 hours on the “burkini” topic in US media does not do honor to your community.

  71. avatar
    roadburner August 25, 2016 at 9:58 am #

    Lupin: A much better argument would be, Why are Nuns on the beach in habit tolerated?

    a few years back when the conservative partido popular was in power here in spain, there was a push by them against immigrants, and more specifically muslim immigrants.

    a law was passed to not allow religious symbols in school classrooms, mainly aimed at muslim girls wearing headscarves.

    this came back and bit the Christian/conservatives on the ass who were gloating about it going through, as a parent who was an atheist brought suit against a school for openly displaying crucifixes in the classrooms in contravention of that law.

    and he won his case 🙂

    there was the usual round of `yeah, but’s, but the end result was that they shot themselves squarely in the middle of their foot.

    a good moment of schadenfreude 😀

  72. avatar
    Lupin August 25, 2016 at 10:37 am #

    roadburner: a few years back when the conservative partido popular was in power here in spain, there was a push by them against immigrants, and more specifically muslim immigrants.

    We never had crucifixes in public schools, but to a lesser degree, the law against prominent public display of religious symbols did end up impacting Christians as well.

    There’s a strong tradition of anticlericalism in France harking back to the French revolution, which anglo-saxons either are unaware of or don’t get. Read William Shirer ‘sTHE FALL OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC and you’ll see an ongoing battle between clericals and anticlericals that arguably weakened France and facilitated the onset of WWII.

    I need not mention the role of the Catholic Church in supporting the fascist regimes of Spain, Portugal and Italy.

    Let me put it in rather blunt terms: it took nearly 2 centuries to muzzle and pen the Catholic Church to the point where they’re “almost” harmless (recent demonstrations in Paris and their links to the National Front justify my use of “almost”) — and while I do agree that racism and xenophobia complicate the issue — a majority of French people are not going to put up with too much in your face displays of religious faiths, be they Muslim, Scientologist (criminally convicted of being a “cult”), Christian Scientists (a few legal cases), etc.

    The opposition to religion in the public sphere is a strong and continuing tradition in French Law and politics.

  73. avatar
    Dave B. August 25, 2016 at 5:47 pm #

    I just got an email, supposedly from “Team Trump,” saying my name “showed up on the list as a Big League supporter.” And they had a survey for me to complete. First question,
    “Do you think Donald Trump should spend more time delivering a positive message or attacking Hillary’s failed record and policies?”
    I answered “I don’t know who Ronald Trump is.”
    Second question,
    “How would you rate Donald Trump’s campaign?”
    I answered, “I’ve never heard of Ronald Trump.”
    That was fun. Not much fun, but a little.

  74. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 25, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

    Dave B.:
    I just got an email, supposedly from “Team Trump,” saying my name “showed up on the list as a Big League supporter.”And they had a survey for me to complete.First question,
    “Do you think Donald Trump should spend more time delivering a positive message or attacking Hillary’s failed record and policies?”
    I answered “I don’t know who Ronald Trump is.”
    Second question,
    “How would you rate Donald Trump’s campaign?”
    I answered, “I’ve never heard of Ronald Trump.”
    That was fun.Not much fun, but a little.

    I just answer “Dickbutt” on stuff like that.

  75. avatar
    jdkinpa August 25, 2016 at 10:57 pm #

    When I get those type of surveys in the mail I do fill them out. Sending it back costs them and helps the postal service.

  76. avatar
    Lupin August 26, 2016 at 3:19 am #

    As an update, our Conseil d’Etat (which is like the Supreme Court for Governmental or public actions) is going to rule on the constitutionality of the burkini ordinances this afternoon based on a legal appeal filed by our Human Rights League.

  77. avatar
    Scientist August 26, 2016 at 8:04 am #

    Lupin: I understand your point about French anti-clericalism, but the anti-burkini ordinances carry that to a ridiculous degree. First, any beach photo or painting from the late 19th or early 20th century will show that bathing costumes then covered most of the body. Second, how do you even define “too many clothes”? Can one be arrested for walking on the beach in November wearing a coat and scarf?

  78. avatar
    RanTalbott August 26, 2016 at 9:20 am #

    Scientist: Can one be arrested for walking on the beach in November wearing a coat and scarf?

    Depends on how long the coat is, and where the scarf is wrapped 😉

  79. avatar
    Lupin August 26, 2016 at 9:36 am #

    The Conseil d’Etat just gave the ruling following a request from the League of Human Rights to overturn the burkini ban on the grounds it contravenes civil liberties.

    Under our legal system, temporary decisions can be handed down before the court takes more time to prepare a judgement on the underlying legality of the case.

  80. avatar
    Lupin August 26, 2016 at 9:50 am #

    Scientist:
    Lupin:I understand your point about French anti-clericalism, but the anti-burkini ordinances carry that to a ridiculous degree.First, any beach photo or painting from the late 19th or early 20th century will show that bathing costumes then covered most of the body.Second, how do you even define “too many clothes”?Can one be arrested for walking on the beach in November wearing a coat and scarf?

    You’re not framing the issue according to the Law.

    A single scarf bearing a jihadist message could be legally objectionable. A frogman/woman’s wetsuit won’t be because it carries no message; in this case a burkini is not the same as a wetsuit because the cities which passed these ordinances argued that one is neutral while the other is not.

    In fact if a Muslim woman wore an ordinary wetsuit on the beach, she likely couldn’t be arrested or fined or bothered because an ordinary wetsuit couldn’t be considered propaganda. And she would be covered just the same.

    You don’t seem to understand that it’s not the attire, it’s the message that opens the door to a legal controversy.

