realpolitiks politics

The Arabs did have that time, roughly between Mohammed and the Turks when they were the height of civilization.  But that is probably part of their problem.  They are like some family that was once rich and powerful but lost everything but still carries on.

You certainly have softened on the Russkies.  Would you give them free reign in Ukraine too?  Not that they will be able to knock the mideast heads together, they can barely cope with Chechnya.  But I agree it would be nice to have them in there because it would mean we were out.

But you are right, the Arabs weren't much lately without oil.  Back in Champaign I knew a Kuwaiti guy.  Before oil they dove for clams and when tour boats sailed past they dove for the coins the passengers tossed.  When the locusts swarmed through the mideast they stood on their northern border with big bags, at last something to eat. 

Remember OPEC?  Remember the oil embargo?  Remember the guys in the bathrobes and funny hats, but regal bearing, telling the cowering western reporters that they had decided to double the price of a barrel of oil, and then with a sneer, adding maybe triple it, and they all laughed.

I think the tea partiers paved the way for Trump with their contempt for anybody with experience or any kind of learning.  They are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore.  I'm going to put that movie, Network, in my Netfflix queue.  I remember in 1976 when everybody yelled "I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore," I thought that was a good thing, but now I shudder. 

I don't know what percentage of people didn't trust Clinton when he was running for his second term.  I was thinking that might have been the blue dress but wiki tells me that that was 1998.  Well he was always an oily guy, a smooth and slick talker, but that's not such a bad thing,  I think people thought he steered the ship of state pretty well and if he told a fib now and then what's the harm.

Trump on the other hand, I think his fans trust him in all things.  If he said he saw a million angels dancing on the head a pin and singing his praises, his fans would believe it must be so.  After all doesn't he have the greatest vision in the world?

I will probably vote for Bernie in the primary.  I say probably because even though I like his agenda, I am not sure he could enact it, so then what good is it?  Mostly I will be voting for him as a way of nudging the big girl to the left.  But if it's close between Bernie and her, and the reps nominate somebody with half a chance, I might vote for the big girl because I think she would have a better chance of winning.

We have had this conversation before.  I think you should vote to get the best (least worst) possible outcome, whereas I believe you think you should vote to express your opinion. 

Even though I am a bit of a yellow dog, I am not a member of the democratic party.  I mean where would I sign up?  I think there was a time when you had to declare your party to vote in the primary and then the next time you voted you couldn't vote in the other party's primary, but I think those times are long gone.  As far as the parties go whoever votes in their primaries and votes for their candidate in the general election is a member of the party.  You may have kookie ideas, but that doesn't make you dissimilar to other republicans, and since you walk and talk, or in this case vote, like a duck, you are a republican.

The question was why does the republican party, to their detriment, have so many candidates?  And the answer is because they have people like you who will vote for fringe candidates in the primary.

Oh dang, time is up and I still haven't gotten around to explaining why people want to join ISIS.  Well I guess we will have to wait.