The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: sinkspur on September 16, 2016, 12:44:41 am
-
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/15/its-all-fun-and-games-until-someone-unleashes-death-squads-donald-trump-duterte-philippines/
It’s All Fun and Games, Until Someone Unleashes Death Squads
Anyone wondering how the bare-knuckle populism of Donald Trump’s campaign would translate to office should take a look at the Philippines.
BY MAX BOOTSEPTEMBER 15, 2016
Listening to Donald Trump’s outlandish pronouncements, it’s all too easy to think: “He’ll never do that once in office. He’ll be restrained by wise advisors and act much more thoughtfully as president than he does as a presidential candidate.” Maybe so, but recent events in the Philippines demonstrate the dangers of voting into office an ignorant demagogue with a big mouth.
The new president of the Philippines, Rodrigo “Rody” Duterte, caught the attention of Americans recently by referring to President Barack Obama as the “son of a whore,” but, in the greater context, that is the least of his sins. There is a reason he is being called “Duterte Harry” and the “Trump of the Philippines” — and those monikers are not intended as compliments. Duterte is showing just what bare-knuckle populism looks like in action, and it’s not a pretty picture.
A few lowlights:
1) Taking advantage of the Philippine people’s understandable concern about a high crime rate, Duterte has unleashed a wave of violence against anyone suspected of being a criminal. During his campaign, he promised to kill so many outlaws that the “fish will grow fat” in Manila Bay from feasting on the remains. So far, more than 1,800 people have been killed by police and vigilantes since he came into office. No trial, no evidence: just death. Human-rights advocates are aghast, and understandably so. (It was in reaction to a journalist’s question about what he would say to Obama if the American president criticized his human-rights record that Duterte uttered his witty “son of a whore” comeback.)
Horrifying cases of misconduct are coming to light — for example, the execution of two impoverished Manila residents, Renato and Jaypee Bertes, a father and son who worked odd jobs and smoked shabu, a cheap form of methamphetamine. They were arrested by police, beaten, and shot to death. “The police said the two had tried to escape by seizing an officer’s gun,” the New York Times reported. “But a forensic examination found that the men had been incapacitated by the beatings before they were shot; Jaypee Bertes had a broken right arm.”
And just this week a self-confessed assassin testified before the Philippine Senate that he was a member of a death squad that Duterte, when he was mayor of Davao, used to kill not only “drug dealers, rapists, [purse] snatchers” but also political opponents. Some of the victims were allegedly disemboweled and dumped at sea; at least one was fed to crocodiles. In the past, Duterte has both admitted and denied running a death squad.
2) Duterte publicly accused scores of Philippine officials and military officers of involvement in the drug trade without revealing any evidence. He gave them 24 hours to surrender or be “hunted down.”
“Due process has nothing to do with my mouth,” he said. “There are no proceedings here, no lawyers.”
3) Duterte has justified the killing of journalists by saying, “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination if you’re a son of a bitch.”Duterte has justified the killing of journalists by saying, “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination if you’re a son of a bitch.”
4) Duterte has announced plans to move the remains of Ferdinand Marcos, the country’s late dictator, to the Cemetery of Heroes, despite copious evidence that Marcos was guilty of egregious misconduct while in office and that he had faked his World War II service record. The move to enshrine this brutal and corrupt ruler has triggered protests from many Filipinos, including victims of torture and imprisonment during the Marcos era. A close friend of the late dictator’s son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Duterte has often expressed admiration for Marcos senior, calling him “the brightest among the past presidents.” Many believe that Duterte hopes to emulate Marcos, who also took power vowing to crack down on crime.
5) Duterte has called for the United States to remove its remaining Special Forces from the southern Philippines, where they have been training the Philippine armed forces in the battle against Islamist terrorists. He has said the Philippine navy will no longer cooperate with the U.S. Navy in joint patrols in the South China Sea. In other words, he will make no attempt to enforce the judgment of an international tribunal in The Hague, in a case brought by the Philippines, that China is illegally claiming sovereignty over waters that are in the Philippines’s exclusive economic zone. This comes less than two months after Duterte claimed he would ride a jet ski to plant the Philippine flag on the Spratly Islands. He now appears intent on appeasing China, which represents the biggest security threat to his country, while turning his back on the United States, the Philippines’s oldest ally. “I do not like the Americans,” he has admitted.
In a stunning strategic reversal, Duterte says he will seek arms from China and Russia, rather than from the United States, thus turning his back on one of the major sources of funding for the threadbare Philippine military. According to the Rand Corp., the United States provided $441 million in security funding to the Philippines from 2002 to 2013. That security relationship has benefited both countries, but whether it will continue under Duterte is at least an open question.
6) Duterte has demanded that the United States apologize for the Bud Dajo “massacre” in 1906, which his spokesman has ludicrously likened to the Holocaust.
The Battle of Bud Dajo was part of the larger American war against Moro extremists, as Philippine Muslims were then known. Hundreds of Moros, including women and children, died in this extinct volcano. Whether U.S. forces were guilty of war crimes remains a subject of dispute. Gen. Leonard Wood, the U.S. commander, claimed that the Moros fanatically resisted his troops, that even women fought, and that children were used as human shields. Even if U.S. troops massacred the Moros, it is pretty rich for Duterte to demand an apology for an extra-judicial killing carried out more than a century ago while he is carrying out a rampage of extra-judicial killings of his own.
