Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 64 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   1. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4762395)
New Jersey has among the highest property taxes


Hasn't this been the case for decades?
   2. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4762404)
Hasn't this been the case for decades?


It's All. Christie's. FAULT.
   3. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4762405)
Hillary Clinton looks well positioned for 2016, in that she can creditably say "Look, I haven't been involved in any of this economic mess." Attacking her economic record is difficult insofar as she doesn't have one, which given the state of the economy the past decade is a plus. The best the Republicans are going to be able to do is try to blame her for Obama's economic record.
   4. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4762406)
Also, "slowest job growth" simply needs context.
   5. The Good Face Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4762412)
New Jersey has among the highest property taxes

Hasn't this been the case for decades?


Yep. Amusingly enough, said taxes are used in large part to fund NJ's public schools, which, according to Democracts, Christie isn't funding enough.
   6. spike Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4762413)
   7. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4762418)
Hasn't this been the case for decades?


My understanding - gained from people who live in New Jersey and last election voted for CC - is that part of the problem with new Jersey is the crazy organization of the state. It has far too many tiny school districts, fire departments, police departments, townships and everything else. And most of them are run like wonderful little patronage operations, dispensing jobs and other goodies.

It is not the fault of CC, the GOP, The Democratic Party or anything that limited. It is a very long standing issue rooted in history far enough back that assigning blame is useless. And according to them everyone in power (on both sides) goes up through the system and so no one can change it - meaning there are never enough people with power and the will to change it. Inertia is a strong force.

But hey I only chose that article because it linked politics and baseball, and folks seem to need ice cream if a straight up political article is posted for the politics thread. So hey, there you go.
   8. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4762419)
Hey look another quitter taking his ball and going home.


Lol. Earth to Spike: He lost the election.

And the Democrat governor is "heartsick" over it:

The Virginia Republican suffered a stunning primary defeat in June at the hands of David Brat, a little-known economics professor. McAuliffe said in a radio interview this week that he was "heartsick" over Cantor's loss, which, along with a slate of retirements from other Virginia representatives, he said would lessen Virginia's clout in Congress.


Funny, I had no idea Terry McAuliffe is now a governor. I remember him as the annoying DNC chairman who showed up on tv twice a week back in the day, to wave the party's talking points.
   9. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4762421)
Oh, right, they got to rule over a country where they first set up shop all of 35 years earlier.

They offered it again in around 1945, when they'd ruled for 115 years.

So after coming in uninvited in 1830 and setting up minority rule in Algeria, then 35 years later they square things by benignly offering citizenship in the home country, where surprise surprise, they'll be in a permanent minority.

So what if they're in a permanent minority? What gives them any right to an ethnically-defined polity where they're the ethnic majority? Do American blacks have that right?

There was never any way that the French were going to let Algerians rule their own country.

How was it "their own country"? It became what I think you mean by "their own country" after their bloodthirsty mob violence and mass murder ethnically cleansed it and the French left, but before that there was no "their own country."

And while you shed your crocodile tears about the FLN's violent methods, you not only ignore the fact that the French famously used napalm and torture in response, but you ignore the fact that it was violence that enabled the French to rule over Algeria in the first place.

Of course. There was some violence involved in the inception of the legitimate governing authority of virtually every inch of territory on the planet.

You act as if the FLN was somehow the instigator of violence in Algeria, which as usual (for you) ignores well over a century of history and pretends that it didn't exist.

Of course the FLN was the instigator of the violence that started the war of independence, which included the mass murder of innocent civilians. This isn't even debatable.


   10. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4762423)
The best the Republicans are going to be able to do is try to blame her for Obama's economic record.


And of course she has the advantage of being able to point to her husband's economic record. I don't think Bill deserves much of the credit for the economic boom he benefited from, but it is a great counterpoint to the economy of the last 14 years.
   11. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4762424)
Algeria is so July.
   12. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4762425)
Algeria is so July.

Nah, Algeria's the very essence of modern liberalism. It's July, August, alpha, and omega.
   13. Kurt Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4762433)
And of course she has the advantage of being able to point to her husband's economic record. I don't think Bill deserves much of the credit for the economic boom he benefited from, but it is a great counterpoint to the economy of the last 14 years.


Hey, if she can selectively associate herself with and disassociate herself from Bill as expertly as you do ("What is this 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' of which you speak?"), she'll be in terrific shape.
   14. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4762434)
Correct it was [the legitimate government of France], until events caused it not to be.

No, there was never a time that it ceased being the legitimate government, even though it did not have temporal control of its borders and territory. Just as it was the legitimate authority in Algeria, whether or not it could control its separatist mob.
Well, that's just wrong. In fact, assuming the Vichy government was ever the legitimate government of France, it ceased to be so no later than 1944.
   15. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4762435)
Hey, if she can selectively associate herself with and disassociate herself from Bill as expertly as you do


I am just some dude on the internet, she is a trained professional, closed track, do not attempt at home!
   16. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4762436)
At any rate I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be. Hillary Clinton will certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans don't have a credible candidate to run. Their hopes rely on Clinton self-destructing or the Democratic party getting caught up in a major scandal, and that's about it.
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4762439)
Has Obama been sued and impeached out of office yet? I am looking forward to the Biden administration.
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4762441)
"It has far too many tiny school districts,"

well, sure, if you believe that having more school districts - 600+ - than it has towns - 565, last I checked - is a lot.
:)

no city NJ has more than 280,000 people, only two have as many as 150,000, and Bergen County - which has almost 1 million people - doesn't have a city with 50,000+ people. If you tell someone you're a Mayor or town council member, the response is liable to be, "Who isn't?"

..........

