Brian Baker: Consider the decisive presidential factor

By Brian Baker

Last update: Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

Three men are in a small boat far from shore. The boat is being circled by hungry sharks when it suddenly springs a leak.

Two of the men start desperately trying to fix the leak and bail out the boat, but the third man starts examining the tools and complaining about the quality of the bucket.

That’s pretty much where we find ourselves in this election cycle.

There are two lousy candidates running for president. One of the two is going to be elected president.

That person will be deciding whom to nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, possibly the most important decision a president can make because the effect of that decision can last for decades.

That president will most likely be appointing one, and possibly two, new Supreme Court justices within a pretty short period.

Trump has promised to replace Scalia with a nominee of like kind and has released a list of very appealing candidates. Clinton has very publicly stated that she thinks the Citizens United (First Amendment) and Heller (Second Amendment) rulings should be reversed.

That issue alone makes the choice a very easy one. One candidate will do his best to nominate Supreme Court justices who will work to preserve our constitutional rights; the other will try her hardest to sink those same rights.

It’s an easy choice for any conservative to make. As repulsive as Trump is, Clinton is worse by orders of magnitude. And we have a ship of state to save.

The NeverTrump people are much more concerned with preserving their own conservative “purity” and won’t vote for Trump. The quality of the bucket – or candidate – is below their standard of acceptability.

They absolutely refuse to compromise their “integrity” by deigning to use such low-quality tools. For them, it’s nobler to let the damned boat – or the country – sink than to soil their hands with such demeaning material.

They fail to recognize, or accept, that when the boat goes down those hungry sharks are going to gobble them up right along with the guys who tried desperately to keep the boat afloat.

Because the sharks don’t care.

Click here to post a comment

Brian Baker: Consider the decisive presidential factor

Three men are in a small boat far from shore. The boat is being circled by hungry sharks when it suddenly springs a leak.

Two of the men start desperately trying to fix the leak and bail out the boat, but the third man starts examining the tools and complaining about the quality of the bucket.

That’s pretty much where we find ourselves in this election cycle.

There are two lousy candidates running for president. One of the two is going to be elected president.

That person will be deciding whom to nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, possibly the most important decision a president can make because the effect of that decision can last for decades.

That president will most likely be appointing one, and possibly two, new Supreme Court justices within a pretty short period.

Trump has promised to replace Scalia with a nominee of like kind and has released a list of very appealing candidates. Clinton has very publicly stated that she thinks the Citizens United (First Amendment) and Heller (Second Amendment) rulings should be reversed.

That issue alone makes the choice a very easy one. One candidate will do his best to nominate Supreme Court justices who will work to preserve our constitutional rights; the other will try her hardest to sink those same rights.

It’s an easy choice for any conservative to make. As repulsive as Trump is, Clinton is worse by orders of magnitude. And we have a ship of state to save.

The NeverTrump people are much more concerned with preserving their own conservative “purity” and won’t vote for Trump. The quality of the bucket – or candidate – is below their standard of acceptability.

They absolutely refuse to compromise their “integrity” by deigning to use such low-quality tools. For them, it’s nobler to let the damned boat – or the country – sink than to soil their hands with such demeaning material.

They fail to recognize, or accept, that when the boat goes down those hungry sharks are going to gobble them up right along with the guys who tried desperately to keep the boat afloat.

Because the sharks don’t care.

About the author

Brian Baker

Brian Baker

  • Nishka

    “Consider the decisive presidential factor” YAWN, YAWN, YAWN !!!!

  • tech

    Non sequitur, Brian. The data reflects the last California electoral vote win for a Republican candidate was George H.W. Bush in 1988. There’s zero probability California votes cast for the deeply flawed Trump will be sufficient to flip 55 electoral votes to the (R) column November 8th.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_trump_vs_clinton-5849.html

  • James de Bree

    One candidate says he will do his best to nominate a candidate similar to Scalia. However, that candidate has a record of changing positions and his principal motivation for making decisions is self-gratification. If that candidate gets an ego boost out of changing his mind, he won’t hesitate to do so—particularly if Republicans anger him. While the argument posed is appealing, I fear it is illusory.

    tech is right, our vote in CA does not matter. I already cast my ballot and did not vote for president.