Duterte also refuses to acknowledge that, by the standards of the day, American colonial rule was fairly benign. Manual Quezon, who had fought against the Americans before becoming president of the Philippine Commonwealth in 1935, famously complained of the difficulty of rousing a nationalist revolt against U.S. rule: “Damn the Americans! Why don’t they tyrannize us more?” If Duterte is going to demand that the United States apologize for a century-old massacre, will he thank the United States for vastly improving education, transportation, sanitation, and other services in the Philippines — and for liberating that country from Japanese occupation?
Duterte’s presidency is a tragedy for the long-suffering people of the Philippines. A nation of hardworking English-speakers that was one of the first democracies in Asia, thanks to America’s liberal imperialism, should be doing far better economically than it is. (Per capita GDP, $2,886, is lower than Swaziland and Guatemala.) There are many reasons for its deficiencies, but a big part of the explanation lies in terrible leadership.
In the postwar era, the Philippines has had only one great leader — Ramon Magsaysay, who tragically died in an airplane crash in 1957. For the most part, the archipelago has been ruled by corrupt and abusive presidents, the worst being Marcos, who was in office from 1965 to 1986. Of the last three presidents, two — Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo — were accused of corruption. Estrada was impeached, ousted from office in “people power” demonstrations, and sentenced to life in prison before being pardoned by Arroyo, his former vice president. After leaving office, Arroyo had been under detention in a Manila hospital since 2012 before finally having the charges against her thrown out by the Philippine Supreme Court in July. The reformist and relatively honest presidency of Benigno Aquino III, Arroyo’s successor, was a welcome exception to this trend, but now the Philippines is worse off than ever under Duterte’s erratic and violent rule.
The fate of the Philippines should make us realize how high the stakes are in our own election. America may seem far more stable than the Philippines, and it is, but we would be in for profound and disturbing changes if we elect the Rodrigo Duterte of America. Donald Trump is a demagogue who shares Duterte’s vulgarity, his ignorance, his admiration of dictators, his contempt for liberal democratic norms, and his tendency to flip-flop on the issues.
But Trump has much grander aspirations. Duterte is in charge of a poor country with scarcely any military power. Although Duterte can damage the efforts of China’s neighbors to contain Beijing’s expansionism, most of the harm he is inflicting is on his own citizens. If Trump were to win the presidency, by contrast, he would be in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, with thousands of nuclear weapons at his command. He needs to be taken seriously when he threatens, inter alia, to rip up free-trade agreements, impose costly tariffs, build a wall on the Mexico border, deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, abandon NATO, pull U.S. troops out of countries such as South Korea and Japan, recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and generally turn his back on decades of American international leadership. The example of rowdy “Rody” Duterte — along with countless others, from Juan Perón to Benito Mussolini —suggests that demagogues have a disturbing tendency to act in office much as they said they would do on the campaign trail, no matter how unhinged their ideas may appear to rational observers.
-
Over on the freeper board, they are unrestrained in glee about destroying any who dared not fall on knee to Herr trump.
Even in this forum.. the smell of fascism wafts most strongly.
Maybe that is the smell of Trumpism I detect.
-
Good article.
-
I would point out that he isn't the first populist leftist to take that approach in history. And he will not be the last.
The BLAME however falls 1 0 0 % on those that put them in power to begin with. Whether in Germany, the far east, or here. There is no one else who was, is or ever will be responsible. Period. One man does not personally go door to door and take that power from a country. The people of the country GIVE IT TO HIM.
-
Over on the freeper board, they are unrestrained in glee about destroying any who dared not fall on knee to Herr trump.
Even in this forum.. the smell of fascism wafts most strongly.
Maybe that is the smell of Trumpism I detect.
Just common every day liberalism.
-
I would point out that he isn't the first populist leftist to take that approach in history. And he will not be the last.
The BLAME however falls 1 0 0 % on those that put them in power to begin with. Whether in Germany, the far east, or here. There is no one else who was, is or ever will be responsible. Period. One man does not personally go door to door and take that power from a country. The people of the country GIVE IT TO HIM.
Yup. Hitlers are born and die every day without notice. Its the morons who put them in power who are dangerous. (Fortunately they pretty much always pay a high price)
-
Get your facts straight Max; it's already rumored one candidate has death squads.
-
Over on the freeper board, they are unrestrained in glee about destroying any who dared not fall on knee to Herr trump.
Even in this forum.. the smell of fascism wafts most strongly.
Maybe that is the smell of Trumpism I detect.
No, Trump is more like Reagan, like Lincoln and like Churchill;
Perhaps, the smell of hate is easy to detect in this forum. Must be the establishment or Never-Trumps, fake conservatives, fake Republicans or whomever.
-
Yup. Hitlers are born and die every day without notice. Its the morons who put them in power who are dangerous. (Fortunately they pretty much always pay a high price)
They always have and always will. Oh well. I won't so much as lift a finger to help them when their liberal turns on them. I will, however, remind them that their actions led to their consequence.Whats that saying another poster here uses often? "You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of reality" or something to that effect.
We are just as doomed as they are of course, thanks to their leftist actions. But at least we will go to whatever end the left has in store knowing full well we were on the right, and by 'right' I mean 'correct' as well as political, side of things. Which is better than what they will get. They'll KNOW they did it to themselves. And KNOW history will remember them accordingly.
-
Get your facts straight Max; it's already rumored one candidate has death squads.
Your tagline tells fans of Buckley a great deal.
-
Your tagline tells fans of Buckley a great deal.
Great.
For which President was Buckley Communications Director?
