Open Thread for Friday, October 14, 2016


Busy today, so this will have to hold you for now:

  1. Obama Eases Special Limits On Cuban Products, From Drugs To Rum And Cigars — You know what this means, don’t you? Kramer won’t have to go to such lengths to obtain his “Cubans.
  2. Storm recovery focus directed to river near Grand Strand — They mean the Waccamaw. Headline writer was trying to help the geographically challenged, I suppose. The surge could hit its height next week.
  3. Trump wields new conspiracy theory: This time he is the target — It seems a “Global Power Structure” is out to get him. Oh, if only that were true; they’d have gotten him by now. Anyway, here’s his speech.
  4. Michelle Obama Calls Trump’s Comments ‘Intolerable’ — The First Lady hit a nerve or two with this speech. See the whole thing below.
  5. Pickens GOP state Rep. Collins goes on anti-Trump tweetstorm — So, with Lindsey Graham, we now know there are two South Carolina Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. This story doesn’t provide a link to Collins’ feed, but here it is.

13 thoughts on “Open Thread for Friday, October 14, 2016

  1. Bryan Caskey

    Let’s see, what else is going on…

    1. Iran claims it is sending two warships to the coast of Yemen to “to protect the country’s trade vessels against piracy.” If Iran sends ships that fire on our ships, I hope we send them right to the bottom. The old Iranian ships aren’t even worth taking as a prize.

    2. The WSJ endorsed subsidiarity. The WSJ called the e-mails between Hillary’s lieutenants “a window into the intolerant secular soul of the Democratic establishment” and advised them to look into subsidiarity.

    3. Alabama plays Tennessee this weekend. Good rivalry game that will affect the playoff picture. Alabama will likely win, as they subscribe to Nelson’s dictum of “Never mind manoeuvres, just go straight at ’em.”

    To all the commentariat of the HMS – a glass of wine with you. Have a good weekend. I’m off for Charleston, and I cannot miss my tide.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Good topics! The first two, anyway, although of course I appreciated the Nelson reference in the third.

      You got me excited there for a minute with the subsidiarity thing, which I had missed. But again, the Right is embracing a definition of subsidiarity that seems alien to me. As I wrote four years back about Paul Ryan and the Acton Institute, they’re taking something that to me is about communitarianism and twisting it into a libertarian, anti-government thing….

  2. bud

    Maybe I’m just working myself into an unnecessary frenzy. If so please bring me back from the edge. The last few days have moved the needle from Trump as an incompetent, creepy buffoon with visions of Putinism dancing in his head to a freaking dangerous demagogue who will go after the press, his political opponents and any group he finds “unacceptable” (Mexicans, Muslims, ugly women) in a hostile and perhaps brutal manner that will render the institutions of this country impotent to hold him accountable. Perhaps Doug is right that congress and the courts can utilize their constitutional checks to mute this mad man’s evil ambition. Perhaps that’s so but I’m starting to have my doubts given the awesome power at the hands of the president. He has control over the military, the CIA, the FBI and a whole host of other powers both Constitutionally enumerated and acquired by fiat through the years. Maybe the Republicans are on to something by citing Obama’s overstepping his authority on immigration and other matters. Likewise several previous presidents have utilized the military in matters that are supposed to be within the purview of congress, Iran Contra for example. So I take little comfort in congressional or the court’s ability to keep a maniacal president from taking exceptional measures to work his will in dangerous ways. But given the words of Trump and the actions of his supporters the prospect of a Trump presidency should not be viewed as a cavalier matter of normal American politics. This just looks different, and not in a good way. If I’m acting like a paranoid drama queen then please let me have it with both barrels. At this point I would consider that an act of charity.

  3. Bart

    Men in power positions have been known to engage in unwanted sexual advances against females and the female is generally powerless to retaliate unless she has positive proof of what she charges the man with. And then it depends on the man and who his friends and allies are. Over the past several days, more and more women have come forward with their encounters with Trump and if it was just one or two, there could be room for doubt but the line literally goes around a NYC block. Locker room talk is not uncommon and whether females will admit it or not, they have their locker room talk as well and as a young man, a close female friend shared some of the conversations in their locker room. It took a week before my hair stopped standing on end.

    We have had too many presidents with a penchant for having affairs and encounters with females who were not their wives and in some instances, the offending president had his party’s ranks close in around him to protect him from impeachment. JFK had many affairs and some of his female “friends” were brought to the White House to “visit”.

    So, is it a double standard for our past presidents and Donald Trump? In some ways yes but the presidents who engaged in affairs outside their marriage were competent and had leadership abilities along with the necessary experience to be the leader of the United States and the free world. No so with Trump and while he has his defenders, I cannot fathom Trump sitting in the Oval Office. leading this nation. I cannot fathom Hillary either and that begs the question. How did we get to this point when we have the two least trusted and in my opinion, unqualified candidates to choose from? FWIW, Hillary may have the 30 years in politics and the Beltway but it is one thing to have 30 years of accumulated experience, something very different than one years experience 30 times and that is the way I view Hillary Clinton.

    At one time and maybe I was being totally naïve, but I believed the leader of our country should be a person of high moral standards, trustworthy, open, had the best interests of all citizens – not just their tribal centric constituency, and all of the other positive traits the leader of the United States should possess. We won’t get that this time and if the trend continues, we won’t be fortunate enough to find someone who is truly worthy of being our president again. The movie, “Idiocricy”, may portend the future for the United States. It darn sure fits the bill for the upcoming election.

    I will be 73 on January 1st. It has been my good fortune to have travelled some of the world and most of the United States and have met an uncounted number of really good people in my travels. Most have one thing in common, they are very decent and moral people who have a sense of right and wrong. They may have differing political views but that never kept us from having a reasonable and civil discussion or debate about any issue, no issue, social, economic, or racial was ever off the table. And it did not matter the color of skin, gender, age, or any other difference we may had, we were just two, three, or more average people talking and getting along with each other. Based on the way the news and other media outlets depict this country, one would think we are ready to literally maim or kill each other over issues that are of no real consequence if we were to communicate with each other with a genuine heart and interest in listening to what the other side has to say.

    I may have a few elections left to vote in but my concerns are not for me but for the generations to come and especially the generation to take over after Hillary leaves office whether it is 4 or 8 years from November. Who is in the wings waiting to take over?

  4. Douglas Ross

    Michelle Obama in 2008 when Obama was running against Hillary: “”One of the things, the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like,” Michelle said in a 2008 speech. “And my view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.”

    Some would call that politics. I would call that hypocrisy. I agree with Michelle of 2008 – Hillary disqualified herself for the Presidency with her response to Bill’s multiple infidelities. She turned a blind eye to them for political reasons.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *