Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Foreigner's blog Subscribe


Special Features


I took a quick look at the Broward County document that set out the details of the policy and it seems to me that it relates to misdemeanors. It specifically states that " Behavior that rises to the level of a felony.... are not included herein."

Without claiming any US legal knowledge, another quick search seems to indicate that except for a domestic violence misdemeanor, misdemeanors in general on a persons record do not prevent a gun purchase in Florida. Felony crimes are taken into account.


In addition, the Broward document is not open ended, meaning that there are escalating consequences as the number of misdemeanors increases. 4 incidents as a maximum in a school year require a referral for consultation with law enforcement. Law enforcement retain discretion to arrest and charge a student, if their view is that is the appropriate response.

It is unclear to me whether it is fair to say the policy is flawed, or whether it is difficult in practice to apply and was inappropriately applied in Cruz's case. Reading the article, I'm not sure the author was very interested in the second option. It is also unclear to me whether a number of misdemeanors on Cruz's record would have prevented a gun purchase, but there are posters here who can clarify this.

"It's unlikely that I would run into a building where shots are being fired, but if someone were shooting at me and I had a weapon, I very likely would use it to defend myself. See the difference?

#10 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2018-02-24 10:37 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

A somewhat random comment, but I assume you are making the point that an armed teacher facing a shooter will use a gun for defense.

It is my understanding that the suggestion is that some teachers be armed, not all teachers - I think Trump indicated 20%, so 1 in 5. Under your logic, if the shooter choses a classroom where the teacher is unarmed ( a 4:1 chance ), then you would not expect an armed teacher nearby to run into the classroom under attack. Having armed teachers under these circumstances has a limited useful outcome.

Should an armed teacher abandon his/her assigned class to protect another under attack? Some attacks have more than one culprit. What if a teacher choses to assist an unarmed teacher under attack and exposes his/her class to attack by a second individual? Should a teacher even be asked to make this decision? I've just scratched the surface with my examples - the real world problems of arming teachers are far more significant than those advocating the approach chose to acknowledge.

The whole idea arming teachers is ill-considered. There is no greater sign of America's disfunction in my eyes than an inability of it's citizens, regardless of political allegiance, to determine that the best way to protect their children is to prevent guns from getting on campus, rather than reacting with off-setting force once the gunfire starts.

"You rely on fake news publishing fake polls that lead to your surprise when Trump won in a landslide. You might as well link to Huff Post polls. Enjoy your daily dose of truth.

#53 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT AT 2018-02-10 07:40 PM | REPLY"

Are you seriously claiming that Trump won in a landslide? While there seems to be no generally accepted definition, this link gives guidance:


Since Trump did not win the popular vote, clearly he did not win that by landslide.

Trump won the electoral vote with 306; the link suggests a landslide requires 375 electoral votes. Maybe it should be 350, maybe even 325, but it doesn't matter. Only someone who has closed their minds to objective facts thinks Trump won in a landslide.

"GOP mega-donor Charles Koch and his wife donated about $500,000 to Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) joint fundraising committee, just days after the GOP tax plan was passed."



I say half a mill was winning.

Then there's this:

"US House speaker Paul Ryan has come under fire after citing a school worker who was $1.50 (£1) a week better off because of recent tax cuts."



$78 a year tax cut. I guess there's winning and there's winning.

4 replies - #60, 61, 62, 63 - a veritable tweet storm.

#60 - you seem to be subscribing to the " any publicity is good publicity " theory, whereby Trump can reframe a distinctly negative allegation, that he is unfit for office and suffering from dementia, by asserting the opposite, that he is a stable genius and suddenly his words are the only words being heard and internalized by what I characterized as the undecided population. I don't believe this.

#61 - Your opinion, my opinion - just opinions. Mine is that Trump does not have the skill set required to be President. Whether Obama did or not is not now the issue.

#62 - You believe Trump is succeeding - I believe he is slowly but surely digging a deeper hole. Every laughable tweet and unpresidential act registers negatively with those among the undecided who are paying attention. It a slow, incremental growth of resistance. Time will tell which one of us has it right.

#63 - I am inclined to agree that Trump is media savvy, but if he was getting all his own way in his fight with the MSM, he wouldn't be so pissed with them all the time. His need to convince his base that the MSM are all fake news is simply an unavoidable consequence of the fact that much of what he does and says warrants negative reporting. I have no doubt that he would rather have the MSM positively reporting on all things Trump, so that he could crow to his base, but that's not happening, so demonize them he must. It's a strategy over which he has little control - except of course he could cut back on Twitter but his ego needs that outlet.

In my view the US immigration system is in serious need of an overhaul, but Trump does not have the answer.

"Most of America doesn't live politics 24/7.

#44 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2018-01-06 03:02 P"

I have to agree with you on that point, but it does beg the question - so who is it that Trump is trying to influence with a claim that he is a stable genius, to focus on the most recent outpouring ?

A very large part of his base has probably never even considered that he could be anything other than stable. He's got them and they are not his problem. They are unlikely to be swayed by CNN spouting the words "stable genius " 24/7 because they don't watch it and they will vote for him and the GOP no matter what.

On the other side you have never Trumpers of every political affiliation and nothing he can say or do is going to get them onside, certainly not claims to be a stable genius. They will never vote for Trump; some are undoubtedly Republicans who may well jump ship in 2018 if the GOP continues to be tightly tied to Trump.

In between there are the undecideds. How you can be undecided at this time baffles me, but these are the votes that will probably sway the 2018 mid-terms and the 2020 election. Your take is that somehow they will be subliminally persuaded by Trump's statements to believe that in fact they should not worry about his state of mind - everything is fine.

I do not accept your premise, but even if I did, I would also have to require this group to disregard his day to day actions, his constant steam of unPresidential tweets, his ignorance of political and legal process and the avalanche of chaos that follows him around. I don't believe that Trump's tweets are persuasive enough to overcome that. If you do, fair enough.

Trump is a world class con-man. This is a skill, without a doubt, but it is not a skill set suitable for being President. As his term in office progresses I don't doubt that many will marvel at the sheer balls of the man, but I strongly suspect that even more will come to realize that having balls and nothing else is not enough to do the job he's been handed.

"If that were the case, Obamacare wouldnt have been shoved down our throats with no Republican support.


This is simply not true. This link, although approaching the issue of the public debate of Obamacare from a different perspective, clearly indicates you are wrong:


Here are some relevant extracts:

"Hearings and public testimony - the ACA was debated in three House committees and two Senate committees, and subject to hours of bipartisan debate that allowed for the introduction of amendments."

"Independent assessment - Another tool intended to promote transparency and open governance is an independent audit of the financial ramifications of a bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While numerous bills eventually coalesced into what became the ACA, the CBO provided numerous reports on multiple aspects of the law ahead of its vote in the Senate."

"Bipartisan debate - In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days -- its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009."

It is true that there was no Republican support, but anyone with a ounce of objectivity understands that was party politics.

If you have to knowingly lie to feel comfortable with a policy decision taken by your party, perhaps you need to look more closely at your party.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable