trump is serious!!!!!

[Lord Jim]

Can anyone confirm that Obama did actually ask for a Declaration of War on ISIL

I can confirm that is NOT true. He asked for an "authorization of force" declaration that was so weak and and hand-tying (broadcasting to the enemy what we would and would not do and also broadcasting an expiration date...it also includes repeal of the Iraq force authorization...an idiotic idea with ISIS in control of 1/3 of the country... ) that the Congress has preferred to accept the operations against ISIS continue to be authorized by the 2001 authorization against Al-Qaeda, under the rationale that ISIS a spin-off successor group, so it's covered.

Letter from the President -- Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller. If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.

I have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL. As part of this strategy, U.S. military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Although existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions, I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to working with the Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL. Consistent with this commitment, I am submitting a draft AUMF that would authorize the continued use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL.

My Administration's draft AUMF would not authorize long‑term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our Nation's security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 11, 2015.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... connection

Here's the link to the draft request:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaul ... 112015.pdf

While I fully agree that the AUMF is completely unacceptable in its present form, I disagree with the Congressional decision to do nothing at all.

If you read the proposed language, most of the resolution is just fine. If it were up to me, I'd just update some of the "whereas" section to include more recent justifications, and then take out the stupid "therefores" that telegraph to the enemy what we won't do and provide them with an end date, and the ridiculous part about terminating the Iraq AUMF, pass it and send it Obama...

And then we'll see if he's willing to sign an AUMF that his gives him more authority than he asked for...

It's really not hard; this doesn't have to be debated endlessly or re-written from scratch...

Give me a pen and a copy of the draft request, and I could have a fully acceptable AUMF produced in less than 10 minutes...

[Guinevere]

I don't see any "stupid therefores" and I only see one therefore....

[Lord Jim]

Okay...

The stupid sections under the "therefore" (or if you want to get even pickier, the "resolved") then...

And here they are:

(c) LIMITATIONS.
—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed
Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

...

SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.

This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.

...

SEC.
6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107
–243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

Just put a big red line through those parts, add a few more recent atrocities and attacks by ISIL to the whereas section, and the AUMF is good to go

[Guinevere]

Dude, after the "therefore" is the whole resolution....

Given the fuck up in Iraq, I'd definitely want those sections to remain. There is still plenty of wiggle room in that language to do a lot, without making it a blank check.

[wesw]

god forbid that we declare war in the way that is stated in our constitution.

is there one person here who believes that our constitution is still relevant?

yes, I know, guin. I am too stupid too talk about the constitution....

anyway...., lawyers are over rated...

this country is lousy with lawyers.

the country would run much more efficiently if about 2/3 of them were building houses and bridges...


same with insurance companies and agents....

about 2/3 of them are just leeches on society....

the insurance guys probably couldn t handle building tho....

landscaping might be simple nough for them...

political consultants? about 3/4 of them should be washing dishes or something, tools are beyond their ken, I think....



oh, and think that we will keep jim s party....

...it s so nice to belong......

mitt and jim and George will could call it the Principled Conservative party....

the PC party? nah.... we already have one of them.... darn.

you could always go Libertarian , jim.....

once you go Gary you never go back tho.....

maybe jill stein would take you....

[Bicycle Bill]

this country is lousy with lawyers.

the country would run much more efficiently if about 2/3 of them were building houses and bridges...

same with insurance companies and agents....

about 2/3 of them are just leeches on society....

the insurance guys probably couldn t handle building tho....

landscaping might be simple nough for them...

political consultants? about 3/4 of them should be washing dishes or something, tools are beyond their ken, I think....

And now that you have just trashed the legal profession, the insurance industry, and politics, wes, would you mind telling me exactly what is it that YOU do to help keep this country running?

It would have to be something that plays to your personal strengths — which for the most part seems to be talking out of your ass, making crap up, and scattering bullshit.  So I'd guess that you are either a telemarketer, a stock market analyst, or a used car salesman.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

Mother Jones and the Indy Star (how do you like that combo) both say its Pence. He is dropping his re-election bid for Governor and will be announced tomorrow at 11AM in Manhattan.

He must be tired of being in politics.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Pence was facing a tough re-election, (his latest job approval rating was 43%...John Kasich he ain't...) so he didn't have a whole lot to lose by taking this...

In his "roll out" of his VP yesterday, His Trumpness spent 30 minutes talking about his favorite subject...The Great Donald Trump...and then Mikey got 12 minutes to talk before Drumpf grabbed the microphone again...

Pence has had some significant policy differences with Trump, but he's demonstrated an eager willingness to whore himself on those differences as the new Veep pick...

The day after Trump first called for his Muslim ban last December, Pence came out and correctly labeled it unconstitutional...

Now he says he supports it... He even said he believes the crazy-assed idea that Mexico will pay for a wall along the US-Mexican border...

Trump was basically pushed into this choice by his advisors (including his kids) he wanted to pick his most supine butt-boy, Chris Christie....

If Trump decides somewhere along the line in the campaign that Pence isn't a sufficiently vigorous kiss ass, I wouldn't put it past him to order him off the ticket...

There is precedent for this; in 1972 George McGovern told Tom Eagleton to resign from the ticket...of course in that case it involved Eagleton's failure to disclose that he had undergone electro-shock treatment for clinical depression, rather than sheer pique or caprice on the part of the Presidential nominee...

Pence was the best political option available to Trump given the fact that every single quality "A list" choice that could actually have helped him electorally wanted no part of signing up to be First Mate on The USS Toxic Mess...

Kasich, Rubio, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez...

Nobody in that league wanted to touch this with a 29 and a half foot pole...

But compared to Chris Christie or Newt Gingrich, Pence far and away looks like the candidate who will do the least damage...("damage" is what Trump does; he needs no help in that regard...he's got the damage base covered...)

[Long Run]

And the logo thing is right out of a satire:

[Lord Jim]

Apparently they've already punted that one:

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s campaign unveiled Saturday a modified version of its Trump-Pence logo after the original graphic drew a lot of unintended attention.

During Trump’s official introduction of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate, the campaign adorned a fundraising email with a simple “TRUMP” atop a “PENCE,” ditching an American flag-inspired interlocking T and P logo that attracted the attention of Trump critics and supporters alike.

The campaign shared the original graphic in an email soon after making public Trump’s choice Friday in a series of social media posts, emails and text messages. In the original insignia, the “T” in Trump passes through the “P” in Pence as part of a flag illustration. Their names were stacked below on top of Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

Instantaneously, Twitter users began ridiculing the logo.

A message left by CNN with the Trump campaign Saturday was not immediately returned.

Former Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a Democrat with a famously wry Twitter account, offered one of the first of many puzzled reviews.

“What is the T doing to that P?” he asked.

Florida congressman and Senate candidate Alan Grayson, a Democrat, volunteered an off-color suggestion.

“This logo accurately represents what Trump Pence will do to America,” he tweeted.

By Saturday morning, Trump’s campaign website was using the new logo. The old one does not appear anywhere on the site.

http://fox4kc.com/2016/07/16/trump-camp ... -ridicule/

Of course they still can't get away from the fact that "TP" is a well known acronym for "Toilet Paper"...

[Long Run]

Not to mention when 65% of the populace is concerned about what a crappy president he'll be, having TP be the logo only reinforces that view.

[Bicycle Bill]

...... the honeymoon's already over.  *THAT* certainly didn't last long.


(thanks, Samantha Bee/FullFrontal!)

Here's the Trump/Pence Logo 2.0:


-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Starts with TP and ends with PE[e].

[RayThom]

Pence strikes me as being boring and mediocre. As LJ intimated above, Pence was destine to be an "also ran" governor in November so he opted -- probably against his better instincts -- to keep himself publicly viable by becoming a dresser for the world's biggest vaudevillian. (Pence is already failing miserably at this. Crisp Crispie showed promise handling Drumpf's dry-cleaning and would have been so much better.)

Sadly, I'm starting to get the feeling that the amorphous blob who will never vote for Hillary is gaining momentum on the amorphous blob who will never vote for Drumpf. Hillary needs to change her "grandma to child" tone and message at the convention next week -- maybe a strong VP choice will make the difference -- or she, too, is destine to become a defeated and humiliated has-been.

Forty-six years of my never missing one election, be it primary, special, or general, and my choices in November comes down to this. I hope I can convince myself it was all worth it, sooner than later.

In the immortal words of Chester A. Riley, "what a revolting development this is!"

[Scooter]

[Lord Jim]

We're down to the final few hours...

