Well, of course.
According to the Australia-based Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), global violence — as defined by a range of measures from conflict deaths, to displaced persons, to homicide rates — has been rising since 2007.
This news is in many ways surprising because up to 2007, the data suggested the world was becoming a much safer place.
Up to 2007, we were only allowing grown-ups to have a say in American foreign policy.
Via Instapundit.
Yeah. You would think that would be a heads up to Glenn Beck and the other “let it burn” people…..
So … You think Team Jeb’s foreign policy will differ from Team Hillary’s … how, exactly? That the email servers will be run by general services is … not much of a difference.
.
Mew
He’s receiving advice from James Baker, so probably nothing.
Though I don’t think he’d necessarily take donations from Foreign Governments, whereas ISIS could donate a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation and they’d not only pocket the money but also probably declare ISIS reformed, like Obama has for Iran.
I don’t know. I keep hearing the two sides are the same, but all the boat people, and ethnic cleansing, handing the Slaves back, and Genocide keep happening when the Democrats are in charge……
And you can show clear cause-and-effect? Last I checked, the Cuban problem was because, you know, *Cuba* .. not the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania…
.
Look, there are some candidates seeking the GOP nomination I would be happy to support .. but there are some useless oxygen-wasters seeking to sell books too .. and I’m not willing to support the latter anymore.
.
Mew
Nope. But just because I lack the political skills to see the threads, doesn’t mean I can’t notice a pattern. (And Cuba? Really? Cuba is definitely a problem because of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. JFK? Missile Gap? Bay of Pigs? Missile Crisis? You don’t think that creating a non-existent crisis, bringing us to the brink of Nuclear War, and completely surrendering to guys worse then Hitler, just to save face, that wasn’t JFK? Both sides do it? Where is the Republican Bay of Pigs?)
Except .. Eisenhower, not Kennedy, started the CIA on the direction that ended in the Bay of Pigs fiasco… I assert Eisenhower could have pulled it off, Kennedy couldn’t, but ..
.
Blaming one party and not the other is silly.
.
Which is kind of my *point*.
.
Mew
Is it silly? The evidence says otherwise. Again, Cuba. We saw a lot of push from the New York Times, and other arms of the Democrat party, and the Left, to put that “Agrarian reformer”, Castro, into power. Hmmm, we saw the same thing with Mao. And Stalin, who got away with starting WWII. Weird that I can’t think of any example of such failures on the Republican side……
Oh, of course you can’t .. and that’s fine.
.
I figure I’ve let you have plenty of rope now, so please answer my initial question.
.
Not “Some Republican” and “Some Democrat”. “Jeb” and “Hillary”. With specificity.
.
And no, Jeb having access to W and Bush 41’s rolodex isn’t compelling .. Hillary has access to Bubba Horndog’s.
.
Mew
Glenn Beck has done this several times, the GOP however should be worried when people like Leon Wolf, Ace, and John Ekdahl ( along with several up till now reliable GOP activists) start talking about not voting of voting Democrat because of actions of GOP Leadership.
At some point the GOP has to ask why they have such a large group of “let it burn” people.
All people have a certain tolerance for being lied to. This is in part because everybody lies**, so .. we have to tolerate some just by being alive ..
.
Thing is, it *is* a tolerance .. not an unlimited license .. so it’s necessary for everyone – even politicians – to tell the truth *some* of the time…
.
Sadly, the idiots currently running the GOP don’t seem to understand that there are limits.
.
Mew
.
.
** Gregory House, MD
We know why. The Press is burning itself out pushing lies, which, alas, far too many respond to. Like all the Media stories about how Boehner was going to punish the idiots who tried to oust him (while completely lacking the votes. Counting votes is a political skill people, an important one.) The reality, that he actually put many of them in positions of power? Kind of hard to find. McCarthy is still double+ ungood to far too many people. For all that the “let it burn” people think they are independent thinkers, they are affected like normal people by “What everyone knows”……
Daniel Webster did get punished.
Also there are others within the Caucus who could beat Boehner or McCarthy, Jordan and Hensarling would be my preferred candidates, and could very well beat Boehner.
There’s no profit in replacing Boehner while Harry Reid is running** the Senate.
.
Mew
.
.
.
.
** …can you see a change? I can’t …
Why would you? It’s been “run out the clock” for a couple of years now. We did it to the Democrats for years, in the minority. You are really surprised they are doing the same to us, now? You want to “see a change”? Two-thirds, or the Presidency. Until then, gridlock is the best we can hope for. It is the cold equations.
Ummm.. because running out the clock may be the game the gutless D.C. wing thinks they’re playing .. it may in fact be the only game *to* play although I’d say “give Obama veto-writer’s-cramp” is another reasonable one .. but they’re not convincing their nominal fellow travelers of anything other than “y’all hicks can FOAD”.
.
Cuts both ways, that.
.
Mew
What do you think “give Obama veto-writer’s-cramp” will accomplish? He’s not running for a third term. Making him look bad is pointless, and probably counterproductive, giving the Democrat’s nominee something to run against. Why would we do that. Yes, they are going to do it anyway, but there is a line. If we look reasonable, the Democrats will look crazy. Like the “War On Women” the Democrats had such hopes for. We were calm, and this was the result. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-mark-udalls-overheated-war-on-women-in-colorado-senate-race/2014/10/17/84506456-5562-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html
I think giving Obama veto-writers-cramp will accomplish an active and useful demonstration to the conservatives that the gutless turds that make up the D.C. wing of the GOP are not a batch of, well, gutless turds.
.
Counting votes is nice, but losing the war by winning the battle is still .. losing.
.
Mew
One point – is this the total violence number or adjusted for population growth?
.
Mew
hmmmm…..what happened in 2007? Oh I know a far left fringe moonbat Democratic Party took majorities in both Chambers of Congress. How odd. I’m sure its just a coincidence though.
It is a weird coincidence to be sure. Must be bad luck that all the badness happens when the Democrats are in charge. Can’t be the parties, there’s no difference between the two……
Damn straight there’s a difference: the democrats had the decency to tell us u front that they were out to fundamentally transform America. I can’t find anything comparable on the republican side. The gop keeps telling us they’re different, while supporting whatever the president says he wants. The gop can say whatever it wants about what they’re “going to do”, I’m going to pay attention to how they actually vote, and what they actually do.
(The above somehow posted prematurely, so I’m gonna finish here)
I have yet to discern how unconditional surrender in every engagement is the key to ultimate victory. Maybe you can explain it?
LOL! “Supporting whatever the President says he wants”? Except, of course, for increased taxes, Gun Control, The ACA, Immigration, a treaty with Iran, or any other major or minor project the President has tried to push, sure.
“But, but, the Republicans didn’t defund 17% of the DHS, so they could be politically destroyed the next time there is a terrorist act! They have betrayed us all!!!!” Sigh.
So far as I know, none of those things have been voted on since the GOP “took control” of both houses of congress. Meanwhile, Obama continues to do… whatever the hell he wants with only pro-forma, rhetorical opposition from the gop. Because standing up for what’s right might be politically inconvenient to their careers, I guess? I can no longer stomach being told that the political careers of the gop establishment are more important than the country as a whole. Riddle me this, Batman: if the risk of political destruction is too much for the GOP to stomach, why are they inpolitics?
Yes, that’s how the game is played. It’s called “counting the votes”, it’s why both parties have a job of “whip”. Why have a vote if you know you are going to lose?
No, because of Article Two, Section Two. It is, in point of fact, not legal if the President decides otherwise, except in cases of Impeachment. Do we have the votes for Impeachment? No. So for now, there is nothing the Republicans can do, except stall until there is a new President. The Constitution. Read it.
Ah, perhaps the “risk of political destruction is too much for the GOP to stomach” is the reading of someone who has been sharked by the Press? The Press has promised political destruction to any Republican who opposed Gun Control, but the Republicans stood strong, and Gun Rights are stronger then they’ve been in decades. Obama, and the Democrats in Congress promised political destruction to any Republican who opposed the ACA, to the point that they committed fraud to destroy Ted Stevens. Despite that political assassination, the Republicans stood strong. Not one crossed the aisle.
So, riddle me this, Batman : Why do the Republicans keep risking political and personal destruction, when they get no credit for it? What have we done to deserve such good men? How can you compare them to the Pedophile enablers and Murderers that make up the Democrat leadership?
Congress refusing to defund 17% of DHS is essentially declaring that Obama’s caesarism is a legitimate exercise of the Executive branch.
Also, take immigration off the list, the GOP hasn’t really done anything to stop the President. A significant portion of Congress seems to agree with him, even so far as to meekly acquiesce to Executive power grabs ( McCain and Graham both did this)
GOP going to defund State? How bout the EPA? Neither of those should be nearly as politically dangerous as DHS, but Senate GOP will cave, and if the Senate caves Boehner will too.
Also that 100+ billion dollar deficit spending the House is considering signing on to?
You keep demonizing the Dems .. which is fine.
.
You keep excusing the GOP for achieving *nothing* because “they only have 1/3 of government”.
.
I call bullshit, and suggest a review of Tip O’Neil and Dan Rostenkowski’s approach to Ronald Reagan.
.
Mew
Ah, the President has had the power of “Caesarism” since FDR. We have been stepping away from that, but it is going to be a slow process until we get the kind of power the Democrats used to create the problem. Two-thirds, Two-thirds, and the Presidency.
And what, exactly, can Congress do to stop the President from giving Amnesty to Immigrants? It is a core Executive Power. Article Two, Section Two. There is no Congressional oversight to the Power of Reprieve. There is no Judicial oversight to the Power of Reprieve. The Republicans did not work with Obama on this. This is all his, alone. But stop him? Not possible.
And what about the 100 billion+ deficit? Has it happened? No. Was it worse, proportionally under Reagan? Yes. When we are having these discussions, if absolute numbers are being used, you are probably being sharked. The Country has gotten a lot bigger, a lot richer. Billions just don’t mean what they used to. What is the deficit compared to the current GNP? Better, more honest question.
I made no claim the Republicans have “achieved nothing because they only have one-third of the government”. First, I have quite loudly proclaimed the vast achievements of the Republicans. Second, I have been quite loud about stating that the Republicans only have one-fifth of the government, the other two branches being the Press and the Permanent Government (The newest branch, given to us by FDR and the Civil Service Act). Try to see with eyes unclouded by hate. What I have said is, the things ya’ll “Real Conservatives(TM)”, such as an end to the EPA, a calibration of the IRS, and other agencies, will require Two-thirds, two-thirds, and the Presidency. The Democrats are not going to work with the Republicans on destroying their very rich and loyal and powerful (Again, see what happened to Ted Stevens!) power base, no matter how many times you say Tip O’Neil……
You asked, earlier, what the “let it all burn” folks hoped for.
.
You have now arrived at the answer, though you don’t seem to grasp it.
.
Mordor on the Potomac, *no matter who’s in charge*, cannot last. Nothing this top-heavy can.
.
It’s not, therefore, a matter of “let it all burn”, it’s “let the rotten tree collapse and let’s see what grows in its’ place”.
.
All your rationalization does is convince me that the edifice is rotten, it does not answer how to reduce the impact, so .. damn thing’s coming down anyway – better it be off their timetable.
.
Mew
“Yes, that’s how the game is played.”
.
And that’s the problem right there: governance is treated as a game, and Americans are merely tokens in it. That message has been clear to me for a few years now.
The leadership in neither party talks about reducing government – they talk about growing different areas, they talk about growing faster or slower, they talk about how growth is good for “the kids” or “the women” or “the (insert token here)” .. meanwhile the problems caused – and the people pointing them out – are ignored.
.
So .. yeah, I’m not interested in “the lesser of two evils” argument .. because there is no “lesser”, there is only “nuance”.
.
Mew