Third Party & Independents Archives

Pols and Responsibility

Politicians are almost always immune from responsibility for things that happened during their reign of office. Much like how Hillary is voicing a position that much of Benghazi happened before she came to be DOS and/or after she left DOS.

It's a natural to try and shunt blame or the failure of accepting responsibility for happenings that might disparage one's character, actions taken and so on - - -

I really get down on law enforcement when they destroy evidence, fail to investigate properly, lie to get a conviction, and so on - - -

In watching whodunits you often see a case where the investigation is terminated because an authority figure concludes that the budget won't support travel outside the local area.

A biggie for me is that there are tens of thousands of rape kits setting on shelves to be tested for DNA. I don't know why. Maybe it's the lack of funds or the authorities figure it would overcrowd the overcrowded jails. But, for the current and future victims it seems very, very wrong.

Cut to the chase; Trump is saying that 9/11 might not have happened had he been president at the time as he would have had strict immigration policies in place. Is it right to assign blame for actions not taken before 9/11? The hijackers were in this country carrying official visas I believe.

Following Pearl Harbor FDR was sued for having failed to recognize and avert the attack.

I agree with Trump that a leader with rational policies in place might have prevented 9/11. There were previous attempts to bomb/attack US installations. And, we know how hard, and in secret, the corpocracy/gov't worked to create the North American Union. It was widely known that much of the illegal immigration was being carried out through visa overstays. There had been plenty of plane hijackings but notattempt to harden the cockpit egress.

The folks have given up privacy for supposed security but what have we achieved? Gov't agencies like OPM hacked and today the CIA chief was hacked. Apparently Hillary's private email was hacked a couple of times.

And so, the pols come and go, little gets done and no accountability for actions before or after a significant event.

It comes down to what folks are willing to accept like, 2 or 3k folks getting killed in the larger cities each year, something like 2800 shootings in Chicago last year. And, the mayor is/was the presidents right hand man. The moral compass of the country is hanging slightly above zero, IMO. Drug gangs come to mind. We may have reached a point where pols are so afraid of the gangs that they won't legislate against them. If not now, the gangs will have that power if left to their work.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by Roy Ellis at October 19, 2015 8:45 PM
Comments
Comment #399787

People accept the majority of the murders and violence because it mostly stays in the criminal community. When it does come into the mainstream (Oregon, Charleston, Sandy Hook) the “doing something” cry gets lots of traction, but that resolve is misplaced. We end up talking about large capacity magazines, assault weapons bans, and background checks when the majority of homicides are committed with small revolvers stuffed in pants.

We have a lot of people in our prisons but we dedicate too much space to drugs and not enough to current and potential violent criminals. If you are a felon and you get caught with a gun then it’s time for you to go to jail because you are the most likely candidate to actually use a gun. Instead we lock up the junkie.

Posted by: George in SC at October 20, 2015 9:05 AM
Comment #399788

Pols are not afraid of gangs, they are afraid of alienating their voting blocs and losing votes. That is why pols like Obama and Clinton refuse to accept responsibility for the failures of large urban areas, and instead target and blame the much more successful and safer suburban and rural areas, who don’t blindly vote for them.

The moral compass of the country is now below zero, we have given up what little we were hanging on to.
People now feel entitled to material things and vote for government to provide them. People would rather be given things, than work for them.
People now demand special treatment for whatever silly group they have placed themselves into. People are no longer proud to be an American, they are offended if you don’t acknowledge and embrace their ‘group.’
Religion is now belittled and mocked daily, and the free exercise of it is now controlled.
People are no longer responsible for their actions, they are now perpetual victims.

Votes are the reason behind it, Roy. The blame game you speak of is the means they use.

Posted by: kctim at October 20, 2015 9:28 AM
Comment #399799

The conflict between Jeb! and Trump is a good example of what happens when politicians deny responsibility.

During a recent debate, Jeb! declared his brother kept America safe. The audience cheered. Jeb! repeated this claim after the debate. Trump pointed out the obvious: 9/11 happened on #43’s watch. He did not keep America safe.
And that ignores what happened to soldiers in Iraq, which is disrespectful, but let’s move on.

Jeb! and his supporters seemed shocked. They confused blame with responsibility, and some even tried to play the blame game and point at Bill Clinton. They had really, truly never come to terms with this. They believed their own propaganda, and when it was pointed out in a simple fashion, conservatives heads exploded.

This has been a pattern for years, and now the GOP establishment is paying the price.

Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #399800

FFS Phx8, this crap again?
By that stupid logic, Clinton and Obama didn’t keep America safe either.

Posted by: kctim at October 20, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #399801

Jeb! made the claim, not Clinton or Obama. And 9/11 is pretty hard to ignore. Trump just stated the obvious. Why is this even controversial? Only because Jeb! and Bush supporters never came to terms with it. They never accepted the responsibility. Clinton, Obama, FDR, and other leaders have accepted responsitility when things went wrong. But it has been a hallmark of George W Bush supporters and now Jeb! to deny, play the blame game, and ignore what everyone else can plainly see. It is amazing Trump could so thoroughly upend Jeb! with such a simple observation.

Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2015 5:32 PM
Comment #399802

phx8, the other remarkable occurrence that has happened during this tiff between Jeb:} and Trump is that this was the week that Hillary was supposed to be pilloried by the Special Committee. Not only did McCarthy blow it by admitting that the committee that he helped initiate because he was part of the Republican leadership that called for the committee and Gowdy had to tell the rest of the Republicans to just please shut up about the committee but also with Trump saying he is not blaming Bush and Jeb:} acting like W shouldn’t assume any blame either it seems to give HRC perfect cover to appear before the committee on Thursday. If Bush wasn’t to blame for the worst attack on our soil how could Obama and Clinton be to blame for something that happened in a remote outpost in a distant country. It would seem that Hillary couldn’t have written the script any better than if she did it herself. I am amazed at the hot mess the Republicans have turned into but I can’t say I didn’t expect it.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 20, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #399804

It’s not controversial, it’s pathetic politics.
Clinton wasn’t responsible for the bombing of the towers or of OKC, and Americans were not less safe during his administration. In fact, things put in place by him and his administration helped keep Americans safer.
Bush wasn’t responsible for 9-11, and Americans were safer because of things put in place by him and his administration.
Obama wasn’t responsible for the Boston bombing and it would be ridiculous to assume his administration has done nothing to try and prevent the next one.

We hear about terrorist plots being foiled all the time, so unless you have secret knowledge of more federal buildings being blown up, more jets being flown into buildings, or more public events being bombed, the simple fact is that each of those men and the actions they took helped keep Americans safe.

Posted by: kctim at October 20, 2015 5:58 PM
Comment #399815

As I stated, a number of serious terrorist activities had occurred before/during the Bush presidency. At the time he was working to implement the NAU.

Pols are responsible for bringing in numerous legal/illegal foreign folks. Let’s assume that some of them get together and pull off a big terrorist attack within CONUS. Should the pols be held responsible for the attack?

Should Hillary not be held responsible for any classified messages that were processed by her private email server? That happened when she was a gov’t employee. Does it matter now that she is just a private citizen?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 20, 2015 8:25 PM
Comment #399819

Bill Clinton was responsible for national security in 1995 when the World Trade Centers were attacked. Obama was responsible for national security when the Boston Bombers attacked. And George W Bush was responsible for national security on 9/11.

Neither Clinton nor Obama ever tried to make political hay by declaring they kept the country safe. They accepted the responsibility. Neither of them attempted to blame someone else. George W Bush is unique in that regard, and his brother has made it glaringly obvious by saying his brother kept us safe. It is simply not true. The worst terrorist attack in our history occurred on 43’s watch. That is a fact.

It strikes me as remarkable that people have a hard time accepting that.

Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2015 10:52 PM
Comment #399820

The Executive was posing a figure of some 10k Syrian refugees to be resettled in this country. Now, we hear they are pushing to increase the mideast immigrant number from 70K yearly to 85k.

Trump was on Hannity tonight and they were throwing around 200-250k to come from that area.

Trump is proposing that a ‘safe area’ be established somewhere in Syria to provide a safe haven for the refugees. We would provide funds for their upkeep as long as necessary.

This seems a real sensible solution to the immediate problem. The Corpocracy knows now bounds, has no bounds to the length they will go to put the risk on the citizenry at large.

Trump is saying, correctly so, that Germany and much of Europe will come to open warfare by accepting so many mid easterners.

I have no reason to believe that Congress will do anything other than maybe raise the number to something higher.

It does no good to get mad, call individuals/groups surly names and so on - - -

All I can say is, what I have been saying here for years - - -

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 20, 2015 11:02 PM
Comment #399821

phx8, yes, remarkable. And yet another example: Kate’s Law. O’Riley has been pushing congress to pass Kate’s Law for several months now. The dems will not allow it to come up for vote. They won’t accept responsibility for Kate’s death. To vote for Kate’s law would be an admission to their irresponsible conduct as elected officials, IMO.

O’Riley is taking names and threatening to take them on if they vote against stand alone legislation on Kate’s Law.

They put the care and feeding of illegals at a higher priority than they do their fellow citizens.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 20, 2015 11:49 PM
Comment #399822

What isn’t remarkable is how politics are the entire basis for your ridiculous claims. Neither is how you use what somebody freaking said, in order to create some make believe difference just to attack one but not the other two.