An estimated 400 rebel delegates were pushing for a rules amendment to allow them to "vote their conscience," the end result being that delegates would not be bound to a candidate. It was a last-ditch effort to block Trump from the nomination on the first ballot. So-called "conscience" voters argue they should instead be free to vote for anyone they wish.

The scheme is running on fumes, following a devastating defeat in a rules committee vote on Thursday. But the #NeverTrump camp is nevertheless pressing ahead, and Monday at 2 p.m. is the deadline to revive the effort.

If those in favour of unbinding delegates can get 28 members of the rules committee to publicly support it before then, it would trigger a "minority report." The proposal would then go to a vote on the convention floor before all delegates.

"This game just got very interesting," said Kendal Unruh, founder of Free the Delegates.

While a defection of 400 suddenly unbound delegates would be enough to trigger a contested convention, it's highly unlikely that would happen, convention rules committee experts say.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/republican ... -1.3679361

They had 21 votes on Friday, we'll see if Kendall managed to pick up seven more over the weekend...

Very unlikely ...looks like I'm going to have to change the image on my sig-line...

[Burning Petard]

The TP ticket made 60 Minutes last night. Lost of laughs as the questions were addressed to the Governor, but he was rarely allowed to answer. When he did, the Donald interrupted almost immediately.

If the Donald takes it in the electoral college, much of the glory can go to Faux News and the way they have redefined 'fair and balanced' for the rest of the news media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opini ... egion&_r=0

The fact checkers have given up trying to keep up with Trump, they just tally his most blatant lies; and that tally never makes prime time or front page news--meanwhile Trump is shown 'equal time' for calling his opponent 'lying Hillary'.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

I saw some clips from that interview on Morning Joe this morning...what a humiliating display...

At one point Pence is asked if he thinks Trump "went to far" with the disgusting remarks he made about John McCain not being a war hero because he was captured and before Mikey can answer, Trump jumps in to tell Pence, "it's okay for you to say that I did"....

I repeat what I said about the very real possibility that Trump may at some point bump Pence from the ticket...

He was pressured into the choice, they have zero chemistry, and Trump has no regard for any political rules...

His willingness to accept Pence as his running mate was a completely tactical decision. He accepted the choice in order to tamp down a delegate revolt and try to avoid an ugly scene at the convention this week; he has no sense of real personal investment in the choice...

[Guinevere]

I watched the interview on 60 Minutes last night and it was incredibly painful. Leslie Stahl did a nice job keeping the pressure on, and trying to get either man to answer questions. Pence mostly just sat (a half a step behind Trump, btw) and smiled, saying little to nothing. It was odd, almost eerie, and they certainly have no chemistry. Trump's attempted explanation of the choice was incoherent (what else is new).

[Lord Jim]

Here's a partial transcript to give the flavor of the thing, Trump's constant interruptions and his inability to articulate why he picked Pence (beyond the tactical consideration I mentioned):

Lesley Stahl: I have to move on or we're never gonna find out why he chose you. Why did you pick him? You had other candidates--

Donald Trump: OK, I did. I had a lot of people that wanted it; a lot more people than anybody--

Lesley Stahl: That came to you and begged you for it?

Donald Trump: That called me and came to me and wanted it badly. And you know, the press didn't report that. The press said, "Well, maybe he's having hard time picking--"

Lesley Stahl: Well, what about the governor? Did he want it like that?

Donald Trump: I actually brought it up to him.

Lesley Stahl: OK.

Donald Trump: I got to know him during the-- when I was in Indiana during the primaries, and I did very well in Indiana, like I did just about everywhere else in all fairness. But-- I got to know him very well and I gained great respect for him. And I looked at the numbers, meaning the financials, which we would say in business. But I looked at the numbers. Unemployment? What a great job he did. Jobs? What a great job he did. Triple-A rating on his bonds.

Lesley Stahl: --but you went to him and said--

Donald Trump: I did--

Lesley Stahl: Would you want to be considered--

Donald Trump: I broached it.

Lesley Stahl: He didn't -- And then he said, "I-- I really want it." So why did you pick him?

Donald Trump: I would say that he thought about it a little bit. And about two seconds later, he called me, with his incredible wife, and said--

Lesley Stahl: That I'd like to be-- but what--

Donald Trump: Like many others.

Lesley Stahl: How does he help you? How does he help you win in terms of groups of people? And what is your weakness that he compensates for and so forth--

Donald Trump: Well, I went for the quality individual rather than I'm gonna win a state, because I'm doing very well in Indiana, and I guess I'm a lot up. And I think I'm gonna win Indiana. I have a great relationship and Bobby Knight helped me so much with Indiana. Indiana's a great place; great state.