"At any rate I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be."

an even more obvious one was January 1992, less than a year out. George Bush I was already President, and the Democrats didn't have a credible candidate to run (we all thought). I forget how that turned out.

assumptions about results never seem to factor in, you know, real life. I just heard Jon Heyman on the radio talking about how while some teams were good, they "weren't capable of winning the World Series." now, if you asked him each year which playoff teams can't win it all, he often would list teams that win it all a few weeks later. but even if that happened 20 years in a row, I doubt it would change his mindset.

Who in 2006 had Obama over Hillary? I saw his stirring convention speech and posted on another board (as did others), "That guy could be President someday." But I never would have guessed it would be 2008.

life would be boring, and sports, too, if we DIDN'T get surprised so often.

   19. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4762445)

At any rate I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be. Hillary Clinton will certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans don't have a credible candidate to run. Their hopes rely on Clinton self-destructing or the Democratic party getting caught up in a major scandal, and that's about it.


Thomas Dewey in 1946? He had lost the election in '44, but was seen as a very strong candidate and the frontrunner among Republicans with a very weak Truman expected to lose. Dewey stumbled a bit in the primaries, but he was the favorite going into it.
   20. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4762446)

Funny, I had no idea Terry McAuliffe is now a governor. I remember him as the annoying DNC chairman who showed up on tv twice a week back in the day, to wave the party's talking points.


He's the slimiest of the slimiest and won mostly because the GOP candidate - Ken Cuccinelli, was terrible and far right for a state that is trending purple.
   21. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4762448)
At any rate I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be. Hillary Clinton will certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans don't have a credible candidate to run. Their hopes rely on Clinton self-destructing or the Democratic party getting caught up in a major scandal, and that's about it.
Was this post made in 2006?
   22. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4762450)
the gop has a bevy of young, interesting contenders. just because their politics may not mesh wiht some folks here does not mean that the general populace won't find them appealing.

i know i am perceived as biased but i think the dems will make a colossal mistake going all in with senator clinton.
   23. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4762452)
Oh, right, they got to rule over a country where they first set up shop all of 35 years earlier.

They offered it again in around 1945, when they'd ruled for 115 years.


So rather than offering independence to a country in which the non-pieds noirs Algerians were a 90% majority, they generously offered them citizenship in a country where they'd be a permanent minority. Again: How white of them.

So after coming in uninvited in 1830 and setting up minority rule in Algeria, then 35 years later they square things by benignly offering citizenship in the home country, where surprise surprise, they'll be in a permanent minority.

So what if they're in a permanent minority? What gives them any right to an ethnically-defined polity where they're the ethnic majority? Do American blacks have that right?


Again this ignores the mechanisms (dual legal system; torture; etc.) by which the French maintained minority rule in Algeria. But then some minority rule is more equal than others, as long as the minority is European.

There was never any way that the French were going to let Algerians rule their own country.

How was it "their own country"? It became what I think you mean by "their own country" after their bloodthirsty mob violence and mass murder ethnically cleansed it and the French left, but before that there was no "their own country."


Yes, and history only begins when the Europeans show up, in this case in 1830. At this point, all the rules are set, and only the Europeans get to set them.

You act as if the FLN was somehow the instigator of violence in Algeria, which as usual (for you) ignores well over a century of history and pretends that it didn't exist.

Of course the FLN was the instigator of the violence that started the war of independence, which included the mass murder of innocent civilians. This isn't even debatable.


And of course there was no violence involved in the establishment of French colonial rule. There was no violence involved in maintaining that rule for well over a century. Everything the French did was cheerfully chosen by the non-pieds noirs Algerians. Only the violence that began in 1954 is of any consequence, and worthy of condemnation, and there's absolutely no connection to that violence and anything else that happened before.

All these torturous rationalizations for colonialism, and all for no greater apparent reason than to give you another chance to rant like a banshee against your pet scourge, "modern liberals", who previously were supposed to have been around only since 1979.

------------------------------------------

No, there was never a time that it ceased being the legitimate government, even though it did not have temporal control of its borders and territory. Just as it was the legitimate authority in Algeria, whether or not it could control its separatist mob.


Well, that's just wrong. In fact, assuming the Vichy government was ever the legitimate government of France, it ceased to be so no later than 1944.

Sugar Bear has his own ideas about "legitimacy", and you'd best not try to dissuade him by pointing out mere historical facts.
   24. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4762453)
the gop has a bevy of young, interesting contenders.

Like who?

just because their politics may not mesh wiht some folks here does not mean that the general populace won't find them appealing.

We'll see.
   25. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4762458)
Well, that's just wrong. In fact, assuming the Vichy government was ever the legitimate government of France, it ceased to be so no later than 1944.

I was talking about the Third Republic. Vichy was illegitimate.
   26. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4762461)
Vichy was illegitimate.

Why?
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4762463)
Yes, and history only begins when the Europeans show up, in this case in 1830. At this point, all the rules are set, and only the Europeans get to set them.

But, there was no "Algeria" before 1830. Just a collection of coastal fiefdoms, and tribal regions in the interior.

Why didn't the Bey of Algiers get his land back in 1960?
   28. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4762466)
So rather than offering independence to a country in which the non-pieds noirs Algerians were a 90% majority, they generously offered them citizenship in a country where they'd be a permanent minority. Again: How white of them.

And? The non-pieds noirs had no inherent right to be part of a polity in which they weren't an ethnic minority, anymore than any of America's minorities do. On the day that America's whites become a minority, they will have no right to a polity in which they aren't a minority.

Yes, and history only begins when the Europeans show up, in this case in 1830. At this point, all the rules are set, and only the Europeans get to set them.

Huh? History didn't begin when the Europeans showed up, but them showing up happened to be the inception date of the legitimate ruling authority of Algeria as of 1960. How did Europeans get the right to rule in the colonies and then the United States?

And of course there was no violence involved in the establishment of French colonial rule. There was no violence involved in maintaining that rule for well over a century. Everything the French did was cheerfully chosen by the non-pieds noirs Algerians. Only the violence that began in 1954 is of any consequence, and worthy of condemnation, and there's absolutely no connection to that violence and anything else that happened before.


Of course. Violence against a legitimate ruling authority is always conceptually different than violence by a legitimate ruling authority. That's the rule of nations.

All these torturous rationalizations for colonialism, and all for no greater apparent reason than to give you another chance to rant like a banshee against your pet scourge, "modern liberals", who previously were supposed to have been around only since 1979.

I'm not sure what 1979 has to do with anything, but as we've seen, Algeria is a case study in modern liberalism and modern liberals don't fare well.
   29. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4762467)
Vichy was illegitimate.

Why?


SBB is just getting rolling, don't stop him now.

Vichy France was never the government of France, and the Third Republic was still the legitimate government despite not existing anymore. I mean, you would think that given that the French themselves refer to the post WW2 government as the 4th Republic would indicate that the third republic had ended, but you just have to let SBB build up a head of steam.

He'll be happy to explain how Vichy France was never the government of France and how Great Britian did not colonize the Americas. Just give him time.

Edit:
I'm not sure what 1979 has to do with anything, but as we've seen, Algeria is a case study in modern liberalism and modern liberals don't fare well.


I give up trying to parody SBB.
   30. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4762468)
Vichy was illegitimate.

Why?


Because it was imposed at gunpoint, by illegitimate force.
   31. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4762471)
why bother
   32. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4762474)
Jesus you really are an unbelievable piece of work.

So the German occupation authority was a legitimate ruling authority of France?

If you insist, I guess.
   33. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4762482)
Why didn't the Bey of Algiers get his land back in 1960?

Because he wasn't Algerian.

Duh.
   34. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4762483)
I know I said why bother but here goes:

1: France took over what is now Algeria by force, they maintained "control" for a bit over 100 years by force- at the point of a gun
2: "Vichy" took over France internally by essentially subterfuge after France lost in WWI and stayed in power with German support
3: Modern day Algeria is an independent nation today because of a successful war of independence began in the 1950s, it was not the only armed revolt against French rule but it was the successful one.

So according to SBB:

1: French rule over Algeria was legitimate
2: Vichy rule was illegitimate
3: The Algerian War of independence was an illegtimate racist revolt against the legitimate government

   35. TerpNats Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4762485)
I'm a progressive Democrat who wants nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's "inevitable" coronation in 2016 -- screw the Wall Street-Ivy League power structure. I'd prefer Biden; he's got more heart in his little finger than that corporate triangulist has in her entire body. But Hillary has identity politics in her favor (hey, we chose the black guy in 2008, now it's time for a woman!).
   36. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4762486)
the gop has a bevy of young, interesting contenders.

Like who?


Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker

I don't agree with their politics, but they are a more interesting crop than Mitt Romney, and honestly, more interesting than anything on the Dem side outside of Hillary and maybe Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. Any Dem that thinks 2016 is going to be a cakewalk I think is fooling themselves.
   37. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4762496)
So according to SBB:

1: French rule over Algeria was legitimate
2: Vichy rule was illegitimate
3: The Algerian War of independence was an illegtimate racist revolt against the legitimate government


You forgot:
4: Algeria is now a legitimate nation. Because reasons.
   38. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4762499)
I don't agree with their politics, but they are a more interesting crop than Mitt Romney, and honestly, more interesting than anything on the Dem side outside of Hillary and maybe Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. Any Dem that thinks 2016 is going to be a cakewalk I think is fooling themselves.


Interesting. Yes I agree the GOP candidates are interesting. And HRC is honestly kind of boring other than her biography and gender. Of course Obama is sort of boring outside his biography.

Seriously though I do not pine for HRC. I do not love her as a candidate. I likely won't vote for her in the primary if there is any sort of reasonable option. But she will be the nominee (most likely) and if nominated with likely win the Presidency, IMO. Cakewalk? Not so much, but win and win pretty convincingly? Yes, I think that the most probable outcome.
   39. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4762503)
Just to beat out YC, Obama's aggregate job approval is -13.9, his worst since the first week of December 2013.

   40. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4762505)
Because it was imposed at gunpoint, by illegitimate force.
It almost reminds me of another government we've been talking about on these pages.

the gop has a bevy of young, interesting contenders. just because their politics may not mesh wiht some folks here does not mean that the general populace won't find them appealing.
I agree with your general point that it is far too early to crown Hillary. And also that you never can tell who is going to click with the electorate until they are on the big stage. Lots of people seem to have tools and can't hit the 3-2 pitch (or in Rick Perry's case the 0-0 pitch.) So uncertainty should be the default about 2016. Especially since a recession or something could make any Democrat unelectable (as the 1992 comparison above suggested.)

That said, I don't see the equivalent of a 1999 GWB out there with a well-oiled machine. It's too soon to say whether any of them are 1991 Clintons, since he really only gained ground as his skills in campaigning became clear (and he had looked like a buffoon as recently as 88.)

To me, the R pack has a guy who is a totally plausible candidate with the wrong last name and a boring demeanor and apparently doubts about running in Jeb.

A guy who is a plausible president and not an awful campaigner (look at the fundamentals in 2012) and who has the drive but who is also tarnished as a loser so presumably won't run in Mitt.

