Remember Perot, and how Perot got Hillary's husband elected to the White House by running a strong third-party campaign?
Yeah. That's Trump this cycle.
I don't particularly care if Trump "supports" (ie, campaigns for, donates, whatever) one of the other candidates should they win, but threatening to have a temper tantrum and run third party is actively opposing the nominee. That may be legal, but it's also just going to make a Hillary victory inevitable.
I've been known to vote third party, and in fact my primary party affiliation is with the Libertarians. (I vote in Republican primaries when there's actually a chance to yank the party in my direction). But if you are going to run in a party's primary you shouldn't be threatening a third party run if you don't get the nomination.
Really? Seriously? That might work if there was a real, official "Let's target the Tea Party!" program with an official budget. There wasn't. A bunch of existing employees, as part of their normal duties and as instructed by their management, treated certain (politically chosen) groups to extended delays and abuse. Did those employees get fired, disciplined, or lose their government retirement? No. Many of them got bonuses and paid 6-month vacations.
This part of the legislation, however, might actually produce something useful. Remember that the GAO report on the IRS basically said they had no effective protections against targeting; this legislation's reporting requirements might improve the ability of Congress to oversee the IRS operations by requiring better record keeping.
Over ten thousand migrant attacks over the past three years
That's quite a lot of attacks over just one day.
And that's quite a lot of attacks to keep secret over three years. What business does a democratic government have keeping crimes secret? None, obviously. I am thus forced to conclude the Comrade Merkel, who cut her teeth in the East German police state, is returning to form. And the more she seeks to suppress the voices of her people, who are demanding that their government fulfil its primary function of protecting its citizens from foreign invasion, the stronger the eventual, inevitable backlash will be.
So what was their motive exactly? Why would three people -- one shooter, one driver, and one random accomplice -- attack a nightclub filled with random people?
Oh. But wouldn't gun control stop this sort of thing?
Look at all the gun laws they broke! I guess not.
And speaking of guns...
This sort of makes me wince. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't just "go off", even if they are loaded and cocked. Someone would have to pull the trigger, or (if the gun really sucks) kick it or interact with it in some way. I can't argue with the police officer wanting to follow the rules of gun safety at all, but the way that was phrased strikes me as far too passive-voice-blame-the-gun language.
NSA moves to share data with domestic law enforcement
Is it a coincidence that this is being done in an election year? I doubt it. There's all sorts of useful information the White House would love to review for blackmail purposes even if it doesn't involve criminal behavior. And how are they going to know that it doesn't involve criminal behavior unless they look?
Sixth Circuit reminds the IRS they are not above the law
I'm not sure if the IRS is actually trying to hide something specific here, or if they are just delaying and dragging their feet on general principles, but the patient of the court appears to have run out. If so, we might finally gain some measure of justice in this case.
Republicans targeting Obama's executive action on gun control
I've reported on this practice before. It's one of the lesser-reported and more dangerous of Obama's anti-gun executive orders. This is the first time I've seen hard numbers on how many people have had their 2nd Amendment rights blocked by this action.
Russian police break up terror group producing passports for ISIS
I'm not generally a fan of Russia, but sometimes the enemy of my enemy is enough. And does anyone think that groups like this aren't working to get ISIS terrorists into the US? And conducting successful attacks that the media ignore and the government refuses to admit are connected to terrorism?
Europe is apparently choosing to enforce a police state rather than permit people to tell the truth about the "refugees":
The supposedly democratic governments of Western Europe appear more interested in making their citizens subjects shut up than addressing their concerns.
One argument for importing huge numbers of Middle East laborers to Western Europe has been to replace the children those Europeans were not having, and to fill the (dirty, unpleasant, low-paid, but necessary) jobs that the Europeans were apparently unwilling to do. Well, it seems that the Muslim immigrants are even less willing to do those jobs. The mass influx of vibrant "youth" into the labor force that was supposed to fund the lavish retirement of European socialists has instead predictably led to even greater drains on the social welfare system.
Because, after all, Islam tells its followers that they are owed payments by the unbelievers, and if those payments come from a welfare system that requires them to claim to be disabled, well, so be it.
