Neo

This thread will be an ugly place for at least 4 1/2 years, regardless of the result in November.

I was late to Breaking Bad, but binge watched like a madman. Same with Game of Thrones. I laughed at this ... Jon Snow at Dinner Party - "You know nothing, Jon Snow." Melisandre at a baby shower - "Clutch your child to your breast, woman, for the night is dark and full of terrors."

Wait, are you saying GMTM is better than the mean, median or mode?

To D4rk and TB re: spending time as a cop / as an inner city kid. Right on, as well.

I did a ride along, once, in the backseat of a patrol car in the City of Buffalo. I take your point and add that 8 hours was sufficient to inform my view.

I'll agree with you the context and the remarks were different. I think the sentiment is more similar than the treatment of the speakers. My posts are inspired, I believe, in my belief that there are very real issues and motives that are interesting to Trump supporters that suggest they are much more than bigoted morons. For the record, that is an accusation you did NOT make. Synthesis: You get your "fair share" dose in disproportionately conservative Fort Worth! I'm smiling, not snarking. There are a number of musicians expressing displeasure at the use of their music at the RNC convention. The estate of George Harrison and Queen are among them. Staying narrow: anyone have thoughts on Trump's outreach to the LGBTQ community in his acceptance speech? He went beyond party platform. Wrong, in general? Right, if he puts his money where his mouth is?

He did use "free rider" as broadly as you indicate, extending the criticism to NATO Europe and some non-NATO Gulf states. President Obama's criticism exceeded, in scope, that of Mr. Trump. That's not my point. I'm driving at the different treatment the President gets for raising the same issue and making the same point as Mr Trump. You just did it, again. Respectfully, you're not alone. Can I respond to your post with "Thank you, Mr. DeLuca, for that defense of Mr. Trump's sentiment and for your support of the United States' overseas military engagements designed to advance its interests?" Or is that defense and support reserved only for occasions when the same sentiment comes from Mr. Obama? I have a new headline. "Trump says same thing as Obama, called a Dolt while Obama praised". People keep telling me NATO's a cost that must be borne. I know this. Everyone knows this. It's the disproportionate nature Trump and Obama complained about. It's what I, too, wonder about. I have learned something. Nothing makes a dove turn hawk more quickly than an opportunity to call Trump dumb. One comment about NATO spending by Trump and we learn that it's necessary to fund this global military presence that, until recently, was anathema to the left. PS ... I hear Trump believes the polar ice caps are melting .... I await the chorus newly christened "deniers" and the re-evaluation of the "settled science" because, well, because we know he and his supporters are dumb.

Sincere question. President Obama suggested the same thing in the article you linked (grateful). I believe the President referred to European "free riders". Are they both out of their depth? My interest, in what I think is a legitimate conversation, lies in portraying one candidate as out of his depth, in headlines and posts, without concluding the same about the other solely as a result of the statements.

Then why'd he bring it up?

I'd not reneg on the treaty. I'm not sure if he was suggesting that, or not. I'm not sure HE's sure. I would keep it in mind for the next iteration of the treaty's budget process.

The NATO remarks could be indicative of how I view the motives of Trump supporters and how I view him as a representative of their views. He asked a reasonable question that addresses a concern I have ... all the while flailing about with incompletely thought out solutions. He's personally called out, his supporters are dismissed as bigoted Bible thumping morons, and the issue's not discussed.

Do you have a proportionality view, relative to Trump and Obama's remarks, regarding NATO? Should the French and Italians buy civilization, too? The Turks? I'm leaning toward both of their (Obama and Trump) views. Defining proportionate will be the heavy lifting. I am with Whiskey on the artfulness of the comments.

^. I'll read. The "proportionality" isn't straight forward, at first glance. To add: President Obama expressed a similar sentiment. It has an attractiveness to me. Point "2", in my original question, that is.

How do you feel about paying "your fair share"?

Not making a point, but seeking "news summary" here. I googled a bit about Trump and NATO. Was the point he was making: 1) the US could or would abandon a NATO ally, or; 2) the US cost of NATO should be born more equitably (with this sentiment including the right to withhold support if equitable funding isn't arranged)? I have views on both, of course.

I'd take up to three as long as it doesn't squeeze others out. Neo's Legacy would use one, his sister another. They're in Buffalo. I'd fly up, as well. Now, to be clear, if there are others interested, I'd not ask for a three seat block! But, if three seals the deal, we're in. If one's available, I'll send the legacy.

Equal Opportunity: Ted Cruz, Harvard Law IV, joining Lynch, Ginsburg and Castro. Perhaps not an ethics violation, but noteworthy.

I'm not signing up for "tough on crime" as a slogan. Nixon was great. Nixon was terrible. 1968 was a scary time. Riley, btw, is an African American conservative. He's no BLM fan. I like the context into which he put BLM criticism. Compare today's rhetoric with 1968's.

To PA: Wall Street Journal, today. Jason Riley, Law and Order, 1968 May find it interesting

Melania lied, nobody died. That works, right?

^ You see the irony, here, don't you? Doubling down? Are we to doubt the truthfulness? Is that an issue?

^ Oddities abound. I don't know how often it happened in the speech, but it appears to have happened for four or five consecutive sentences. As Pastajoe asks, who writes and checks this stuff? I'm not sure what to make of this. Of course, Melania's not running for anything, so she doesn't have to quit. Ol' Joe did it, and no one cared. I have concluded, that while extremely careless, there appears to be no criminal intent. Accordingly, to quote a stateswoman, "what difference does it make?" There is no doubt that the Trump campaign will regularly bring head scratching "you gotta be kidding me" moments. I'm cynical, and even I would've bet it'd be able to get through its opening night speeches, especially those of its core speakers. PS ... Who plagiarizes Michelle Obama, for heaven's sake?

Awesome. I missed this!

I discovered that only today, researching a post I made earlier. Assuming we're talking the same thing, I see Dresden revised down to 20,000. Dresden was terror. I think you're right but not sure about the last sentence. I believe they're still there.

I learned of Dresden from Vonnegut...