ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [374] -- The Knives Come Out

[ Posted Friday, January 15th, 2016 – 17:47 PST ]

In every 1950s "gang rumble" genre film, there comes a point where the fighting gets more serious. This is, literally, where the knives come out. I begin with this image because, metaphorically, that's exactly where we are in the 2016 presidential campaign. The fight's getting a lot more serious, and there is bound to be some blood on the floor afterwards.

This was prominent last night, as the Republican candidates put on their most vicious debate yet. There were almost too many head-to-head tussles to count. Ben Carson and John Kasich were the only ones not scarred by the infighting, but then neither of them has a prayer of winning the nomination, so it's easy to understand why they were ignored. The rest of the field went at each other harder than we've yet seen this cycle, which certainly had some entertaining moments for Democrats who watched.

The Democratic race is also heating up, though. With less than three weeks to go before Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both dialed up their own attacks, meaning the debate that will happen this weekend (I think it's on at something like 2:00 Sunday morning -- thanks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz!) could become just as contentious as last night's Republican slugfest.

We'll get to all of that in due time, but there was one other big political event this week, as President Barack Obama gave his final State Of The Union speech. It was an unusual speech, in that it didn't conform to the "laundry list" format. Instead, the president laid out the case for his own legacy, and strongly denounced all the nonsense coming from the Republican primary race. Even more extraordinary was the Republican response from Nikki Haley, who also denounced the GOP noise level. This inspired some Republican-on-Republican hatred, the most amusing from Ann Coulter: "Trump should deport Nikki Haley." I wrote about the two speeches earlier, right after they were given (for those interested), and we're also going to devote today's talking points section to Obama's speech, one last time.

But before we get to that, we need to take a deeper dive into the state of the two presidential nominating contests. To begin, here's a quick fact-check of the Republican debate: there weren't any. Check!

Ahem. Sorry about that, but it's been a pretty good week for Democrats, watching the Republican establishment painfully come to grips with the fact that neither one of their two frontrunners is even remotely acceptable to them. If you meet an establishment Republican walking down the street, be kind to him. Living with the prospect of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz winning their party's nod has got to be like living through some horrifying nightmare, for them. So have pity on the poor guy if you meet one. You'll recognize them by their muttering: "Jeb was supposed to have this race locked up by now!"

Still too snarky? Well, at this point, it's kind of hard not to be. There are already stories circulating that Jeb! is being quietly asked to shutter his campaign (in order to give Marco Rubio a better chance at defeating both Trump and Cruz). Even more embarrassing for Jeb! was a story about the angst of his donors right now. It included the rather extraordinary sentence:

"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb -- out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.

Wow. That's just... wow. That's what the guys trying to raise money for you are saying about your campaign? Dang, that's rough.

The bigger news on the Republican side was the throwdown now happening between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Up until very recently, Cruz has been consistently sucking up to Trump, in the hopes of picking up Trump's base of support when he fails. Since Trump hasn't shown any sign of doing so on his own, Cruz has realized it may be up to him to make this failure happen. Trump, for his part, has mostly ignored Cruz up until now (while saying kind things about him occasionally), but since Cruz has caught him in the polls in Iowa, Trump is attacking right back. In fact, Trump has gone "full birther" on Cruz, which political pundits have been predicting (for a long time) would happen if Cruz ever claimed the lead. Trump's already the biggest birther around (over Obama), so it's only natural that he would play the "born in Canada" card at some point.

Democrats, of course, are watching all of this with undisguised glee, but what they're mostly failing to notice is that Donald Trump is actually getting better at running a political campaign. He's gotten better in the debates, he's gotten better in sit-down interviews, and he's gotten a lot better at deflecting attacks from just about any direction.

Don't believe me? You must then have missed, last night, when Donald Trump masterfully "played the 9/11 card." Seriously, Trump was better at it than even Rudy Giuliani ever was -- and that's really saying something (please remember that Giuliani's campaign was famously described as: "a noun, a verb, and 9/11"). Trump was much better at playing the 9/11 card than Hillary Clinton's earlier fumbling attempt (while explaining why she loved Wall Street so much). There's just no denying it: Donald Trump is getting better at campaigning.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and pretty much the entire party's rank and file have yet to figure out how to take on Trump. They confidently feel that, if Trump is the Republican nominee, the results of the general election will be such a foregone conclusion that it's hardly even worth worrying about. This is dangerous thinking. What we're personally going to be thinking about, while watching this weekend's Democratic debate, is: "Which of these candidates would do better on a debate stage next to Trump?" That question really needs more serious attention than it has been getting. Just laughing off Trump is not going to work. Hopefully, both Hillary and Bernie will realize this, and soon.

There was other (non-Trump) news from the Democratic race, as this week the entire mainstream media woke up and realized that Bernie Sanders was running for president, and that Hillary's poll numbers were slipping. Seriously, Sanders was featured in more stories in the past week than he has been in roughly the last six months. This is good for his campaign, of course, and has helped to build his momentum heading into the first primaries.

Because of this, Hillary Clinton is getting more worried and a lot more snide in her attacks on Sanders. The cynicism she's currently displaying is rather breathtaking, but it does serve to remind folks that Clinton is a no-holds-barred campaigner (as she proved against Barack Obama, eight years ago). How you feel about this depends on how you feel about Clinton -- it could be seen as a good thing (for the upcoming general election fight), or a bad thing (Clinton saying anything to win). But we'll have more on Hillary's campaign in the awards, so we'll just mention it in passing here.

Bernie Sanders had a bit of a stumble this week, too. He's always pledged never to run negative campaign ads, and many said he crossed that line this week with an ad clearly meant to contrast his views on Wall Street with Hillary Clinton's. Team Clinton immediately pointed out that Bernie had (in their opinion) broken his non-negative pledge. Sanders, to his discredit, tried to claim that the ad really had nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever. In an interview, Sanders tried to make this case: "I think anybody who looks at that ad understands it's not a negative ad." When told that Clinton was saying it was, Sanders responded: "Well, I know that that's what Hillary Clinton says, but Hillary Clinton is not right. Did you see any picture of Hillary Clinton in there? Did you see any mention of Hillary in there?"

This is disingenuous, at best. The ad was -- to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock -- clearly aimed at Clinton. Whether it was a "negative ad" or not is debatable (if "negative ad" means "any ad drawing a contrast between two candidates" then that rules out a whole bunch of ads, to put it mildly). It's not a personal attack, or muckraking. The ad isn't trying to personally destroy Clinton over some irrelevant matter. But it is a clear contrast between Bernie and his Democratic challenger. The Sanders campaign was forced to pull the ad, and Bernie tried some more hair-splitting, by now pledging (the ad in question was a web ad) that he's still: "someone who has never run a negative TV ad in his life and never will." At the end of the day, Bernie looked like a normal politician -- but that runs counter to his image, so it didn't exactly help.

And finally, to end on an amusing note, a town in New York is the latest example of life imitating art. Or, more precisely, life imitating South Park. In specific, the episode dealing with the South Park flag. The ironically-named town of Whitesboro, New York got some scrutiny for their bizarre official image, but in the end chose to stick with their town seal depicting a white man choking a Native American. No, really -- click that link if you think we're making this up. It's absolutely impossible to read the image any other way, especially when you consider that this is actually an updated seal (the original one had the Native American almost lying on the ground, while being choked). The town says the image "depicts a friendly wrestling match between village founder Hugh White and an Oneida Indian." Um, OK. Sure, if that's what you say. We wonder, however, what the average Oneida would think about the matter.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Barack Obama, for the second week in a row (and for his 51st time overall -- a point we forgot to make last week), is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

His final State Of The Union speech was anything but ordinary, a creative departure from the standard format. Rather than offer up a list of legislative agenda items that would then all be completely ignored by Congress, Obama instead chose to make the case of optimism about America. He even threw in some "American exceptionalism," not that anyone on the right (who have been loudly demanding he do so for years) acknowledged it, of course. He also used his speech to promote the idea that "America is better than our politicians," a clear rebuke to all the hotheadedness on display in the Republican nomination battle.

Whenever a risk is taken, there's always the possibility it will fail. In his departure from the normal speech, Obama could have fallen flat. However, during the official Republican response to his speech, he was in fact vindicated -- as Nikki Haley struck almost exactly the same theme.

There's a new term in politics: Trumpism. Trumpism is defined as "saying things as loudly as possible, never admitting error, and diverting all attacks with clever use of the 'some people are saying' dodge." That's just our personal definition, we hasten to add, as there are plenty of others equally as valid. Barack Obama gave a stirring speech against Trumpism taking over our body politic, and Nikki Haley drove the point home for good measure.

Since our entire talking points section consists of speech excerpts, we really don't need to say a lot more here about Obama's speech. Immediately after he gave it, his job approval poll numbers begin rising, which means the public reacted favorably to his speech as well. For taking a risk and giving a very different kind of speech, Barack Obama deserves his fifty-first Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

While we have to give at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention award to Bernie Sanders for his tap-dancing on negative ads this week, the winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award was none other than Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea is currently stumping for her mother, making her fair game in the political arena (she's no longer just "the child of a politician," in other words). Here is what Chelsea had to say about Bernie Sanders's plan to move America to single-payer health insurance:

Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance. I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.

Clinton conveniently fails to mention that all of those people would actually have better and guaranteed health insurance as a replacement, as indeed every single American citizen would. We wouldn't need the other programs if this were true, of course. Chelsea Clinton is a smart woman, and she knows this. There's a word for what she is doing, and it is called "fearmongering."

Here is the best response to such fearmongering:

[It is] not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an opportunity to put together a coalition to achieve universal health care.

This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America. So shame on you, [Chelsea Clinton]. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you.

We changed this quote to insert Chelsea's name. In its original form, the name read "Barack Obama," because this is what Hillary Clinton herself said, eight years ago, after Obama (ironically enough) had put out a fearmongering mailer warning voters that Hillary would require everyone to purchase health insurance.

In 2008, Hillary chastised a fellow Democrat for such attacks on the goal of universal health care. She said such attacks give aid and comfort to Republicans. She said "shame on you" and expressed her outrage at such attacks.

Now? The Clinton campaign has doubled down on the attack, rather than retract it. Look for this to be the biggest fight on Sunday night when the two candidates face each other. If Bernie's smart, he'll read that quote to Hillary's face and ask her why she's changed her position. He's already poking fun at her by releasing a signed photo of Clinton and Sanders from 1993, with the tender inscription from Hillary: "To Bernie Sanders with thanks for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans."

While Hillary herself is arguably who the award should go to, Chelsea twisted Sanders's position worse than anyone else on her mother's campaign. She knew she was misstating Bernie's position, she knew exactly how misleading it would sound to someone who didn't understand that, and she went ahead and did it anyway. This chip off the old Clinton block well deserves this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Chelsea Clinton is a private citizen, and as a rule we do not provide contact information for such. We also don't ever link to a campaign site, so you'll have to search for Hillary Clinton's campaign contact information yourself to let her know what you think of Chelsea's actions, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 374 (1/15/16)

As we usually do during State Of The Union week, we're pre-empting our usual amateurish attempts at creating Democratic talking points in favor of highlighting some made by the president (and his speechwriters, of course).

Without further ado, here were the most memorable (to us -- bearing in mind it is hard to choose just seven from such a substantial speech) moments from the last Obama State Of The Union speech. All text is taken from a speech transcript provided by the Washington Post.

 

1
   Peddling non-fiction

Obama started out by reminding everyone that all the doom and gloom from the campaign trail does not accurately reflect the reality of our economic situation.

Let me start with the economy and a basic fact. The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world.

We're in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.

More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the 1990s, an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever.

That's just part of a manufacturing surge that's created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we've done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.

Anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction.

 

2
   The little guy's not to blame

Obama made this point more forcefully than he has in the past -- the little guy didn't screw our economy over, so why try to pin the blame on him?

But after years of record corporate profits, working families won't get more opportunity or bigger paychecks just by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everybody else's expense.

Middle-class families are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.

Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up. Those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It's sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts.

 

3
   We didn't deny Sputnik was up there

This was one of the strongest lines of the night, and it drew a clear contrast between good old-fashioned American can-do spirit and hiding our collective heads in the sand.

And this brings me to the second big question we as a country have to answer: how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?

Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn't deny Sputnik was up there.

We didn't argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.

Now, that spirit of discovery is in our DNA. America is Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. America is Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better future.

 

4
   They call us

This might possibly be the most jingoistic thing we've ever heard a Democrat say. It's extraordinary considering what Obama's detractors used to say about his reluctance to buy into "American exceptionalism." You can't get much more exceptionalist than this, in fact.

I told you earlier all the talk of America's economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. Let me tell you something. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth, period. Period.

It's not even close. It's not even close. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.

Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

No nation attacks us directly or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead. They call us.

 

5
   Not an existential threat

We've been waiting for quite some time to hear any politician frame the issue of the Islamic State in such a fashion. Quite a contrast to all the Republicans now quaking in fear, isn't it?

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages, they pose an enormous danger to civilians, they have to be stopped, but they do not threaten our national existence. That is the story ISIL wants to tell; that's the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.

We don't need to build them up to show that we're serious, and we sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world's largest religions.

We just need to call them what they are: killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.

 

6
   All the people, not just some

There were many similar passages which took on Trumpism and denied that it should be who we as a nation are. This was our pick, but there were plenty of others to choose from.

And that's why we need to reject any politics -- any politics that targets people because of race or religion.

Let me just say this.

This isn't a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal, it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I'm standing on tonight that "to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place." When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad, or fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer. That's not telling it what -- telling it like it is, it's just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.

It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country.

"We the People." Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we've come to recognize mean all the people, not just some. Words that insist we rise and fall together, that that's how we might perfect our union.

 

7
   Admitting his own failure

Obama admits for the first time that he has failed on the promise to change the "red states and blue states" back into "the United States of America." He's right -- the Republicans fought tooth and nail against everything he tried to do, and Obama himself could have done a much better job at using the bully pulpit to communicate with the public (especially in his first term). It's rare to hear any politician admit to such a failure, in fact.

A better politics doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That's one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn't -- it doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, it doesn't work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America.

Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise or when even basic facts are contested or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.

Too many Americans feel that way right now. It's one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I'll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

119 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [374] -- The Knives Come Out”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Clinton conveniently fails to mention that all of those people would actually have better and guaranteed health insurance as a replacement, as indeed every single American citizen would. We wouldn't need the other programs if this were true, of course. Chelsea Clinton is a smart woman, and she knows this. There's a word for what she is doing, and it is called "fearmongering."

