Playing Catch-up | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

Playing Catch-up

Uploaded: Jun 20, 2016

I’ve been on a bit of a hiatus – the primaries were essentially over, polling meaningless, and I’d expressed what I thought might be interesting. The press has been in its stuporficial mode, cranking out meaningless me-toos, in which false equivalences have been the theme of-choice. Maybe those’ll stop for a while, now that Mr. Trump’s pungent emanations have separated him from most of humanity and the Republican Party, too -- thus embarrassing even all those “he’s not Really THAT Bad” apologists. Yes, he is -- every bit that bad.

There have been a few things I almost wrote about – I’ll condense them here.

1 – the ongoing saga of billionaire Peter Thiel v. Gawker gives me the creeps, and some concern as well. Thiel has been secretly funding lawsuits against the online gossip-monger, based on prior coverage he considered unflattering. He hit the jackpot in a complaint ostensibly brought by wrassler Hulk Hogan, where a jury awarded $140M for breach of privacy in publishing a sex tape he had made. Gawker has filed for bankruptcy protection, pending its appeal.

Now, uber-trashy Gawker is hardly a sympathetic victim, but to me litigation is a social safety valve—a last resort that shields folks from the bad behavior of others. I have difficulty with its use as a sword to inflict ulterior damage that’s independent of the claims made: thus indulging the vindictive hobby of an underwriter who is Midas-rich. It perverts the process, and discourages settlement because exacting the trial expenses is a big point of the suit. The fact that it’s been done in secret suggests that Thiel, a Stanford law grad and PayPal founder, understands it to be unsavory, at best.

The problem is that it’s difficult to craft an effective solution. A ban on third-party funding would eliminate lawsuits by advocacy organizations of all stripes, whose pursuit is not at all ulterior. You could also make a good argument that most plaintiff’s cases brought under contingent fee arrangements are essentially funded by others.

Upfront disclosure might also subvert the jury’s role in calculating damages. For instance, if, as a juror I thought that I’d wasted several weeks of my life indulging some rich guy’s destructive whim, I might be inclined to award $1, regardless of the actual injury (it does amaze me that anyone thought publicity hound Hogan could have been damaged by the intrusion – Erin Andrews he ain’t. Perhaps it was because he was demonstrably caught in previously, uh, stretching the truth?). Besides, my friend the litigator assures me that spite suits are a staple of the trials business.

Still, the Founding Fathers imposed safeguards to cover situations in which the full weight of the government’s resources was brought to bear against an individual. Where these new Masters of the Universe similarly enjoy essentially unlimited wealth, we need to craft a solution that maintains the baseline integrity of the legal system. Any ideas?

Don't sue me, bro.

2 – I’ve been in Vermont, welcoming a new member of the family – my first grandchild. I am struck once again by the richness and attachments of community life there in Bernie-land, in contrast to my sense of our relative isolation from each other around here. On the road at 7 AM, I saw four-or-five vested and stop-signed crossing guards emerging nearly simultaneously from their various houses to tend their neighborhood flock of schoolkids. It’s an image of volunteer Americana that I won’t soon forget.

I also better understand the role of seasons in creating a scarcity that encourages rich, full lives. Not only are there things that Must be done now in preparation for each coming season, but when summer will be over in a few short months of highly variable weather, you better also do what you Want to do with some urgency. I get the appeal, and know why my kid has chosen this beautiful locale in a manageable and well-managed state to stake her life’s claim. We could use more of what they have, methinks.

3 – following up my prior blog, my boy dog ‘stayed thirsty’ to the end that came last week. Tuxie had a few very good months (longer in dog years!), in which he careened around in his tri-pod cart and inspired others to the point where we were hopefully arranging for him to become a therapy-by-example dog. Self-pity was not in his lexicon, but cancer lurked in his lungs. It moved very fast despite chemo – he barked at us to go to the park on Saturday, but by the next Wednesday night his hopeless gaze told us he was done. He lived fully for fourteen years, and left us peacefully and well.



There’s a difference between sadness and regret. I will miss that boy forever, but it is comforting after a fashion to know we did everything we could. Those last months when he needed us particularly deepened our love and admiration for him. And then we just need to accept the outcome. There are still the stabs of recognition when I hear a sound in the house that I know is him – but it isn’t, or prepare to step over him in the hall, except it’s just a shadow. Those things are just the price of loving, though, and well-worth-it in tribute to that enduring affection. I wouldn’t trade ‘em, and there’ll be more pups in my future.

I’m very grateful that he was my fascinating companion for all those years. Rest easy, good friend – see you at the bridge.

Comments

 +   4 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm

I completely understand how you feel with the passing of your loyal buddy. When my first rescue dog passed after so many wonderful years together, it was so heartbreaking I did not think I could ever handle getting another one. About three years later I felt ready again, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I have been blessed having so many great years with my current rescue dog, who definitely rescued my family more than we ever rescued him. His hearing is going, and he is moving very slowly(except when squirrels make the mistake of trespassing on his territory), and sadly his days are probably winding down. But he has been a fantastic part of the family, just like the prior rescue dog. I strongly encourage everyone considering getting a dog to stay away from breeders and pet stores, and please look into adopting a dog from the humane society, or one of the many rescue dog groups. Your new best buddy is waiting out there for you, and adopting him from a local shelter, humane society, or dog rescue group, is a win-win for everyone involved.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 20, 2016 at 4:35 pm

Thanks, Am. Beautifully stated. Good luck with your boy!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 20, 2016 at 10:53 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

I find myself almost in complete agreement with Mr. Cushing. Donald Trump may be the worst candidate ever for president. Except for Hillary Clinton. And we can thank President Obama for both.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 21, 2016 at 4:42 am

Well you're certainly in the Trumpian spirit -- all claim and no back-up. Got any cattle to go with that hat?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 21, 2016 at 7:23 am

@Doug Miller :"And we can thank President Obama for both."