For which 3 presidents was Buckley a Senior Advisor?
-
William Buckley, well, if one is being critical:
Views on HIV/AIDS
In an op-ed piece in The New York Times on March 18, 1986, Buckley addressed the AIDS epidemic. Calling it "a fact" that AIDS is "the special curse of the homosexual," Buckley argued that people infected with the disease could only marry if they agreed to sterilization and that universal testing—led by insurance companies, not the government—should be mandatory. Most controversially of all, he wrote: "Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals."[99] The piece led to much criticism; some gay activists advocated boycotting Patricia Buckley's fund-raising efforts for AIDS. William Buckley later back-tracked from the piece, but in 2004 he told The New York Times Magazine, "If the protocol had been accepted, many who caught the infection unguardedly would be alive. Probably over a million." [100]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_on_HIV.2FAIDS
Buckley certainly is welcome to his views but some of the politically correct may not like this.
And Segregation?
Those were different times, even JFK had some mixed feelings on that.
-
William Buckley, well, if one is being critical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_on_HIV.2FAIDS
Buckley certainly is welcome to his views but some of the politically correct may not like this.
Want to quote what Buckley had to say about Trump? He was right.
-
Over on the freeper board, they are unrestrained in glee about destroying any who dared not fall on knee to Herr trump.
Even in this forum.. the smell of fascism wafts most strongly.
Maybe that is the smell of Trumpism I detect.
IIRC, there were a couple of FReepers who retired to the Philippines. I wonder how they are doing in all this?
I guess the part which still amazes me is the way Trump people have maligned and even threatened those past and present GOP voters who won't support him. I haven't heard such threats for Hillary supporters yet.
-
No, Trump is more like Reagan, like Lincoln and like Churchill;
Perhaps, the smell of hate is easy to detect in this forum. Must be the establishment or Never-Trumps, fake conservatives, fake Republicans or whomever.
About the only thing I purt'near hate is some sanctimonious idiot trying to tell me I hate something. That's even more annoying than tying history into Gordian knots to malign great men to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear or bring a dull turd to a high shine. I must presume that is the only reason you do it.
You should recognize by now, you aren't exactly winning hearts and minds, there, peaches.
-
Now I'm starting to wonder if HonestJohn meant William F. Buckley:
In his 1997 book Nearer, My God, he condemned what he viewed as "the Supreme Court's war against religion in the public school," and argued that Christian faith was being replaced by "another God ... multiculturalism."[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Religious_views
Oh, we can't have that? We need diversity! Tsk, Tsk. :nono: That above sounds almost like Patrick Buchanan.
Some folks don't really seem to have a formula for what they believe in, just an axe to grind with a Presidential Candidate whom millions of persons want to elect President; but those millions are denigrated to the lowest.
Let alone, Carter and whomever else, some immigrants into the country were blocked in the past, they were under Jimmy Carter.
Yet, reading this forum, it seems one of the cornerstones of dislike of Trump is because he wants to keep unwanted elements out of the US. Somehow this is wrong though, Constitutionally, as we all know, some immigrants were blocked in the past.
-
Now I'm starting to wonder if HonestJohn meant William F. Buckley:
Oh, we can't have that? We need diversity! Tsk, Tsk. :nono: That above sounds almost like Patrick Buchanan.
Some folks don't really seem to have a formula for what they believe in, just an axe to grind with a Presidential Candidate whom millions of persons want to elect President; but those millions are denigrated to the lowest.
Let alone, Carter and whomever else, some immigrants into the country were blocked in the past, they were under Jimmy Carter.
Yet, reading this forum, it seems one of the cornerstones of dislike of Trump is because he wants to keep unwanted elements out of the US. Somehow this wrong though, Constitutionally, as we all know, some immigrants were blocked in the past.
Want to have more fun? Go look up what Buckley had to say about Buchanan you so carelessly compared him to.
-
http://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/In-the-Diaspora-William-F-Buckley-and-the-Jews#article=0QUM2RDQxMkI4NTQyMTY3RkQ2NTkyQUMwMzA4QzlBODQ=
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/124256/pat-buchanan-anti-semite-ben-shapiro
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0308/tobin030508.php3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Antisemitism_and_Holocaust_denial
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#VDARE
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1977090.In_Search_of_Anti_Semitism
---
Buchanon was unceremoniously made unwelcome in the GOP thanks to the efforts of Buckley. That you espouse Buchanon's views tells the world quite a bit about you.
-
http://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/In-the-Diaspora-William-F-Buckley-and-the-Jews#article=0QUM2RDQxMkI4NTQyMTY3RkQ2NTkyQUMwMzA4QzlBODQ=
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/124256/pat-buchanan-anti-semite-ben-shapiro
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0308/tobin030508.php3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Antisemitism_and_Holocaust_denial
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#VDARE
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1977090.In_Search_of_Anti_Semitism
---
Buchanon was unceremoniously made unwelcome in the GOP thanks to the efforts of Buckley. That you espouse Buchanon's views tells the world quite a bit about you.
Fine, that you attack the messenger says a lot about you!
It's a book and you are attacking an individual so so what. We have the Lutheran Religion and Martin Luther made some statements. Your view would paint everyone who is a Lutheran with some broad brush and negativity.
Attack the message and not the messenger, Luther spoke, many think he was right and the Lutherans do much good in the world. So, La-De-Da with all of your race card playing and only an ability to attack others.
Your attacks fall flat, period.
And no, I don't believe that Buchanan was bucked by the Republican party; Buckley can say whatever he wants, maybe he had a personal grudge, according to what I posted above, in Buckley, you are quoting a segregationist and possible homophobe.
All you can do is play some kind of game to accuse others of prejudice.
-
Luther in fact, started the "Reformation", so using HJ's logic, not only should the messenger be attacked but that should be parlayed to the millions and millions of Christians who are not in communion with Rome. If you get my drift.
HJ uses a book and then an individual to grind his axe about prejudice and racism. Unbelievable. You can't prove the book wrong, the message wrong, so here we go down rabbit holes.
Among conservatives in the US and not the Never Trumpers here, I'm sure Buchanan just comes off fine, he's published in many respected magazines such as Human Events and I don't know all of the others.
Honest John's guilt by association and attacks on individuals and thought crimes are weak.
-
Pat Buchanan is really the grand daddy of the renegade movement, he ran for President; and that is good.
Haters come up with some reasons to dislike him.
What about Non-Interventionism? What about America First?
Attack the message not the messenger. This is not even worth dealing with.
Buchanan is extremely on record for being against the 2nd Iraq War; and that Neo-Cons had swayed Bush to go into that war whereas he may not have.
-
Fine, that you attack the messenger says a lot about you!
It's a book and you are attacking an individual so so what. We have the Lutheran Religion and Martin Luther made some statements. Your view would paint everyone who is a Lutheran with some broad brush and negativity.
Attack the message and not the messenger, Luther spoke, many think he was right and the Lutherans do much good in the world. So, La-De-Da with all of your race card playing and only an ability to attack others.
Your attacks fall flat, period.
And no, I don't believe that Buchanan was bucked by the Republican party; Buckley can say whatever he wants, maybe he had a personal grudge, according to what I posted above, in Buckley, you are quoting a segregationist and possible homophobe.
All you can do is play some kind of game to accuse others of prejudice.
All this shows is that you did not read the information in the links. For they describe the actions and views of Buchanon. They don't tar him for being a person... but for what he does and he tries to convince others to believe.
This is just another attempt to pile up trash to obscure the truth.
-
Buchanon was unceremoniously made unwelcome in the GOP thanks to the efforts of Buckley. That you espouse Buchanon's views tells the world quite a bit about you.
Oh, you're trying to shame someone. This is funny. :silly:
That you are drawing upon a segregationist and homophobe, says a lot about you.
Let alone, saying Buchanan is bad, we might have avoided a lot of lost blood and treasure per the Iraq war. Buchanan may well have been against the 1st Iraq war; enough to not be in the good graces of the GOP at that.
So far, nothing but blowing smoke.
-
All this shows is that you did not read the information in the links. For they describe the actions and views of Buchanon. They don't tar him for being a person... but for what he does and he tries to convince others to believe.
This is just another attempt to pile up trash to obscure the truth.
No it's not, attack the message, who cares what your personal opinion is on the messenger. That is it if you don't like a long-winded statement.
You rely on a homophobe and segregationist for what you are saying, might as well say that says a lot about you.
-
I have no doubt that if Donny doesn't set up some sort of national "crime prevention squad" he will certainly set in motion the atmosphere for vigilantism. My issue here is that the Philippines has always had harsh punishments and ultra law and order laws. Spitting on the sidewalk would give you a long prison sentence. That's how the Marcos kept the place so clean and orderly.
-
This is just another attempt to pile up trash to obscure the truth.
Is the truth that one, indeed you, wants to get into wars that fuel terrorism and persecutes different groups of people including Christians? That sounds like what the trash is covering up with you and your incoherent arguments. Nothing wrong with non-interventionism, did not know you were such a hawk.
Is that all you can do is sling mud? It works both ways.
-
I'd like to see proof that Buckley forced Buchanan out of the party for politically correct reasons of whatever.
Looks like Honest John should consider changing his screen name to dishonest John.
Buchanan Explains Why He Left Republican Party
MATT LAUER, co-host:
A Republican mainstay for more than three decades, Pat Buchanan announced Monday that he has officially abandoned the GOP and will seek the Reform Party's Presidential nomination.
Mr. PAT BUCHANAN: So let me say to the money boys and the Beltway elites who think that at long last they have pulled up the drawbridge and locked us out forever, you don't know this peasant army. We have not yet begun to fight.
LAUER: Pat Buchanan. Good morning.
Mr.BUCHANAN (Reform Party Presidential Candidate): Good morning, Matt. That was a good line.
LAUER: Yeah. Your writers should be credited for that one. You were on this program about a month ago talking about your possible decision to switch to the Reform Party. Why the timing? Why now?
Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, I waited and I wanted to mull it over in my mind and consider everything, Matt, whether I would hurt the causes I believed in. And I came to a conclusion that the things I believe in and fight for, an America First foreign policy, an end to these NAFTA trade deals that are selling out American workers. These ideas are not represented by the elites of either national party. And if I don't do it, the folks I represent will not get a hearing in the politics of 2000. That's what finally, I think, brought me across the line.
LAUER: An independent run for President generally depends on a certain amount of discontent in the nation for the other two parties. A lot of people are saying there is not that widespread discontent in this country right now, that you will have a difficult time attracting even say 19 percent of the vote, which Ross Perot got when he ran--what was it--in 1992.
Mr. BUCHANAN: All right. Well, that's where we would have a disagreement with the assessment. I think when you've got the American people down to 50 percent of them voting now--and it's falling every year--when you get folks saying, ‘We're dissatisfied with the Republican Congress’. We think that Clinton let us down, that this was appalling,' American people are disgusted by what's going on in Washington.
LAUER: But they are also saying it's the economy, as they've been saying for years and years, and right now a lot of people are very content with the way the economy's running.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, they--some people really ought to be content. You and I, Matt, who probably got good stock options and retirement plans and benefit plans, we're doing well. But let me tell you something. You go out and talk to those farmers. Every single farmer in America is making less for his products and commodities than it's costing him to produce them. They're going under left and right. Talk to those textile workers in the Carolinas. Talk to some of those steel--I mean, some of those folks down at the John Deere plant in Gastonia whose plant's been moved to North Carolina. Half or more of this country is left out of the great banquet, Matt, and those are the folks we're going to try to represent.
LAUER: Right.
http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3176
-
No it's not, attack the message, who cares what your personal opinion is on the messenger. That is it if you don't like a long-winded statement.
You rely on a homophobe and segregationist for what you are saying, might as well say that says a lot about you.
You just can't stop lying.
By the late 1960s, Buckley had abandoned his segregationist views. He had started to recant his earlier position in the mid-1960s. A large part of it was seeing other segregationists in action. It forced him to witness exactly how wrong his original views were... and he did the right thing; he abandoned them.
Something Buchanon has never done. He's only gotten worse with time.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_on_segregation_in_the_South
-
I'd like to see proof that Buckley forced Buchanan out of the party for politically correct reasons of whatever.
Looks like Honest John should consider changing his screen name to dishonest John.
http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3176
Hey Tommy Terrific. Can you tell me who wrote this about Heir Buchanan?
“Buchanan winks at barbarism in his new book, There is no other way to describe his views. Buchanan argues that we should have ignored Hitler’s rampage to Eastern Europe during World War II. Hitler meant us no harm, Buchanan says. The same man who argued forcefully — and in my opinion correctly — that we should not give an inch during the Cold War is now saying in effect that Hitler should have been appeased."
“Buchanan has enjoyed a long psychic friendship with Hitler, whom he has called ‘an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier and a leader steeped in the history of Europe, He also warns his followers that the United States is controlled by Jews, especially regarding foreign policy. On slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus. When cornered, he says he’s misunderstood.Buchanan is rewriting history and spreading fear for one purpose: To gain political power. That makes him a very dangerous man.”
-
You just can't stop lying.
By the late 1960s, Buckley had abandoned his segregationist views. He had started to recant his earlier position in the mid-1960s. A large part of it was seeing other segregationists in action. It forced him to witness exactly how wrong his original views were... and he did the right thing; he abandoned them.
Something Buchanon has never done. He's only gotten worse with time.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_on_segregation_in_the_South
Again, I only pointed out that all you can do is attack the messenger. Pat Buchanan has books published by respected publishers, appears on respected TV shows. Attends the Catholic Church, receives Communion. I don't see any problem here.
Again, let's make sure now, one has to accuse another of lying because they obviously told a falsehood, a big fib, that William Buckley hounded Pat Buchanan out of the Republican Party, apparently Buchanan left of his own accord to run for President. But we all may have problems with what we say. Nonetheless, Buckley stood up for segregation, I have not seen this charge on Buchanan, whether Buckley later abandoned his position, comfortably many years later when such views were then, not in vogue.
This is a discussion forum so don't berate or deride others if you simply can not put together more than a few sentences.
These links to VDare or whatever, do not mean anything any more than if one condemned this forum because someone spoke badly here. I have seen those links before, Pat Buchanan does not own Vdare, they may post some of his columns just like Alan Keyes' organization, Keyes is a black man, Renew America. http://renewamerica.com/
-
Again, I only pointed out that all you can do is attack the messenger. Pat Buchanan has books published by respected publishers, appears on respected TV shows. Attends the Catholic Church, receives Communion. I don't see any problem here.
Again, let's make sure now, one has to accuse another of lying because they obviously told a falsehood, a big fib, that William Buckley hounded Pat Buchanan out of the Republican Party, apparently Buchanan left of his own accord to run for President. But we all may have problems with what we say. Nonetheless, Buckley stood up for segregation, I have not seen this charge on Buchanan, whether Buckley later abandoned his position, comfortably many years later when such views were then, not in vogue.
This is a discussion forum so don't berate or deride others if you simply can not put together more than a few sentences.
These links to VDare or whatever, do not mean anything any more than if one condemned this forum because someone spoke badly here. I have seen those links before, Pat Buchanan does not own Vdare, they may post some of his columns just like Alan Keyes' organization, Keyes is a black man, Renew America. http://renewamerica.com/
No, it is attacking the message. Buchanan's message in this case.
-
Jesse Jackson used a phrase I will not mention years ago.
Should that dispel everything he has ever done? Hardly.
He is an icon in the African American community, was there when Dr. King was assassinated. Hopefully, no one will make hateful statements on that.
The race-baiters are a joke.
-
Jesse Jackson used a phrase I will not mention years ago.
Should that dispel everything he has ever done? Hardly.
He is an icon in the African American community, was there when Dr. King was assassinated. Hopefully, no one will make hateful statements on that.
The race-baiters are a joke.
Waiting Tommy. Still waiting....
“Buchanan winks at barbarism in his new book, There is no other way to describe his views. Buchanan argues that we should have ignored Hitler’s rampage to Eastern Europe during World War II. Hitler meant us no harm, Buchanan says. The same man who argued forcefully — and in my opinion correctly — that we should not give an inch during the Cold War is now saying in effect that Hitler should have been appeased."
“Buchanan has enjoyed a long psychic friendship with Hitler, whom he has called ‘an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier and a leader steeped in the history of Europe, He also warns his followers that the United States is controlled by Jews, especially regarding foreign policy. On slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus. When cornered, he says he’s misunderstood.Buchanan is rewriting history and spreading fear for one purpose: To gain political power. That makes him a very dangerous man.”
-
Waiting Tommy. Still waiting....
That's going to leave a mark...
-
http://www.newsweek.com/pat-buchanan-anti-semitic-201176
This article from Newsweek describes the tiff between Buchanan and Buckley but even away from Buckley, Michael Savage, banned from the UK for awhile for inflammatory speech by the way, accuses Buchanan of being anti-Semitic.
Nonetheless, people have their views and I'm not always game to go accusing others of discrimination based on small details. Sure, someone like Krauthammer may have been singled out by Buchanan but on the other hand, there was indeed, a war in Israel's neighborhood. To be weary of those who have direct ties to that area versus say an Alexander Haig with no ties is a bit of a judgement call. People grow up in different times, are exposed to things, I don't think it's always right to just accuse people of being bigoted.
-
JFK in a biography on him, used in fact, some racial epithets, one can read that for themselves on whether they want to believe it.
Some go as far as to say JFK admired Hitler.
It was a different time, he did not know better, Father Joe Kennedy is widely regarded as, at least having had some Pro-German sympathies, that's a matter for historians.
Honest John now bringing into the equation "But he changed his mind 20 years later" is a feeble excuse, they did it.
It was wrong, they lived in different times.
I'm certainly not going to be the PC police and now condemn this nor one of America's greatest presidents in the eyes of many.
-
"Bedtime for Bonzo" was a movie with Reagan in it, if folks don't believe the same things were tried and done to Reagan and more, they don't know their history.
-
JFK in a biography on him, used in fact, some racial epithets, one can read that for themselves on whether they want to believe it.
Some go as far as to say JFK admired Hitler.
It was a different time, he did not know better, Father Joe Kennedy is widely regarded as, at least having had some Pro-German sympathies, that's a matter for historians.
Honest John now bringing into the equation "But he changed his mind 20 years later" is a feeble excuse, they did it.
It was wrong, they lived in different times.
I'm certainly not going to be the PC police and now condemn this nor one of America's greatest presidents in the eyes of many.
You're still dancing around Frank Cannon's question. Why is that?
-
http://www.newsweek.com/pat-buchanan-anti-semitic-201176
This article from Newsweek describes the tiff between Buchanan and Buckley but even away from Buckley, Michael Savage, banned from the UK for awhile for inflammatory speech by the way, accuses Buchanan of being anti-Semitic.
Nonetheless, people have their views and I'm not always game to go accusing others of discrimination based on small details. Sure, someone like Krauthammer may have been singled out by Buchanan but on the other hand, there was indeed, a war in Israel's neighborhood. To be weary of those who have direct ties to that area versus say an Alexander Haig with no ties is a bit of a judgement call. People grow up in different times, are exposed to things, I don't think it's always right to just accuse people of being bigoted.
Tom Boy. You can run but you can't hide from my quote. Are you genuinely ignorant and don't know who said such nasty things about your pal Pat or do you know and are fully aware that the hammer of Thor will crash down on you if you admit it?
“Buchanan winks at barbarism in his new book, There is no other way to describe his views. Buchanan argues that we should have ignored Hitler’s rampage to Eastern Europe during World War II. Hitler meant us no harm, Buchanan says. The same man who argued forcefully — and in my opinion correctly — that we should not give an inch during the Cold War is now saying in effect that Hitler should have been appeased."
“Buchanan has enjoyed a long psychic friendship with Hitler, whom he has called ‘an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier and a leader steeped in the history of Europe, He also warns his followers that the United States is controlled by Jews, especially regarding foreign policy. On slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus. When cornered, he says he’s misunderstood.Buchanan is rewriting history and spreading fear for one purpose: To gain political power. That makes him a very dangerous man.”
-
"Bedtime for Bonzo" was a movie with Reagan in it, if folks don't believe the same things were tried and done to Reagan and more, they don't know their history.
I doubt you are old enough to have voted for Reagan. I was and did. So many of us "know" our history. Trump and Reagan are polar opposites on many fronts.
-
I doubt you are old enough to have voted for Reagan. I was and did. So many of us "know" our history. Trump and Reagan are polar opposites on many fronts.
Apparently my quote is like garlic to vampires. Tommy Terrific decided to leave the building in the hopes I don't follow his posts with it tomorrow when he wakes up bright and early to spam the board.
-
I doubt you are old enough to have voted for Reagan. I was and did. So many of us "know" our history. Trump and Reagan are polar opposites on many fronts.
I am old enough to have voted for President Reagan. I worked on his 1976 campaign and 1980 campaigns.
Those who attempt to compare RR to the New York turd Trump have no clue who Reagan was. Indeed, the men were polar opposites.
-
IIRC, there were a couple of FReepers who retired to the Philippines. I wonder how they are doing in all this?
I guess the part which still amazes me is the way Trump people have maligned and even threatened those past and present GOP voters who won't support him. I haven't heard such threats for Hillary supporters yet.
True, you never hear them make such vicious threats against the left.
-
I am old enough to have voted for President Reagan. I worked on his 1976 campaign and 1980 campaigns.
Those who attempt to compare RR to the New York turd Trump have no clue who Reagan was. Indeed, the men were polar opposites.
@Vulcan
I also worked on Reagan's 1980 campaign as part of a local group. And TomSea is partially right that some of the same things they are saying about Trump were said about Reagan.
The difference is Reagan didn't spend his campaign re affirming things that were said about him. Trump is no Reagan. Trump is closer to LBJ
-
I doubt you are old enough to have voted for Reagan. I was and did. So many of us "know" our history. Trump and Reagan are polar opposites on many fronts.
@DB
For those of us who remember the 1980 campaign, Reagan talked very often of the concept of individual liberty and limited government. In fact, the issue amongst the pundits at that time was could Reagan's conservative message win especially after Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964.
Tom is attempting a little bit of revisionism here
Now, I'm not going to latch on to the idea that Trump is going to unleash vigilantes to go after all those that disagree with him. But some of the rhetoric coming from some of his supporters is very disconcerting. However, it will be interesting to watch what a President Trump does when/if the House of Representatives opposes one of his budgets or his big government ideas
-
Hey Tommy Terrific. Can you tell me who wrote this about Heir Buchanan?
Take a gander at this:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,225222.msg1056611.html#msg1056611
-
President Duterte has been adamant about the following:
1) The Death Squads are not his and any operations he commands are legitimate police arrests. The police only kill when those being arrested are shooting back.
2) The extra-judicial killings going on around the Philippines are as a result of drug gangs unleashing their own death squads on each other as they realize that some drug peddlers, dealers etc. are about to squeal on them.
3) As for "hating America", he claims he doesn't hate America, however he still believes that America has no standing to lecture him about "Human Rights" when they slaughtered thousands and caused the deaths of nearly a million Filipinos during the Philippine-American War: 1899 to 1901
4) He wants the US military to leave the Southern part of the Philippines ( where the Muslim insurgency under the ISIS inspired Abu-Sayef is festering ), the reason being --- he thinks that American presence will only complicate things for Americans living in the Philippines, making them targets for hostage taking.
Whether he's telling the truth is ... well depends on how credible you think he is.
-
JFK in a biography on him, used in fact, some racial epithets, one can read that for themselves on whether they want to believe it.
Some go as far as to say JFK admired Hitler.
It was a different time, he did not know better, Father Joe Kennedy is widely regarded as, at least having had some Pro-German sympathies, that's a matter for historians.
Honest John now bringing into the equation "But he changed his mind 20 years later" is a feeble excuse, they did it.
It was wrong, they lived in different times.
I'm certainly not going to be the PC police and now condemn this nor one of America's greatest presidents in the eyes of many.
But he changed his mind 4 years ago is an awesome reason to vote for Trump. :whistle:
-
Honest John now bringing into the equation "But he changed his mind 20 years later" is a feeble excuse, they did it.
Can we say the same for Trump? If it is good for Trump that he changed his mind from his leftist positions, should it not also be OK for others?
-
But he changed his mind 4 years ago is an awesome reason to vote for Trump. :whistle:
:thumbsup3:
-
No, Trump is more like Reagan, like Lincoln and like Churchill;
Perhaps, the smell of hate is easy to detect in this forum. Must be the establishment or Never-Trumps, fake conservatives, fake Republicans or whomever.
Yes, I see it in the posts of Trumpists here, every day. 10294
-
The Death squads are already here in Obamacare.
-
Luther in fact, started the "Reformation"
Hus and Wycliffe predated Luther by a century and a half.
-
The Death squads are already here in Obamacare.
We've had death squads for a long time. They've killing the most innocent among us, the unborn. Once you cross that bridge it becomes easier to justify more and more killing for the greater good and all.
-
We've had death squads for a long time. They've killing the most innocent among us, the unborn. Once you cross that bridge it becomes easier to justify more and more killing for the greater good and all.
Semantics here, but Obamacare is indeed a 'Death Squad' as bureaucrats decide who needs to die and who needs to live.
In contrast, killing the unborn is not decided by bureaucrats, but simply allowed under the law we have. Decisions are made by those individuals, assisted by money-hungry doctors, who are morally corrupt.
-
Semantics here, but Obamacare is indeed a 'Death Squad' as bureaucrats decide who needs to die and who needs to live.
In contrast, killing the unborn is not decided by bureaucrats, but simply allowed under the law we have. Decisions are made by those individuals, assisted by money-hungry doctors, who are morally corrupt.
Except that abortionists are funded with tax dollars in many instances.
-
So now we're comparing Donald Trump to the leader of the Philippines?
How appropriate as Halloween nears, to see how paranoid #NeverTrumpers are. Dragging out their bogeymen and spooky stories and lining their porches with ghosts and goblins for everyone to see and get a scare. BOO!
As for Max Boot, #NeverTrump was never even in the parking lot of a political movement – it was and always will be an organized emotional release. An orchestrated scream by frightened and paranoid republicans whose candidates happened to lose the presidential primary to Trump.
Very selfish behavior from supposedly adult, experienced republicans -- (principled people, sure) but dumb when it comes to winning national elections.
If they are not careful, they could blow this easy win.
-
So now we're comparing Donald Trump to the leader of the Philippines?
How appropriate as Halloween nears, to see how paranoid #NeverTrumpers are. Dragging out their bogeymen and spooky stories and lining their porches with ghosts and goblins for everyone to see and get a scare. BOO!
As for Max Boot, #NeverTrump was never even in the parking lot of a political movement – it was and always will be an organized emotional release. An orchestrated scream by frightened and paranoid republicans whose candidates happened to lose the presidential primary to Trump.