    If Chelsea Clinton is smart, then she must think that the Americans whose support she is trying to secure for her mother are stupid. I wonder where she gets that from ...

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "They call us."

    This was my favourite part of the speech. Though I think President Obama, in typical Obama fashion, failed to take full advantage to communicate in much more precise terms why the Islamic State is not an existential threat to America and the rest of the civilized world. Bono, during U2's recent concert in Paris, did a more admirable job of that!

    In this part of the speech, Obama focused on the example of America's power. Which is undeniably unparalleled. But, he should have emphasized and expanded upon what he mentioned earlier in the speech and that is the power of America's example, something the Republicans don't seem to understand the first thing about.

    As Vice President Joe Biden has always said throughout his illustrious public service career, America is at its strongest only when it makes judicial use of the example of its power alongside the ample use of the power of its example.

    This combination is what makes America exceptional.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The hyper-fraudulent nature of Terd Cruz has finally been exposed on the big stage. It's all downhill now for him - filthy foreign lying loser scum weakling. Trump has effectively humiliated all of the other contestants and the GOP should call this thing off now. It's all over but the shouting and Trump is the winner. Give him the belt.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Marco Rubio seems very chatbotish. He relentlessly pukes up well-practiced, focus-group-tested talking points with breath-taking speed and precision. But he's weak on immigration. Give him the gong.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Chris Hayes was telling Alan Grayson last night that he would not have standing to file a birther lawsuit against Cruz, but if Cruz did somehow cheat and steal the nomination, do you know who would have standing? Trump. He likes lawsuits. He filed one against Bill Maher that served only one purpose. It publicized the idea that maybe his mother had conceived him with an orangutan. Cruz should go back to Cuba.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bill Maher gave BHO a million dollars for his campaign and now he's feeling entitled. He planted one of those White House petitions demanding that Obama make an appearance on his show before he leaves office. He wants Maher Nation to sign that thing for his 60th birthday present.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Chris: I made the effort to find a contact address and express my disappointment with Chelsea's nonsense.

    Very good SOTU. Hilarious rebuttal. Can't we just call it - there are at least two Republican Parties now, the Establishment, the Tea Party and the Trumpists - it isn't a clean divide, but it is polarized.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, JFC ...

    I predict that Obama will be on Real Time, real soon, and it won't be the last time!

    I am so looking forward to his many Real Time appearances.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    neilm,

    You are a very wise political analyst.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was an unusual speech, in that it didn't conform to the "laundry list" format.

    There is a reason for that..

    The American people are fed up with Obama's lies.. He says he is going to do something and then fails to do it..

    Just laughing off Trump is not going to work.

    I have been saying that since DAY ONE..

    Did I get any respect?? :D

    Liz,

    If Chelsea Clinton is smart, then she must think that the Americans whose support she is trying to secure for her mother are stupid. I wonder where she gets that from ...

    They're called "Democrats".. Maybe you have heard of them.. :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Very good SOTU. Hilarious rebuttal. Can't we just call it - there are at least two Republican Parties now, the Establishment, the Tea Party and the Trumpists - it isn't a clean divide, but it is polarized.

    I recognize the urge for ya'all to crow...

    Up until recently, it's always been the Democrat Party who is fractured and at each other's throats..

    So I understand the glee ya'all must express at seeing the Republicans act like quintessential Democrats...

    Press on.. :D But remember...

    Political fortunes are the most fleeting fortunes of all..

    I have a feeling that THAT sentiment will come to be especially prescient...

    If I do say so myself.... And I do! :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton conveniently fails to mention that all of those people would actually have better and guaranteed health insurance as a replacement, as indeed every single American citizen would. We wouldn't need the other programs if this were true, of course. Chelsea Clinton is a smart woman, and she knows this. There's a word for what she is doing, and it is called "fearmongering."

    Like I said yesterday..

    Blue on Blue violence is fun.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't we just call it - there are at least two Republican Parties now, the Establishment,

    Can't we just call it??

    There are two Democrat Partys..

    The Establishment, led by Hillary War-On-Bubba's-Victims Clinton...

    And the hysterical Progressives with their War On MicroAgressions who long for "safe places"....

    Two sides of the same coin, no matter how much ya'all deny it..

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's right -- the Republicans fought tooth and nail against everything he tried to do,

    Yea... It's ALL the Republicans fault... Obama's MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY attitude is COMPLETELY blameless.. :^/

    {sssiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhhhh}

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    John M wrote:

    The most interesting take I have is this:

    The media quoted Leo Martin, a 62-year-old New Hampshire machinist: "The Republican Party has never done anything for the working man like me, even though we've voted Republican for years. This election is the first in my life where we can change what it means to be a Republican."

    And what someone posted online as their response to that:

    This should have been followed up by:

    "That's why I'm voting for Donald Trump. He's a billionaire, and you can always count on a billionaire to look out for the little guy."

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "That's why I'm voting for Donald Trump. He's a billionaire, and you can always count on a billionaire to look out for the little guy."

    Apparently, much more so than any Democrat..

    Oh sure.. Democrats talk the talk. They blow smoke up the arse like there is no tomorrow..

    But when it comes to walking the walk?? When the rubber hits the road??

    Democrats are all about protecting the status quo and the 1%...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    # Republican Delegates (selected states):

    IA: 30
    NH: 23
    NV: 30
    SC: 50
    ---------
    Sub: 133

    CA: 172
    TX: 155
    FL: 99
    NY: 95

    The first four states have fewer delegates than 2 individual states (CA and TX), and less than FL+NY combined (194), GA+NC (148), and even the next two, IL+OH (135).

    (Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml?sort=Tota#Tota )

    This is going to be interesting :)

    All the democrats need to do is not screw things up ... unfortunately for them that is their specialty :)

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    The NY Times has give Trump yet more ammunition on Cruz - a second unreported loan, this time from Citi - Trump is in tweet heaven - such entertainment.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The NY Times has give Trump yet more ammunition on Cruz - a second unreported loan, this time from Citi - Trump is in tweet heaven - such entertainment.

    I assume you are talking about the "hypocrisy" of Cruz complaining about New York " values but then taking money from banks that have offices in New York...

    How is that any different than Democrats decrying and castigating income and tax loopholes but then turn around and use those EXACT SAME loopholes to make themselves richer??

    Answer: It's not...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I assume you are talking about the "hypocrisy" of Cruz complaining about New York " values but then taking money from banks that have offices in New York...

    How is that any different than Democrats decrying and castigating income and tax loopholes but then turn around and use those EXACT SAME loopholes to make themselves richer??

    Answer: It's not...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I assume you are talking about the "hypocrisy" of Cruz complaining about New York " values but then taking money from banks that have offices in New York...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    How is that any different than Democrats decrying and castigating income and tax loopholes but then turn around and use those EXACT SAME loopholes to make themselves richer??

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I had a stinking rebuke on that... :D

    Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until the NNL filters are cleared.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that we're friends with Iran, can't we just let them take care of ISIS eradication?

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I had a stinking rebuke on that... :D

    Er.... Make that a STINGING rebuke.. heh

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fun part is that Trump has brought to light, via Cruz's "paperwork errors", that all the other candidates are beholden to big bank money with the possible exceptions of himself and Bernie.

    This is not a subject anybody but those two want to talk about, but it has also opened the door for Bernie to attack Cruz on "shady big bank money" while obliquely attacking Hillary.