Some guys who are plausible presidents but haven't shown campaigning ability: Portman, Pawlenty (really doubt he will run again), Huntsman (ditto)

A guy who I think is primed to be a good if very polarizing candidate but who has a tough re-election campaign to win first (I would guess he'll win but he's going to have to be very Wisconsin focused to survive and thus be behind in the early campaigning) in Scott Walker

A guy who should have been presidential material in Jindal but who hasn't found his footing and who has a 32/56 approve-disapprove in his home state

Another guy who was put forward quickly and who hasn't yet shown he can handle the big time and is going to be in danger of being hit as a RINO (absurdly) in Rubio

A fine campaigner who has been out of the game, is a misfit with the party on some economic issues and probably won't run in Huckabee

A moderately talented but admirably dogged campaigner who is also a misfit with the party on economic issues but who certainly will run in Santorum

A fine campaigner who is a very hard fit with both the bulk of R primary voters and the electorate in Rand Paul

An adept politician whose career is evaporating and who never could play out of the northeast in Chris Christie

An adept politician whose career is fine but also is never going to play out of the northeast in Peter King

A guy who choked as famously as anyone ever in Rick Perry

Paul Ryan

A true loonie in Palin (who surely won't run)

Someone who plays a loonie in Ted Cruz and who is hated by his party establishment as much as by Democrats in Ted Cruz


So it looks to me like, in baseball terms, the party has a large numbers of questionable prospects. If you could fuse together the best of them, you'd have a formidable candidate. And someone might develop. In fact out of the lot, you might even bet on one of them surprising you but it'd be hard to guess which one. If I had to guess, it is going to be Walker if he wins in 2014 and Ryan if he doesn't. Though I think Ryan is going to be better served by waiting until 2020.

The problem is that these are prospects who have to develop fast. Sometimes they do. But you wouldn't inherently bet on it.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think there are guys who now seem to you to be safe bets to have the combo of talent, drive, and mainstream acceptability? Do you think it is only ideology that leads people to think that most of the people who look likely to run haven't yet shown that they can handle the rigors of the campaign? 1992 is the optimistic but plausible comparison. Sometimes, as the Dems in 88, the seven dwarfs turn out all to be dwarfs. Sometimes one emerges, and also gets a set of favorable characteristics. That could happen but would you bet on it?
   41. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4762507)
Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker


/shrug.

Rand Paul is never going to be elected.
Christie has serious problems with the base even beyond Bridgegate.
Bobby Jindal? Seriously?
Jeb Bush might be Mario Cuomo.
Paul Ryan does not have the conventional qualifications to be nominated.
Summer 2016 ... Scott Walker IS ... Generic Republican.

You left out Rubio (who probably has been left behind), and Cruz (who is doing his damndest to piss off as many members of the establishment as he can).
   42. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:30 PM (#4762513)
The problem is that these are prospects who have to develop fast. Sometimes they do. But you wouldn't inherently bet on it.


My thought is that it is really hard to run as president. Obama did it by having a tremendous organization that quickly gathered support from the anti-Clinton faction and continued growing and organizing into the general election. Romney also spent a great deal of time building up his organization nationally and credibility with the GOP base. McCain was "next in line" and had run national campaigns before and was known by everyone who was anyone.

I don't see any current GOP candidate with that kind of organization, that kind of network and credibility both in the base and at large. HRC has it (obviously) and to build it right it takes years and major organization skills. Obama did it in three or so years, and if you were paying attention you knew it was out there (though not that he was going to win, obviously).

Does the GOP have a candidate with the requisite organization? Jeb and Mitt both have it I suspect. But I don't think the others do. The Governors have a jump start in that they can build off of their state organizations and the Federal officers have some organizations of their own, but national campaigns are a different beast.

Any GOP candidate gets the GOP machine, and if you want to roll with just that then sure, but HRC has a whole lot more than that. And on the flip side if HRC doesn't run then Team Blue will be caught without a solid credible national candidate (unless Uncle Joe gets OFA I guess).

And no I am not concerned for the GOP. I have no advice for them. I hope they lose (to avoid being called a concern troll, I wanted to assert my lack of concern).
   43. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4762519)
I know I said why bother but here goes:

1: France took over what is now Algeria by force, they maintained "control" for a bit over 100 years by force- at the point of a gun
2: "Vichy" took over France internally by essentially subterfuge after France lost in WWI and stayed in power with German support
3: Modern day Algeria is an independent nation today because of a successful war of independence began in the 1950s, it was not the only armed revolt against French rule but it was the successful one.

So according to SBB:

1: French rule over Algeria was legitimate
2: Vichy rule was illegitimate
3: The Algerian War of independence was an illegtimate racist revolt against the legitimate government


All ruling authorities maintain control at gunpoint, including the constitutional government of the United States -- now, and when it used force to prevent a revolt against its rule in 1860.

I'll assume the comparisons between the 130 year long French rule in Algeria and the Vichy/German dispossession of the Third Republic are some combination of performance art and grudging 12-steppish acceptance of the vacuity of the modern liberal perspective.
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4762523)
Well, that's just wrong. In fact, assuming the Vichy government was ever the legitimate government of France, it ceased to be so no later than 1944.

I was talking about the Third Republic. Vichy was illegitimate.
The Third Republic ceased to exist, so by definition it couldn't be the legitimate government. France wasn't like the Netherlands, where the government escaped and sat in exile until the occupation ended. The Third Republic handed over power to Petain and dissolved. That's why after the liberation of France it became the Fourth Republic -- because it was a new regime.
   45. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4762524)
Does the GOP have a candidate with the requisite organization? Jeb and Mitt both have it I suspect. But I don't think the others do. The Governors have a jump start in that they can build off of their state organizations and the Federal officers have some organizations of their own, but national campaigns are a different beast.


I don't think Rs need that kind of organization. Generally speaking, Ds feel like they could win every election if they turn out enough people. Rs don't really have to focus on turnout in the same way.
   46. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4762525)
The Third Republic handed over power to Petain and dissolved.

At gunpoint. Then when the war ended, the Fourth Republic took over, thus restoring the continuation of the legitimate republican government of the nation. That republican government never lost its status as the legitimate government of France.

Few if any nations recognized the Vichy/German government as legitimate. Contrast the acceptance of Algeria's status by both the League of Nations and the United Nations and the community of nations generally between 1830 and the changed status of the country in the 1960s.
   47. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4762527)
At gunpoint.
And?
   48. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4762530)
And?

And see 46.
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4762534)
And, what is your point about the fact that the Third Republic dissolved at gunpoint? It dissolved; therefore, it could not be the government, legitimate or otherwise, of France. (Frankly, I have no idea what your criteria for defining a legitimate government are after reading all of your posts, but I know that a government that doesn't exist can't be one.)
   50. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4762535)
Rand Paul is never going to be elected.
Christie has serious problems with the base even beyond Bridgegate.
Bobby Jindal? Seriously?
Jeb Bush might be Mario Cuomo.
Paul Ryan does not have the conventional qualifications to be nominated.
Summer 2016 ... Scott Walker IS ... Generic Republican.

You left out Rubio (who probably has been left behind), and Cruz (who is doing his damndest to piss off as many members of the establishment as he can).


None of those are really a refutation that those are at least more interesting candidates than the stiff suits the GOP has trotted out there before and the Dems bench once you get past the top 3 candidates.
   51. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4762536)
SBB, the illegitimacy of Vichy France does not change the fact that the Third Republic did not exist [edit] post 1940.

So when you said:
No, there was never a time that it ceased being the legitimate government, even though it did not have temporal control of its borders and territory. Just as it was the legitimate authority in Algeria, whether or not it could control its separatist mob.


It was factually incorrect, independent of whether or not Vichy France was a legitimate government.
   52. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4762537)
I don't think Rs need that kind of organization. Generally speaking, Ds feel like they could win every election if they turn out enough people. Rs don't really have to focus on turnout in the same way.


Well I agree they need it less. I think it helps though, and in 2016 they are going to need every bit they can. The other thing an organization does is (obviously) help the eventual nominee make it through with as few problems as possible. Mitt was a terrible candidate but his money and organization helped him ride out the storm and win.

I don't know who in the current field has that, who can make it through as undamaged as possible. But yes someone will win and they will get the GOP machine. But I think to do well you need to have pretty good control of that machine, and that takes an organization of the candidates (IMO).

But hey I am NOT an expert on the GOP, so I could be way off base.
   53. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4762538)
Frankly, I have no idea what your criteria for defining a legitimate government are after reading all of your posts, but I know that a government that doesn't exist can't be one.


Cosign. Heck, high five. Amen and can I get a witness?!?
   54. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4762539)
LOL @ Jeb Bush. The Republicans nominating Jeb Bush is every Democrat's wet dream.
   55. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4762540)
And, what is your point about the fact that the Third Republic dissolved at gunpoint?

That it or a successor of similar character remained the legitimate government of France even though it didn't control French territory.(*)

I can't believe people are actually claiming that Vichy/Germany's rule over France was in any way legitimate. That's pure trolling.

(*) I'm not remotely interested in the semantic dispute over whether the legitimate ruler was the "Third Republic" or some other republican government of similar character.

   56. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4762541)
Well I agree they need it less. I think it helps though, and in 2016 they are going to need every bit they can. The other thing an organization does is (obviously) help the eventual nominee make it through with as few problems as possible. Mitt was a terrible candidate but his money and organization helped him ride out the storm and win.


Disagree. What you need as an R candidate historically is the support of party Elites. Romney was able to ride out the storm because every challenger was treated as a joke by the party establishment--including Gingrich, who had conventional qualifications for President. That's not organization as I understand it.

Edit: SBB is killing it. He manages to make the discussion all about himself by making bizarre anti-factual statements that people cannot let go of because they are so transparently wrong. When he triples down on them and refuses to submit, it just makes it impossible to ignore him.
   57. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4762542)
It was factually incorrect, independent of whether or not Vichy France was a legitimate government.

It wasn't "factually incorrect," it was semantically incorrect. You'll have to come up with more than that.
   58. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4762545)
SBB is killing it. He manages to make the discussion all about himself by making bizarre anti-factual statements that people cannot let go of because they are so transparently wrong. When he triples down on them and refuses to submit, it just makes it impossible to ignore him.

The pro-"Algerian" "side" has been reduced to arguing that Vichy/German rule over France wasn't illegitimate, and that isn't "bizarre," which ... um yeah.
   59. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4762547)
/shrug.

Rand Paul is never going to be elected.

Sure about that? Well it's the safe bet anyway 99% of pols mentioned as Presidential contenders are never going to live in the White House

Christie has serious problems with the base even beyond Bridgegate.

agree, he's got an extremely abrasive personality, Giuliani times three, just won't play outside the North East I don't think. (Andrew Cuomo is the Dem version)
Bobby Jindal? Seriously?
mesmerizingly awful if you ask me, but I'm probably not a typical voter
Jeb Bush might be Mario Cuomo.
interesting comparison...
Paul Ryan does not have the conventional qualifications to be nominated.
and Obama did?
Summer 2016 ... Scott Walker IS ... Generic Republican.
I'm not sure there is a "Generic Republican" any more. But very anti-labor/pro big business/1 percent, essentially the opposite of what you'd went if you'd want to "go populist" as Snapper is wont to put it. OTOH he seems "generic" enough if you haven't paid attention to Wisconsin politics that people could project what they want to see onto him.
You left out Rubio (who probably has been left behind)
Seems stalled
and Cruz (who is doing his damndest to piss off as many members of the establishment as he can).
The establishment is wounded, if you are going to take it on now's the time, don't see him as viable (general election) in 2016, if he got the GOP nod he'd be Goldwater/McGovern style road kill, his path would be the rather longer Reagan path.