Blaming Obama for Donald Trump??? LOL!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 21, 2016 at 9:37 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

All claim and no back-up? Just following Mr. Cushing's standards of offering nothing but assertions, such as above when he simply states that Trump is bad.

The list of reasons that make Hillary the worse choice is long and well known. It consists of everything she has ever done or rather undone. If her name wasn't Clinton she would not be the Democrat nominee. It is just that Mr. Cushing ignores or rationalizes her many deficiencies.

As to "Sam", well yes, and Obama also created the Bernie Sanders wave because so many voters are fed up with inside the beltway politics.




 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:31 am

@Doug Miller :"As to "Sam", well yes, and Obama also created the Bernie Sanders wave because so many voters are fed up with inside the beltway politics."

So basically all you're now saying is that each incumbent President indirectly influences the selection of the Presidential candidates of the following election cycle? Not a particularly original observation but, yes, that's right. By the same token, you could say the GW Bush "created" Obama, and Bill Clinton "created" GW Bush, and GHW Bush "created" Bill Clinton, etc., etc..


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 21, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

I am saying that unlike any election cycle I can remember, a significant number in both parties have dramatically reacted to the current president and politics as usual in DC. Very few expected that Bernie Sanders would come from nowhere to almost beat Mrs. Clinton. People liked Sanders because they thought he was honest and not corrupted by Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation money machine and related influence peddling.

On the Republican side, while two big mid term elections in 2010 and 2014 swept Republicans into control of house and senate, many Republicans today feel that Republican leadership has done little to oppose the Obama agenda. Hence, they selected a true outsider. Very few expected this either.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Jun 22, 2016 at 10:45 am

Dear Lexi, Rest In Peace. I love dogs and especially puppies and oldies. Last week I gave baths to several shelter puppies and didn't get bit! I bowed out of playtime because that's when getting a nip here 'n there happens.

I dislike Gawker so I don't care what happened to them.

I also love babies! CONGRATULATIONS AND MAY THE BABY HAVE A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE! HOORAY!

doug-gie...are you always so mean spirited?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 22, 2016 at 3:10 pm

No back-up? I thought that anyone not-under-a-rock would've been aware of those specific "pungent emanations" after the horrible Orlando massacre. And before that, to quote from Mark Leibowitz' recent article on the disarray of the GOP:

"Trump would soon be “pivoting” into a more “presidential” mode, Priebus kept promising. But after a while it became clear that Trump’s outrages would continue unabated. Within the space of a few weeks, he suggested that Bill Clinton had committed rape and (along with Hillary) might have killed his former aide Vince Foster and that Ted Cruz’s father might have associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and that Mitt Romney walked like a penguin and. ... Priebus pretty much stopped bothering with “presidential.”

And: "Rubio also holds the astonishing position of saying he’ll vote for someone he has previously declared unfit to hold the American nuclear codes. You envision him under a mushroom cloud, assuring his kids that it could be even worse — at least he didn’t vote for Clinton."

Hell, even Meg Whitman compared your boy to Mussolini and [Godwin alert].

Pitiful wild lunges at false equivalence aside, there's nothing close to even comparable on the Dems' side. Bernie is aware of the existential threat to the Republic, and he's falling in line as soon as he maxes his influence on the platform. Good for him and us. The Prez is thundering away Presidentially, and Senator Warren is having a field day.

Hillary's negatives are the product of 25 years of a sustained slander campaign (Don't believe it? Read 'Dark Money'), that has sown doubts but not made anything stick. More on that in a future blog, but 'worse than Trump' smells awfully desperate.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:12 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Even a fairly strong critique of both parties is not tolerated here. As I have said, Trump is the worst candidate ever, except for Mrs. Clinton. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of the Clinton/Obama foreign policy. Some were Americans.

As to pungent statements, well, they also came from the White House when it tried to turn Orlando into a debate about gun control in order to deflect attention from the fact that we are at war. That lasted about 24 hours as yet another African American woman and administration official was thrown under the bus along the lines of Susan Rice.

And when Mr. Cushing says Senator Sanders is aware of the existential threat to our country, he is referring, of course, to the Republicans, not some JV group like ISIS. Or the Russians, Chinese or the North Koreans. Just wanted to clarify that for Mr. Cushing.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 6:57 am

@Doug Miller :"And when Mr. Cushing says Senator Sanders is aware of the existential threat to our country, he is referring, of course, to the Republicans, not some JV group like ISIS. Or the Russians, Chinese or the North Koreans."

I won't presume to speak for Mr. Cushing, but when I speak of an existential threat to this country in regards to the Presidential election, I refer not to the Republican Party but to Donald Trump, the most immature, most bizarre, most narcissistic, and most emotionally unstable major party Presidential candidate that I have ever seen - and I say that in full sincerity with a straight face. I do consider Donald Trump a possible existential threat to this country. I have no idea all of the bizarre things he may be capable of doing (e.g., ordering the military to commit war crimes such as executing all members of a terrorist's family) if he were to be elected President - and neither do you.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 7:14 am

@Doug Miller :"As I have said, Trump is the worst candidate ever, except for Mrs. Clinton. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of the Clinton/Obama foreign policy. Some were Americans."