“The worst terrorist attack in our history occurred on 43’s watch. That is a fact.”

Nobody denies that. What rational people say is that the changes made by Bush and his administration helped keep Americans safe for the next decade plus.

BTW
Over the past seven years, this administration has perfected the blame game. Bush or whoever did that is hardly unique in that regard.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2015 9:44 AM
Comment #399824

Trump never blamed Bush for 9/11; what Trump said was that the “buck stopped here” meaning a president or leader takes the ultimate blame by default. CEO’s are fired all the time, because the “buck stops here” even though they may have had no knowledge of the problem. According to Rush Limbaugh and Jake Tapper, what Trump did was ingenious; by making the statement that Bush was on watch when 9/11 occurred, he managed to identify Jeb with his brother. Jeb fell for the trick and immediately came out defending his brother and attacking Trump. The snare was sprung. I don’t think Trumps comments had anything to do with pointing blame. What he was doing was making Jeb and George W. identify with each other. Putting aside the left’s hatred for George W.; there are plenty of Republicans who don’t want to see another Bush in the presidency.

Trump also made the comment that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened on his watch, which on the surface seems like an ignorant statement. But as it turns out, Trump voiced his concerns about Osama Bin Laden 19 months before the attack in a published book. He even warned of terrorists who acted as the 9/11 attackers did and warned the attack would come similar to the World Trade Center attack in the early 90’s. Maybe Trump wasn’t so far off after all.

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 10:39 AM
Comment #399826

Jeb! said his brother kept the US safe. That is not true. 9/11 happened while George W Bush was president.

Trump pointed out that what Jeb! said was untrue. George W Bush did NOT keep America safe because 9/11 happened on his watch.

As for whether Trump would have prevented 9/11, that is unknowable, and I think even suggesting that is in bad taste.

Roy,
I don’t see the point of Kate’s Law; then again, I don’t see the point of hate crime laws in general. A crime is a crime, an innocent victim is an innocent victim, and a murderer is a murderer. There are no subsets of murderers who are worse than others, or innocent victims more deserving of justice. Therefore, targeting one subset of criminals or repeat felons for harsher, mandatory sentencing laws based on their immigration status is a non-starter with me.

Furthermore, mass incarceration has not worked very well for the US in the past. Kate’s law would result in tens of thousands of additional prisoners. We already imprison an incredibly large number of people, in part because of mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses.

Finally, for anyone like Bill O’Reilly who sees the need to cut down on murders, banning handguns would make far more sense.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 11:53 AM
Comment #399831

Ok Phx8, you win.
Obama is responsible for Benghazi, Ebola, the Boston Marathon bombing, Ft. Hood, the murder of Ms. Steinle, Sandy Hook, Oregon, hurricane Sandy etc…

America and all Americans are unsafe under Obama.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2015 12:34 PM
Comment #399853

px, I’ve tried to come up with words to respond - - - unable.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 21, 2015 3:32 PM
Comment #399855

Current National Debt: $18.5 Trillion

Current Unfunded National Liability: $98.8 Trillion

Current share of liability per taxpayer: $828,519

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Now, let’s have some fun.

1. How long before National Debt hits $25 Trillion?

2. How long before Unfunded liability hits $150 Trillion?

3. How long before each taxpayer share of our debt hits $1 million?

4. How long before Speaks grandchildren share of national debt hits $3 million?


Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #399859

Jim Webb is a good man and, like me, he has given up on political parties and corpocracy. He might get a third party organized for the 2020 elections. He recognizes the detrimental effects of special interest money. I believe he brought up the debt in the debate. Few to none candidates have broached the issue.

If Trump can avoid a Romney moment he seems poised to win the nomination. Meanwhile, the dems are continuing to build up negative baggage. If nothing changes then within another year I suggest Latinos will pull the lever for Traump.

But, stuff happens.

Blaine, how about this list re responsibility - - -

Crimea
Libya - no gov
Egypt - Muslim Brotherhood
Syria - red line
Yemen -
Iraq - lost it all
Afghan - lost it all
Iran - being fast tracked
Israel - wtf
Mexico - wild west on steroids
cyber security - non-existent
gangs/drugs - exponential increase
immigration - status quo
and so on - - -

Run, Trump, Run

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 21, 2015 6:50 PM
Comment #399860

The Republican Party elite are demanding that candidates pander to Hispanics and Latino’s to get their vote and some candidates do.

They are so stupid, or bound up in media nonsense, that they pander to those who won’t vote for them while ignoring those who will vote for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #399863

The republican establishment needs to learn from the outsiders who are leading in the polls. The republicans are terrified of the democrats, the media, and minority’s. Democrats will always personally attack republicans, the media will never give accurate coverage to republicans, and as long as the democrats are Santa Clause to minoritys they will never vote for republicans.

