monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

maporsche wrote:

I can't remember anyone ever saying that Hillary was invincible? She had the 2nd highest negatives of any presidential politician ever. She was running to be the first female president in our nations history. She's been hated and scorned for almost 30 years by the right. There were so many cracks in that armor.

It's pretty clear that despite her flaws as a campaigner, a public official, and as a human being, the Democrat Establishment, their allies in the MSM, and True Blue among the rank and file, were certain that she was going to win. I think one of george's points is that while yes, there was certainly no rational reason to believe she was invincible, she campaigned and her allies and supporters acted as if she was. That they truly believed she was, and weren't hiding their fears and concerns behind a facade of confidence, was demonstrated by the widespread shock and despair they clearly and uniformly displayed when she lost. Obviously, a significant and decisive number of American voters were all too cognizant of the flaws that didn't really bother the elites and zealots, or she would have won. (And if this isn't george's point, it is mine )

Quote:

What people were surprised about were how many people had no problem electing Donald Trump (or at least, compared to Clinton).

A far more accurate statement would be "What Clinton supporters were surprised about were how many people had no problem electing Donald Trump (or at least, compared to Clinton)" and my response to it would be

"No kidding?"

First of all, Trump wasn't elected solely by a group of voters who believe he was without flaws, in fact most of his voters recognized his flaws. What you and those who think like you can't wrap your head around was that the Trump voters who recognized his flaws, also recognized hers and decided that, for a president, his were more acceptable than hers. It certainly did mean that they were blind to his flaws or that they all embraced them (some, of course, did to the extent that they saw them operating as virtues if he exercised control).

Since the election it appears that the Democrat Party hasn't bothered to examine their brand, or if they have, they haven't found any problems with it. In practice, they seem to have decided to intensely reinforce the brand, or those elements of it most rejected by Trump voters, rather than attempt to modify them to attract those voters the next time around.

Quote:

I think back to all the claims of impropriety and character flaws that I seen the right throw to the left...and here we have Trump, who is the personification of most of those flaws. Guess those things don't matter too much after all.

This is another classic reaction to a major loss. Blame those who voted for the other guy, the other brand and not the losing candidate or brand.
It may be an understandable manifestation of human nature, but it in no way will win future elections, particularly when it represents a key element of the losing brand that led a significant and decisive number of voters to reject it.

Canadian sniper sets world record with 2.2-mile pickoff of ISIS thug

A Canadian sniper set what appears to be a record, picking off an ISIS fighter from some 2.2 miles away, and disrupting a potentially deadly operation by the terror group in Iraq.

Shooting experts say the fatal shot at a world-record distance of 11,316 feet underscores how stunningly sophisticated military snipers are becoming. Ryan Cleckner, a former U.S. Army Ranger sniper called the feat an “incredible” accomplishment, one that owes as much if not more to the spotter’s expertise than the shooter's skill.

“The spotter would have had to successfully calculate five factors: distance, wind, atmospheric conditions and the speed of the earth’s rotation at their latitude,” Cleckner told Fox News.

“Because wind speed and direction would vary over the two miles the bullet traveled, the true challenge here was being able to calculate the actual wind speed and direction all the way to the target.”

Atmospheric conditions also would have posed a huge challenge for the spotter.

“To get the atmospheric conditions just right, the spotter would have had to understand the temperature, humidity and barometric pressure of the air the round had to travel through.

“The key to having a sniper round travel that far and hit a small target has less to do with speed and more to do with the efficiency with which the projectile moves through the air,” he said.

That’s because while sniper bullets exit the muzzle at several times the speed of sound they eventually slow down to less than the speed of sound, and at that point they become less stable. An efficiently designed bullet reduces that instability, he explained.

Cleckner said that while the ammunition that Canadian special forces use in the TAC-50 is “off-the-charts powerful,” with some 13,000 foot-pounds of force when it comes out of the muzzle, the speed of a bullet, a 750-grain Hornady round, is not as important as the aerodynamic efficiency of the bullet.

The new record was set using a McMillan TAC-50, a .50-caliber weapon and the largest shoulder-fired firearm in existence.

Check out CNN's two bits worth:

Quote:

Democrats just went 0-4. When will they win?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/democrats-georgia-elections-analysis/index.html

And the republicans can get a pile-o-**** in the white house and ridicule America with it. So?

I've no idea how to kick up the dem party. I've always been more local re contacts, etc.: don't know national party workings.

I'm mixed - am for dumping the apparatus but keeping the people who call themselves democrats. A whole new party?

Maybe I could go for it, but think of multiplied skirmishes happening up the wazoo even to set it up.

In case anyone doesn't know, I'm a lefty.

I think there is some excitement displayed in every election about a person's chosen candidate. And hyperbolic speech isn't only a 'leftist' trait.

I thought Hillary was going to win too. No so much because of who she was, but because of who she was against. If I was forced to bet, I'd have bet Hillary 4 out of 5 times. You probably would have too, if you were honest. I think Trump supporters were as surprised that HE won as Hillary supporters were that she lost.

Yeah, it's the "his were more acceptable than hers" part that I really can't get my head around. Still can't. But it's not just about a person's flaws to me, it's also about the agenda they'll support. That means more to me than any specific candidate.

To say that the DNC hasn't done any soul searching since the election, while I have no proof, I simply can't imagine that it hasn't happened.

And I'm still having a very hard time figuring out what is wrong with their brand in the minds of those on the left. The ones who seem so against the DNC (from the left, not from the right) can't seem to offer any specific changes they'd like to see.

Not saying it's going win future elections, but it's going to make arguing on message boards a lot more fun.

Well, ya know something other than post content is involved when PETA cheese-eaters give you 6 downvotes for postin a cute little animal video, eh?

Olivier5 wrote:

And the republicans can get a pile-o-**** in the white house and ridicule America with it. So?

No, Clinton lost where it counts.

Four Arab states have sent Qatar a list of 13 demands it must meet if it wants them to lift their blockade, news agencies report.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are asking the Gulf state to shut down its broadcaster, Al Jazeera.
They are also asking Qatar to reduce ties with Iran and close a Turkish military base - all within 10 days.
Qatar denies funding terrorism and encouraging regional instability.
It has been subjected to more than two weeks of unprecedented diplomatic and economic sanctions, in the worst Gulf crisis in decades.
The list was announced after US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged Qatar's neighbours to make their demands "reasonable and actionable".
Correspondents say there has been frustration in Washington, which is seeking to resolve the dispute, over the time taken by the Saudis and others to formalise their demands.

A dispute between the UK and Mauritius over disputed island territory in the Indian Ocean is to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The UN General Assembly voted by 94 countries to 15 that The Hague should examine the legal status of the Chagos Islands.
The former British colony used to be part of Mauritius but was detached in 1965 and is now home to a US airbase.
The Foreign Office said it would be an "inappropriate" use of the ICJ.
"This is a disappointing outcome," a Foreign Office spokesman said: "Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory is clearly a matter for the UK and Mauritius to resolve ourselves.
"Taking this dispute to the International Court of Justice is an inappropriate use of the ICJ mechanism."
Mauritius, which gained independence from Britain in 1968, argues that the UK broke international law when it separated off the islands before granting Mauritius its independence.
'Embarrassing defeat'
Deigo Garcia, the largest of the group of islands, was leased to the US in 1966.
Families were forced to leave the Chagos Islands in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for a US Air Force base on Diego Garcia, which is leased until 2036.
The Foreign Office said it did not recognise Mauritius's claim to sovereignty over the islands - but that it would return the islands when they were no longer needed for defence.
"We have committed to cede them to Mauritius when the territory is no longer required for defence purposes," the spokesman said.
"At present it plays an important role in regional and global security, helping to keep the UK, US and other allies, including Mauritius, safe."
The government said it would "robustly defend" its position ahead of the ICJ's decision, which would not be legally binding.
Most EU countries abstained from the vote, which BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale described as an "embarrassing diplomatic defeat" for the UK.
He said it signalled that Britain's diplomatic clout had waned after the vote for Brexit.
In 2015, the UK Supreme Court denied a legal challenge by former islanders to return to Chagos after being removed more than 40 years ago.
The court rejected claims that islanders suffered a "significant injustice" by being forcibly removed from their homeland.