jerseyhoya wrote:

When Americans are asked about suspected terrorists “who may know details about future attacks against the U.S.”, only 24% are prepared to say the use of torture is “never” justified. Nearly as many, 20%, say the use of torture is “always” justified, while the remainder say it’s either “sometimes” (28%) or only “rarely” (18%) justified – a total of 66% who are unwilling to rule out torture completely. There has been little change in views from April, before the release of the report, when 22% said torture was never justified.

My fellow Americans, future war criminals.

I don't deny that the general populous is often misdirected and misled by fear and will often give into allowing the state to either take away their own freedoms (patriot act and recent NSA and CIA mass survellience) or commit atrocities in other states (Iraq war and torture black sites)

Just because the populous "calls" for the state to get blood and revenge, our leaders have to be above going beyond what it established as morally correct when it comes to war and treatment of the offenders and it's own people.
911 was a terrible thing when it first happened and it continues to hurt us as a people by the way our government has responded

The question presumes that torture is effective. All the evidence suggests it is not.

jerseyhoya wrote:

When Americans are asked about suspected terrorists “who may know details about future attacks against the U.S.”, only 24% are prepared to say the use of torture is “never” justified. Nearly as many, 20%, say the use of torture is “always” justified, while the remainder say it’s either “sometimes” (28%) or only “rarely” (18%) justified – a total of 66% who are unwilling to rule out torture completely. There has been little change in views from April, before the release of the report, when 22% said torture was never justified.

My fellow Americans, future war criminals.

yes, they would be if they indeed tortured someone.

dajafi wrote:The question presumes that torture is effective. All the evidence suggests it is not.

Don't all poll questions assume that the responder is ignorant? They are not polling to ascertain facts, but biased opinions!

TomatoPie wrote:Have a look at your Government's track record of trying to pick winners and losers in energy:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ene ... -subsidies

you've got to stop. you've dug the hole quite deep enough to hold you.

Eliabeth Warren told NPR that she is NOT running for president.

10x, but it didn't sound very convincing

i wonder if she's running for president

Dick Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press was mindboggling. I was waiting for someone with handcuffs to pop out from behind the curtain or something.

One of his more absurd, out of context statements:

“Today, we’re concerned about ISIS, a terrible new terrorist organization. It is headed by a man named Baghdadi. Baghdadi was in the custody of the U.S. military in Iraq in Camp Bucca — he was let go and now he’s out leading the terrorist attack against the United States.”

This was in reference to releasing people from Guantanamo. First, the Bush administration released over 500 detainees from there. Second, him saying that in that manner make it appear as though this happened recently; it happened in 2004. When he was vice-president.

Here's another doozy, after Chuck Todd noted that at least 25% of all detainees were declared completely innocent:

dick cheney wrote:I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective, and our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States.

pacino wrote:Eliabeth Warren told NPR that she is NOT running for president.

Right and [random college basketball/football coach] loves his school and is not at all interested in coaching at the pro level or at his alma mater.

WOO HOO! She's Running!!

She was very specific about not running in the present tense. I do think she will run

Gimme Warren and Sanders in whatever order and I'll be happy up until they lose/reality sets in that they won't do anything anyway.

We have a surgeon general: Vivek Murthy

*fixed name*

NRA is in an uproar because Murthy believes getting shot in the head is bad for you.

Everyone nationwide was clamoring for it, so here it is

Jeb Bush is running for president

Pootin, aka "ruble dick"

bahaha....GO TO YOUR ROOM

A few thoughts on JEB getting in the race and GOP primaries more generally. We’ll go with subject headings to help organize the trains of thought and allow people to ignore stuff that doesn’t matter to them.

I like Jeb Bush a lot – I think it is likely that of everyone who runs for president this time around, I will be closest to Jeb on issue positions/priorities. He was a good, conservative governor willing to take on significant reforms. In addition to being personally successful, he helped build the party in the state to a point where it continues to wield almost unchecked control. I think he would be a terrific president, and him getting in the race will raise the quality of the debates and make things more interesting generally. I like Jeb Bush a lot.

I don’t want Jeb Bush to be the nominee – Jeb being the nominee against Hillary would remove the ability to play the *stale* card in the general election. His last name is a liability among swing voters in the general election. He has not been involved in a political campaign as a candidate since 2002, and the world of a candidate has changed dramatically since then (both within the GOP and more broadly with the new media environment). I do not think he would be nearly as strong of a general election candidate as many fellow establishment leaning Republicans seem to believe. In addition to the electoral downsides of his last name and lack of recent political experience, I personally think it’s a bit weird that we’d nominate a guy whose brother was nominated twice and father was nominated twice. There are a number of wonderful Republicans in America who want to be president. I’m personally uncomfortable with this dynasty thing, and I think a Bush-Clinton race would earn much deserved derision. Now, this level of discomfort doesn’t totally cancel out what I wrote in the utterly compelling “I like Jeb Bush a lot” section, and I would still support him happily over many GOP primary rivals and certainly over the Democrat. But the name thing is a serious concern both electorally and for me personally.

Jeb is unlikely to be the nominee – This isn’t a particularly bold statement. I think every GOP candidate who announces is unlikely to be the nominee because there is going to be a broad field with a number of qualified, flawed candidates. Insofar as the party is likely to have a nominee, not being likely to be the nominee isn’t a reason to avoid the race, and he has as good of a shot (or better) than anyone at the moment. But a lot of this will be dependent on how he runs his primary campaign, and early signs are mixed but point toward not promising. There seems to be some rush to bestow clear frontrunner status on Jeb, and I think that’s nuts. Jeb seems to have a “take me as I am” attitude and doesn’t have an overwhelming desire to be president, which maybe should go in the beautifully written “I like Jeb Bush a lot” section or perhaps the “I don’t want Jeb Bush to be the nominee” part if it hurts him in the general. Wherever that belongs, it’s not going to be a boost to his chances in the primaries.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T – There is a tangible gap between this idea that you need to be a right wing, knuckle dragging lunatic to win a Republican primary in this day in age, and the reality of the last few nomination battles. Mitt Romney is a mainstream Republican from Massachusetts who was instrumental in the passage of a healthcare law that greatly resembled Obamacare, is a Mormon!, and was not trusted by the base at all. John McCain’s signature issue was a campaign finance reform bill hated by the party elites, he co-sponsored immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, he opposed some of the Bush tax cuts, etc. You can disagree with the base on issues – even major ones – but you need to give some ground and can’t be disdainful in your departures from orthodoxy. Maybe on some issues you need to outright flip-flop (abortion is probably the only non-negotiable one). On others, some fudging of your position or emphasizing points of commonality on related topics (hyping border enforcement when you’re for CIR, for example), while sympathizing with their views and treating the disagreement as a thing reasonable people can differ about is good enough. You do not need to fully capitulate and start talking like Tom Tancredo on immigration or Todd Akin on abortion or the Club for Growth on taxes, but you need to make gestures of respect toward the majority position if you aren’t fully on board with it.

I don’t think Jeb has shown that he has any intention of doing this at all. His illegal immigration “act of love” bit was an early signal, and he’s made comments recently about how a candidate has to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general. OK, sure, the GOP nominee cannot get too carried away running to the right in the primary, but you need to win the primary to win the general, and being willing to lose the primary and dismiss the concerns of the party base isn’t something primary voters are going to view as a badge of honor. Jeb is a genuinely conservative guy, certainly moreso than McCain and Romney. His issue positions are not wildly out of step with the average Republican voter. But if he’s going to treat the campaign as an exercise in explaining to the GOP base why he is right about immigration reform and Common Core and they are wrong, then he’s going to find it tough sledding out there.

So we’ll see how that all goes.