Donald Trump has shown us that republican voters are fed up with political correctness. The republican establishment is bamboozled, the media are in shock, and the democrats have no idea what is going on when it comes to Trump. They all keep prophecying his demise, and yet they are continuously wrong. They predicted he wouldn’t stick with it, that his candidacy was just a stunt, yet he’s still in the race.

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 7:31 PM
Comment #399866

“Trump is proposing that a ‘safe area’ be established somewhere in Syria to provide a safe haven for the refugees” where we could fund their housing and subsistence.

Really, Roy? Just how stupid does Trump have to be before people get wise to his nonsense. Syria is in an an all out civil war. That’s why people are fleeing the country. How does Trump propose to establish this refugee “safe area?” Who would establish it? The US? Assad? ISIS? Russia? Turkey? al Nusra? Kurds? They are all fighting each other. Where would it be established? How would it be protected short of sending a US division?

Once again Trump proposes magic and people actually take it seriously.

Posted by: Rich at October 21, 2015 10:04 PM
Comment #399867

Regarding Trump proposes a “safe area” and Obama just hands Syria over to Putin; and your point about nonsense?

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 10:36 PM
Comment #399880

I would think an adequate safe area could be established in the Persh Merga controlled area in northern Syria. Maybe give the UN responsibility for caring for them and protection as well. Who is going to shoot at UN folks?

Otherwise, shouldn’t be hard to get a coalition together to provide security.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 22, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #399883

Roy,

The northern Kurdish area of Syria has been and is a major battlefield of the war. The city of Kobani was the site of a major battle between ISIS and the Kurdish YPG/YPJ a few months ago. With extensive US air support, the Kurds prevailed but the city was destroyed. ISIS just returned to the city with a clandestine attack. They were driven back but it demonstrates that no area in Syria is safe from attack.

An additional problem with using northern Syria as a “safe area” is that the Turks would probably oppose it. They stood by with a huge armored division less than a mile from Kobani but refused to help the Kurds during the ISIS attack on Kobani. The Turks consider the Kurds to be an enemy supporting Kurdish terrorism within Turkey.

The complexity of the Syrian civil war should not be underestimated. It is foremost a Sunni (Saudi Arabia) vs. Shiite (Iran) proxy war.

Today, Putin accused the US of backing Mideast terrorism. He is partially correct. While the US has not directly backed terrorist organizations, it has and continues to support Mideast countries that do support terrorist organizations.

US Sunni allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc., have been extensively backing rebels fighting the Assad Shiite regime. Many, if not all, these groups have strong Sunni Muslim fundamentalist associations, e.g., al-Nusra. ISIS is a Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organization.

The reluctance of the Obama administration to act decisively in Syria is, in my opinion, understandable and prudent. Taking down the Assad regime may endear us to our Sunni “friends” in the Middle East but it very likely would result in the establishment of a Sunni fundamentalist state in Syria. Anybody think that an ISIS led Syria would be desirable?

The best strategy at this point, in my opinion, is to let Putin and Iran help stabilize the Assad regime for at least a portion of Syria. In exchange, the US should insist on a negotiated settlement for an end to the war. That would include an agreement that Assad would step down and an alternative governance structure which would include Sunni representation be established. The Lebanese model might be a starting point. Another alternative would be the establishment of a loose federation with the Kurds, Sunnis and Alawites given semi-autonomous states.



Posted by: Rich at October 22, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #399885

The Turks might reject a plan to put UN in charge of a Syrian camp but a majority of countries might agree to such a plan.

Better to attempt something like that rather than bring 200k to our shores, IMO. Way better.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 22, 2015 6:06 PM
Comment #399886

Roy,

It is an absurd idea. Just like the majority of Trump’s proposals. The fact that anybody takes his ideas seriously is seriously disturbing.

Trump is playing on some superman fantasy of the American public.

Posted by: Rich at October 22, 2015 6:18 PM
Comment #399893

600 or so request for more security from Benghazi and - - - nothing.

No pol has taken responsibility for the attack. No one has been fired, demoted, or even admonished.

Sad. But, sadder still, if Hillary wasn’t a candidate the GOP would never have shown interest in Benghazi.

Run, Trump, Run.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 22, 2015 10:18 PM
Comment #399905

People only care when it’s the ‘other side’ doing it, Roy. That’s why the abuses will just keep going and going.

If Hillary were a Republican, the liberals would be calling for her head. Benghazi, the private email server, mishandling classified material, the blatant lies etc… every single liberal would be taking ALL of those seriously.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2015 9:13 AM
Comment #399906

Right kctim. A real good reason to be an Indie, call for a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att and all that - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 23, 2015 10:08 AM
Post a comment