Very selfish behavior from supposedly adult, experienced republicans -- (principled people, sure) but dumb when it comes to winning national elections.
If they are not careful, they could blow this easy win.
Selfish behavior? Unbelievable. Winning an election, while giving up the Conservative principles and Christian beliefs upon which this country was founded is not what I would consider a win! Perhaps you don't see Trump as a psychopathic narcissist and that you deny that there are any similarities between him, Hitler, and Duterte. So that would mean that Trump is just a two-bit con man and he’s playing his fools. I find it absolutely astonishing that his followers are that dumb, that easily provoked and that easily manipulated...oh but hey, he might just win the national election.
-
Except that abortionists are funded with tax dollars in many instances.
Do not disagree with funding comment.
However, the choice to abort is not made by anybody but the individual and her doctor. It is not a bureaucrat condemning a person to die like a death squad would, just giving others encouragement to do so.
-
Do not disagree with funding comment.
However, the choice to abort is not made by anybody but the individual and her doctor. It is not a bureaucrat condemning a person to die like a death squad would, just giving others encouragement to do so.
Agreed.
-
Can we say the same for Trump? If it is good for Trump that he changed his mind from his leftist positions, should it not also be OK for others?
Sure, it's valid. But I'm not calling people liars on true statements.
"Buckley was a Segregationist", True. "No, you're a liar".
"Trump was a Pro-Choicer", True. That remains true; and the cynics can claim he hasn't changed, that's their right to an opinion.
Of course, I doubt if anyone will concede this point as well. It's not helpful in rock throwing and mud slinging.
:nothappen:
:thumbsup3:
Waiting for my brownie points on being truthful.
:nothappen:
-
Semantics here, but Obamacare is indeed a 'Death Squad' as bureaucrats decide who needs to die and who needs to live.
In contrast, killing the unborn is not decided by bureaucrats, but simply allowed under the law we have. Decisions are made by those individuals, assisted by money-hungry doctors, who are morally corrupt.
If one looks at the fact, that 80% upwards of all Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods; one might say the government is playing a part.
Abortion Rate Among Black Women Far Exceeds Rate for Other Groups
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/09/abortion-rate-among-black-women-far-exceeds-rate-for-other-groups.html
So, if abortion is set up to be made available, that should be considered as well.
-
But he changed his mind 4 years ago is an awesome reason to vote for Trump. :whistle:
We are talking about 2 different situations.
I'm not calling people liars for making true statements.
"Buckley was a segregationist", true, I'm not then saying someone is lying.
"Trump was pro-choice", true and cynics can claim he still is; but no one is then going to accuse someone for making the statement as lying.
Of course, there are many pro-lifers that were once pro-choicers but stone throwers won't be concerned with that, the right to life is not there concern, trashing Trump is. :whistle:
So what if one of the early proponents of abortion, co-founder of an abortion rights organization, NARAL and an abortion doctor who performed thousands of abortions , Bernard Nathanson, became a vocal critic of abortion and a stingent pro-lifer, what is important is slinging mud at Donald Trump, not the cause for life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/75/f2/95/75f295ca503e51980648bc4ebe1d59d2.jpg)
I'd question a lot of Trump detractors as being "pro-life" too; as a Pro-Lifer, I accept the overtures in about any way it comes. I proudly voted for Romney and defended him in the day as well; likewise, statements were made about Romney,
Oh, and Trump never signed abortion into law as a certain governor of California did in the 1960s.
Now, it's always different.
-
Semantics here, but Obamacare is indeed a 'Death Squad' as bureaucrats decide who needs to die and who needs to live.
In contrast, killing the unborn is not decided by bureaucrats, but simply allowed under the law we have. Decisions are made by those individuals, assisted by money-hungry doctors, who are morally corrupt.
Agreed. Let's face it. Those who are more affluent and have access to the best healthcare will likely live longer. The notion that Obamacare was created to give health care to the poor and to make healthcare affordable was a sham. Abortion is a personal choice; mandated healthcare is not.
-
Abortion is a personal choice; mandated healthcare is not.
This is a pro-choice statement.
What's next? NOW activists?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/41/39/bc/4139bcd73dc9972a7bd825494a63ba8f.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f9/bd/ca/f9bdca0a9bf05b15c17bf3aeddf021b7.jpg)
There is plenty to wonder about if Trump detractors, not all, some, are indeed, just left-wingers.
Some may be establishment, some have their legitimate questions.
-
So now we're comparing Donald Trump to the leader of the Philippines?
How appropriate as Halloween nears, to see how paranoid #NeverTrumpers are. Dragging out their bogeymen and spooky stories and lining their porches with ghosts and goblins for everyone to see and get a scare. BOO!
As for Max Boot, #NeverTrump was never even in the parking lot of a political movement – it was and always will be an organized emotional release. An orchestrated scream by frightened and paranoid republicans whose candidates happened to lose the presidential primary to Trump.
Very selfish behavior from supposedly adult, experienced republicans -- (principled people, sure) but dumb when it comes to winning national elections.
If they are not careful, they could blow this easy win.
Do you spew this nonsense on a time schedule like Old Faithful, or is it just random eruptions of ridiculousness?
-
This is a pro-choice statement.
What's next? NOW activists?
If it isn't a personal choice, what is it?
No one, no government entity coerced that person into aborting their baby, they made that choice.
That wasn't a pro-choice statement, but an assignment of responsibility.