    The other legal issue is the potential conflict between civil liberties and a possible disturbance of public order. (Somewhat similar to what happened in the US with the so-called 9/11 Mosque in New York.) But of course that would only apply to the beaches of Nice, not, say, Normandy.

    Some Mayors used that argument but the courts said you can’t use that excuse preventively; in effect if there had already been riots, then cities could take steps to prevent their recurrences, but they can’t do it beforehand, not at the cost of civil liberties.

    Like many areas in the Law, all this is subject to interpretations and precedents, on a case by case basis.

  81. avatar
    Scientist August 26, 2016 at 12:53 pm #

    Lupin: You don’t seem to understand that it’s not the attire, it’s the message that opens the door to a legal controversy.

    Most clothing carries a message. If it didn’t there would be little in the way of a fashion industry, since all clothing would be the same.

    Does the law ban T shirts with a message, something that a great many of them display? What about a bow tie-the message of wearing one is that you are a dork.

    As for disturbance of public order, any shirt could provoke that. Wearing a Yankees shirt in Boston or a Red Sox shirt in New York, for example or in the case of France, maybe a PSG shirt in Marseilles or Lille.

    It’s selective and discriminatory. I would bet a large sum of money that such a ban wouldn’t pass any court in the US. In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that niqabs could even be worn at a citizenship ceremony (as long as the person confirmed her identity privately to a same-sex officer before hand. This became an issue in the last election and the government supporting the ban lost in the election as well as in court.

  82. avatar
    Crustacean August 26, 2016 at 1:25 pm #

    What about a guy with a giant Richard Nixon tattoo on his back? Would he have to put on a shirt at the beach? Or would it be OK for the police to just shoot him on sight?

    #Crusty’sRogerStoneObsession

    http://wonkette.com/600643/trump-buddy-roger-stone-says-clintons-murdered-jfk-jr-maybe-for-kicks/roger-stone-nixon-tattoo

    Scientist: Does the law ban T shirts with a message, something that a great many of them display? What about a bow tie-the message of wearing one is that you are a dork.

  83. avatar
    Scientist August 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm #

    Crustacean: What about a guy with a giant Richard Nixon tattoo on his back? Would he have to put on a shirt at the beach? Or would it be OK for the police to just shoot him on sight?

    I would insist on both.

  84. avatar
    Nancy R Owens August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    I’m listening to Gallups right now. He’s not on. I though Mike ZulloMoore was supposed to come on and explain why Joe Arpaio was above the law.

  85. avatar
    bob August 26, 2016 at 8:39 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’m listening to Gallups right now. He’s not on. I though Mike ZulloMoore was supposed to come on and explain why Joe Arpaio was above the law.

    Gallups said “near future.” Which is code for “whenever” (or perhaps “never”).

  86. avatar
    jdkinpa August 26, 2016 at 11:57 pm #

    Was wondering what had happened to Wayne Allen Root. Looks like he’s trying to make a few bucks selling more fantasy to the deluded.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-angry-white-male-wayne-allyn-root-knows-trump-has-deep-support-among-black-voters

  87. avatar
    Lupin August 27, 2016 at 4:28 am #

    Scientist: Most clothing carries a message.If it didn’t there would be little in the way of a fashion industry, since all clothing would be the same.

    Does the law ban T shirts with a message, something that a great many of them display? What about a bow tie-the message of wearing one is that you are a dork.

    As for disturbance of public order, any shirt could provoke that.Wearing a Yankees shirt in Boston or a Red Sox shirt in New York, for example or in the case of France, maybe a PSG shirt in Marseilles or Lille.

    It’s selective and discriminatory.I would bet a large sum of money that such a ban wouldn’t pass any court in the US.In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that niqabs could even be worn at a citizenship ceremony (as long as the person confirmed her identity privately to a same-sex officer before hand.This became an issue in the last election and thegovernment supporting the ban lost in the election as well as in court.

    I hate to say this, but you don’t seem to read what I write: I said pretty much explicitly that our laws are different. I’m trying to explain them to you, so what might happen in the US or Canada is totally irrelevant.

    And I also said that if you wear a t-shirt (or any sign or article of clothing) that bore something that might be construed as a jihadist message, you could be arrested. Simply expressing an opinion that would be supportive of terrorism is also an offense.

    And yes, if if something could be construed as impacting what we call “public order” (which is more than violence in the streets; call it the respect of certain societal standards, if you will), ordinances setting up curfews or prohibiting certain things could be passed that would withstand court challenges.

    Feel free to disagree with our Laws as I often disagree with yours, but they are what they are.

    In this case the Supreme Court wisely ruled (in my opinion) that wearing Muslim attire on the beach did not rise up to the degree of constituting a disturbance of public order.

    Burqas and niqabs continue however to be prohibited in the public. In this case civil liberties are trumped by public order.

  88. avatar
    Nancy R Owens August 27, 2016 at 7:48 am #

    Gallups wasn’t even on. I called in once to talk about the birth certificate forgery and Gallups practically hung up on me. He’s definitely a subversive in my opinion. I think that radio station could be sued by the MCCCP donators.

    bob: Gallups said “near future.”Which is code for “whenever” (or perhaps “never”).

  89. avatar
    Sef August 27, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

    Has anyone else noticed that NRO is branching out on her nuttiness? She has posted the following on LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a26_1472314124 Priceless!!

  90. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 27, 2016 at 4:02 pm #

    Sef:
    Has anyone else noticed that NRO is branching out on her nuttiness? She has posted the following on LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a26_1472314124 Priceless!!

    Wow this is even crazier than usual