   60. TerpNats Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4762548)
LOL @ Jeb Bush. The Republicans nominating Jeb Bush is every Democrat's wet dream.
Bush vs. Clinton in 2016? No, no, no, no, NO!
   61. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4762550)
Edit: SBB is killing it. He manages to make the discussion all about himself by making bizarre anti-factual statements that people cannot let go of because they are so transparently wrong. When he triples down on them and refuses to submit, it just makes it impossible to ignore him.


It's also how he argues for Jack Morris in HOF threads, no wait, he'll actually make a few factually correct statements in those.
   62. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4762555)
The pro-"Algerian" "side" has been reduced to arguing that Vichy/German rule over France wasn't illegitimate, and that isn't "bizarre," which ... um yeah.


You mean the pro-Algerian side that exists solely in your head, but anyway:

So, you agree that Vichy rule over France was illegitimate?

Ok, what about French Rule over Algeria, in 1848?
in 1870?
in 1901?
June 1940?
July 1940?
November 1942?
   63. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4762557)
LOL @ Jeb Bush. The Republicans nominating Jeb Bush is every Democrat's wet dream.


Which is why if Jeb ever manages to claim the white house it will be utterly hilarious to watch liberals spontaneously combust.

I'm sure they never thought Bush the son could make it either, but, there he was, sitting in the catbird seat.
   64. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4762558)
Few if any nations recognized the Vichy/German government as legitimate.


The US Government did... Canada did.. Australia did...
   65. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4762559)
Paul Ryan does not have the conventional qualifications to be nominated.
and Obama did?


Obama was a sitting senator, admittedly only in his first term. It's exceptionally rare for a candidate who has never held statewide office to be nominated. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be very rare. Ryan's a bit of an odd duck in that he seems to prefer the House. I suppose he could have run against Tammy Baldwin, but he had that whole nomination for VP going on.

Paul Ryan would be an historically odd choice. Not saying it's not possible, but that I'll have to see it before I believe it.

Sure about that? Well it's the safe bet anyway 99% of pols mentioned as Presidential contenders are never going to live in the White House


I am 100% sure that an anti-war Republican cannot win the primary and an anti-CRA nominee cannot win the general.

Edit:
I'm sure they never thought Bush the son could make it either, but, there he was, sitting in the catbird seat.


Whaaa? I don't know anyone who thought that W had no shot of being elected. GB the elder is typically most Ds favorite R.
   66. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4762560)
LOL @ Jeb Bush. The Republicans nominating Jeb Bush is every Democrat's wet dream.


Which is why if Jeb ever manages to claim the white house it will be utterly hilarious to watch liberals spontaneously combust.


????
The Republicans nominating Ted Cruz, not Jeb Bush, is every Democrat's wet dream. The Dems fear Jeb as a plausible candidate.
   67. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4762561)
I'm not sure there is a "Generic Republican" any more. But very anti-labor/pro big business/1 percent, essentially the opposite of what you'd went if you'd want to "go populist" as Snapper is wont to put it. OTOH he seems "generic" enough if you haven't paid attention to Wisconsin politics that people could project what they want to see onto him.

This is what they need, just a guy that they can dress up as pretty as possible. Their usual cast of characters all have the stink on them. Walker could work, the uproar over the union busting in Wisconsin will be pretty long out of people's ever shortening memories. If the nominate one of their cartoony Paul/Cruz characters they will lose what should be a winnable race.

Edit: I would say I fear him, but I think he's credible. It would be a fun time to run back Bush v Clinton.
   68. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4762562)
Ok, what about French Rule over Algeria, in 1848?
in 1870?
in 1901?
June 1940?
July 1940?
November 1942?


We're talking about the 50s and 60s, but the answer is that if its character remained similar even when the government in Paris was illegitimate, then it's still legitimate. Generally (and entirely hypothetically speaking), a revolt of one or more consituencies would certainly be more justified when Paris was under German rule. It's an interesting question, but not one really implicated by the discussion.

   69. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4762565)
The US Government did

Hmmm, so the US invaded France to dispossess a legitimate government there. Odd.
   70. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4762567)
Hmmm, so the US invaded France to dispossess a legitimate government there. Odd.


Have you ever heard of a country called "Iraq?"

   71. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4762568)
Hmmm, so the US invaded France to dispossess a legitimate government there. Odd.


Actually we ceased recognizing "Vichy" in 1942
   72. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4762572)
--
   73. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4762577)
So after this sideshow, the question remains: Was the ruling authority in Algeria legitimate between 1946 and 1962? The answer is obviously yes. It had been in place since 1830, was recognized by the United Nations (*), and had been so recognized by wide swaths of the community of nations for decades.

(*) In 1960, the UN issued a declaration regarding self-determination and colonial independence, which stated that, "Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories , without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

Unfortunately, the mob violence of the FLN and its racism and its ethnic cleansing rendered the hope of this provision for the future of Algeria a pipe dream.
   74. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4762579)
Was this post made in 2006?


Heh, almost but not quite--in 2006 it was already obvious John McCain would be the Republican nominee. In fact this is the first time in decades the Republican nominee isn't obvious years in advance, which points to both the current fragmentation in the party and the lack of anyone with any charisma.

Interesting (to me, anyway) is that probably the least qualified person that was ever elected president, other than a few generals who had never held any public office at all, was Abraham Lincoln. Also interesting is that several of the MOST well qualified presidents have turned out to be relatively poor presidents; John Quincy Adams and William Taft (both among the most accomplished American statesmen in history) come to mind. George W. Bush was well qualified to be president. I'm not sure that what is generally perceived as experience that qualifies a person to be president actually matters very much.
   75. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4762585)
Was the ruling authority in Algeria legitimate between 1946 and 1962?


If by legitimate you mean "internationally recognized," then sure. If you mean "about to get its ass kicked by rebels pissed off for a variety of reasons," then also sure. If you mean "which suggests every action taken against the government is wrong," then no.

So what do you mean when you say "Legitimate"?
   76. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4762586)
That it or a successor of similar character remained the legitimate government of France even though it didn't control French territory.(*)
It didn't exist, so it couldn't remain the legitimate government of France. The only "successor" government for the next 4 years was Vichy.

(An entity that doesn't actually control the territory may be "legitimate," but isn't a "government.")

I can't believe people are actually claiming that Vichy/Germany's rule over France was in any way legitimate. That's pure trolling.
No, trolling is you randomly and inconsistently redefining terms in mid-debate. Which you've pulled many times before.

Of course, one can argue that no government except a freely-democratically-elected republican one is "legitimate," but in that case, the vast majority of countries throughout history never had a legitimate government, and many still don't, and I don't know what your point is about this use of the term "legitimate" or how it relates to Algeria. (And it still wouldn't really explain your position on France, since Vichy was a French government. It was pretty impotent, but it was created by France; it was not an outside government imposed by Germany.)


(*) I'm not remotely interested in the semantic dispute over whether the legitimate ruler was the "Third Republic" or some other republican government of similar character.
Right, you're only interested in your semantic disputes, rather than the ones involving actual facts.
   77. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4762587)
If you mean "about to get its ass kicked by rebels pissed off for a variety of reasons," then also sure.

Your true colors are showing.
   78. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4762588)
Interesting (to me, anyway) is that probably the least qualified person that was ever elected president, other than a few generals who had never held any public office at all, was Abraham Lincoln.


And he was a Republican! jk

Seriously Abe is one of my favorites. Great President, Great man. When I visited Ford's theater I became actually angry when I saw the gun that killed him. Like physically shaking angry.
   79. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4762589)
and I don't know what your point is about this use of the term "legitimate" or how it relates to Algeria.

It's a meaningless side issue w/r/t Algeria. It was brought up (unnecessarily as many other examples could have sufficed) to show the silliness of yet another silly BM remark on the subject.

I've stopped caring about the issue. It's a sideshow.
   80. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4762591)
Your true colors are showing.


Non-responsive. But I am just telling it like I read about it. Unless you think France actually won all those years ago? Did South Vietnam also win? How about Germany in WWI?

Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they lose.
   81. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4762595)
But I am just telling it like I read about it.

You read that France got its "ass kicked" in Algeria? Where'd you read that?

I mean, yeah, the FLN cowardly murdered a bunch of women and children, but they certainly didn't beat the French military.
   82. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4762597)
(And it still wouldn't really explain your position on France, since Vichy was a French government. It was pretty impotent, but it was created by France; it was not an outside government imposed by Germany.)


I'm not sure he's aware of that.

He possibly might think that the Vichy Government was to France what the "General Government" was to Poland or the Salo Republic was to Italy...
   83. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4762598)
Death spiral alert!

Obamacare premiums to rise a modest 4.2% in 2015

The percentage of Californians without health insurance has been cut in half since the exchange opened, from 22% a year ago to 11% by early June, according to a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York healthcare foundation.

The federal health law has suffered some legal setbacks in recent weeks, but the news on rates has been encouraging around the country thus far.

A recent study of nine states found that insurers wanted to raise premiums by an average of 8% for individual health plans, according to consulting firm Avalere Health. Insurers are seeking double-digit rate increases in some states.


OK article, nothing super special though.
   84. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4762602)
He possibly might think that the Vichy Government was to France what the "General Government" was to Poland or the Salo Republic was to Italy...

Uh, no, he doesn't think that. He's also currently reading "Diary of the Dark Years," recently translated into English which covers the very era at hand. Highly recommended.



   85. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4762603)
I mean, yeah, the FLN cowardly murdered a bunch of women and children, but they certainly didn't beat the French military.


The North Vietnamese didn't beat the US military either, but the US still got its ass kicked. See also Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am sure it is all the Modern Liberals fault though.
   86. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4762604)
The North Vietnamese didn't beat the US military either, but the US still got its ass kicked.

Uh, no there, too.

Odd definitions you have. As noted, your true colors are showing.
   87. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4762609)
Q: Who knew, France won in Algeria, and that the US won in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

A: No one in the world knew this. Because it did not happen.

Note/Edit: My true colors: Purple (Vikings); Red and Gold (49ers); Blue (Go Team Blue); Brown (I have always liked brown, especially a nice chocolate brown, even as a kid).For some reason baseball team colors and other sports team colors don't resonate with me like football team colors. I am not very fond of pastels, but they have their place I admit.
   88. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4762610)
Vichy was illegitimate.

Why?

Because it was imposed at gunpoint, by illegitimate force.


Yes, as opposed to how the French were petitioned by the Algerians to come in and take over their country, and only reluctantly accepted the white man's burden as part of their civilizing mission.

Few if any nations recognized the Vichy/German government as legitimate. Contrast the acceptance of Algeria's status by both the League of Nations and the United Nations and the community of nations generally between 1830 and the changed status of the country in the 1960s.