Lesley Stahl: Why didn't you pick him? No, I'm joking -- moving on.

Donald Trump: He would've been very good. But he's a terrific guy. But-- but I really like him as an individual.

Lesley Stahl: So you must've considered, obviously, by the reaction to your choice, a lot of the conservatives are very happy.

Donald Trump: Very happy.

Lesley Stahl: Was that part of the--

Donald Trump: Yes, it was party unity. I'm an outsider. I am a person that used to be establishment when I'd give them hundreds of thousands of dollars. But when I decided to run, I became very anti-establishment because I understand the system--

Lesley Stahl: Is he establishment?

Donald Trump: --than anybody else. He's very establishment, in many ways, and that's not a bad thing. But I will tell you--

Lesley Stahl: That's kind of interesting --

Donald Trump: --I have seen more people that, frankly, did not like me so much, and now they're saying, "What a great pick." You see the kinda reaction. He has helped bring the party together. I understand. Look, I got more votes than anybody, but I also understand there's a faction--

Lesley Stahl: Is it already unified, do you think?

Donald Trump: I think it's very close to unified. And I will say--

Lesley Stahl: Just because of this pick?

Donald Trump: No. I think it's be-- I think it was much more unified than people thought. You saw that with the recent vote where we won in a landslide. You saw that with the big vote, the primary vote. I think it's far more unified than the press lets on. But having Governor Mike Pence has really-- people that I wasn't necessarily liking or getting along are loving this pick, because they have such respect for him.

Lesley Stahl: And that was--

Donald Trump: And the party unity is OK. You know, I think it's OK to say I picked somebody, because I-- as one of the things. But I really believe the main reason I picked him is the incredible job he's done. Just look at the economics of Indiana--

Lesley Stahl: Indiana--

Donald Trump: --and what's going on.

Lesley Stahl: But what about the chemistry between you two? You don't really know each other that well. You're -- at least I've read, a very low-key, very religious, you're a brash New Yorker--

Donald Trump: Religious.

Lesley Stahl: Religious?

Donald Trump: Religious--

Lesley Stahl: Are you?

Donald Trump: Yea, religious.

Lesley Stahl: --you wouldn't--

Donald Trump: Hey, I won the evangelicals. The evangelicals--

Lesley Stahl: That doesn't--

Mike Pence: You know, nobody thought--

Donald Trump: --well, I think it means a lot. I don't think they think I'm perfect, and they would get up and they would say, "You know, he's not perfect," but--

Lesley Stahl: They'd point to the --

Donald Trump: --they like me--

Lesley Stahl: --divorces--

Donald Trump: --but I won-- I won states with evangelicals that nobody thought I'd even come close to--

Lesley Stahl: Well, that's true--

Donald Trump:-and I won--

Lesley Stahl: --so you didn't (UNINTEL)--

Donald Trump: --with landslides--

Lesley Stahl: --need him for the evangelicals?

Donald Trump: I think it helps. But I don't think I needed him, no, because--I won with evangelicals.

Mike Pence: But I think we have more in common--

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, tell me--

Mike Pence: --than--

Lesley Stahl: --what you think you have in common.

Donald Trump: --what might be immediately obvious.

Lesley Stahl: Besides issues. Values and things like that.

Donald Trump: I think we will have very, very good chemistry. I feel that. And I can feel that pretty early on. I don't think you need to be with somebody for two years to find that out. My feeling is-

Lesley Stahl: Your gut feeling.

Donald Trump: I knew him during the primaries, during many trips to Indiana, I'd be with him. I think we have a great chemistry.

Lesley Stahl: I want to ask you though about something you've said about negative campaigning.

Donald Trump: Yeah.

Lesley Stahl: You said negative campaigning is wrong, and a campaign ought to demonstrate the basic decency of the candidate.

Mike Pence: Right.

Lesley Stahl: With that in mind, what do you think about your running mate's campaign and the tone and the negativity of it?

Mike Pence: I think this is a good man who's been talking about the issues the American people care about.

Lesley Stahl: But name-calling?

Mike Pence: In that--

Lesley Stahl: "Lyin' Ted?"