    Trump has his next target. Cruz is a slimy little oink, but I'm not sure he timed his attack at the right time - too long for Donald to tweet at him until Feb 1st.

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm surprised that Trump has talked more about Cruz's wife's New York Government Sacks values.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that we're friends with Iran, can't we just let them take care of ISIS eradication?

    Iran = Friend

    Republicans = Enemies

    Left Wingery "logic" at it's finest...

    Maybe the Left wants to put a wreath on Stalin's or Pol Pot's grave, eh? :^/

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    John [21]:

    I think that is exactly what is happening. There is a shadow alliance between the Kurds (who don't want to upset Turkey), Iraq (who don't want to appear anti-Sunni), Iran (who don't want to appear to be controlling Iraq or collaborating with the West) and the U.S. (who don't want to appear to be collaborating with Iran).

    If only Putin would grow up and stop grandstanding then Russia could actually be useful - but don't hold your breath.

    Now, so long as the children running for the Republican nomination stick to their 'carpet bomb' mentality, the shadowy alliance can continue. If somebody gives them the idea that they can win votes by vilifying Iran constantly then they could screw things up. This is why we shouldn't give fireworks to children or the White House to Republicans.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not quite Michale, but you are on the right track:

    Now that we're friends with Iran, can't we just let them take care of ISIS eradication?

    Iran = Friend replace with "Convenient ally"

    Republicans = Enemies replace with "Children"

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran = Friend replace with "Convenient ally"

    So, throw honor and integrity out the window and jump into bed with THE number one state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that executes gay people..

    Well.... uh.... OKaaaayyyyyyyy

    Republicans = Enemies replace with "Children"

    And Democrats are the grown-ups??!??

    Shirley, you jest.. :D (Just doesn't have the same effect written :D)

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, so long as the children running for the Republican nomination stick to their 'carpet bomb' mentality,

    As opposed to the Democrat Party and their PEACE AT ANY COST mentality...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, throw honor and integrity out the window and jump into bed with THE number one state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that executes gay people.

    You mean like Saudi Arabia? You want some links to pictures showing President Bush bowing to, holding hands with and man kissing the Saudi King?

    You want some links to the investigation into the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists, or where Osama came from?

    The Iranians are no better, but they are also no worse, and are trying to be helpful at the moment. For example contrast the fast return of our sailors this week with the humiliation and apologies Bush had to undergo to get our airmen back from China in April 2001. Iran also released four U.S. prisoners today (remember them, the ones that the nitwits in congress said should block the Iran deal until they were released, well guess what the adults were doing behind the scenes).

    The Sunnis and the Shi'ites are going to go at it. We can and need to stay out of this war as much as possible, and be seen as useful to both sides so we have future leverage. We don't care much about Saudi oil any longer, especially if we can dump Iranian oil on top of the current glut, so this is a perfect time to play both sides. It is why Trump is wrong - there are smart people in Washington, they just can't talk about what they are doing otherwise not smart people, like The Donald, will blow it.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:
  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean like Saudi Arabia? You want some links to pictures showing President Bush bowing to, holding hands with and man kissing the Saudi King?

    Don't recall any bowing...

    SA is not THE State Sponsor of Terrorism..

    You want some links to the investigation into the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists, or where Osama came from?

    Yea, and all Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.. :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    SA is not THE State Sponsor of Terrorism..

    The ruling dynasty in SA are supplying money (we are talking real money here - estimates start at the tens of billions of dollars and go to to over two hundred billion dollars) and arms to their terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond to this day. They are also in bed with the Wahhabis who supported the 9/11 terrorists. It was really inconvenient, back in the early 2000's when SA turned out to be sponsoring terrorists that ended up killing almost 3,000 Americans, so there was a whitewash (I'm not blaming Republicans for this, a Democratic president would have done exactly the same thing - we needed their oil more than justice for 3,000 Americans). However it is very naive to think that SA is squeaky clean and Iran is all bad.

    ""More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." And it's not just the Saudis: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are also implicated in the memo. Other cables released by Wikileaks outline how Saudi front companies are also used to fund terrorism abroad." - Wikileaks of U.S. diplomatic cables

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    However it is very naive to think that SA is squeaky clean and Iran is all bad.

    No one said that SA is "squeaky clean"..

    But compared to Iran, they are...

    I always find it hilarious to see the Left Wingery twist themselves into pretzels defending Iran..

    SOLELY because Obama's legacy is so intertwined with the myth that Iran is our "friend" now.. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another issue that is obliquely important in the Middle East's sudden interest in being America's friend is the fiasco in Venezuela. In 3-5 years the clown in charge down there will get thrown out and we can expect 3-5 more years of turmoil before they get their oil infrastructure back online - and they need our technology to do it.

    Thus the power the Middle East (ME) has held over the rest of the world since the 1970's will gradually but inexorably diminish over the next couple of decades. They will give us some shocks along the way - the energy business can't survive the shipping lanes in the Gulf closing down just yet for example, but remember that one of the reasons the Gulf states had power was that they provided reliable oil flows and we ignored their beheadings, 9/11, etc.

    As more non-ME energy sources come on line (oil from Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, shale; gas from fracking; solar; wind; etc.) ME's power will fade.

    A good thing for the good guys (that's us).

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if Obama's legacy was intertwined with Saudi Arabia, ya'all would be applying yer Iran argument to SA... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus the power the Middle East (ME) has held over the rest of the world since the 1970's will gradually but inexorably diminish over the next couple of decades.

    People have been saying that for the LAST couple decades.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's tragically sad...

    Ya'all are going ga-ga over Iran releasing American hostages and such...

    Totally giving Iran a pass for *TAKING* the hostages in the first place!!!

    Party Loyalty supersedes ALL over considerations, I guess..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yeah, I don't see anybody going ga-ga over the Iran prisoner swap. The only time it has been an issue was when the Republicans were whining about the Iran deal last summer - a deal everybody played politics with.

    Obama wanted the deal but knew the Republicans couldn't give it to him in an open vote, so he sat down with the remaining adults in the Republican party and put together a process that allowed them all to vote against the deal later, but still have it go thru based on the need for a super majority in both houses to reject it.

    The low information types then got to watch all their committed politicians rant and rave against the deal without us letting the best chance we've had to defang the ME in generations slip by.

    Remember, Obama could not have done the deal with Iran without the shady deal the Republican leadership cut with him beforehand.

    So Republicans can rant and rave but they only have their own leadership to blame. Boo hoo.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea... It's ALL the Republican's fault..

    Obama is pure as the driven snow.. :^/

    Funny how that always is the case, eh? :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I think the FIND RACIST STATEMENTS FROM DONALD TRUMP challenge has run it's course..

    Unsurprisingly, no such statements have been found...

    But it does illustrate how partisan myths can take on the veneer of fact, eh?? :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, I think the FIND RACIST STATEMENTS FROM DONALD TRUMP challenge has run it's course..

    yes, numerous people presented copious evidence, and you unilaterally declared that evidence invalid, for various legalistic reasons. (e.g. there's no such thing as racism against mexicans, because mexicans aren't a race). Or, trump's racist statement against blacks and jews wasn't real because it was attributed to him by somebody with an axe to grind. the evidence for trump's bigotry may not reach the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but there's certainly more than a preponderance of evidence. using the evidentiary standard for a civil trial, you'd lose.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    essentially your argument is that trump is not a racist per se, just a non-differentiated bigot.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    I'd have a lot more time for the "Trump isn't a racist" argument if:

    a/ your objections weren't mostly pedantic (i.e. Muslims aren't a race, etc.)
    b/ Many of his supporters weren't outright racists (and bigots of other hues if you insist). Here is just one lovely tale of a Trump inspired beating, with a metal pipe, of a latino:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re: Iran Deal

    Yea... It's ALL the Republican's fault..

    Obama is pure as the driven snow.. :^/

    You missed the point. The point was Obama was open about his support for the deal, and he thought it was the right thing to do. The Republicans also knew it was the right thing to do but that the Israelis and most of their base would reject it (the Israelis because Bibi want a fight with everybody, and the base because heaven forbid Obama might get some credit). So the Republican leadership pulled a stunt that is part of the reason why Trump is doing so well - they took the anti-Obama-everything votes but did the right thing for the country.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, numerous people presented copious evidence, and you unilaterally declared that evidence invalid, for various legalistic reasons. (e.g. there's no such thing as racism against mexicans, because mexicans aren't a race).

    What you call "legalistic reasons" is simply nothing but the facts..

    You want to call Trump a bigot, fine. You have evidence to support that..

    But you have, NO ONE has... ANY facts to support a claim of racism against Donald Trump...

    essentially your argument is that trump is not a racist per se, just a non-differentiated bigot.

    Exactly..

    And, if you want to make the TRUMP IS A BIGOT argument, be my guest..

    But I don't think you'll like the result. :D

    a/ your objections weren't mostly pedantic (i.e. Muslims aren't a race, etc.)

    Oh come on!! What YOU call "pedantic" is called FACTS by most people...

    Basically, what you are asking me to do is ignore the FACTS, ignore reality and just agree that Trump is a racist because "everyone says he is"...

    Seriously!!??

    b/ Many of his supporters weren't outright racists (and bigots of other hues if you insist).

    I thought we were talking about Trump...

    Silly me...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    You missed the point. The point was Obama was open about his support for the deal, and he thought it was the right thing to do.

    Obama thought lying about people keeping their healthcare plan was ALSO the "right thing to do"...

    Obama's opinions one right and wrong are worth less than a cup of warm piss...

    So the Republican leadership pulled a stunt that is part of the reason why Trump is doing so well - they took the anti-Obama-everything votes but did the right thing for the country.

    In YOUR opinion..

    I'll be here to remind you about that when Iran starts killing innocent Americans..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You want to call Trump a bigot, fine. You have evidence to support that...

    there's also evidence to support the assertion that trump's a racist. you discounted that evidence as uncorroborated, because the quote was attributed to him by someone who doesn't like him. i would say that trump's well-established generalized bigotry against gender, religion, ethnicity, and so forth certainly tend to tilt the scales of believability in favor of that quote being valid.

    JL

  53. [53] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    It's funny that you (and Hillary's campaign)) are saying that Bernie's online ad was aimed at Hillary.
    Sounds like an admission to me.

    Hillary (Chelsea) gets the prize for lying about Bernie.
    Bernie gets a dishonorable mention for telling the truth about Hillary?
    And since you admit the ad may or may not qualify as negative, your "no negative ads" violation admonition seems questionable.

    It is also interesting that Bernie telling the truth about Hillary gets mentioned without the substance of the ad getting any discussion whatsoever. Not very wonky, and it sort of glosses over a core truth.
    Yes, the ad was aimed at Hillary.
    But, it was also aimed at the majority of elected Dems including Obama, (not to mention ALL Repubs).
    So, your "disingenuous" claim about Bernie should have at least been qualified. The ad wasn't only aimed at Hillary. Not by a long shot.

    The Wall Street coddling wing of the Dem party is a problem that needs to be addressed, and glossing over that reality is a disservice to your readers.

    It's not about being pro-business or anti-business, it's about the (anti-capitalist)corruption on Wall Street feeding (anti-democratic)corruption in politics to avoid any legal action to prevent or prosecute Wall Street corruption.

    Bernie believing that we need to deal with the corruption in both arenas while Hillary merrily plays along and milks the corruption for all it's worth is a rather big distinction that MUST be pointed out.
    I hope Bernie returns to the subject in the upcoming debate. Repeatedly.

    Can't say I condone or appreciate your classification of Hillary's lying about Bernie as potentially a "good thing" either CW.
    That bit made me very sad, and definitely puts a dent in your approval numbers.
    That rationalization to justify her seedy behavior has been reverberating through our Establishment for too long... and the negative effects of it are plainly visible.

    A

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet22 and neilm

    It may be worth pointing out that there is a bit of a conflict of interests in your debate on Trumps racism.

    Stereotyping based on race is racism, and the thing you are debating engages in it too, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
    The denials are thus not only an attempt at self-serving deception, but are invalidated merely due to the source.
    Birds of a feather.

    A

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's also evidence to support the assertion that trump's a racist.

    And that evidence has already been refuted..

    But, I'll give you this...

    For those who are ideologically pre-disposed to think Trump is racist.. Yes... "evidence" exists....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who are ideologically pre-disposed to think Trump is racist.. Yes... "evidence" exists....

    Just as, for those who are ideologically pre-disposed to think Obama is a Kenyan-Born Muslim..... Yes.. "evidence" exists..

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And that evidence has already been refuted..

    by whom? yes, the quote attributed to trump is hearsay. but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. considering all the other bigoted statements he's made, it's not exactly a stretch.

    JL

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    by whom?

    By reality..

    You have ONE single hearsay piece of evidence that Trump said ONE THING racist..

    If Trump is such a blatant racist as ya'all believe, wouldn't there be a plethora of statements??

    Let me ask you this..

    Let's say you find a single racist statement that is factually from Trump.

    Would that make Trump a racist??

    Because, if so, then Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton are also racists..

    Funny how NO ONE wants to address the racist statements from Democrats, eh?? :D

    It's all about the '-D' / '-R'...

    That's the ONLY factor here...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Here is just one lovely tale of a Trump inspired beating, with a metal pipe, of a latino:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvB

    And Obama supporters destroyed Ferguson and Baltimore..

    Does that mean Obama is a racist???

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leave it to Democrats to argue about THE most useless and un-necessary issue facing the country today..

    I am speaking, of course, of gun control...

    Any law that will actually have ANY effect on gun violence that is also in keeping with the 2nd Amendment HAS BEEN PASSED...

    So, the ONLY way for Gun Control nuts to achieve their goal of a gun ban is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, gut the 1st Amendment and severely restrict the 4th and 5th Amendments...

    So to the anti-gun nuts of the Left Wingery, I say this..

    Shut up about gun control until you are willing (and ready) to take the steps to gut the US Bill Of Rights...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    by whom? yes, the quote attributed to trump is hearsay. but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

    Yes, the evidence put forth by those who believe Obama is a Kenyan-borne muslim is ridiculous...

    But that doesn't necessarily make it untrue..

    You see how ridiculous the argument is when applied in a situation that is contrary to the chosen ideology??

    The FACT is there is absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to indicate that Trump is a racist... There is MORE evidence that indicates Bill Clinton or Harry Reid is a racist....

    If Trump still had the -D after his name would the Left Wingery be playing the race card??

    No, they would not...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    It may be worth pointing out that there is a bit of a conflict of interests in your debate on Trumps racism

    Trump's ALLEGED racism...

    Stereotyping based on race is racism, and the thing you are debating engages in it too, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

    By all means, please point it out.. :D

    The denials are thus not only an attempt at self-serving deception, but are invalidated merely due to the source.

    DOGS BARKING CAN'T FLY HOME WITHOUT UMBRELLA
    -Jumpin' Jack Flash

    :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I've been too busy campaigning to watch 13 Hours"
    -Hillary Clinton

    TRANSLATION: I have better things to do than to watch my incompetence and arrogance getting 4 good Americans brutally murdered.....

    :^/

    Hillary had 600 3am Phone Calls.. She let the machine pick it up....

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:
  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, who is to blame for that, Michale?

    That was a little joke, so don't answer it!

    There are better discussions to be had at the Huffington Post. And, that's saying a lot ... or not very much, at all. :(

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, who is to blame for that, Michale?

    For what?? The ignoring of the 600 3am phone calls?? I would say Hillary is to blame for that..

    That was a little joke, so don't answer it!

    DOH!!! :D

    There are better discussions to be had at the Huffington Post. And, that's saying a lot ... or not very much, at all. :(

    That's probably a joke too, but I'll take a swipe at it..

    "Better" is a relative term... Around here "better" means that ya'all have something good to talk about with regards to Obama and the Democrat Party...

    When things are the pits for Obozo (I hate that, but couldn't resist :D ) and the DemcoRATS (ditto) then discussions around here are "worse"...

    In other words, the rating of the "quality" of the discussion around here is directly tied to whether or not there is anything good to say about Democrats...

    Oh.. and... Good Morning, Liz.. :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale[58],

    your comparison is not valid, because there is ample physical evidence available to the public that obama is christian and was born in hawaii.

    trump's racist statement, on the other hand, has not been refuted by any counter-evidence. since trump never explicitly denied saying it, and you've already acknowledged the mountain of evidence that trump is a bigot in general, it's not exactly a stretch to lend credence to the statement. trump also tweeted an inaccurate visual, rated pants on fire by politifact, that claimed 81% of white murder victims were killed by blacks. there's ample factual evidence to support the claim that trump has made racist comments.

    heck, maybe trump is a secret muslim born in kenya. that hypothesis is better supported by the publicly available evidence than similar statements about obama.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There are better discussions to be had at the Huffington Post. And, that's saying a lot ... or not very much, at all. :(

    since i don't facebook, i'm unable to participate at huffpo. their loss. ;p

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    your comparison is not valid, because there is ample physical evidence available to the public that obama is christian and was born in hawaii.

    Yes there is... But we're not talking about FACTS...

    We're talking about ideological hysteria..

    since trump never explicitly denied saying it

    So, by not denying it, Trump is confirming it??

    So.... In other words... SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    :D

    RD?? What do you think??? :D

    and you've already acknowledged the mountain of evidence that trump is a bigot in general

    No more a bigot than anyone here, myself included...

    As I said, you wouldn't like where that road lead... :D

    heck, maybe trump is a secret muslim born in kenya.

    Maybe he is a secret Cardassian...

    There is as much proof of that as their is of Trump being a racist...

    It's funny how ya'all demand "pedantic" facts when the accusations are leveled at Democrats..

    But when the accusations are thrown at Republicans??

    NO FACTS REQUIRED.. Hysterical innuendo is the order of the day...

    since i don't facebook, i'm unable to participate at huffpo. their loss. ;p

    "Indeed.."
    -T'ealc

    :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, lest you feel left out...

    Good morning, Joshua :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    since i don't facebook, i'm unable to participate at huffpo. their loss. ;p

    I don't facebook, either ... just for the record.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW, that remark was NOT a compliment to HuffPost.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did the rioters in Ferguson etc invoke Obama's name as justification for their actions? No. Nice try Michale, but Trump is a bigot, including being a racist, and so are many of his supporters - openly. He is credited by racist organizations for increasing the traffic at their web sites, and they are openly supportive of him.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    but Trump is a bigot,

    Like I told Joshua, no more a bigot than you or I..

    including being a racist,

    Of which you can provide absolutely NO FACTS to prove..

    and so are many of his supporters -

    Just as millions of Obama supporters who voted for Obama because he was black are racists..

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, that remark was NOT a compliment to HuffPost.

    Perish the thought...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did the rioters in Ferguson etc invoke Obama's name as justification for their actions?

    Obama invited them to the White House to congratulate them on their rioting..

    That puts the peas in the same pod... :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Did the rioters in Ferguson etc invoke Obama's name as justification for their actions?

    No... But these racist assholes did...

    Romney Voter Visciously Attacked by Obama Supporters!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR2ZWYlG2os

    So, tell me again how racism by scumbag racists implicates the person that the scumbag racists support??

    If Trump is a racist because of what his supporters did, then Obama is a racist for the same reason...

    For the record, you still haven't proved a Trump supporter did ANYTHING.. The link you posted is broken...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perish the thought...

    In my experience, many conversations at the Huffington Post are unenlightened and unenlightening.

    Sadly, we can say the same thing for much of what passes as "discussion" here, as well ...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since you want to talk about a person's supporters so much, as if THEIR antics indicate the quality of the person in question...

    “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

    http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-1031062.htm

    I mean, honestly...

    If you REALLY want to discuss the racism of supporters, I will be HAPPY to do so..

    But, as with Joshua, you will not like where that road leads...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sadly, we can say the same thing for much of what passes as "discussion" here, as well ...

    In your opinion.. :D Which I do respect..

    But, see comment #63

    Quality is variable... :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    He is credited by racist organizations for increasing the traffic at their web sites, and they are openly supportive of him.

    So the racism of a specific group completely encompasses the person that said group supports..

    Do you really want to go with that???

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all see the dilemma ya'all face???

    Every criteria you come up with, every parameter you try to establish to incriminate Republicans, when applied to Democrats "prove" the EXACT same thing....

    Fascinating, iddn't it?? :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, as with Joshua, you will not like where that road leads...

    i don't recall mentioning anything on the subject. are you sure you aren't thinking of someone else? the only topic i've weighed in on here is that trump is demonstrably a bigot.

    Like I told Joshua, no more a bigot than you or I..

    you can speak for yourself on that count, but i can safely say i'm less bigoted than trump.

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    you can speak for yourself on that count, but i can safely say i'm less bigoted than trump.

    No bigotry against Republicans?? :D

    Are you SURE??? :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Surely, you don't believe that strong disagreement with Republican ideas amounts to bigotry, do you?

    Oh, wait ...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Surely, you don't believe that strong disagreement with Republican ideas amounts to bigotry, do you?

    Oh, wait ...

    Why not??

    Strong disagreement with Obama's ideas amount to racism...

    As MANY here have flat out stated...

    How is that any different??

    But, to answer your question..

    Many Weigantians have used the broad brush to paint ALL Republicans with the actions/comments of a few Republicans or even a SINGLE Republican...

    "Republicans are liars"...

    "Republicans are crooks"...

    "Republicans are terrorists"...

    Sound familiar??

    Textbook definition of bigotry...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why not??

    Strong disagreement with Obama's ideas amount to racism...

    Which brings us back to the dilemma I mentioned in comment #79 :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    you can speak for yourself on that count, but i can safely say i'm less bigoted than trump.

    To be perfectly fair to you, you ARE the least bigoted of all the Left Wing Weigantians sans maybe the Grand Poobah hisself...

    But simply saying "Democrats are better than Republicans" *IS* a textbook example of a bigoted statement...

    intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    For further clarification...

    Embracing Bigotry
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/embracing-bigotry_b_1834954.html

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:
  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in honor of MLK Day...

    How Would Dr. King Have Felt about 'Black Lives Matter'?
    https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/01/17/mlk-versus-blm/

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Barack Obama came into office, almost everyone -- myself included, although I didn't vote for him -- wanted him to succeed as the first black president. He didn't. Ironically, he became the principal father of the "Black Lives Matter" movement that first surfaced as a hashtag on the acquittal of the "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman for the murder of Obama's putative son Trayvon Martin. A case that wasn't really about race was turned into nothing but race. A scab that was healing was almost deliberately picked off.

    Martin Luther King's dream, which was on the verge of becoming a reality, as much of a reality as one could hope for in an imperfect world, was set immeasurably back. On this MLK Day, we should all consider how to reverse that.

    Obama *IS* the Black Lives Matter movement...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Chris writes about MLK Day, tonight, then I would sincerely hope that you do not take this thoroughly unenlightening and wholly sad excuse for discussion there.

    Just continue it here, if you must and let the rest of us try to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the new thread, where serious comments from you would be more than welcome.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap!!!

    Glenn Frey just died...

    Another musical genius has left us.. :(

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just continue it here, if you must and let the rest of us try to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the new thread, where serious comments from you would be more than welcome.

    The problem with that course of action is that "meaningful dialog" is nothing more than a euphemism for "ditto... ditto... ditto... yea.. uh huh... yea.. yer right yer right.. exactly!!" etc etc etc...

    But hay.. If THAT's what ya'all want, nothing but an echo chamber with no dissent or REAL discussion...

    Far be it from me to deprive you of that.. Have a ball.. :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You are completely beyond hope, my friend.

    And, that is very sad news about Glenn Frey ... I'm going to find out more right now ...

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The problem with that course of action is that "meaningful dialog" is nothing more than a euphemism for "ditto... ditto... ditto... yea.. uh huh... yea.. yer right yer right.. exactly!!" etc etc etc...But hay.. If THAT's what ya'all want, nothing but an echo chamber with no dissent or REAL discussion...

    That is utter nonsense, Michale.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, it's completely factual....

    But I understand why you can't concede it... :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But simply saying "Democrats are better than Republicans" *IS* a textbook example of a bigoted statement...

    ...and you have evidence of my making such a blanket statement? if so, please allow me the opportunity to clarify, or if necessary, retract. my family contains both democrats and republicans. i am a democrat because being one gives me the highest likelihood to participate in the nomination of candidates likely to take office with views more similar to mine.

    no, i'm not pure and perfect in treating all people with equal respect and credence, completely free from bias, nor are any of us. but based on all the available evidence, i still feel quite secure asserting that donald trump is significantly more of a bigot than you, me, liz and the greater part of weigantia.

    JL

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    ...and you have evidence of my making such a blanket statement?

    Not in so many words.. But there is a plethora of evidence whereas you castigate the Republicans for this, that and the other thing, while giving the Democrats a pass for similar or identical this, that and the other things..

    "I promise you this, that and the other thing!!"
    -Gilligan

    :D

    To me, that implies strongly that you believe that Democrats are better than Republicans..

    If I am in error, if you agree with me that Democrats are no different than Republicans in the better/worse departments, then I stand corrected and humbly apologize for my presumption....

    but based on all the available evidence, i still feel quite secure asserting that donald trump is significantly more of a bigot than you, me, liz and the greater part of weigantia.

    I disagree... But that's what makes this fun.. :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, when you get right down to it, from all appearances, Trump doesn't like illegal mexicans or muslims...

    How is that any different than the majority of Weigantians not liking Republicans??

    I mean, we ALL have our bigotries... I am a full on bigot.. There are MANY MANY groups of people I don't like and I am not shy about admitting it.. Ad nasuem.. :D

    Bigotry, in and of itself, is not evil or not even an issue.. The issue is denying the bigotry when it is so glaringly obvious.

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of racism..

    http://www.eonline.com/news/732196/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-s-janet-hubert-slams-jada-pinkett-smith-for-calling-an-oscars-boycott

    So, let me get this straight..

    Smith, Spike Lee, et al want to nominate people SOLELY because they are black..

    Hmmmm Isn't that.. well... yunno.. RACIST!??

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if you agree with me that Democrats are no different than Republicans in the better/worse departments

    i think political party is irrelevant to how good or bad someone is, but i reject the notion that one can't differentiate on an individual basis. of course i think democratic POLICY measures tend to be better; otherwise i wouldn't be one. however, that's got nothing to do with who's a better public official, both of which may be unrelated to who's a better human being. for example, i think there's no doubt in most people's minds that jimmy carter was a better person than richard nixon, but i think nixon was a better president.

    that said, there's a huge difference between bias against a political party and bias against an ethnic group. the former is based on a belief set one strongly disagrees with; the latter is based on bigotry and nothing else.

    as to your insistence on a definition of racism so narrow that it pretends the five hundred years leading up to 1970 never happened, i think you'd best quit while you're behind.

    i've seen and read enough over the years to know that you're NOT one of those folks who SAY they'd have no problem living next door to a black family but who would vacate the second it actually happened. however, anyone who were to read your posts out of context would think you were, because you use the same argumentation they do.

    JL

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    think political party is irrelevant to how good or bad someone is,

    I completely agree..

    And yet, all we see around here is "Republicans are terrorists!!!" and "Republicans are liars!!!" and "Republicans are criminals!!!"

    Why not speak out against that form of bigotry??

    Because it's ACCEPTABLE bigotry...

    , i think there's no doubt in most people's minds that jimmy carter was a better person than richard nixon, but i think nixon was a better president.

    Once again, I completely agree.. Carter was a failed leader.. Nixon, his obvious faults notwithstanding, was a great leader...

    that said, there's a huge difference between bias against a political party and bias against an ethnic group. the former is based on a belief set one strongly disagrees with; the latter is based on bigotry and nothing else.

    That's a distinction without a difference..

    Or, as Spock would say, "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."

    as to your insistence on a definition of racism so narrow that it pretends the five hundred years leading up to 1970 never happened, i think you'd best quit while you're behind.

    Probably because this discussion has gone on for quite a long time.... I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to..

    My definition of racism is the same as yours.. The only difference is that I apply it equally, regardless of whether or not we're talking about Republicans or Democrats.. You still don't want to discuss Bill Clinton's racism, for example...

    however, anyone who were to read your posts out of context would think you were, because you use the same argumentation they do.

    Not at all.. There are factual elements of a racist's arguments and I do incorporate those parts (emphasis on PARTS) into my own argument.. The logic, objectivity and accuracy of those parts of the argument do not lose any of the veneer, solely because some asshole racist uses them at one point or another..

    Take, for example, the argument of THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.. Regardless of whether or not you advocate the concept, the argument itself is a valid point of discussion. Hitler himself often used that argument, as you might well imagine..

    Should we discard that argument SOLELY because some megalomaniac scumbag used it at one point in time???

    "Good talk..."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My definition of racism is the same as yours

    i'm pretty sure that's not the case. perhaps this will help:

    Can blacks be racist? The answer, of course, will depend on how you define racism. If you define it as “prejudice against or hatred toward another race,” then the answer is yes. If you define racism as “the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” the answer is yes. And if you define racism as “prejudice and discrimination rooted in race-based loathing,” then the answer is, again, yes. However, if you define racism as “a system of group privilege by those who have a disproportionate share of society’s power, prestige, property, and privilege,” then the answer is no. In the end, it is my opinion that individual blacks can be and sometimes are racists. However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today.
    ~David Pilgrim, Curator, Jim Crow Museum

    http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/march09/index.htm

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that said, there's a huge difference between bias against a political party and bias against an ethnic group. the former is based on a belief set one strongly disagrees with; the latter is based on bigotry and nothing else.

    That's a distinction without a difference..

    there's absolutely a difference. bias against a political view is earned, because political views are PURELY a choice, and can be changed at any moment. ethnic groups are what you were born - religious groups are a bit more murky, because even though you can convert to a different religion, membership isn't purely voluntary - there are barriers to entry and exit, and a long history of incredibly unfair and irrational discrimination. if someone can cease to be the target of a barb by saying, "hmm, maybe i'll change my mind," or what have you, then yes, it can still be biased and/or narrow-minded, but it doesn't really qualify as bigotry.

    JL

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's absolutely a difference. bias against a political view is earned, because political views are PURELY a choice, and can be changed at any moment. ethnic groups are what you were born - religious groups are a bit more murky, because even though you can convert to a different religion, membership isn't purely voluntary - there are barriers to entry and exit, and a long history of incredibly unfair and irrational discrimination. if someone can cease to be the target of a barb by saying, "hmm, maybe i'll change my mind," or what have you, then yes, it can still be biased and/or narrow-minded, but it doesn't really qualify as bigotry.

    The WHY can be different, I grant you...

    But the HATRED can be, and often IS, the same irregardless of the WHY.. Here in Weigantia, we have seen the EXACT same intensity of hatred towards Republicans as there exists towards a different race...

    Put another way...

    If a scumbag psychotic goes into a crowd of Young Republicans and starts blowing people away because he hates Republicans..

    Is that any different than a scumbag psychotic who goes into a crowd of black people and starts blowing people away because he hates black people??

    Are the black people any more dead or the Republicans any less dead because the WHY of the hatred is different??

    That's what I mean when I say that your's is a distinction without a different..

    Hate is hate..

    All things being equal, the WHY is not relevant..

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    ~David Pilgrim, Curator, Jim Crow Museum

    So, now we know what David Pilgrim's definition of racism is..

    What's yours?? :D

    Or should that be, "What's your's?" heh

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Are the black people any more dead or the Republicans any less dead because the WHY of the hatred is different??

    That's what we refer to as "the exception that proves the rule." being dead is the only thing preventing the Republicans from changing their minds. The black people are dead and they're still black.

    So, now we know what David Pilgrim's definition of racism is..
    What's yours?? :D

    the reason mr. pilgrim used multiple definitions is that they're all legitimate ways of looking at it.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what we refer to as "the exception that proves the rule." being dead is the only thing preventing the Republicans from changing their minds. The black people are dead and they're still black.

    HATE isn't about changing other people's minds..

    Do you think Weigantians hate Republicans (those that do) in an effort to change the Republican's minds??

    No, they hate Republicans as a means of self-validation.

    the reason mr. pilgrim used multiple definitions is that they're all legitimate ways of looking at it.

    With respect to Mr Pilgrim, the latter "definition" seems to be borne of a desire to justify a certain ideology and to create a false-cover to shield racist black people...

    If a black person kills a white person BECAUSE they are white, that is just as racist as if it were the other way around..

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the question still remains..

    Are our definitions of racism the same??

    My definition is is simple...

    Hatred or actions based solely or nearly solely on a person's race...

    I agree that there are other definitions that may be valid..

    But not Mr Pilgrim's last one..

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Fast & Furious’ rifle capable of taking down helicopter found in 'El Chapo' cache
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/20/rifle-capable-taking-down-helicopter-found-at-el-chapo-hideout-purchased-through-fast-and-furious-program.html

    Rut Roh, Raggey...

    Obama scrooed the pooch...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Are our definitions of racism the same??

    My definition is is simple...

    Hatred or actions based solely or nearly solely on a person's race...

    no, our definitions are not the same. first of all, mine is complicated. i believe in more than one correct definition, and ONE of the correct definitions IS a system of unequal "de-facto" privileges in society, that white people have and people of color do not.

    If a black person kills a white person BECAUSE they are white, that is just as racist as if it were the other way around...

    that's another exceptional circumstance that doesn't hold true when it comes to smaller, subtler decisions, like who to hire, who to admit to a university, who to sell a house, who to invite over for supper, who to pull over for minor traffic violations.

    in benign, ambiguous situations, intentionally favoring the group of higher privilege is racist, while intentionally favoring the group of lower privilege is not, unless it stems from actual hatred. again, murder and higher felonies are the exception that proves the rule.

    JL

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, they hate Republicans as a means of self-validation.

    that's an awfully grand generalization. couldn't some of the animosity on the left toward republicans be a perception that their policy decisions hurt people and promote unfairness in society? and wouldn't a conservative feel more-or-less the same about democrats?

    JL

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    not to put too fine a point on it, but i'd wager that most political animosity is not actual hatred but just run of the mill anger, which would dissipate the instant said person shows evidence of changing their mind to the preferred way of seeing things.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's an awfully grand generalization. couldn't some of the animosity on the left toward republicans be a perception that their policy decisions hurt people and promote unfairness in society? and wouldn't a conservative feel more-or-less the same about democrats?

    When the Left Wingery refers to Republicans as "terrorists" I don't bother looking for any rational or logical thought..

    Because there ain't none.. :D

    not to put too fine a point on it, but i'd wager that most political animosity is not actual hatred but just run of the mill anger, which would dissipate the instant said person shows evidence of changing their mind to the preferred way of seeing things.

    Maybe we could examine the irrational hatred, eh??

    The problem is, no one will cop to it, even in the immediate aftermath of it being spewed.... :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, they hate Republicans as a means of self-validation.

    that's an awfully grand generalization.

    Really??

    Why do white racists hate black people??

    Because it validates them as a superior human being...

    When you rip away all the felgercarb and crap, that is what racism is at it's base...

    A way to feel superior while putting others down...

    I see no difference as to whether we're talking about race or political ideology..

    But I am a simple knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. What do I know about hoity-toity political correctness... D:

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone seen 13 HOURS yet???

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/opinions/ta-nehisi-coates-attack-on-bernie-sanders-mcwhorter/index.html

    It's a good read.. Especially impacting because it comes from the mind of a Left Winger....

    Racism isn't to blame for the black people gunning each other down over tennis shoes and turf....

    Why are there so many black people in prison over drugs?? Not because of racism but rather because of black leaders in Congress wanting to clean up the black communities...

    Until such time as the black community AS A WHOLE takes a look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they are a bigger part of the problem....

    Only then can things start to change...

    It's easy to ignore one's own culpability for a problem.

    It takes REAL courage to stand up and admit, "Hmmmmmm Maybe *I* need to make some changes.."

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    OSCAR-Winning Producer Denounces 'Spoiled Brats' Crying 'Racism'...
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-winning-producer-denounces-spoiled-858207

    People who use false accusations of racism to attack people and further their own agenda are the worst of the worst.. Lowest of the low...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.