So by that impeccable reasoning, I'm assuming you'd want to follow the advice of today's United Nations when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Arab disputes over the past 47 years, beginning by having Israel withdraw to within its pre-Six Day War borders.
   89. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4762611)
It's exceptionally rare for a candidate who has never held statewide office to be nominated. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be very rare. Ryan's a bit of an odd duck in that he seems to prefer the House.


The last President to come straight from the House (i.e., no intervening post) was Garfield.
   90. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4762617)
Q: Who knew, France won in Algeria, and that the US won in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

A: No one in the world knew this. Because it did not happen.


Yeah, the FLN really "kicked the ass" of the old ladies and babies it murdered. What an absurd term to use.
   91. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4762618)
So I just realized that I am going to miss the MN primary :(. I will be traveling, and really even if possible I am not going to absentee an off cycle primary.
   92. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4762622)
Yeah, the FLN really "kicked the ass" of the old ladies and babies it murdered. What an absurd term to use.


I did not say the FLN kicked ass. What I said was the French were about to get their ass kicked. One is positive towards the FLN (which I am not interested in doing), the other is derogatory towards the French (which I am very interested in doing).
   93. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4762623)
Few if any nations recognized the Vichy/German government as legitimate. Contrast the acceptance of Algeria's status by both the League of Nations and the United Nations and the community of nations generally between 1830 and the changed status of the country in the 1960s.
I'm not entirely sure what the value of this statement is, but you are, as always, factually wrong. The majority of countries, including the Allies -- of course, there were many fewer countries then, as decolonization hadn't yet taken place -- recognized the Vichy government. In fact, they didn't stop recognizing it until Germany had removed it and taken over governance of the whole country.
   94. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4762624)
Yes, as opposed to how the French were petitioned by the Algerians to come in and take over their country,

It wasn't "their country," anymore than the United States was the Native Americans' "country."

Honestly, Andy, are you incapable of making these simple logical connections?

So by that impeccable reasoning, I'm assuming you'd want to follow the advice of today's United Nations when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Arab disputes over the past 47 years, beginning by having Israel withdraw to within its pre-Six Day War borders.

I wouldn't have any problem with that.
   95. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4762625)
I did not say the FLN kicked ass. What I said was the French were about to get their ass kicked. One is positive towards the FLN (which I am not interested in doing), the other is derogatory towards the French (which I am very interested in doing).

We know you're "derogatory" towards the French; like I said, your true colors are showing. You prefer a bloodthirsty murderous Islamist mob to white people in positions of authority. No surprise.
   96. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4762627)
We know you're "derogatory" towards the French; like I said, your true colors are showing.


Well yeah. I was the kid in class that was sad when Joan of Arc showed up and the glorious period known as the Hundreds Years' War came to a close when that woman Joan of Arc showed up and gave the Frogs hope. I am not sure why I have a grudge against the French, especially since they were so helpful during our Revolutionary War. Such is life I suppose.

EDIT: You edit added the nasty bits at the end of your post, and of course you are - typically - wrong. I don't have much opinion about the FLN at all honestly. I would need to read more to have an informed opinion. Your being against them is a small point in their favor though.
   97. Ron J2 Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4762628)
#85 I don't think there's much doubt they could have stayed in power for the foreseeable future. De Gaulle simply didn't think it was worth it -- and was more concerned with getting the French military (the paratroopers in particular) back under government control. The paras spent the next few years trying to kill him.
   98. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4762632)
#85 I don't think there's much doubt they could have stayed in power for the foreseeable future. De Gaulle simply didn't think it was worth it


Well that is how these things work though. Make life for the "invaders" (or whatever term you want to use) difficult so they want to leave. I never claimed it was a military victory, colonies seldom win straight up military victories, and yet pretty much all the old empires are dead and gone (with their asses well and truly kicked).
   99. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4762635)
I don't have much opinion about the FLN at all honestly. I would need to read more to have an informed opinion.

In other words, you've heard a bunch of lefties kind of talk about something, and you've adopted it even though you don't really know anything about it. And then you've gone on and on for pages about that thing you don't know anything about.

And that, ladies and gentlement, is how lefties are spawned.
   100. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4762636)
In other words, you've heard a bunch of lefties kind of talk about something, and you've adopted it even though you don't really know anything about it. And then you've gone on and on for pages about that thing you don't know anything about.


I have not gone on and on about the FLN. I have gone on and on about you being wrong (which is something we ALL know something about). You made wrong and stupid statements about how hard it was to define who was an Algerian. That is what I rebutted.

I have never defended, endorsed or otherwise talked about the FLN other than surface facts (gleaned from wikipedia) or to admit I don't know much about them.

EDIT: And lefties are spawned like everyone else. Talk to your mommy and daddy about it, because I am not going to.
Page 1 of 64 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(42 - 8:25pm, Nov 21)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(917 - 8:21pm, Nov 21)
Last: rr

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(367 - 8:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4093 - 8:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(2 - 7:42pm, Nov 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(109 - 7:38pm, Nov 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(1 - 7:13pm, Nov 21)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogRunning list of 2014 40-man roster additions | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(36 - 6:48pm, Nov 21)
Last: GrumpyFan

NewsblogReds at least considering trading big names, reducing payroll | FOX Sports
(8 - 6:41pm, Nov 21)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogMLB to tweak replay system, but managers’ challenges will stay | New York Post
(18 - 6:30pm, Nov 21)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogExamining our assumptions about Pablo Sandoval
(31 - 6:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(30 - 6:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogPablo Sandoval’s Brother: Red Sox Showed ‘First Class’ Attentiveness | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(13 - 6:06pm, Nov 21)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(501 - 4:31pm, Nov 21)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(21 - 2:22pm, Nov 21)
Last: Matt Welch

Page rendered in 0.6191 seconds
53 querie(s) executed