Some??! Only some? So you think that America has the responsibility to act as the world's policeman and send her sons and daughters to faraway corners of the world to fight and die for other people all over the world? Do you realize that close to 100,000 young Amercians have already died fighting in distant lands since the end of WWII for peoples of other nations? It seems that you have a rather low threshold for sending the sons and daughters of others to fight and die in other lands (and make no mistake: When a President orders US troops into action, some of them are destined to die). I wonder if you would be so willing to put yourself or your own son or daughter into harm's way as you are the sons and daughters of others. Can't help but observe that the condition of "Chickenhawk-itis" is widespread among so many Republicans, including the current Republican candidate for President.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 7:42 am

I'll start by pointing out the rich irony of complaining about intolerance in a post promoting (even in relative terms) a candidate whose campaign is built-on, and defines intolerance. Besides, if I didn't 'tolerate' contrary opinion, I'd delete it -- sort of like Trump excluding the Washington Post from his rallies for honest reportage he doesn't like. Yet, there the comment sits, as it should. Some intolerance that is.

To say, and I do, that Mr. Trump is an existential threat to the Republic is also not to say that he's the Only such threat. That's just silly. What I am pointing out and objecting to is the concerted campaign by the GOP to deflect their crisis of conscience -- to minimize his monstrous positions, make him all right -- he doesn't Really mean it, he's not so bad, he'll come around, besides at least he's not Hillary. They are trying to do an impossible dance -- like a drunk uncle at a wedding -- it's a very ugly spectacle.

I'll go farther than Sam in saying that if good-hearted Republicans do not stand-up and object and be counted, then they are complicit in that existential threat. They simply cannot run and hide behind those absurd rationalizations. They must wear the red hat, or refuse to accept the Trump candidacy.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:53 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

When "Sam" says we do not know what Mr. trump may do, I agree completely. That is a risk we take with all new presidents, especially ones from outside the elite Washington political class.

Fortunately we know a lot more about what Mrs. Clinton would do. She has a track record of death and disaster as a Secretary of State. "We came, we saw, he died." bragged Mrs. Clinton after leading the charge into Libya. Since then, thousands more have died in Libya including four Americans when she failed to answer their phone call at 3AM one morning. Add to that corruption and influence peddling through her so-called foundation and the choice is easier for me every day.

But I do not like the red hat.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 2:19 pm

@Doug Miller :"Since then, thousands more have died in Libya including four Americans when she failed to answer their phone call at 3AM one morning."

Benghazi? You're going to pull out Benghazi? The attack which was the subject of at least seven Congressional investigations which found no evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton? And I don't know what you mean by "she failed to answer their phone call at 3AM one morning" and I doubt that you can clearly articulate what that's supposed to mean, either, since she was up much of that night dealing with the crisis.

And, BTW, for someone who is so hawkish (or "chicken hawkish") about sending young Americans to fight and die in faraway lands, it's pretty surprising how hard you come down on people when the inevitable casualties come in. Or do you think that it should be like the movies where great battles are fought without the good guys suffering any casualties? You do know that the US embassy in Benghazi was kept open despite the security risks because it was running a CIA sponsored operation targeting terrorist groups, don't you? The safe thing would have been to close the embassy and pull out, but there were reasons that that wasn't done because they were fighting a hidden war and wars involve taking risks. Seems that you're fine with the fighting part but have some naive view that risk taking and casualties when fighting are unacceptable.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 9:00 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

"Sam" needs to reread my last post. It was clearly about Libya, not Benghazi. Mrs. Clinton bragged about killing Gaddafi and overthrowing the Libyan government. This act led to the destabilization of the entire country where about 30,000 have since died. Four were Americans. So, while there may be some dispute over whether those four could have been rescued on short notice, there is no dispute over the fact that the Ambassador had asked on multiple occasions for more security at Benghazi. Mrs. Clinton failed to answer those calls. That is a far more serious charge than failing to mount a last minute rescue mission.

The chaos that continues to this day in Libya is her fault. The 30,000 deaths are her fault. The fact that Libya is now a new ISIS safe haven is her fault.

"Sam's" last paragraph is too confusing to merit comment.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 10:07 pm

@Doug Miller

Gee, Doug. For someone who claims that he didn't talk about Benghazi, you sure do talk about Benghazi a lot.

Did you get the meaning of that last sentence or was it too confusing to you?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 23, 2016 at 10:39 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Again Sam is missing the point. Benghazi wasn't a primary issue. Libyan policy was the primary issue. Libyan policy led inevitably to what happened in Beghazi. Mrs. Clinton owns the chaos in Libya and all the death and destruction that it has brought to the country. Hopefully she will run on her record.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 24, 2016 at 7:02 am

@Doug Miller :"Libyan policy led inevitably to what happened in Beghazi."

"Inevitably"? Really? As in one thing led to the other with 100% certainty?

You seem to be very careless in your choice of words, which makes me wonder how seriously I should take anything that you write.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 24, 2016 at 8:03 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Sam is right. I should have been more specific. I should have said that Clinton/Obama policy with regard to Libya was responsible for the chaos that exists today in that country. Further, this chaos inevitably led to the deaths of 30,000 or more people in Libya, including four Americans.

Perhaps we can now move on to a discussion of the current situation in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Russia, China, North Korea and Afghanistan.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 24, 2016 at 11:58 am

So much content, so little time...
So, Doug Miller, if "Clinton/Obama policy with regard to Libya was responsible for the chaos that exists today in that country" what was the right policy to follow instead? And when did you or anyone else propose that alternative course of action? We know Trump didn't; he was all for "taking out" Ghaddafi. And the Republican neo-cons - you know, the folks who destabilized the entire region by selling us a war they assured us would "pay for itself" after we were "greeted as liberators" - certainly never proposed anything less chaos-inducing than what was done by this country during the "Arab Spring." So since you have forcefully indicted Obama and Clinton for what was done, please tell us: What would you have had us do? Even in hindsight, do you have a solution?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 24, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

When losing an argument, change the subject, cause a distraction. This is about finding the least worse candidate for president. Liberals said they learned at least two things from the Iraq War: (1)don't do anything/leave it alone and (2) if you do something, have an exit plan that promises some stability in the end. Mrs. Clinton ignored both rules and then bragged about killing Gaddafi. Reminded me of the Bush "Mission Accomplished" moment.