    I was also amazed to see on electionproction.com how much closer the Senate races are becoming. It appears that the best case scenario for Republicans may be 50 Republican Senators. As I said many months ago, the Republicans may come to rue the day that they decided to pass on Garland. When I wrote my op-ed column months ago, many posters thought I was nuts. A Hillary victory coupled with a change in Senate control may result in Obama pulling Garland and waiting for Hillary to nominate someone further to the left. If you think that is crazy, consider all of the crazy things that have happened this year. Heck, the Cubs are even favored to win the world Series!

    • Brian Baker

      Trump has released a list of his nominees, and it’s a very good list.

      Hey, as I’ve written many times, there’s no guarantee he’ll stick to his word. You’re right.

      But here’s what I CAN guarantee you: Clinton will nominate the absolute WORST possible candidates for the position, and our First and Second Amendment rights will be under a withering attacks.

      There’s nothing “illusory” about THAT.

    • hopeful

      Huh – I never expected Jim to be the one to give me a reason to vote for Trump! If, indeed, the Senate may end up with a 50-50 split, I would much rather have Pence being the deciding vote than Kaine!

      • Brian Baker

        Yeah, no kidding.

  • Brian Baker

    Tech, Jim, that’s fine. You guys are okay with surrendering without a fight, have at it. That’s absolutely not in my DNA.

    In fact, since you both know me in the real world, I’m pretty sure that’s not exactly a news flash!

    Also, I write most of these things with a broader audience in mind. I publish these columns on my personal blog, too, once the Signal publishes them, and I have a much wider audience there.

    https://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/

    (That version has pictures, too, for the … less literate… amongst us. Why don’t you check it out, projalice?)

    • James de Bree

      I am not surrendering without a fight, I simply cannot vote for either.

      Your blog is always entertaining to read and I love the pictures.

      • Brian Baker

        Then you HAVE surrendered, plain and simple. You’re the guy in the parable who gets eaten up by the sharks right along with the other guys who actually tried to bail out the boat.

        As I’ve written previously, ONE of those two is going to be President. There’s no deus ex machine candidate descending to bail the country out.

        Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, I really get a hoot out of illustrating it.

        • James de Bree

          The situation is a little different. There are two sharks swimming around my boat which has a hole so large that it does not matter how many people bail, it will sink. I am not a good swimmer so, one of the sharks is going to get me. I can’t choose which one will.

          I am highly skeptical that a President Trump will keep his promise to nominate conservative justices and I am terrified at what a President Trump would do to our economy.

          My vote for President does not matter in this election, so I choose not to vote. As I have said many times before, I will never, ever vote for Trump.

          • Brian Baker

            Then you remove yourself from any relevance to the election, and forfeit any standing to criticize any actions taken by whomever is the winner. That’s simply reality.

            And EVERY vote does matter. For one thing PRESUMING the outcome to this state’s outcome is just that: a presumption. And if all conservatives and Repubs do that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            Further, election returns are scrutinized for a lot of things other than simply the outcome of the presidential race at the national level. They also signal what the state of the state’s voters is. It can signal trends that can affect policies and strategies at the state level that can have a significant bearing on the political future in this state.

            But if the signal being sent to analysts is that conservatives and Repubs in this state are so demoralized, or whimpy, that they won’t vote for a certain candidate or that party, well… what do you think will happen moving forward?

            Conservatives and Repubs in this state will just be considered as less ands less of a factor that has to be given ANY consideration as time goes on.

            Personally, I’m not at all interested in waving the white flag. Never will be.

          • Brian Baker

            As to Trump, you’re “skeptical”?

            But what… you’re comfortable with what CLINTON will do?

            What are you trying to say, there, Jim? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

    • tech

      I’m not surrendering, Brian. Principles matter and I’m every bit as tenacious as you.

      I’ve purposefully held off voting for rational and principled reasons.

  • James de Bree

    By the way, last week, I was in Cincinnati. The election is very different there. Surprisingly, there are few political ads on TV or radio. Even more surprisingly, when I was watching the NLCS game on Fox Sports One, there were several commercials against Proposition 61. My niece’s husband asked me what Proposition 61 was.

    There are Trump signs in about 10% of the front yards in the township where my sister and niece live. Much of the neighborhood is blue collar, but there is a newer component to the community where professionals live. When we were driving to a restaurant, we drove through an upscale neighborhood which my sister referred to as a “country club Republican neighborhood.” Indeed there were many large homes on even larger lots. There were no Trump signs in that neighborhood, but I did see a half dozen Hillary signs. Most of the signage was for local elections for judges.

    I had breakfast at a restaurant where the waiter was a black man who proudly wore a Trump button. He said, Trump is right that the Democrats take the black community for granted. I had a fascinating conversation with him.

    Based on my visit, it is my perception that Cincinnati is farther to the right than Santa Clarita.

  • Brian Baker

    Damn, in reviewing my comments, I am REALLY missing the now-defunct ability to edit your comments.

    I’ve often joked about being the Typo King, but now the reality is becoming obvious to all. The spellcheck on this site ain’t worth spit (cleaned that one up).

    • James de Bree

      Brian, I type my comments in Word and copy them to this site.

      • Brian Baker

        Yeah, I guess I’ll have to do that. What a pain.

  • Nishka

    ” Consider the Deceives presidential factor” BLAH, BLAH,BLAH, BLAH !!!!!!

    • Brian Baker

      Well, projie, the Signal chooses the title, not the author.

      The Signal also took the time to spell “decisive” correctly.

      The only one “deceiving” themselves here is you, if you think your comments are coherent.

  • James de Bree

    I noticed on the electionprojection website that the 25th Congressional District Race has tightened considerably.  On October 6th, Knight was ahead by 2.7% with a 3% margin of error.  Yesterday’s update shows Knight ahead by 1.1% with a 3% margin of error.

    As to the Senate, most of the races within the margin of error are held by Republicans.  If you don’t count races within the margin of error, the Democrats have a net gain of four in the Senate, which would result in 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents who vote with the Democrats.

    Races within the margin of error held by Republicans
    Blunt is ahead by 1.8% in MO
    Burr is ahead by 1.1% in NC
    Toomey is ahead by .9% in PA

    Rubio is ahead by 3.2% in FL, just outside the margin of error

    The only race held by a Democrat that is within the margin of error is Nevada where the Democratic candidate, Mastro leads the Republican, Heck, by 1.1%.

  • Brian Baker
  • Nishka

    lois eisenberg
    “Essential Politics: Republicans shift to stem their losses”
    “There’s been a seismic shift in attention from the battle for the White House to the contest for control of Congress.”

    WOULDN’T THAT BE THE ICING ON THE CAKE !!!!

  • Nishka

    “The Fat lady Ain’t Sung Yet” BUT SHE IS HUMMING

  • Ed Shalom

    An editorial entitled “The Demise of the National Republican Party” was submitted to the Signal on August 17 2016, but not published. The lead paragraph from this submission is repeated below:

    “A vigorous national political party is based upon coalition building, which explains the fractured state of Republicans. If a genuine “smoking gun” is uncovered about Hillary Clinton’s emails, and Trump becomes president, the Democratic coalition would remain intact. By contrast, a Trump presidency would ensure a split between his divisive world-view and rational Republicans. A Trump defeat would lead to a Republican bloodbath.”

    For context, we note that after their defeat in 2012, a group of leading Republicans generated an “autopsy” by the Growth and Opportunity Project”. This report recognized that due to changing demographics the Republican party needed to broaden its message, and reach out to ethnic and racial minorities. It is very likely that starting on Sept. 9 there will be calls for an “autopsy on the autopsy”, investigating why this common sense blueprint was thrown aside in 2016.
    It is fair to argue that the major themes of the August 17 submission are reinforced by recent events regarding the viability of the Republican party, as well by as new insights into the personal behavior of the Republican candidate for President. This submission argued that the world view of the Republican party was based upon a hypocritical perspective regarding sexual behavior, and a hypocritical perspective regarding “telling the truth”.

    As evidence, the August 17 submission noted that every single Republican leader involved in the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the House had a lot of “splaining” to do:
    “Dennis Hastert, who advocated the impeachment of Bill Clinton as House Speaker, is in jail for acts related to the serial rape of minors. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cheated on his second wife with his future third wife after the second wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. And this affair was going on while he was trying to get Clinton impeached. Rep. Bob Livingston, who was about to replace disgraced Gingrich as speaker, quit in disgrace when Hustler exposed his numerous affairs. Former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who spearheaded the impeachment, had a long extramarital affair with Cherie Snodgrass. Prosecutor Ken Starr had his own sex scandal to deal with as president of Baylor University, as he remained silent on rapes by Baylor football players.”

    This viewpoint was written without the benefit of more recent actions by Donald Trump, such as his boasts about getting away with sexual assaults upon women, and the following parade of women who recounted actions by Donald Trump that followed his boasts in minute detail. The number of these claims, the fact that many of them are supported by numerous contemporaneous reports to confidants, and Mr. Trump’s statements that some of them were unworthy of attacks, lead to an inescapable conclusion that some Republicans are prepared to vote for Mr. Trump in spite his being a sexual predator.
    Regarding the impeachment Bill Clinton, the worst claim against Hillary Clinton was that she tried to cover up acts of sexual misbehavior by her husband after their commission, while the worst claim against Mr. Trump is that he is guilty of being a sexual predator and attempting to cover up these acts (We need to recall that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky engaged in adult consensual behavior).

    Regarding truthfulness, the previous submission pointed out the Mr. Trump himself accused George W. Bush of lying about WMD, and the fact that this lie resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, both Iraqi and American (ten from the SCV).

    An Oct. 25 editorial in the Signal by Brian Baker argued in effect that we must hold our nose and vote for a sexual predator out of fears regarding Clinton’s potential Supreme Court appointments:
    “Clinton has very publicly stated that she thinks the Citizens United (First Amendment) and Heller (Second Amendment) rulings should be reversed.”
    This position is based upon Clinton’s belief that allowing uncontrolled wealth to dominate our elections is a travesty of free speech, and that keeping weapons out of the hands of toddlers is a not a Second Amendment violation.
    Mr. Baker’s arguments show demonstrate that he has ceded the moral ground to the Democrats, which is sure to be debated on November 9

  • Nishka

    Ed Shalom thank you for your post relating to the Hypocritical actions of the “old boys club” regarding the
    impeachment of Bill Clinton !!!!

    “As evidence, the August 17 submission noted that every single Republican leader involved in the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the House had a lot of “splaining” to do:”
    “Dennis Hastert, who advocated the impeachment of Bill Clinton as House Speaker, is in jail for acts related to the serial rape of minors. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cheated on his second wife with his future third wife after the second wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. And this affair was going on while he was trying to get Clinton impeached. Rep. Bob Livingston, who was about to replace disgraced Gingrich as speaker, quit in disgrace when Hustler exposed his numerous affairs. Former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who spearheaded the impeachment, had a long extramarital affair with Cherie Snodgrass. Prosecutor Ken Starr had his own sex scandal to deal with as president of Baylor University, as he remained silent on rapes by Baylor football players.”

    • tech

      Bill Clinton was disbarred and fined for perjury by courts.

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

      The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.

      In April, Clinton’s Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.html?_r=0

  • James de Bree

    Not sure how to post a reply to Brian’s comment and have it appear below his comment, so I am replying to this comment:

    As to Trump, you’re “skeptical”?
    But what… you’re comfortable with what CLINTON will do?
    What are you trying to say, there, Jim? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

    You may not make sense of it, but I do. I never said that I am comfortable with Clinton. I am, however, absolutely uncomfortable with Trump. His protectionist policies will drive us into a global depression just like those of the Hoover administration. His tax plan will increase the deficit by $6 trillion. His views of NATO are absurd. He proposes no policies that make sense. How cozy is he with Putin? He appeals to people who are upset and want to “blow things up,” but once things are blown up there will only be carnage and collateral damage to deal with. The man is driven by an insane need for self gratification, which means that he is totally undependable. People who think he will nominate conservative judges will be disappointed if he is elected. The man you used to call Donald Hairball has said nothing substantive in his campaign. You used to be pretty good at pointing that out. I have never seen a candidate who scares me more than Trump does. Trump scares me more than Hillary does and that is saying a lot because Hillary scares the crap out of me.

    Does that mean I favor Hillary? Of course not. But voting for Trump is like playing Russian roulette. I am not interested in blowing my brains out.

    Even if I voted for Trump, Hillary is up by 25% in the polls in California. I looked at electionprojection and Hillary’s widest margin in any state is in California. My vote in this election does not matter. It is a pea in the ocean that is deep Democratic blue. You are confident that the polls are wrong. Nationally that may be the case in certain jurisdictions. In California the polls may be wrong, but they are not wrong by more than 25%. So for President, my vote simply does not matter. There are not enough Trump supporters or Hillary haters to overcome her margin in the polls. California is one of the deepest blue states and Hispanics, among others, are highly energized to vote against him. They are not voting for Hillary as much as they are voting against Trump.

    As to the state of politics in CA and waiving a white flag, the Republican Party in CA is hapless. Except for Arnold, what Republican has been elected to statewide office in the past twenty years? Is Arnold really a Republican? What message would I send voting for a lunatic who never should have been nominated? If you want to send a message, vote for the Republican candidates in the House, Assembly and Senate. That is the best you can do. The message I am sending to the Republican Party is if they are stupid enough to nominate Donald Trump, they don’t deserve my vote. Think about it Brian, voting for Trump sends a false message to the Republican leadership that you actually like the guy and they might try to steer the party in his direction.

    By the way, I already cast my ballot and voted for none of the above.

  • James de Bree

    Brian said: “Then you remove yourself from any relevance to the election, and forfeit any standing to criticize any actions taken by whomever is the winner. That’s simply reality.”

    I must live in a different reality. Last time I looked the first Amendment gives me the standing to criticize the winner. I did not vote for the winner. Are you suggesting that if I voted for Gary “what is Aleppo” Johnson that I would somehow have standing to be critical of the winner that I lack for not voting for any of the lousy candidates?

    Just because you vote for Trump and don’t does not change our relative standing to be critical of Hillary if she wins. The only difference between you and me is that you believe Trump, if elected, will actually nominate conservative justices. That difference in belief does not affect our relative standing. Heck, you voted for Bernie. Someone could argue that jeopardizes your standing.

    By not voting for anyone, I won’t have a guilty conscience for voting for an unacceptable candidate. If by some unforeseen result Trump wins, you will have standing and a guilty conscience. I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972. In all the others, there was a candidate worth voting for. This year there isn’t. I voted for every item on the ballot except for president, judges and condoms, so I am confident that I have the standing to be critical of the next President.

  • hopeful

    No matter who is President, it won’ t be good, in my opinion, but everyone has the right to vote their conscious. I just hope that after this election a lot of changes are made, and people will wake up to the corrupt system that “we the people” have allowed.

    Isn’t it time that we work to shorten the election cycle, try to figure out a way to abide by our constitution, while also limiting special interest money from unions and corporations, and return the power to the people over the corrupt elite, which includes BOTH the Clintons and Trump?

    Hillary is definitely THE most corrupt person to ever run for President, and Trump is THE most disgusting person to ever run for President, but one of them will be our next President, which means WE ALL LOSE! This is a very sad time for America, and unless we the people decide to change the direction, our children and grandchildren will pay for our blissful ignorance and defeatist attitudes! Wake up America…it is time!!!

  • Ed Shalom

    Corruption Charges against Dems, vs. Murder Charges against Republicans

    The recent statement by Donald Trump that the son of the Khans would be alive today if he had been President at the time is revealing. If this were true, then all of the 5,000 young Americans who died in combat would not have died, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would not have been murdered.

    Since the Iraqi war was sold on the baseless charge that the US had specific knowledge of Iraqi WMD, it points a bloody finger at George W. Bush and the Republican party. “Hopeful” charges that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt candidate in history, ignoring the fact that the last Republican president was not only guilty of corruption, but guilty of the worst manifestation of treason.

    The hypocritical focus on the truthfulness and corruption of the Clintons is now focused upon Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, and statements regarding the loss of Americans in Benghazi. Clearly, she was being truthful when she stated that she never knowingly sent classified information through her private e-mail account. As to Benghazi, Hillary Clinton did not deliberately place the Americans in question in harm’s way, although she may have sent out confusing public messages afterwards.

    The “zero-tolerance” for Clinton lies by Republicans hypocritically ignores the massive lies and acts of treason by their own leaders. Arguably, the Republican sex criminals who tried to remove a duly elected President from office misused the sacred trust placed upon them in their offices, and were guilty of treason by subverting their oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

    Trump, the Republican candidate for president, has stated that George Bush lied about WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq. This accusation was a coffin nail for Jeb Bush’s candidacy, who was forced to choose between loyalty to family vs. loyalty to country. Contrary to the arguments of his defenders, Bush did not justify starting a war with Iraq based upon “suspicions” of WMD, but upon multiple claims that the US had hard evidence of the locations and amounts of such weaponry. We know that these lies were based upon deliberate skewing of rumors that derived from a single, self-serving, uncorroborated source (“Curveball”, anyone ?)

    Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, were deceived by Colin Powell’s lies to the UN. Considering the false conflation of Hussein with the WTC attacks, and the exploitation of the hysteria of 9/11, the culpability of Democrats who were deceived by these lies, vs. the administration that perpetrated them, is minor.

    What was the cost of Bush’s lies about Iraq? How do misstatements regarding the tragic loss of 4 diplomatic personnel after an attack by a mob compare to the loss of life and treasure resulting from this war, losses that continue to mount ? Where is the outrage against the loss of 5,000 brave young American soldiers, the wounds to 50,00 others, and the loss of perhaps 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and the loss of trillions to the US Treasury ?

    The loss of life due to deliberate lies by a President is murder: there is no stronger case for treason as defined by the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, it is useful to note that United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death”. For those who happen to live in the Santa Clarita Valley in California, as does the author, an Addendum is provided below that details the impact of the Iraq war on this community.

    The obsessive focus by many Republicans upon truthfulness by the Clintons, while ignoring the acts of sex criminals and murderers by their own leaders, demonstrates a dangerous irrationality, fueling the on-going disintegration of their party. The discomfiture of some Republicans regarding Trump may be compared not to the “silence of the lambs”, but the “bleating of the lambs” – in either case, the result is the same, as the lambs are led to the slaughter.

    Addendum: Murder in Microcosm

    This addendum focuses on the impact on the SCV (Santa Clarita Valley, CA) of the Iraq war, in terms of the specific individuals who were in effect murdered by the Bush administration’s lies regarding WMD in Iraq.

    Iraq/Afghanistan War Fallen from SCV
    Name, Age, Branch, Date of Death
    1. Brian Cody Prosser (28, Army, December 5, 2001)
    2. Cole W. Larsen (19, Army, November 13, 2004)
    3. Richard P. Slocum (19, Marines, October 24, 2004)
    4. José Ricardo Flores-Mejia (21, Army, November 16, 2004)
    5. Dennis L. Sellen, Jr. (20, Army, February 11, 2007)
    6. Stephen E. Colley (22, Army, May 16, 2007)
    7. John Michael Conant (36, Army, April 10, 2008)
    8. Ian Timothy D. Gelig (25, Army, March 1, 2010)
    9. Jake W. Suter (18, Marines, May 29, 2010)
    10. Rudy A. Acosta (19, Army, March 19, 2011)

    If we compute that roughly the population of the US during the Iraq war was about 300 million, and that about 5,000 US soldiers died as a result, it results in about 1 lost life per 60,000.

    For the 10 soldiers who died out of the approximately 150,000 in the SCV , the ration is about 1 lost life out of 15,000. As such, the loss of life from the SCV is about 4 times the national average.

  • Nishka

    Ed Shalom, BINGO, BINGO,BINGO, OUTSTANDING, OUTSTANDING, OUTSTANDING !!!
    MASTERFULLY DONE !!!!
    PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR POSTING!!!!!!

  • Ed Shalom

    NISHKA: THANKS!!! THANKS !!! THANKS!!!

    I should add that in regard to my research, the Signal has REFUSED on multiple occasions to publish these exact statements as an editorial, while giving Mr. Baker all the column space he needs to promote the most hypocritical, dishonest, unqualified, person for President, one who also happens to be a sexual predator.

    • tech

      Unexplored is why The Signal rejects your multiple Op-Ed submissions, Mr. Shalom. Have you considered this?

  • Ed Shalom

    Tech: Thank you for asking an excellent question. It is certainly possible, as you may be implying, that my op-eds are so riddled with errors and erroneous conclusions, that they do not deserve to see the light of day. Incidentally, if you feel my facts are all wrong, I would love to hear the particulars (for at least a few) from you.

    On the other hand, it is possible that you, and the Signal, cannot truly face up to the implications of statements by Donald Trump regarding the Iraq war. Trump’s statements that deaths from this war were the result of a tragic and misguided policy are something that both liberals and conservatives can agree upon.

    Please review the roster of the precious human lives from the SCV that I provided, lives were lost to a war justified by deliberate lies, and tell me that you endorse the loss of every single one of them. Hopefully, none of the deaths occurred to any of your neighbors or friends.

    Otherwise, please join with Donald Trump in decrying the stupid and evil war in Iraq, especially since we continue to suffer from the aftermath to this day.

    • tech

      It’s quite possible that The Signal views your obsession as no longer topical, Mr. Shalom. You’re certainly not going to draw me into an Iraq War discussion. I previously rebutted your basic premise during your screeds last year to no affect. You’re off topic with your repetition here.

      Why do you believe Hillary Clinton’s corruption and sociopathic serial mendacity aren’t relevant to her fitness for office in this election?

      • tech

        *effect

  • Ed Shalom

    Tech:

    Regarding your claim that the Iraq war is not “topical”, it is obvious that Donald Trump does not agree with you, since he waded into this subject only YESTERDAY in an interview with George Stephanopoulos:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-stands-claim-capt-khan-alive-presidency/story?id=43078311

    If this is the kind of contradiction that makes sense to you, I can understand why you claimed “victory” on this subject.
    I DO understand why you refuse to be “dragged” into this subject, as you would be forced to take a stand between GW Bush and Donald Trump, and even worse, be forced to state whether you feel any compunction regarding the fact that 10 REAL young men from the SCV died in this conflict – Trump obviously does.

    I guess in the New World Order that Trump will bring us, Doublespeak will become the norm, and lies that result in phony wars and the death of innocents would be given parity with insensitive statements hacked from the Democrats, and being fed to us by Putin. – our national election is being controlled with a deliberate drip from stolen campaign documents (Even Cruz finds this reprehensible).

    Can you imagine the scandalous things that would surface if the internal deliberations of Trump Inc. was hacked into?

    • tech

      I’m not a Republican nor do I intend to vote for Donald Trump. Your fallacious assumptions and associations are risible as are your solitary set pieces.

      Stop attempting to divert from a direct inquiry. Now, why do you believe Hillary Clinton’s corruption and sociopathic serial mendacity aren’t relevant to her fitness for office in this election? Since you will be voting for her, it is current and topical.

      Your response, if you can manage to divert from your monomania to stay on topic, is what?

  • Ed Shalom

    Tech: I must apologize, since I did not note until now your assertions regarding Hillary’s truthfulness, which I quote below:

    “Clinton’s pathological mendacity has been well known for the decades she’s been in the public eye. A historical perspective to prompt your memory:

    “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html?_r=0

    I actually looked at the link you provided, which is an opinion piece by William Safire that was published in the NY Times 20 years ago, in 1996. Since Safire published this piece, claiming that Hillary was a “congenital liar”, she was elected to the NY Senate twice, in 2000 and 2006, and served as the Secretary of State for the United States for four years. Safire has been dead for about 7 years, so we cannot get a “topical opinion” from him, but as a public commentator it is fair to examine HIS track record, even if he is deceased.

    One paragraph from Wikipedia is worth citing regarding his veracity:

    “Safire was one of several voices who called for war with Iraq, and predicted a “quick war” and wrote: “Iraqis, cheering their liberators, will lead the Arab world toward democracy.”[16] He consistently brought up the point in his Times columns that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 attackers, in Prague,[17] which he called an “undisputed fact”, a theory which was disputed by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.[18] Safire insisted that the theory was true and used it to make a case for war against Iraq. He also incorrectly predicted that “freed scientists” would lead coalition forces to “caches [of weapons of mass destruction] no inspectors could find”.[19]”

    It is logically impossible to prove to those who despise Hillary Clinton that she never deliberately lied in the past 40 years, and I don’t mind accepting that on some occasions she did so. However, it IS logical to conclude that some lies are much worse than others, and to use this yardstick when voting. As you know, Donald Trump has stated his belief that GWB lied to get us into the Iraq war, and I am surprised you show no regret over the carnage that resulted, and seem to have no concern over the 10 young people from the SCV whose lives were torn from them as a result. Maybe you would if one of them was a close neighbor or family member, although I feel that all of these young people WERE part of our SCV family. I will NEVER cease to remind others who try to dismiss the LIES LIES LIES that led to these deaths, lies that are so monumental that it is truly staggering.

    In less than two weeks, you will have to make a major adjustment when Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected to be the next President of the United States. As Megan Kelley recently advised the lying Trump surrogate and sexual hypocrite Newt Gingrich, I suggest that you should then take some time and work on your anger issues.

  • tech

    “Angry”? LOL! You beg the question and your attempt at condescension is laughable, Mr. Shalom. Truth be told and despite your smug demeanor, you’re a rather poor debater.

    Also, I find your attempts to poison the well (William Safire) while conveniently ignoring FBI Director Comey’s testimony and WaPo links that demonstrate Hillary Clinton is a *current* pathological liar who violated classified security statutes to avoid FOIA and Clinton Foundation scrutiny.

    And again, you attempt to steer the conversation to your monomania. Very strange and it’s readily apparent why you haven’t been published, i.e. you come off as a bit of a crank.

    Your lame attempts at baiting reveal you’re boorish online and there’s nothing to be gained in further conversation with you because you have no interest in useful on topic dialectic discussion.

  • Nishka

    Ed Shalom, Gezunt-heit and Shalom !!!!!!

  • Ed Shalom

    Nishka:

    As ever, thank you for your steadfast support. Regarding Mr. Baker, we are reminded of the saying that “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” . I only stoop to this satirical remark in response to the angry ad hominem terms used by Mr. Baker: laughable, smug, poor, monomania, crank, lame, and boorish – all in one short message !

    I understand his fury, since he cited a 1996 article by William Safire that accused Hillary of being a liar, and was not aware of the delicious irony I uncovered about Safire being a congenital liar who was part of the GWB castrati choir that lied us into the Iraq war. As such, his citation came from thus just another enabler of the murder of our best and brightest young people in the treasonous Iraqi invasion. In the current dialog, Mr. Baker NEVER expressed the slightest degree of remorse for this loss of life in the SCV and around the world. Besides anger management, I suggest some ethics and sensitivity training for him.

    • tech

      I’ve been in discussion with you, not Mr. Baker, genius. See the moniker “Tech” above my posts? Do try to keep up, will you, Mr. Shalom?

      I’m rather pleased that you find Nishka a natural ally for reasons you’re unlikely to comprehend.

      Your homework: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

      Do let me know when you manage to review the other Clinton links.

      P.S. I recollect your fascination last year with castrati. Was that before CaptainGene offered to meet up with you for a discussion and you became suddenly timorous, whining to The Signal? Good times, eh?

  • Ed Shalom

    Having Fun on the Signal Forum:

    It’s not often that someone completely shoots themselves in the foot in this forum, but I just could not resist uncovering the truth about the lies of Mr. Baker’s buddy, William Safire, NY Times columnist.

    For example (there are many) we can refer to the following evisceration of this criminal liar via other NY Times sources:
    https://www.thenation.com/article/propaganda-william-safire/

    The Propaganda of William Safire
    William Safire, New York Times columnist, doesn’t know what he’s talking (or writing) about. Who says? The New York Times….

    • tech

      Shooting the messenger but failing to rebut the fact that Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar. Pro tip: It’s the message you have to address in your argument. See educational link above.

      Hilarious! 😀

  • hopeful

    Ed Shalom wrote: “Clearly, she [Hillary Clinton] was being truthful when she stated that she never knowingly sent classified information through her private e-mail account.”

    With all the Wikileaks dumps, along with a comparison of Hillary’s changing story about her e-mails, coupled with Comey’s original analysis and comments, it is hard for me to understand how anyone can believe that Hillary “clearly was being truthful.” Interestingly enough, the FBI is now going to re-open the investigation, so even they must think there is more to the story than Ed Shalom is claiming.

    By the way, Ed, I am not a Republican (other than temporarily changing my party affiliate for the sole purpose to vote against Trump during the primary, just as Jim de Bree did), and I am NOT a Trump supporter. I have repeatedly stated that BOTH candidates are terrible, and I neither voted for Bush, nor have I ever supported going to war in Iraq, so I don’t understand why you are accusing me of being hypocritical when you wrote, ““Hopeful” charges that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt candidate in history, ignoring the fact that the last Republican president was not only guilty of corruption, but guilty of the worst manifestation of treason.”

    I remember you got into trouble a few months ago after making assumptions about people you know nothing about. Please be more careful not to do the same thing again. If you are unsure of the perspectives of your fellow Signal forum participants, I would suggest you ask your neighbor, Jim, who has been commenting her for a while, and can verify the positions and stances of the on-line people here.

    http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/10/28/the-fbi-will-re-open-the-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-em/21594213/