OK, so we have a denial from Cruz, and an accusation from Trump that Cruz knew all about an ad that was published by a political action committee. There's just one problem here: no matter how friendly a PAC might be to a candidate, the candidate and his campaign are legally barred from coordinating with the PAC in any way.
So Trump is basically accusing Cruz of violating campaign finance law.
I don't think Cruz is stupid enough to do that, and I don't think Trump has any evidence that he did. I think this is just bluster to tie Cruz to the actions of a PAC Cruz has no practical or theoretical control over. And as such, it's dishonest.
Permitless carry is starting to become a trend the way that concealed carry did 20 years ago. If you're not a criminal, you should be able to carry a firearm -- openly or concealed, your choice -- to defend yourself. Even if it makes paranoid control freaks hysterical.
Scott Walker thinks the nomination will go to someone not running
Here's the thing. If the convention opens with no single candidate having 1237 votes (a clear majority rather than simply a plurality), then by the rules in place now the delegates are unbound and the negotiations in smoke-filled back rooms start to choose the nominee. That's been the rule for a long time, and it makes sense.
What makes less sense is the noise that various party insiders have been making about choosing to nominate someone in that case who isn't even running presently.
It's hard to see that as anything but a slap in the face to voters who supported Trump and Cruz. Right now, it's still possible for either of them to win the nomination outright. If neither does, the likely course is for both of them to be within a few hundred delegates of the magic 1237 number without either reaching it. It will be, in other words, a close race with two clear top candidates and a couple small fry with just a few delegates hanging on. In such a scenario, either Trump or Cruz could reasonably form an alliance or make a principled case for their nomination to the unbound delegates and obtain a majority vote. Either one would be acceptable in their scenario.
But if the party then tosses the nomination to someone who wasn't even running -- let's say Mitt Romney -- that would represent a complete betrayal of everyone who participated in the primary campaign. Whether it's by running, or donating, or volunteering, or simply voting... if the party substitutes someone at the last minute just because they don't like either of the candidates their own party's voters chose, I think the people will abandon the Republican party utterly. Look for a third party to appear or suddenly rise to prominence in the next election cycle.
And yes, that will likely throw the election to Clinton, with disastrous consequences. That's what happens when a party decides they should rule rather than represent.
Trump proestors admit to being paid for protesting
The left pays their political agitators because it presents the illusion of popular support for their people and policies. On the right, the GOPe simply doesn't bother; they don't care of their base supports them or not so long as the base can be convinced to vote against Hillary after having their concerns ignored. Until this most recent presidential election cycle that mostly worked. Now, it's starting to look sketchy.
One thing is for sure: the entire political class in this country, both sides of it, are utterly contemptible.
It seems the Washington Post decided to post an interview they did with Trump without the usual careful narrative editing for quotes. Nicki starts with that and points out the ignorance, idiocy, and inconsistency throughout. Trump can spew great bullshit on any topic for exactly 30 seconds, but once he's out of the soundbite and expected to actually go into detail, he crashes and burns pretty much every time. But you can only tell if you know the subject yourself, or if there is someone who does standing by to interrupt and point out the problems.
That's why Trump is afraid to debate Cruz one on one. Cruz may not be quite so media-friendly but Cruz has actual knowledge and substance on the issues, and the skill to point it out when Trump doesn't.
Note that "asking" doesn't involve a warrant or even the paper-thin veneer of a National Security Letter. All it requires is a phone call, assuming you haven't deleted your messages from the server. And why would you? Email clients often leave them on the server by default.
After the latest round of attacks in Brussels, I would be very surprised if even modest improvements like this legislation don't get quietly shelved somewhere out of the way for a while.
The only way we are going to regain our privacy is to stop asking permission for it. Encrypt everything.
Thousands of unsearched records from Hillary's SecState term
Gosh, what happens next fall that Hillary's documents might be relevant to? Only a minor little thing called a presidential election in which she will likely be a candidate. Is it, maybe, just possibly, something that rational voters might want to be able to examine before electing her to the highest office in the federal government for a four year term in which her first public act might well be to issue a blanket pardon to herself for her actions as Secretary of State?