In addition to Syria, there is a long list of other countries that are far worse off compared with seven and a half years ago.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 25, 2016 at 9:52 am

More irony as Doug invokes the ‘Mission Accomplished’ meme in a post that unilaterally and very prematurely proclaims some sort of victory. How very Republican.

Libyan history does not begin after the tyrant Gaddafi’s demise. Tens of thousands of civilian lives were saved by the coalition airstrikes that blunted the murderous dictator’s drive to exterminate his opposition. They go on the balance sheet. That other coalition members, notably the Brits under the conservative Cameron, did not follow through on their commitments to stabilize the territory should also be noted. As the Telegraph recently reported:

“Things should have been better by now. That is a view shared by the Downing Street, which hoped that a "light touch" approach would work in post-Gaddafi Libya, given the relative success of the NATO-backed campaign to unseat him.”

“Instead, British security officials now openly acknowledge that more should have been done at the time, given the fears that Libya may now become another addition to Middle East's growing list of failed states.” Web Link

Further, you do not link your repeated casualty estimate. The one that Google and I could find (PBS -- Web Link ) put the toll at 4600 through late last year. Double that and you’re still off by 300%.

Part of the post-Bush foreign policy – in addition to the change to ‘don’t do stupid (stuff)’, has been a sober reluctance to commit American troops to die around the world, especially when other nations with stronger regional interests should step-up. We are not, and cannot be the world’s enforcer, as the disastrous consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan should have made plain enough. Ukraine, Syria, Korea, yes Libya and various other African locales and elsewhere have provided ample opportunity to be stupid. Those lives saved also go on the balance sheet.

Is Hillary more interventionist that the Prez? Yes, and that’s a concern (read: ‘Alter Egos’). But in addition to rejecting the deployments above, she worked tirelessly to rebuild American credibility and standing that had been left in tatters, and improved/saved the lives of countless women around the world. Good on her – those lives go on the balance, as well.

Contrast the disjointed ramblings of Mr. NATO-disbanding, torture-loving/family killing, nukes on the table, disavow our debts like they were owed to a casino contractor, Putin admirer. Yikes, to the power of 100. How ridiculous to consider her a worse choice.

Finally, as Kluget notes, if you’re going to criticize, you cannot yourself change the subject (much less declare Mission Accomplished) before offering your own sage advice for what you’d have done. There are No cost-free options. So what is it, Doug? What would you do in Libya? Finally, what do you think your better-choice candidate (who applauded Gaddafi’s demise, at the time) would do?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 25, 2016 at 1:15 pm

Some choice ads on Donald Trump by the Clinton campaign:

"I am a unifier. Everyone loves me."
Web Link

"Dont you wish that your elementary school children were as mature as Donald Trump?"
Web Link

"What, me worry? Look! My golf course is doing great!"
Web Link


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 25, 2016 at 6:09 pm

Wow, it's gotten so bad that conservative columnist George Will has announced that he's leaving the Republican Party because of Donald Trump. What a bizarre election year. What a bizarre Presidential candidate.

__________
George F. Will, a conservative columnist and prominent Republican pundit for the past 40 years, said he has left the Republican Party because Donald J. Trump is the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

Mr. Will revealed his decision on Friday in an interview with PJ Media. He said he had switched his party registration to unaffiliated this month, adding that Republicans should “grit their teeth” during a Hillary Clinton presidency and then hope to beat her in 2020.

“This is not my party,” Mr. Will said in a speech on Friday at the Federalist Society before the PJ Media interview.

Mr. Will has criticized Mr. Trump throughout his presidential run.

“Only he knows what he is hiding by being the first presidential nominee in two generations not to release his tax returns,” Mr. Will wrote in his Washington Post column on Wednesday. “It is reasonable to assume that the returns would refute many of his assertions about his net worth, his charitableness and his supposed business wizardry. They might also reveal some awkwardly small tax payments.”

Mr. Trump has returned fire, denouncing Mr. Will often on Twitter and in his speeches.

“You know he looks smart because he wears those little glasses,” he said at a rally in November. “If you take those glasses away from him, he’s a dummy.”

NYTimes: Web Link
____________


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 26, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Mr. Cushing has become somewhat unhinged. His rambling response is amusing. His reputation to distract from the central issue, when he is challenged, is reinforced by his latest post

The presidential race this year is a choice between two poor candidates and what they might do if elected. It is not a choice between these two and the few people who are commenting on this blog.

Mrs. Clinton has been a failure as a Secretary of State. Much of the Middle East is far worse off since she was appointed by President Obama. Mr. Cushing’s claim that Libyan intervention saved tens of thousands of lives was labeled “an audacious claim to put it mildly” by his favorite newspaper, the New York Times.

Mr. Cushing often follows the lead of the Obama administration in blaming others for the chaos around the world. In this case, our friends the British didn’t do enough.

I do support Mr. Cushing’s approach to Donald Trump. Call him names, dismiss him with insults and never consider why the race is so close while so many Republicans say they will not vote for him. Many of Trump’s supporters are working class Democrats who are fed up with the elite political insiders who are tied to Wall Street and are rich beyond measure. Like Mrs. Clinton.

And, of course, Mrs. Clinton is said to be the first presidential candidate who is the subject of an FBI criminal investigation which happens to be run by a friendly Democrat administration. That fact, no doubt, has nothing to do with her reputation for being dishonest. As Mr. Cushing reminds us, Hillary's negatives are the product of 25 years of a sustained slander campaign.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 26, 2016 at 5:52 pm

I'd be unhinged with joy if you'd just answer the oft-asked question of what you'd have done in Libya.

As for the rest of the post, it's just more claimage without linkage: GOP wishes for fishes. If the world could be as you wish it, just for the saying so, it would truly be a very different place.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 26, 2016 at 9:43 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

What I would have done or what Mr. Cushing would have done in Libya or Syria or the many countries that became failed states during the Clinton/Obama administration is irrelevant to the discussion about who should be elected president this fall. Did I say it was an intentional distraction on the part of Mr. Cushing?

More "claimage without linkage"? Try googling the phrase I quoted. The article pops right up on the New York Times website.

Not sure that Mrs. Clinton is the subject of an FBI investigation? Really!

Not sure that the election polling shows a close race? Surely Mr. Cushing knows about the website that tracks election polling.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 7:49 am

Doug: I tried to verify your casualties claim and couldn't find it -- you'll have to pardon me if I decline to be your fact-checker, (I already have a full-time job). If You make a fact-based claim, it is Your job to back it up. I understand the reluctance, but all you have to do is copy/paste the URL into your comment and Gina does the rest.

It is very Republican to blame everything that happens in the world on this Administration, as if 1 -- the US could necessarily fix it, And 2 -- it's somehow our job to do so. Neither premise is necessarily true. Besides, this Prez had to deal with all the voluntarily self-inflicted wounds of his predecessor. Big job.

Just ponder for a moment on how we as a country could have invested in improving traditional and cyber infrastructure if we hadn't poured-out that $Trillion+ onto the thirsty sands of Iraq. That work alone would've directly employed many of your guy's frustrated supporters and we'd be light-years ahead for the future. That's why you 'don't do stupid stuff.'

And yes -- of course I DO think you need to have a coherent alternative to your Monday morning policy QB-ing -- after three swings and misses (to mix a metaphor) it seems you've gotten out of the habit of thinking past blame. Blame is fun and easy -- better alternatives are hard work.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 10:12 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Having brought up Mr. Trump at the beginning of this article, Mr. Cushing made a long series of statements without any attributions. When immediately challenged, he responds, "No back-up? I thought that anyone not-under-a-rock would've been aware of those specific "pungent emanations"..."

In another demand for attribution, Mr. Cushing surprisingly makes reference to cattle, not a good reference when discussing Mrs. Clinton and her cattle futures scandal.

A double standard is in effect for those who might disagree with Mr. Cushing.

He pretends not to know that Mrs. Clinton is the subject of an FBI criminal investigations. He pretends not to know that the presidential race is close. He claims not to know that Mrs. Clinton has close ties to Wall Street and has gotten rich because of this. He makes an assertion that is impossible to prove, makes it without providing a URL, and makes it in spite of a New York Times article that labels it "an audacious claim to put it mildly".

Mr. Cushing wants to blame every Clinton/Obama disaster on President Bush when the current administration has often made things far worse. He again brings up Iraq. In 2011, the Clinton/Obama team claimed Iraq was a smashing success, that they were so proud of the situation and then pulled out all troops which gave rise to ISIS and plunged Iraq back into chaos.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 10:28 am

@Doug Miller

Knock it off, Doug. Your posts are now filled with personal attacks, unproven assertions, and transparent attempts to put words in another's mouth.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 10:34 am

So that's four swings and misses - about right for the uber - entitled! But I'm going to ask again: Mr. Miller accuses Obama and Clinton of mishandling Libya. So what should they have done instead? C'mon, this in Monday morning!


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 4:01 pm

When Bill Clinton was finishing up his second term as President, Hillary was widely quoted as saying "they were basically broke". They subsequently start the Clinton Foundation, where foreign countries made huge donations to this so-called foundation, and they gave speeches to Wall Street and other wealthy donors to gain influence and received enormous fees. They now are reported to have over $100 million in assets, and their daughter Chelsea who works for this foundation bought a $10 million New York penthouse.

President Obama was a "community organizer" in the South Side of Chicago(where I was born)and never made over $100,000 a year before being a one term senator, and then President. However, he just announced his plans in retirement are to become an owner of an NBA Franchise. The most recent franchise sold, the Clippers, went for over a billion dollars. He obviously plans to follow in the Clinton's footsteps and start a "foundation" where foreign countries and wealthy donors wanting influence will make ridiculous donations to him.

Both the Clintons and President Obama constantly attack the "one percenters" who make money, and cry about wealth inequalities and advocate wealth injustices.

What is really "wealth injustice" is the fact that the Clintons and Obama in retirement as President get a $201,700 per year pension for life(we pay for), a "transition expense"(we pay for), $150,000 per year for their staff and office allowance for 30 months than $96,000 a year for life(we pay for), "travel expenses for life"(we pay for), "medical expenses for life"(we pay for), and secret service protection for life(we pay for). If you start a foundation and have over $100 million in assets, and your daughter buys a 10 million dollar penthouse, why should we taxpayers have to pay for all these things for you? If you think you are going to make enough money in your "foundation" to buy an NBA franchise, why should we taxpayers have to pay all these things for you?

The worst thing about this true "wealth injustice" is listening to Hillary Clinton and Obama attack Republicans for creating wealth inequalities and only helping the rich, while the Democrats "foundations" sell their influence and souls to foreign countries and Hollywood liberals. The worst "one percenters" are those who made their money off taxpayers.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump, and I can think of 5 people on my street in Danville that would make a better President than him. The problem is I can think of 15 people on my street in Danville who would make a better President than Hillary. At least with Donald Trump, he became rich in the private sector, and is honest about his lifelong pursuit of income and wealth. Hillary and Obama are hypocrites about their wealth and their wealth is the true wealth injustice.




 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 7:05 pm

@American :"President Obama was a "community organizer" in the South Side of Chicago(where I was born)and never made over $100,000 a year before being a one term senator, and then President. However, he just announced his plans in retirement are to become an owner of an NBA Franchise. The most recent franchise sold, the Clippers, went for over a billion dollars. He obviously plans to follow in the Clinton's footsteps and start a "foundation" where foreign countries and wealthy donors wanting influence will make ridiculous donations to him."

It's amusing how you mix factual distortions and innuendo to make it to make it sound like something underhanded is going on. Obama's net worth is around $12 million. The number is no secret since he - unlike the present Republican nominee - has released his tax returns to the public. Most of his net worth is due to sales of his books (remember them?). Finally, he never claimed that he intended to be the sole owner of a basketball team. The idea was being a member of an ownership group. I can only conclude that you were too lazy to look up these easy-to-find, simple facts for yourself, or you were deliberately trying to mislead people.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 7:13 pm

@American :"At least with Donald Trump, he became rich in the private sector..."

No, you are confused. People like Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, and Steve Jobs became rich in the private sector. Even Obama - most of his net worth was from sales of his own book. Donald Trump, on the other hand, was born rich and was bailed out of financial trouble several times by Daddy Trump. No Horatio Alger story there.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 7:54 pm

Aw AM, look at it this way: let's say you need to choose between getting a dog or a cat. You may not Like cats, but this particular dog is rabid. Now, you Could choose 'neither' and just stay home, but the cat you don't like is a Much better choice than the dog that would kill you.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 7:58 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

It seems that liberals confuse personal attacks with inconvenient facts. Apparently anything that is critical of liberal policies is considered a personal attack.

"Four swings and misses"? Lets go over them again. Here is a longer list. Someone please tell me which of the following is an unproven assertion:
1. Mr. Cushing made unsubstantiated assertions about Donald Trump at the beginning of this article and later refused to provide attribution.
2. Mrs. Clinton is under investigation by the FBI and could face criminal charges.
3. Mrs. Clinton has significant ties to Wall Street and has personally benefited financially from them.
4. The election polls show a close race for president.
5. The Obama/Clinton administration declared Iraq a great success in 2011 and immediately withdrew all US military forces.
6. A number of Middle East countries are worse off than when Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State.
7. Our relationships with Russia and China are worse than before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 8:46 pm

Tom: Trump is the dog who has papers, went to the best obedience schools, and doesn't play well with the other dogs at Hap Magee dog park. You don't like him, he barks too much, but you know what you are getting. Hillary is the cat who acts like she is sweet and precious but when you fall asleep she causes damage to your house, breaks things, and makes it look like your other pet was at fault.

I would take the annoying dog who I know what I am getting over the cat who deceives you, is dishonest, and really causes disasters wherever she goes. By the way, the cat's mate is a true tomcat who should have been fixed years ago!


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 27, 2016 at 10:03 pm

@American :"You don't like him, he barks too much, but you know what you are getting."

You're getting a person who, according to the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, made remarks which were the "textbook definition of a racist comment". You're getting a person who even Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell could not bring himself to say is qualified to be the President of the United States.

Saying you're happy voting for such a person because "you know what you are getting" is a rather damning statement on your own character.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 7:02 am

"Sam": You post that you are challenging "my own character". Really? I stopped reading and commenting on Tom's blog a year ago after a person posted praise about killing a police officer and Tom left it up noting he thought it was suppose to be a joke. I have several family members in law enforcement, and I found the so-called joke and condoning of murder of a police officer so disgusting that I vowed to stop reading his blog. I recently stumbled over a photo of his dog he posted, and did read that his dog had passed, and as a dog lover felt empathy for the loss of his buddy, so I decided to do the Christian thing and try to comfort his loss by sharing my empathy for him and his buddy in my post.

"Sam", I then read your non-stop personal attacks on "Doug" for his opinions, so I felt the need to share my opinion on the issue. Of course, you then posted you were challenging my "own character". I guess no good deed goes undone, and I remembered why I stopped reading and commenting on this blog in the first place. Life is precious and too short to waste on reading personal attacks and smears by the likes of "Sam". Tom, I am truly sorry about your dog passing, and thank you for helping the dog rescue movement. But your readers like "Sam" with their personal attack venoms are not worth my time, and I will not waste anymore of my time reading or commenting on your blog.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 7:22 am

It's 'Rabid,' Am -- not 'annoying' but dangerous, and you have No Idea what you're getting from moment to moment from that guy. I assume you must just be baiting me, as No One could make such a claim with serious intent. The man's actions define terms like mercurial and ignorant, which are the opposite of predictable, and very dangerous in combination.

As to pedigree, as I hope you know, those 'papers' are a matter of genetic heritage, not behavior or character -- eugenics have rightly fallen out of fashion. 'Papers' are a silly, classist human construct, having mostly to do with trumped-up AKC notions of attractive appearance -- often at the expense of the breed's health (cf. GSDs, french bulldogs and 'barbie' collies). Candidate Trump's several wives and other consorts may share a superficial kind of pedigree, but it has sweet Nothing to do with governance. 'Papers' are worth what puppies use them for.

And 'obedience school' just didn't take. He learnt the art of the con, and that a large inheritance will buy you the power, if not the right, to take advantage of others. As you've seen, obnoxious canines sometimes gain short-term advantage by bullying, but they don't wear well and are soon rejected by the pack. It's happening -- now 51-38% fwiw ... and climbing.

Maybe think about going with the cat, esp. now that the GOP has thoughtfully spent $7M to clear her name on Benghazi. Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 7:39 am

@American

Your gross distortion of simple facts to attack the character of a person (which I pointed out in my first post to you), and your support of another person who is a widely acknowledged racist and bigot and who is constantly and incessantly throwing out personal attacks at anyone he dislikes is very "Christian" of you (and more than a little hypocritical).

Finally, given your demonstrated ability and willingness to distort simple facts concerning the circumstances of Obama's interest to buy into partial ownership of a basketball team after retirement, I very seriously doubt your claim that Tom left up a post "condoning of murder of a police officer". (Oops! Was that yet another "personal attack" on you?)


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 8:01 am

Sam -- don't mind Am. This is the third time he's self-deported. The first time also involved a threat to lead a merchant boycott unless my contrarian heresies were banned from this publication. It's what he does. Web Link

He may be back, hopefully with a more durable hide.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 10:24 am

@Tom Cushing

Tom, I think of myself as an independent and have no problems with accepting the fact that both Hillary Clinton and President Obama have made mistakes. But it really makes my blood boil when certain people try playing fast and loose with the facts as was done above concerning Obama's interest in a basketball team. The possibility that Obama may be up to something crooked here that I didn't know about made me investigate further. Could I have been wrong about my judgement of Obama? Did he have some evil plan to make himself a billionaire off the backs of poor working people? But, no, the insinuation of wrongdoing didn't even survive a quick cursory examination using Google. So, yeah, I let our friend have it with both barrels.

There's a lesson here: In this internet age when facts and data can be quickly checked and confirmed with a simple Google search, it's not smart to make things up or play loose with basic facts.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Classic, Doug Miller - absolutely classic! I posed one simple question: since you assert that Obama and Clinton did the wrong thing in Libya, what was the right thing - the thing they should have done instead? Specifically, you wrote: "The chaos that continues to this day in Libya is her fault. The 30,000 deaths are her fault. The fact that Libya is now a new ISIS safe haven is her fault" Tom and I have repeatedly asked you the simple question: what should she have done instead?

And you have never, ever, even touched that question with a 10 foot pole. Your responses range from attacking other people with whom you disagree, to accusing them (!) of changing the subject, and your latest,a string of barely intelligible claims and assertions which vary from demonstrably false to subjective opinion untethered to any facts -- and absolutely none of which has anything to do with WHAT SHOULD CLINTON HAVE DONE IN LIBYA INSTEAD OF WHAT SHE DID.

So let's call that "strike 5." You obviously don't have an answer. (I guess they don't bother with that sort of thing at Drudge or Breitbart or wherever you get your daily dose of bile.) I don't fault you for that - I have no idea of any strategy which would have led to a different outcome for Libya either.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Rohit, a resident of Foothill Farms,
on Jun 28, 2016 at 5:59 pm

i really respect your work absolutely amazing article.also very interesting for reading.keep posting.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 29, 2016 at 3:23 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Classic, Peter Kluget – absolutely classic! I posed one simple question: since he asserts that I made “a string of barely intelligible claims and assertions which vary from demonstrably false to subjective opinion untethered to any facts”, please tell me which of these claims fall into that category:
1. Mr. Cushing made unsubstantiated assertions about Donald Trump at the beginning of this article and later refused to provide attribution.
2. Mrs. Clinton is under investigation by the FBI and could face criminal charges.
3. Mrs. Clinton has significant ties to Wall Street and has personally benefited financially from them.
4. The election polls show a close race for president.
5. The Obama/Clinton administration declared Iraq a great success in 2011 and immediately withdrew all US military forces.
6. A number of Middle East countries are worse off than when Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State.
7. Our relationships with Russia and China are worse than before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State.

Mr. Kluget has never, ever, even touched that question with a 10 foot pole.

And to paraphrase Mr. Cushing, “I thought that anyone not-under-a-rock would've been aware of those specific” facts. Thus no attribution is needed for these.

As to Libya, Mr. Kluget misses or avoids the context of my statement about the Clinton/Obama actions in that country. I was pointing out that liberals like to say they learned something from the Iraq War. First lesson, don’t get involved in these situations. “We are not the world’s policeman” as Mr. Cushing just reminded us. And second lesson, if we do get involved, have an exit plan that offers a hope for stability in that country. I then made the statement that Mrs. Clinton violated both rules and left chaos just as was created by George Bush when he invaded Iraq and then found that chaos resulted. No reason here to say what I would have done. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm

@Doug Miller: "7. Our relationships with Russia and China are worse than before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State."

So you think that we should have a good relationship with Russia regardless of what happened in Crimea and the fact that we don't is Hillary Clinton's fault? As for China, Donald Trump is talking about starting a trade war with China. So if you're sincerely concerned about our relationship with China, then it seems that you should be verbally blasting Donald Trump, not Hillary.

I honestly don't think that your points make a lot of sense, Doug. You need to explain your assumptions and logic better and more clearly. For instance, you can't just assume that everyone agrees with your apparent belief that a good relationship with any country is a desirable thing regardless of the past actions of that country (e.g. Russia).


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 29, 2016 at 9:33 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Mrs. Clinton thought she could improve relations with Russia when she became Secretary of State. Remember her 'reset button"? Except that her State Department used the wrong Russian word for "reset" and her initiative was ridiculed by the Russians.

Later, Russia took advantage of a weak American president and saw an opportunity to invade Crimea knowing there would be no consequences for their action. That assumption turned out to be true. Ukraine is now smaller than it was.

Ditto for China. They are boldly going where they never went before.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 29, 2016 at 11:39 pm

@Doug Miller

Yes, Hillary Clinton and Obama tried to reset relations with Russia. The Russians foolishly didn't take the offer. Their loss.

As for Crimea, first there was a precedent. The Russians invaded the nation of Georgia during GW Bush's term. There were, as you said, "no consequences". That set the stage for Crimea's invasion.

The Crimean invasion, though, was hardly without consequences. The Russian economy has suffered greatly due to the resulting sanctions (compounded by the low price of oil). The Russian economy used to be the 8th largest in the world. That's the economic equivalent of Italy. Now? Last I looked, Russia was the 18th largest economy in the world, or the economic equivalent of Indonesia. Yes, the Russians have indeed suffered consequences.

But here's the really funny part about Crimea's annexation: Crimea has no strategic value and little in the way of natural resources. It's really not worth the price that Vladimir Putin and Russia paid for it in terms of lost economic cost due to sanctions (not to mention less of international prestige such as being kicked out of the G8). In fact, if Putin were really the brilliant geopolitical chess player that so many conservatives seem to think that he is, and if he really, really wanted Crimea, then the smart thing for him to have done would have been to offer to peacefully buy Crimea from Ukraine for, say, $2 trillion because that would have been a lot cheaper than what this Crimea mess is now and will eventually end up costing Russia. No, Vladimir Putin is no brilliant geopolitical chess player like Otto von Bismarck. He's more like a clumsy, bungling Donald Trump.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 30, 2016 at 10:12 am

Ah, Mr. Miller - good try! Changing the subject (again) and using the lawyer's trick of burying your admission that you have no valid point to make in the middle of a long paragraph in which you fling mud and pound the table about other stuff.

So let me quote you: "No reason here to say what I would have done" [about Libya]

So there you have it. Clinton is "responsible" for every bad thing which happened in Libya, but even now, comfortably after the fact, when all of the (then future) events are actually known, you have no clue as to what she (or anyone else) could have done differently which would have made the ultimate outcome any better.

But Clinton's still responsible - for every bad thing which happened in Libya (and more, as Tom pointed out above), according to Mr. Miller. I get that - it's right wing logic. You're not responsible for coming up with a solution to any problems - not Iraq, not the great recession, not Libya. Only Democrats are responsible for cleaning up the messes made by the Republicans, and they can never do it "right" enough - even if you have no suggestion as to what the "right" way to do it was.

I've lived a long time, and I've seen both sides of the American political spectrum do some dumb stuff. But in recent years, the fact that it's now up to the Democrats to be the only adults in the room has become stunningly obvious. And Mr. Miller's approach to casting blame only accentuates that.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 30, 2016 at 11:59 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

So, it is Bush's fault once again. Pathetic excuse after almost 8 years.

Crimea has no strategic value? Except for a major Russian Naval facility, probable off shore petroleum reserves and Russian pipelines through Ukraine to Europe which brings Russia much needed hard currency. Putting pressure on Ukraine and seizing territory at will likely keeps Russian petroleum flowing through Ukraine.

As to Libya, my point is that after the Iraq experience, Clinton/Obama repeated the George Bush mistakes making them hypocrites. What I would have done is irrelevant in this context. Democrats promised not to make the same mistakes but they did. Yet somehow this is considered "adult" behavior.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 30, 2016 at 1:00 pm

@Doug Miller: "Crimea has no strategic value? Except for a major Russian Naval facility, probable off shore petroleum reserves and Russian pipelines through Ukraine to Europe which brings Russia much needed hard currency. "

Russia already had access to the joint Russian-Ukrainian naval facility in Crimea through a long-term lease, and Russian and Ukrainian sailors were on good terms with each other and often socialized with one another. There was no need to go to war to get sole possession of the base. It was a stupid act. As for natural resources, yes, there is an estimated in $10 billion in natural gas off the shore of Crimea. That's not a lot in the big picture, and is also the wrong kind of resource that Russia needs more of since their economy is already too distorted because it is overly reliant on oil and gas exports. Crimea's big economic driver was tourism, but that sector of the economy has been trashed because of the Russian takeover. No Ukrainians or Europeans are vacationing in Crimea any more. Putin is now forced to try to convince Russians into vacationing there to make up for the shortfall and not being very successful at that. As for Russian pipelines, Crimea was never necessary for those pipelines. Sure, Russia may save some money be now routing some pipelines through Crimea, but that's not going to come close to justifying the costs of the takeover.

Face the facts: Russia blundered into Crimea, and Putin made a serious miscalculation in thinking that the West would not respond so harshly to his invasion. He assumed that the West would quickly accept his invasion as a fait accompli and that there would be no repercussions. He certainly didn't expect to be in the position that he is in now.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 30, 2016 at 4:35 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

I disagree with your opinions on every point. In my opinion, Putin didn't blunder into this military action. It was carefully planned over a long term and just one of a series that will occur as he tries to reassemble the Soviet Union.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by SHale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 1, 2016 at 8:56 am

SHale is a registered user.

wow what do the many comments here have to do with the original blog?

A: not much.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by rosalindr, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 13, 2016 at 11:41 pm

rosalindr is a registered user.

SHale is right. Let's get back to the original subjects of this blog.

1. Vanity lawsuits and fodder for tabloids. I don't read them and don't care.

2. Crossing guards in Vermont. Are you sure they are volunteers? I believe Crossing Guards here are part of the Police Dept and paid for their work.

3. Border Collies. Here's a link to a litter of rescued Border Collie pups. Web Link Someone needs to give these doggies a good home (hint, hint).

4. Speaking of dogs, Donald Trump isn't a serious candidate for Dog Catcher much less President of the United States. He has run or announced plans to run several times in the past. Web Link .

I doubt he thought this latest announcement would actually amount to anything just like the previous ones. I wonder how he will get out of it or if the few sane Republicans left will find a way to drop him during the Convention. And, yes, there is speculation that he's a shill for Hill to get elected. That would be just about the only way she could be.

Roz



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Follow this blogger (Receive an email when blogger makes a new post)

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tri-Valley cities rank high in poll
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 596 views

Don’t Get Cute with Me
By John A. Barry | 1 comment | 135 views

What You Need to Do Before Your Child Goes to College
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 96 views