Mike Pence: --in the essay that I wrote a long time ago, I said campaigns oughta be about something more important than just one candidate's election. And-- and this campaign and Donald Trump's candidacy has been about the issues the American people care about.

Lesley Stahl: --but what about--

Donald Trump: Lesley, Lesley--

Lesley Stahl: --the negative side? He apologized for being a negative--

Donald Trump: We're different people. I understand that. I'll give you an example. Hillary Clinton is a liar. Hillary Clinton-- that was just proven--

Lesley Stahl: That's--

Donald Trump: --last week.

Lesley Stahl: --that's negative--

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton--

Lesley Stahl: By the way --

Donald Trump: --you better believe it. Hillary Clinton is a crook.

Lesley Stahl: That's negative--

Donald Trump: I call her "Crooked Hillary." She's crooked Hillary. He won't-- I-- I don't-- I didn't ask him to do it, but I don't think he should do it because it's different for him.

Lesley Stahl: But-- he--

Donald Trump: He's not that kind of a--

Lesley Stahl: He probably--

Donald Trump: --person. We're different people--

Lesley Stahl: --don't you think he--

Donald Trump: --to me she's--

Lesley Stahl: --thinks that's--

Donald Trump: --Crooked Hillary.

Lesley Stahl: --wrong?

Donald Trump: I don't think he should use that term. I've never said one way or the other. But to him, I don't think it would sound right, but he will say how dishonest she is by going over the facts.

Lesley Stahl: But would you go to him-- let's say you won, you're the vice president, your office is, I assume, down the hall, and you go in and you say, "You know, you shouldn't be saying-- name-calling." Would you do that? Would you go in and say, "You crossed the line, I think you should apologize?" Would you do something like that?

Mike Pence: Look, I--

Lesley Stahl: He's laughing.

Mike Pence: --it's probably-- it's-- it's probably--

Lesley Stahl: It's OK.

Mike Pence: --obvious to people that our styles are different. But I promise you, our vision is exactly the same.

Lesley Stahl: No, but would you--

Mike Pence: And let me be--

Lesley Stahl: --will--

Mike Pence: --clear--

Lesley Stahl: --will you answer that? Would you go in --

Mike Pence: Well the-- one of the things I found out about this man is he appreciates candor. And--

Lesley Stahl: So you would go in--

Mike Pence: --I-- I--

Donald Trump: I'd like him to if he thinks I was doing something wrong--

Lesley Stahl: Would you listen--

Donald Trump: --just say--

Lesley Stahl: --to him--

Mike Pence: Yeah.

Lesley Stahl: --if he said you--

Donald Trump: Absolutely--

Lesley Stahl: --crossed the line.

Donald Trump: --absolutely. I might not apologize. You know, you said apologize, but--

Lesley Stahl: I did say apologize.

Donald Trump: But I might not do that, but I would absolutely want him to come in-- if he thinks I'm doing something wrong, Mike, I would want him to come in and say, really, you're doing, you gotta-- and that's OK. I accept that from my consultants and my people and if Mike came in and told me, you know, "I think you should do this or that--

Lesley Stahl: Back off that.

Donald Trump: I would listen and very likely listen to him.

Lesley Stahl: Do you think John McCain is not a hero because he was captured?

Mike Pence: I have a great deal of respect for John McCain, and--

Lesley Stahl: Do you think he went too far?

Donald Trump: You could say yes. I-- that's OK.

Donald Trump: That one, you could say yes, I mean, you're not--it's fine - hey, look, I like John McCain. But we have to take care of our vets.
......



....Donald Trump: You know-- the Constitution -- there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.

Mike Pence: You just asked me--if I'm comfortable with that--

Mike Pence: --and I am. What-- what Donald--

Lesley Stahl: You're on the same--

Mike Pence: Which--

Lesley Stahl: --page on that?

Mike Pence: --clearly-- clearly this man is not a politician. He doesn't speak like a politician--

Lesley Stahl: He's done pretty well.

Mike Pence: --he-- he speaks from his--

Mike Pence: --heart--

Donald Trump: Is that a good thing? I think that's a good thing.

Mike Pence: --he speaks from his heart. And--

Lesley Stahl: Well, I--

Donald Trump: Well, I-- I speak from my heart and my brain. Just so we understand.

Mike Pence: Right.

Donald Trump: This is (points to head) maybe more important.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes- ... an-ticket/

ETA:

Here's the whole painful ugly thing: