ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [383] -- Deconstructing GOP Absurdity

[ Posted Friday, March 18th, 2016 – 17:00 PDT ]

That's a pretty ambitious subtitle, but we're not going to get to the deconstruction project until the talking points, we should warn everyone up front. And we could never hope to deconstruct all of the GOP's absurdities in one column, so we'll be focusing just on their all-over-the-map reasoning on why they're not going to do their constitutional jobs in the Senate on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination. So we'll have all that to look forward to. For now, let's quickly review the week just to see where things stand.

It's not exactly political news, but we do have to point out that it is the day after Saint Patrick's Day, so we'll try to type all this out very softly, in case anyone's still nursing a hangover of Brobdingnagian proportions.

There were two major events in the political world this week. The first was another round of primaries (which got given the label "Super Tuesday 3" too late for anyone to start actually using it). The second was a Supreme Court judicial nomination from President Obama. Both were groundshaking in their own ways.

The Senate Republicans, of course, have said (since before the body was actually cold) that Obama is not going to be allowed to replace Antonin Scalia. First, the position was that no Republican would even meet with the nominee. That's just downright rude. These are traditional "courtesy meetings" which normally happen without a shred of contention, but these are not normal times.

Since then, a few Republicans have wavered on the "never even meet with him" strategy. There are a lot of Republican voters who understand politeness back home, for some of these folks. Others are in very tough re-election fights with strong Democratic contenders in very blue states, and are fearing for their political lives. Look for this dynamic to become even more pronounced, as Democrats base their entire "take back the Senate" strategy around it (as they rightly should, we should mention).

This week, at least two Republican senators have called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold the proper hearings. Both Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk have now done so. Our guess is they won't be the last to do so, as Republican resolve wavers even more. The GOP plan to just flat-out ignore Obama's nominee is not very popular (even among Republican voters), and Democrats will be reminding everyone of this every chance they get. So it's quite likely that hearings will eventually come to pass.

Kirk has even gone one step further and tried to shame his fellow Republicans into actually doing their jobs and giving the nominee a floor vote. His quote is so charming, however, that we're going to save it for the talking points section. Kirk is in one of the toughest Senate seats Republicans have to defend this year, and he's got a very strong challenger in Tammy Duckworth. Also, it's a presidential election year, and Illinois is pretty solidly blue. But Kirk isn't the only one to find himself in this situation this year. So look for other Republicans to back down in similar fashion, in the weeks to come. Especially if Donald Trump secures the GOP nomination (without riots) at the convention.

Which brings us back to the presidential race. Tuesday was a blowout for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. On the Democratic side, this was welcome news for Hillary supporters as it means she can now pivot to mainly focusing on Trump.

Bernie Sanders isn't going away any time soon, of course, nor should he. The one thing Hillary really can't do is to call on Bernie to end his campaign (see: 2008). But he will likely be ignored by the media from this point on. Or maybe "even more ignored than he already has been" is more correct. Media abuse of Bernie has been one constant throughout this campaign, exemplified in disgraceful detail this week by the New York Times. The Times has endorsed Hillary, but that's not supposed to bias their news articles in any way. However, it obviously is. An article which began with the title: "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories For Years Via Legislative Side Doors," gave a pretty thorough rundown on how Sanders has used amendments to other bills to get things done in the Senate. Hours later the title had changed, though, to: "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." Still later, it was watered down to: "Sanders's Roster Of Modest Wins." The text went from being a factual overview of Sanders's record in the Senate to a biased piece with plenty of quotes about how Sanders is promising the moon, the sun, and the stars -- you know, the typical thing. So much for that vaunted wall of separation between the editorial page and the news operation, eh?

Over on the Republican side, Trump romped to four victories Tuesday night, while Kasich won his first (and, likely, only) state. Marco Rubio dropped out after (badly) losing his home state of Florida to the Trumpster. Fear and panic set in among the corridors of power in Washington immediately afterwards.

After all, what's a Republican to do these days? They have a few choices, and all of them are bad. They can just outright surrender to Donald Trump, and risk looking like a hostage standing behind him at a rally (see: Chris Christie). They can back Ted Cruz, which is the equivalent to them of drinking poison (as Lindsey Graham so eloquently put it, just before he went ahead and endorsed Cruz over Trump). Another option is brutal honesty -- realizing that Democrats weren't actually caricaturing their party as hateful and racist, that instead this was indeed correct. Not many (it hardly bears pointing out) are taking this route.

Instead, most Republicans are just flailing wildly about, with absolutely no plan on how to stop Trump and no answer to why they're in this position in the first place. There were actually two important "flail around like a headless chicken" meetings this week, of like-minded Republicans trying to figure out some way out of the mess they find themselves in. One meeting was for big donors, who could not agree on a plan of action. The other one consisted of big conservative deep-thinker types (at least, that's how they see themselves), who also could not agree on a viable plan of action.

There's an apt phrase for what these groups are attempting: "too little, too late." There's even now pushback from other Republicans towards the whole "stop Trump" effort, people like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity rightly calling the effort a serious attempt to permanently divide what used to be the Republican Party.

As I said, all options are bad at this point for Republicans. Get behind Trump. Try to force him out as the party's nominee (which we have to admit Trump is entirely right about, because it would likely lead to riots). Launch a third-party bid so you don't have to vote for Trump in November (which would guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton). Or just turn off the TV and ignore politics until after the election is over. That's about all they've got, at this point. It isn't easy being a non-Trump-loving Republican these days, is it?

Maybe the stress is taking its toll. That's the only explanation we have for the spectacle of Republican lawmakers asking why a government regulator wasn't quicker and stronger in enforcing environmental rules. We can't ever remember such an astonishing sight, in fact.

Of course, there was method to their seeming madness, as their choice was to pressure the Environmental Protection Agency, or just go ahead and admit that another Republican governor had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life under conservative economic principles can be very dangerous indeed for those unlucky enough to live in such states.

The breadth of Republican hypocrisy in demanding that the E.P.A. do a better job was captured perfectly by Huffington Post:

Still, it's a little unusual to hear Republicans crying out for more rulemaking from the E.P.A. On the same day as the hearing, House Republicans released a budget that would dramatically cut funding for the E.P.A., so that the agency won't "continue to implement an unprecedented activist regulatory policy to the detriment of states, localities, small businesses, and energy consumers."

The Republican-led Congress has chopped the E.P.A.'s budget in recent years, from a high of $10.3 billion in 2010 down to $8.1 billion for 2015. The funding cuts have forced the agency to reduce its workforce, from a high of 18,110 in 1999 to just 15,408 as of 2014 -- a 15 percent staffing cut from 15 years before.

The Republicans' budget proposal last year sought to cut funding for water protection programs in particular by 24 percent.

So, yeah, maybe there's a reason why the E.P.A. wasn't on top of the Flint situation, huh guys? It's a little irony-impaired to demand such things now after gutting their budget and calling them names. Republican governmental policy harms humans and other forms of life. Deal with it.

That's a grim point to end on, but the situation in Flint is about as grim as it can get. So with no attempt at any sort of segue, let's just move along to this week's awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy, this week. Hillary Clinton was easily the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. If Tuesday night's voting had gone a different way (if Bernie Sanders had won one, two, or three states, in other words), the news media would be in a frenzy of "What's Wrong With Hillary Clinton's Campaign?" stories, right about now. Instead, she is once again attempting to pivot away from the Democratic primary race to fighting Donald Trump in a general election campaign. This was the week she was finally able to do so in a convincing way.

Hillary ended last week pretty disappointingly, by mis-remembering the 1980s, Nancy Reagan, and AIDS. She began this week by writing a lengthy apology, because she knows that gay rights activists are important supporters to have on her side. Whether it was convincing enough or not is still being hotly debated, but she did make the effort after attempting to just brush it off with an "I'm sorry" tweet last week. But after that shaky start to the week came Tuesday, which became the overriding narrative of the week for her.

Hillary's lead among delegates is pretty impressive, at this point. She's further ahead of Bernie in pledged delegates (the "non-super" type) than Barack Obama managed during the 2008 campaign against her. When you add in superdelegates, her lead is now almost insurmountable.

Bernie will keep going, of course, following the same path Hillary herself blazed in 2008 -- fighting all the way to the final primaries. It's entirely his right to do so. But from this point on, it becomes a protest movement rather than a presidential campaign with a clear path to victory.

Of course, Hillary's not going to have such a good week every week for the remainder of the campaign. Bernie will quite likely still chalk up some wins. But this week, Clinton chalked up five to Bernie's zero. Three of these were somewhat close, but two were absolute landslides for her.

Unless there are any political earthquakes between now and the convention, Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee this year. This is the week she definitively moved into "presumptive nominee" territory. For doing so in impressive fashion, Hillary Clinton has to be seen (even by Bernie fans, if they're honest) as the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[We do not, as a rule, provide links to campaign websites, so you'll have to search Hillary Clinton's contact info out on your own, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

President Barack Obama made a controversial pick for the Supreme Court. What was controversial about it was that it was intended not to be controversial. Obama picked a moderate or centrist judge, which was entirely reasonable given the political calculus surround this particular pick, but lefties were really hoping for a solid liberal choice. So Obama's pick disappointed many progressives.

But we're not judging him harshly on this selection, personally. Merrick Garland has a much better chance of actually making it onto the Supreme Court than a liberal firebrand would have had. In fact, a staunch liberal would pretty much have been guaranteed treatment as a sacrificial lamb by Senate Republicans. There's almost zero chance of confirmation, since a liberal Obama choice versus a Hillary Clinton choice would look exactly the same to Senate Republicans. Garland may also become a sacrificial lamb, but it's not guaranteed. His nomination could get voted down by the full Senate, it could be withdrawn by Obama (indeed, I argued yesterday that Obama should threaten this tactic for the lame-duck session), or it could just never get acted upon until the next Senate is sworn in. We have no idea what the chances of Garland being confirmed are (neither does anyone else, at this point), but those chances are above zero. A liberal pick's chances would have been non-existent. So we're not giving Obama the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for his selection, sorry.

Instead, we're giving it to Obama for not letting Gerry Adams in to a White House event that he had been expressly invited to attend. Adams, for those unaware, is a prominent figure in the Sinn Féin party in the Republic of Ireland. This being Paddy's Day week, there are always some political events held with Irish politicians (and just random drinking and wearing of green ties in general, we might add). Now, President Bill Clinton made big news back in the 1990s by granting Adams a visa and a White House invitation (to say Adams is a controversial figure both here and in Eire is a massive understatement), which helped moved the Irish peace process along to its happy conclusion.

Adams, in other words, used to be a controversial person for the White House to invite to an event, but that was a long time ago -- he's been to the White House many times in the past 20 years, in fact. And he was invited this year, too, but was stopped at the door by the Secret Service.

Due to what they called an "administrative input error," Adams was detained for 90 minutes, as he watched all the other guests file in. He said later he felt like he was in a receiving line, greeting everyone else. After an hour and a half, he just gave up and walked out.

Now, what sort of "administrative input error" takes 90 minutes to resolve? Mistyping "Jerry Adams" should have been figured out in about five minutes. It's not like this was his first visit to the White House or anything (which might have necessitated higher security screening). He was invited to this event -- he wasn't some V.I.P. gate-crasher or anything.

Making an invitee to a casual event wait 90 minutes in such a fashion is beyond disappointing. It is inexcusable. The White House and the Secret Service have since apologized and swear that it won't happen again. A little late, but at least they realized how badly they screwed this up.

But President Obama is responsible for the Secret Service, and he is responsible for how guests are treated in the White House. The Secret Service has had multiple massive problems during Obama's term in office, and while this screwup doesn't even rise to the level of some of the previous scandals, it shows that there are still some problems in what was once viewed as one of the more honorable federal agencies around. So, yes, the Secret Service was principally responsible for barring Gerry Adams at the door, but the president and his team should have been a lot more on the ball, on this one. Adams was one of the more prominent guests for the Paddy's Day celebration, so it's inexcusable that nobody noticed he was cooling his heels at the security checkpoint.

Which is why we're giving this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to President Barack Obama. The Irish people love Obama (as this song proves, written after an Obama visit to Eire). There's no excuse for such a prominent snub. In this case, the buck stops at the top, and Obama is awarded the MDDOTW for the whole diplomatic screwup.

[Contact President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 383 (3/18/16)

The subtitle of today's article is "Deconstructing GOP Absurdity." The entire talking points section below is dedicated to this premise. Except for the last two, where we just go ahead and rub salt in the GOP's wounds, for the sheer fun of it.

But getting back to the premise. We are following Mark Twain's advice here ("immature humorists borrow, mature humorists steal"), because the idea comes from a very funny guy (when he wants to be): Senator Al Franken. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Franken directly took on the Republicans' shifting positions and rationales for denying even consideration for a sitting president's Supreme Court pick. The most memorable thing Franken had to say: "I used to make a living identifying absurdity. I'm hearing a lot of it today."

The basic Republican position isn't that hard to understand. It is: "We are going to deny Barack Obama a third Supreme Court pick, unless Hillary Clinton wins the presidency." That is precisely what some of them believe (the others don't even add the clause about Clinton). The problem is, it sounds pretty crass to come out and say it honestly and simply, so Republicans have been busy bending over backwards trying to come up with some sort of noble-sounding reason for why they're walking down this path.

Our talking points will take apart the absurdities they've so far come up with, point by point. Of course, we may have to revisit this later, because Republicans are nothing if not crafty at creating rationalizations out of moonbeams -- so there could be another whole slew of excuses to deconstruct later. But for now, we're working with the absurdities they've so far given us.

 

1
   So it's a living document after all?

We start with the bedrock of the Republican faith.

"Republicans are supposed to revere the United States Constitution. Furthermore, they tell us it is not a 'living document' and is supposed to mean exactly what the Framers said -- no more and no less. Period. Which is why I'm scratching my head now over all of the ways they are trying to change its clear meaning over the issue of a Supreme Court nomination. They are, to be blunt, doing exactly what they have spent decades accusing Democrats and liberal justices of being guilty of. For starters, consider that the Constitution lays out a clear duty to 'advise and consent' to presidential nominees. Republicans' first argument boils down to 'we are going to refuse to do our duty under the Constitution we all swore to uphold.' No wonder Republican voters are angry! These senators are flat-out refusing to do their job -- in fact, they're very accomplished at not doing their jobs at all. Name me one thing the Republican-led Senate and Republican-led House have managed to accomplish that bettered people's lives since they took control -- just one! I bet you can't, because there really aren't any. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they're now swearing they are going to continue to do nothing for the rest of the year."

 

2
   Not actually in the Constitution

Moving right along to the next absurdity....

"The Constitution is not a living document, Republicans tell us. But now they are trying to peddle the absurd notion that the voters are supposed to have any sort of direct say in judicial picks. Excuse me, but where exactly is this notion in the Constitution? I'll wait while you look it up from that copy of it you carry around with you. I shouldn't taunt you like that, so I'll save you the effort. The Constitution actually put several degrees of separation between the voters and court picks. The Electoral College and the Senate, to name two (remember, originally senators weren't even chosen by direct election -- that was the original intent of the Founders). The voters are not supposed to have a say in judicial picks, plain and simple. For Republicans to now create this supposed tradition out of whole cloth is stunning in its absurdity. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves, but that would require a degree of honesty they don't seem capable of right now."

 

3
   Let's politicize it to depoliticize it!

This brings us directly to the third absurdity.

"I've heard Republicans from Chuck Grassley on down say -- with a straight face, mind you -- that 'the process needs to not be politicized,' and then turn around and say the voters deserve a say in the process. How is that not the very definition of 'politicizing' the process? There's nothing more politicized than a presidential election, after all. This is sheer Orwellian doublethink, folks. The process ought not to be politicized, so we're going to just go ahead and politicize the heck out of it -- how does that even pretend to make sense?"

 

4
   Unless it's a Democrat, of course

We're turning this next one over to Senator Al Franken, because he put it better than we could ever hope to. From the same hearing cited above, Franken takes on the bizarre notion that Republicans will graciously consent to confirm Garland in the lame-duck period of Congress (after the election but before the new president and Senate are sworn in). This is where they're openly displaying their own hypocrisy, which Franken gleefully pointed out in fine style:

I hear, "OK, let the people decide, and the presidential election should decide." But then I hear colleagues from the other side say, "Well, you know what, if the election goes the wrong way, I'd be happy to consider this nomination in the lame duck," How absurd is that? So it's: "Let the people decide, unless they decide on Hillary Clinton, in which case let us decide."

 

5
   It's very simple, really

We return once again to the supposed bedrock of conservative belief, in order to mercifully explain to the Republicans what they really should be doing (if they had a shred of intellectual honesty, that is).

"You know what? If Republicans truly believe that what they are doing is the right thing for America, they have one solid option available to them. Remember that non-living Constitution they're usually so passionate about? It actually provides the steps they need to take to legitimize their current absurd political position. The first thing they need to do is agree to the language -- perhaps something like 'no Supreme Court nomination shall be made in the last year of a presidential term,' and then they could add something about the voters having a legitimate say in the process. Once they drafted the language, the process if very simple. All they'd have to do is pass their language by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then get three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify it. Because that's the process the Constitution demands to amend what is already defined within it."

 

6
   Kirk mans up

OK, these last two are the "rubbing salt in the GOP's self-inflicted wounds" part of the program. Because all of this Kabuki theater surrounding Obama's Supreme Court pick is making some Senate Republicans very, very nervous about their chances of getting re-elected (some of them from very blue states). The first Republican senator to crack, unsurprisingly, is in perhaps the toughest of these races.

"Two Republican senators have already denounced the Republican effort to pretend that President Obama didn't just nominate someone to the Supreme Court. Susan Collins of Maine is now calling for the proper hearings, and Illinois Senator Mark Kirk went even further and called for a floor vote to be held. Here's what Kirk had to say: 'We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out... just man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get "yes" or "no" votes. Your whole job is to either say "yes" or "no" and explain why.' While he is completely correct, it was an interesting choice of words, seeing as how the only other Republican to stand up for even holding hearings happens to be a woman. Kirk's Democratic opponent for the Senate this fall is also a woman, so it may not have been the best phrase to use. However crudely put, though, the sentiment is correct. I'd be willing to bet a few other Republicans start saying similar things, especially when they contemplate who Donald Trump might nominate to the highest court in the land. Or, of course, Hillary Clinton."

 

7
   On a golden platter

That last bit was so much fun, let's just hammer the point home a bit further!

"Republicans in the Senate, although they may not be aware of it quite yet, are essentially fighting hard for Donald Trump to be given a Supreme Court pick on his first day in the Oval Office. There's no other way to see it -- the 'stop Trump' effort is obviously going to fail, and unless the Republican Party decides to leave Trump and form their own third party this fall, the principle they're now standing up for is to give Donald Trump his own Supreme Court pick. You can bet that Democratic Senate candidates in many states will be reminding voters of this fact for the entire election season. The ads just write themselves: 'Republicans are standing with Trump rather than doing their job -- and they think they deserve re-election?' I kind of feel sorry for the Republicans, because there is no easy way out of the corner they've painted themselves into. If they voted to confirm Obama's appointment now, Republican base voters are going to be incensed. If they wait until after the election and confirm him anyway, again, GOP voters are going to be outraged. If they wait until the next president is in office, then they themselves might just be out of a job, because Donald Trump may just hand control of the both the White House and the Senate to the Democrats on a (very classy, no doubt) golden platter. It's really lose/lose for Senate Republicans, no matter what they choose to do."

-- 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

 

273 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [383] -- Deconstructing GOP Absurdity”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    From your link to the Salon article:

    "Here’s Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal:

    “Liberals may have been fond of claiming that Republicans were all closet bigots and that tax cuts were a form of racial prejudice, but the accusation rang hollow because the evidence for it was so tendentious. Not anymore. The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism…It would be terrible to think that the left was right about the right all these years.”

    We have been right about the right all these years.

    Sadly.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdotes: At the petfood store, on my way in, I spoke with a 40-ish white man -- big guy -- wearing a "Go Browns" baseball cap.

    He thinks the election season has been "a terrible disappointment". He is shocked that Trump has been able to say the things he's said and still is "allowed to run". (I think a lot of citizens believe the "government" can do a lot of unilateral things it most certainly cannot.) He thinks Trump needs to be stopped. He just said "terrible, terrible" over and over.

    Inside the store, a very youthful looking grey-haired woman opined the election season to date has been "a joke", and said "I blame John McCain" (for giving us Sarah Palin, she confirmed when I asked).

    I didn't ask either of them who they were leaning toward.

    I asked my neighbor (a 40-ish black woman) who she was leaning toward and she said she doesn't favor anyone, but she definitely DOESN'T like Trump. She said at first she considered him but when he "made fun of the disabled reporter, that did it." She went on to mimic him and then made "I'm disgusted" faces.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    @Paula [1]: Good one!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kirk has even gone one step further and tried to shame his fellow Republicans into actually doing their jobs and giving the nominee a floor vote.

    Can we can the "do their jobs" rhetoric?? It rings so hollow when stacked up against Democrat malfeasance when they were the majority in the Senate... :D

    Short and sweet this morning..

    I Owe I Owe So Off To Work I Go... :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Liberals may have been fond of claiming that Republicans were all closet bigots and that tax cuts were a form of racial prejudice, but the accusation rang hollow because the evidence for it was so tendentious. Not anymore. The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism…It would be terrible to think that the left was right about the right all these years.”

    Is there any FACTUAL evidence of racism??

    No???

    Didna think so..

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    This week, at least two Republican senators have called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold the proper hearings. Both Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk have now done so. Our guess is they won't be the last to do so, as Republican resolve wavers even more. The GOP plan to just flat-out ignore Obama's nominee is not very popular (even among Republican voters), and Democrats will be reminding everyone of this every chance they get. So it's quite likely that hearings will eventually come to pass.

    [I]t is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

    The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
    -Senator Joe Biden, The "Reform of the Confirmation Process" Speech

    It doesn't get any clearer than that, people...

    Senator Joe Biden clearly has established the Biden Rule...

    No nominees should be considered and/or processed during a campaign season...

    I applaud the GOP for adopting the rule set forth by the Democrat VP.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hear, "OK, let the people decide, and the presidential election should decide." But then I hear colleagues from the other side say, "Well, you know what, if the election goes the wrong way, I'd be happy to consider this nomination in the lame duck," How absurd is that? So it's: "Let the people decide, unless they decide on Hillary Clinton, in which case let us decide."

    Yea, it's called POLITICS, Al... Maybe you have heard of it.. :D

    Democrats would be doing the EXACT same thing if the shoe was on the other foot and everyone here knows it..

    How do we know that Democrats would be doing the EXACT same thing??

    We have The Biden Rule...

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The text went from being a factual overview of Sanders's record in the Senate to a biased piece with plenty of quotes about how Sanders is promising the moon, the sun, and the stars -- you know, the typical thing. So much for that vaunted wall of separation between the editorial page and the news operation, eh?

    @CW,

    very sad to read that the Times has gone the way of Fox, letting the editorial views bleed over into the real news. good piece of reporting by yourself though.

    JL

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Is there any FACTUAL evidence of racism??

    true, if racism is construed only as hateful statements or actions based on skin color (rather than culture, ethnicity, religion, etc.) then the only public racist quotes from trump, “Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” and “Laziness is a trait in blacks.” are hearsay by guys who worked with trump and don't like him.

    so, in the extremely narrow sense you're casting it, i concede the point.

    that being said, trump has shown bigotry of just about every kind, toward just about every group of people - mexicans, muslims, the disabled, you name it, and has waffled when asked to condemn leaders of the Klan, so it's not exactly a stretch for someone to believe that unconfirmed reports of overt racism on trump's part are also true.

    JL

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    so, in the extremely narrow sense you're casting it, i concede the point.

    Thank you...

    - mexicans,

    ILLEGAL mexicans.. Criminals..

    muslims

    In what context?? Suspending muslims coming into this country until they can be vetted and checked??

    Is that bigotry??

    If that's the case, then the Obama is guilty of bigotry on a massive scale...

    Have you ever said something mean about a person, JL?? Something you regretted???

    I certainly have...

    Off the cuff remarks shouldn't be taken as a definition of one's character...

    To paraphrase an earlier statement I have made..

    "Is a man better than the worst thing he has ever said??"

    If not, then Bill Clinton is a bona fide and PROVABLE racist..

    Much of what you use to define Trump's character with is off the cuff stuff that has very little meaning outside of a campaign...

    Now, if you would hold people like Hillary to the same exacting standards you hold Trump, then I would be a lot more amiable to it...

    , so it's not exactly a stretch for someone to believe that unconfirmed reports of overt racism on trump's part are also true.

    Especially if one is so inclined to believe ANYTHING bad about anyone with a '-R' after their name, eh?? :D

    Present company excepted, of course... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    “He's saying a lot of things that we're thinking,” said Gil Brown, 54, an African American businessman from Lakeland. “It's so refreshing to hear somebody say things clearly.”

    (Brown said he wasn't worried about Trump's views on race. “I've been on the receiving end of racism. I know what it's like,” he said. “I'm not hearing it from him.”)
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida-20160316-column.html

    I'm just sayin'.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Is a man better than the worst thing he has ever said??"

    sure, but what's the worst thing trump has said? there are so many statements to choose from, it's hard to select just one as the worst. these are not just off the cuff remarks, they're parts of public speeches - and when questioned about them, instead of walking them back he has a tendency to insist that he meant them. there's a difference between telling a bad joke in private and getting up on a podium and shouting it to the world.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, but what's the worst thing trump has said?

    Who knows?? It's hard to get cold hard facts untainted by polticial correctness and bias...

    there's a difference between telling a bad joke in private and getting up on a podium and shouting it to the world.

    Is there??

    Romney made a statement in private and it probably cost him the election...

    It's the double standard deja vu all over again..

    The Right Wingery is castigated for everything, public AND private... They are even castigated for things they didn't say!!

    And the Left Wingery gets a pass... Bill Clinton's racist remark proves that...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Romney made a statement in private and it probably cost him the election...

    romney said lots of stuff that probably cost him the election, and that's just the big bad world of politics. even romney himself has balked at being represented by trump and his statements. as marco rubio said, it's not about being politically correct, it's about being correct. some modicum of decency and some semblance of accuracy do not appear to be in trump's vocabulary.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    romney said lots of stuff that probably cost him the election, and that's just the big bad world of politics. even romney himself has balked at being represented by trump and his statements. as marco rubio said, it's not about being politically correct, it's about being correct. some modicum of decency and some semblance of accuracy do not appear to be in trump's vocabulary.

    The same can be said for Hillary although I am sure you will disagree.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Border Patrol union: 'Trump is the only candidate' to support agents
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/border-patrol-union-trump-is-the-only-candidate-to-support-agents/article/2586274

    Trump has the back of those who have this country's back...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re: Gerry Adams

    Gerry Adams is a terrorist. Why this country gets nostalgic over Irish terrorists (on both sides) but goes bananas over the hint of Muslim terrorism is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

    Frankly, if I saw Gerry Adams 'cooling his heals' I'd have a nice chance to ask him about all the kids he and his buddies have murdered, and if he was still proud of their deaths. And I'd do the same to Torrens Knight.

    http://www.news.com.au/world/the-most-brutal-crimes-of-the-troubles-arrest-of-gerry-adams-over-jean-mcconville-murder-shows-northern-irelands-dark-days-never-far-behind/story-fndir2ev-1226907288431

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    Border Patrol union: 'Trump is the only candidate' to support agents

    If I was a plumber and there was a candidate that said that we need more plumbing, and in fact we were going to build thousands of loos all along the Mexican border, I'd be for that guy, even if he was an orange bigot with no real ideas and a toilet where his mouth should be.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gerry Adams is a terrorist.

    Yer my new best friend! :D

    If I was a plumber and there was a candidate that said that we need more plumbing, and in fact we were going to build thousands of loos all along the Mexican border, I'd be for that guy, even if he was an orange bigot with no real ideas and a toilet where his mouth should be.

    And if plumbers were tasked with the safety and security of this country, then their opinions would matter much more than those who AREN'T tasked with the safety and security of this country...

    Put another way...

    If cops endorse Trump and mafia and scumbags endorse Hillary..

    Who would be the one to vote for?? :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgG3_h2wrts

    What is the Left Wingery so afraid of that they would physically stop people from attending a Trump rally???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm just sayin'.. :D

    I'm just saying that for every 'new' supporter that ignores Trump's total lack of suitability for the Oval office (or even playground monitor), there are at least two people who are motivated to vote for anybody but Trump. The Republican primaries are not a good indicator of the whole electorate, and yet he still has to win over 50% in any primary (excluding the 343 votes he won in the Northern Mariana Islands - and I defy you to place those on a map without using the Internet).

    Come to your senses and vote for Hillary. Most of the rest of us will be in the November landslide.

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Why is crude sexist Fuhrer Drumpf so obsessed with making deplorable, undignified attacks on Queen Fox Babe Megyn Kelly and her second-rate show? I was under the impression that poorly-educated Trump thugs liked Fox Babes. Ratings you know. The Donald says Kelly is sick, crazy and biased, but those are really weird insults. Is he confused about what channel she's on? Maybe he just get his rocks off harassing and slandering women who are smarter than him.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:
  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Come to your senses and vote for Hillary. Most of the rest of us will be in the November landslide.

    See comment #23 :D

    I'm just saying that for every 'new' supporter that ignores Trump's total lack of suitability for the Oval office (or even playground monitor), there are at least two people who are motivated to vote for anybody but Trump.

    Then why are so many in the Left Wingery PHYSICALLY stopping people from seeing Trump??

    If things are as you say, then the Left Wingery should WELCOME people to go see how bad Trump is..

    The fact that the Left is stooping to violence to stop people from attending Trump rallies indicates that they are REALLY worried that Trump will actually WIN...

    Which he will...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    If cops endorse Trump and mafia and scumbags endorse Hillary..

    Who would be the one to vote for?? :D

    That is a hypothetical. Let me ask you a question based in reality:

    If admitted (and proud of it) racists campaign and vote for Trump, would you?

    You are very vocal about how Trump isn't a racist, so you obviously don't want to be associated with racists. Here is your chance. Let the inner adult inside of you out and vote for Hillary.

    Let's face facts, there are some angry people out there who have a chip on their shoulder because their life didn't turn out the way they felt entitled to. Trump speaks to the worst in those people. These people think that everybody shares their anger, but here is a news alert - most of us already think America is great and don't need an orange bigot with a toilet mouth to tell us it isn't so we vote him power.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a hypothetical.

    It's as hypothetical as your Plumbers comment.. :D

    You are very vocal about how Trump isn't a racist, so you obviously don't want to be associated with racists. Here is your chance. Let the inner adult inside of you out and vote for Hillary.

    Hillary's a crook...

    My inner cop won't let me vote for a crook...

    Let's face facts, there are some angry people out there who have a chip on their shoulder because their life didn't turn out the way they felt entitled to. Trump speaks to the worst in those people. These people think that everybody shares their anger, but here is a news alert - most of us already think America is great and don't need an orange bigot with a toilet mouth to tell us it isn't so we vote him power.

    As opposed to a woman bigot who blames all this country's ills on fellow Americans who happen to be successful...

    I'll take MY bigot over YOUR bigot any day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    Why??

    Because MY bigot hates political correctness like I do and MY bigot isn't a crook who puts this country at risk because he doesn't want to be accountable...

    See how easy my reasoning is to understand?? :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    As opposed to a woman bigot who blames all this country's ills on fellow Americans who happen to be successful...

    And yet STILL takes their money...

    Seriously, how could ANYONE vote for Clinton without feeling slimy and dirty???

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary isn't a bigot. There is only one bigot running for president and he is orange and has a toilet mouth.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    If admitted (and proud of it) racists campaign and vote for Trump, would you?

    Let me turn that question around..

    Would you vote for Obama if the biggest racist and con man on the planet voted for Obama???

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Seriously, how could ANYONE vote for Clinton without feeling slimy and dirty???

    Easy. Hillary is a good person who is well qualified to be President, and I'm looking forward to voting for her.

    Politics is a slimy, dirty game, and all Trump has done is make it more slimy, more dirty, and added fascist overtones.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary isn't a bigot.

    Hillary is constantly attacking and belittling Republicans..

    That makes her a bigot...

    Look it up...

    big·ot
    ?bi??t/
    noun
    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

    Hillary is as big of a bigot as Donald Trump is...

    These are the facts...

    There is only one bigot running for president and he is orange

    Oh, so now yer judging someone by the color of their skin... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Easy. Hillary is a good person

    I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

    who is well qualified to be President, and I'm looking forward to voting for her.

    Unless she is indicted... :D

    Politics is a slimy, dirty game, and all Trump has done is make it more slimy, more dirty, and added fascist overtones.

    Says the person who supports people using violence to prevent Trump supporters from attending Trump rallies...

    All the fascism is on the Left these days...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would you vote for Obama if the biggest racist and con man on the planet voted for Obama???

    Who are you talking about?

    Remember, while you are talking about hypotheticals, real racists are campaigning and voting for Trump, and crow over the increase in interest in their groups driven by Trump's campaign.

    So you have to answer the real question: will you vote for the candidate that the racists want to win? They hear his racism and love him for it.

    Heil Donald Trump — THE ULTIMATE SAVIOR,” Andrew Anglin, the 30-year-old publisher of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer wrote

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who are you talking about?

    What does it matter??

    Would you vote for Obama if the biggest racist and con man on the planet voted for Obama..

    Yes or no...

    So you have to answer the real question: will you vote for the candidate that the racists want to win?

    I don't let others make my decisions for me...

    I doubt you do either..

    Some of the biggest racists on the planet support Obama..

    Using your reasoning, that makes Obama a bad person...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is just one example of a racist web site that has Donald Trump's picture on its front page banner.

    http://www.dailystormer.com/

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm not voting for Obama. He isn't running. Trump is. Point me to a racist web site that uses Obama's picture and policies as a rallying call for real racism (not the imagined sort that the desperate drag up to try to deflect their own bigotry).

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Point me to a racist web site that uses Obama's picture and policies as a rallying call for real racism (not the imagined sort that the desperate drag up to try to deflect their own bigotry).

    Of course, by "real" racism, you mean anything that the Right does that the Left says is "racism"...

    Yet when Bill Clinton says something completely and blatantly racist, you ignore it..

    As far as pointing you to a racist website..

    Any Black Lives Matter website will suffice..

    Of course, to the Left Wingery, that's not "real" racism.. Because Left Wingers CAN'T be racist in your world...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    (not the imagined sort that the desperate drag up to try to deflect their own bigotry).

    Says the person who ignores the bigotry and fascism coming from the Left Wingery...

    Hillary is, by definition, a bigot....

    This is fact...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    You are still ducking the real question as opposed to throwing hypotheticals about - sounds like a chink in the armor.

    Trump is the candidate of choice for racist groups. These groups did not endorse Obama or Romney with such enthusiasm, or put their faces on the front page of their websites in 2012. They didn't write "Heil Mitt" articles because Mitt did not advocate 'banning all Muslims', he did not call most Mexicans rapists (Trump was not specific about it being illegal immigrants, that is some fairy dust added to try to clean up afterwards), and he did not talk about 'roughing up' protestors.

    Mitt Romney is a good person. Like Obama. Like Hillary. Like Kasich.

    You can white wash Trump all you want, but the hate, bigotry and violent instigations shine through, and it takes willful blindness to ignore it.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If cops endorse Trump and mafia and scumbags endorse Hillary..

    if you want to play the toxic endorsement game where trump is concerned, i have three words for you, and they all start with K.

    JL

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is the candidate of choice for racist groups.

    And Obama was endorsed by terrorists across the mid-east..

    So what???

    You can white wash Trump all you want, but the hate, bigotry and violent instigations shine through, and it takes willful blindness to ignore it.

    That's your opinion..

    But it's a BIGOTED opinion and I have to take that into account when I consider it's validity..

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    if you want to play the toxic endorsement game where trump is concerned, i have three words for you, and they all start with K.

    Ahhh yes.. The racist organization started by Democrats....

    What's yer point??

    So, what ya'all are saying is that if a person is endorsed by scumbags than said person is a scumbag..

    Is that what you REALLY want to go with???

    Because I can find oodles of endorsements of Obama by scumbags..

    Which, by your reasoning, makes Obama a scumbag...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary is, by definition a bigot..

    Funny how ya'all ignore that in your tirade against Trump's bigotry...

    :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary is, by definition, a bigot....

    This is fact...

    No, it isn't. It isn't even regarded as a fact by most Republicans.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can white wash Trump all you want, but the hate, bigotry and violent instigations shine through, and it takes willful blindness to ignore it.

    Just as you ignore Hillary's bigotry and the fascism displayed by Bernie and Hillary supporters in attacking Trump supporters..

    Again, what's yer point???

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, it isn't. It isn't even regarded as a fact by most Republicans..

    Now yer an authority on what Republicans say??? :D

    You see what you are doing? You are ignoring the facts and reality..

    By definition, Hillary is a bigot.. She is intolerant of people who have different views than she does.. They are "the enemy"....

    Textbook definition of bigotry, no matter how many time you deny it...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You, my friend, have already admitted that Trump is a bigot. Remember when you were playing the 'Trump isn't a racist' game and I pointed out the confusion over the term racist, when people meant bigots?

    Why, all of a sudden, are you concerned about Trump's bigotry - is it because the bigotry is useful during primary season, but might be a liability during the general election?

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    We've been thru the 'enemy' comment, you well know that Hillary was talking about people who regarded her as the enemy, not saying that they were her enemies.

    Hillary even says of Bernie voters that she is supporting them even if they are not supporting her. And she intends to be President of all Americans, not only the ones who aren't immigrants or Muslim as Trump proudly boasts. And yes, there are immigrants who are Americans, there are probably some in your family if you go back a few generations.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    bigot
    noun big·ot \?bi-g?t\
    one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

    Mirriam Webster....

    bigot
    noun [C] US /?b??·?t/
    a ?person who has ?strong ideas and who ?thinks anyone who does not have the same ?beliefs is ?wrong

    Cambridge.....

    [big-uh-tree]
    Spell Syllables
    Synonyms Examples Word Origin
    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    noun, plural bigotries.
    1.
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    dictionary.com

    No matter what definition you want to use.....

    Hillary Clinton is a bigot...

    Anyone who denies this is simply putting their OWN bigotry on display for all to see...

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why, all of a sudden, are you concerned about Trump's bigotry - is it because the bigotry is useful during primary season, but might be a liability during the general election?

    I have no concern about Trump's bigotry...

    I simply point out that you castigate Trump's bigotry but ignore the bigotry and the fascism from the Left..

    Ergo, that makes you incapable of rendering an unbiased and objective assessment....

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary even says of Bernie voters that she is supporting them even if they are not supporting her. And she intends to be President of all Americans,

    Yea... Obama said the same thing..

    We know better now..

    "I'll buy everyone here a beer.. Except for the guy in the Romney T-Shirt..."
    -Barack Obama

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now yer an authority on what Republicans say??? :D

    Are you? Can you point me to a poll, survey or any evidence whatsoever that back up your claim that Republicans think Hillary is a bigot?

    This is the world of the 'feelies' where if they feel something it must be true because it is 'true' for them' It is a 'fact' even without any evidence.

    The 'feelies' are having a field day with Trump - he is one of them - he makes stuff up and then doubles down on patently false claims. He says things then denies he even said them, even though he knows there is video proving him false (Feb 1st: "I'll pay the legal fees if you knock the crap out of them" -> March 15th: "I never said I'd pay the legal fees").

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    If not buying somebody a beer is a sign of bigotry, and you aren't a bigot, I'll have a pint of Guinness. See how that works?

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    SEE IT: Anti-Donald Trump protesters block Ariz. road, chain themselves to stalled cars to keep candidate away from rally
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/protestors-block-ariz-road-stop-trump-rally-article-1.2570353

    What are the Leftist fascists so afraid of??

    That the American people might actually VOTE Trump into office???

    Funny how no one here wants to weigh in...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    If not buying somebody a beer is a sign of bigotry,

    OK... So you would be just as OK with it if someone said, "I'll buy everyone here a beer except for the black guy"..

    You would be fine with that??

    Of course you wouldn't...

    It's NOT OK to be bigoted by race...

    But it IS ok to be bigoted by political affiliation...

    Right???

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    You can change the scope of the definition of the word 'bigot' to include everybody, however this is just another case of 'feelie' logic.

    Hillary isn't a bigot. Try another line, that one isn't working, no matter how desperately you torture the dictionary.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you? Can you point me to a poll, survey or any evidence whatsoever that back up your claim that Republicans think Hillary is a bigot?

    Can you point to a poll or survey that shows that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west??

    Of course, you don't NEED to because it is, by definition, a fact...

    Hillary is a bigot. This is, by definition, a fact...

    You can demonize Trump all you want...

    But it doesn't matter because your demonizing is based on bigotry...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary isn't a bigot. Try another line, that one isn't working, no matter how desperately you torture the dictionary.

    I have proven beyond ANY doubt, with multiple-sourced FACTS that Hillary is, indeed, a bigot..

    Your only response is to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat "Hillary isn't a bigot.. Hillary isn't a bigot.. nyaaaa nyaaaa"...

    :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "few choices, and all of them are bad."

    Outright surrender

    Back Cruz

    Brutal honesty

    Launch a third-party bid

    Do nothing

    What would Frank Underwood* do?

    I think F.U. would kick Trump out (floor fight) and reclaim the Republican Brand. Let Trump make the 3rd party bid...or not.

    The downside is a riot, actually two, one inside the venue, and one outside in the streets, both on camera. The riot risk can be minimized and contained.

    Minimize the risk with good public relations. This will require a carefully considered dose of brutal honesty. Point out that Trump is a weak candidate. To date, only 40% of the primary popular vote has gone to Trump. He is a minority candidate. He is a party upstart who is trying to co-opt the GOP from under our noses. Hoe dare he? We need a unity candidate who reflects long time Republican virtues (keep this lofty but vague).

    Continue the brutal honesty with "Frankly (no pun intended), the GOP leadership F'd up when it structured the debates." Too many candidates, not enough time for any of them to make an initial impression. A recipe for an extremist candidate who doesn't represent most GOP voters. Does the party have to live with an organizational mistake? No, we can correct it! The RNC rules allow this, because our RNC founding fathers realized that mistakes can happen. Bring up rule 38.

    No matter how well this PR blitz goes, expect a ruckus in the convention hall. Private security can handle this, metal detectors etc at the door and a large number of beefy private security guards....ready dish out a carefully measured dose of measured brutality (aka "crowd control").

    As for brutality outside the convention center, that's a matter for the Cleveland Police Department to handle, any big city police force knows how. Law and order, a classic GOP theme since Nixon/Agnew!

    Trump runs as the Independent, the Dems win the WH, but the GOP establishment continues to run the family firm. The new normal of Republican obstructionist governance goes forward. What's good for Mitt Romney is good for the country.

    * If you don't know Frank Underwood, you need to binge watch House of Cards on NetFlix, stat!

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    The whole "Obama/Beer Buying" game you are playing is nonsense. It was a joke. He actually bought the guy a beer. Even the Romney supporter was laughing. And he wasn't wearing a T-Shirt, he was holding a Romney sign.

    Maybe it was too politically incorrect a joke for you, but I'm not into being extremely politically correct ;)

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    TheStig [59]:

    Frank Underwood is a democrat. And he'd beat Trump in a landslide in the general.

    In fact, if Trump does win, the Democrats should run Kevin Spacey. How much fun would that be in 2020!

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The whole "Obama/Beer Buying" game you are playing is nonsense. It was a joke. He actually bought the guy a beer. Even the Romney supporter was laughing. And he wasn't wearing a T-Shirt, he was holding a Romney sign.

    prove it...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I applaud that you are able to apply such a critical eye to your political enemies.. Well done.. :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    ""Here's what I'm gonna do, except for the person with the Romney sign," he said, adding "I'm teasing" to the Republican. He then offered to buy beer for 10 people, prompting a cheer from the crowd."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-working-win-iowa-beer-time-obama-iowa-beer-vote-article-1.1136603

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    ""Here's what I'm gonna do, except for the person with the Romney sign," he said, adding "I'm teasing" to the Republican. He then offered to buy beer for 10 people, prompting a cheer from the crowd."

    Trump said "Here's what I'm gonna do, except for the black person," he said, adding "I'm teasing" to the Republican. He then offered to buy beer for 10 people, prompting a cheer from the crowd."

    You would be OK with that???

    of course not...

    So my point still stands...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm -69

    Yes, F.U. is a Dem, but that's what he would do at the helm of the GOP - or if he was close enough to the helm to knock out the helmsman (or helmswoman) and alter course so as to avoid the reef...or hit the reef if that was better.

    M-63

    I am deeply disturbed any time you applaud me :-)
    Keep in mind I was once paid to apply a critical eye to enemies, but not in a domestic context. I got tired of it and moved on.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I get it.. It's ALWAYS funny to bully one's enemies... :^/

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am deeply disturbed any time you applaud me :-)

    Which is why I do it! :D hehehehehehe

    "Stuart... Don't agree with me. It just makes me doubt myself."
    -Michael J Fox, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just think how much fun we're going to have here under President Trump.. :D

    It's gonna be a blast!!! :D

    Ya'all need to keep in mind one thing.. Ya'all have been completely and 1000% WRONG about Trump at every juncture...

    So, when you say that Trump is going to lose the General Election..... How can I believe that??

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump said "Here's what I'm gonna do, except for the black person," he said, adding "I'm teasing" to the Republican. He then offered to buy beer for 10 people, prompting a cheer from the crowd."

    There is a difference between teasing somebody because of their sign, and teasing somebody because of their race.

    The first we call a politician, the second we call a racist. If you can't tell the difference then you basically invalidate everything you say about Trump not being a racist, because how would you know?

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a difference between teasing somebody because of their sign, and teasing somebody because of their race.

    Is there???

    Both is bigotry...

    Racism is simply one form of bigotry..

    Calling Republicans "enemies", saying Republicans are evil, calling Republicans "terrorists" or "arsonists" or "criminals" is as much bigotry as racism is...

    You won't admit that because the Left Wingery wallows in it...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see no one wants to respond to the Left Wing fascists that are violently stopping people from attending Trump rallies..

    I am shocked!! SHOCKED I tell you!!!

    No, not really. I can't back that up.."
    -Dr Evil

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh yes.... The "peaceful" Left Wingery.....

    Leftists are escalating their violent tactics against Republican front runner Donald Trump by beheading a Trump effigy look-alike in the streets of Salt Lake City.

    Nicole Vowell of KSL 5 tweeted several videos of protesters standing on the steps of city hall on Friday.

    In one, a man says, “I don’t like anything about Trump,” before taking a stick and beheading the effigy hung by a noose.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-video-protester-beheads-trump-effigy/

    Funny how no one here wants to condemn this kind of violence..

    Too busy falsely claiming Trump is a racist, I guess...

    Let's face the facts people..

    Ya'all have absolutely NO problem with violence and fascism.... Just as long as it's directed towards the RIGHT people....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, that's the one thing ya'all just don't grasp..

    The more the Left Wingery goes hysterically violent, the more popular Trump becomes....

    This latest violence by the Hysterical Left has bumped Trumps numbers up another 10%.... :D

    Keep the violence coming... Morons!!! :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-73

    Beheading a dummy... I suppose I can expect to face a war crimes tribunal on account of what I dished out to my battalions of plastic army men.

    Is hitting a golf ball OK? What a golf ball with Spongebob's mug on it? How many years am I going to face?

    I think you are scrapping wood at the bottom of the indignation barrel.

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    Racism is hating/disdaining people of another race because they are of another race. But race isn't voluntary.

    Thinking republicans are reprehensible because they do reprehensible things isn't the same thing, because republicans are voluntarily reprehensible.

    Hating people/mocking people/hurting people for things over which they have no control is where the line gets crossed.

    Painting with a broad brush about republican reprehensibility is, of course, a shortcut and inherently unfair. Or almost. Because we've now reached the point -- with Trump as their standard bearer -- that any sentient republican has to admit the party has gone done the toilet and should be abandoned.

    Chris's post illustrates a few of the many, many contortions repubs have indulged in in recent years to obfuscate the fact that their only value is "winning' and their only goal is "power" and they do not support, by their words or actions, anything else. They are intellectually dishonest. They have promoted and used con-artists and grifters to help them gain/retain power. They have let FOX News be their mouthpiece instead of condemning the rampant dishonesty purveyed continually by that outlet.

    neilm @ 70: Michale is, either by habit or constitution, unwilling or unable to conduct an honest argument. He argues almost entirely by assertion and then backs his arguments with rightwing mouthpieces who argue almost entirely by assertion. He uses the word "fact" continuously, but doesn't produce facts, just more assertions. He will continue to assert that Donald Trump is not guilty of using racist language or inciting violence no matter what Trump says or what happens at his rallies. He will push the blame onto everyone but Trump, Trump's fans, or himself. He has been taught that republicans are never at fault. It is always someone else's fault, it is always someone else's fault, it is always someone else's fault.

    Meanwhile, republicans-in-power ARE Hillary's enemy. They hate her and are doing everything in their power to hurt her. They aren't hiding it. The fact that she knows this and doesn't sugarcoat is all to the good.

    Rank and file Repubs who don't necessarily hate her should vote for her. Or write in a candidate or not vote at all. Any reasonably intelligent repub that votes for Trump should never, ever, again, make any claim to any value other than tribalism, nativism, racism and utter, utter moral cowardice.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beheading a dummy... I suppose I can expect to face a war crimes tribunal on account of what I dished out to my battalions of plastic army men.

    OK.. How about hanging a black effigy of Obama..

    Oh NOW all of the sudden, it's a big deal...

    Do you see how far ya'all have gone off the reservation??

    Every violent act the Left Wingery done is perfectly acceptable...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Meanwhile, republicans-in-power ARE Hillary's enemy. They hate her and are doing everything in their power to hurt her. They aren't hiding it. The fact that she knows this and doesn't sugarcoat is all to the good.

    You see???

    Even PAULA agrees with me... :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Just wanted to bring this forward in case you missed it.. :D

    You want to get in on the wager??

    The debunkers, unlike your sources, seem content to wait for the FBI to come to its conclusions -- the rest is the same stuff that's been out there all along.

    Having an extensive LEO and investigative background AND knowing the integrity and non-political nature of FBI Director Comey, I can assure you with complete confidence that the Director will recommend Hillary and/or senior staff be indicted for their crimes..

    You clearly get great joy imagining Hillary being indicted.

    Oh I do, I do... I just LOVE imagining justice being served and criminals taken down...

    I love it.. :D

    You just go right ahead and enjoy it while you can because I think you're going to be very disappointed in the end, not only because she won't get indicted, but because 100s of FBI agents won't resign either.

    Do you want to put your pride up for wager on that?? :D

    Say you wear this for a day.....

    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/557b41f8e4b0e197d1188067/t/55a5a61fe4b0264e961a50ee/1436919328225/Hillary+for+Prison+Shirt.png?format=1500w

    ..... if I am right and Comey recommends indictment??

    And I wear any pro-Hillary T-shirt of your choice if Comey doesn't recommend indictment?? :D

    Are you really THAT sure that you are right and I am wrong?? :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You are torturing dictionaries again in your attempt to make every single thing everybody does 'bigotry'. I can hear the screaming from here.

    As for AZ and NY, these are peaceful protestors infiltrated by Trump thugs causing the violence ;)

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Did Hillary call Republicans 'enemies' or did Paula? Just askin'.

    You have yet to find a Hillary quote where she calls Republicans 'the enemy'. She joked that she was proud that she was their enemy, but not the other way around.

    She should have steered clear because of the confusion she has caused in the weak minded who can't distinguish the subject in a sentence, but there you go. Grammar, eh, gets you every time.

  82. [82] 
    Paula wrote:

    No Michale, I don't do bets on things I have no control over.

    Unlike you, I don't "KNOW" what to expect because the investigations are incomplete (or, at least, the results have not been reported.) Since I have no inside knowledge of the investigation I can only make my best guess. The debunkers I have read, whom I find persuasive, are also putting forth their opinions, which they base on precedent, relevant law(s) and the information that has been leaked/released to date. I am reasonably comfortable they will be proven right but only time will tell.

    I am content to say what I said earlier: enjoy your sense of certainty now. I'll wait for actual results to either feel relief or unhappiness (either of which will be based on the issued report, not the hot air being spewed by the phalanx of rightwing pustules you place your faith in.)

    Note, btw: "Even PAULA agrees with me…" (78) -- disposes of your argument that Hillary saying Repubs are her enemy is "bigotry". It ain't. It's a fact and you just admitted it.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Republicans are starting to suggest names for the third candidate to run against Trump and Hillary. They know this means another Clinton Presidency, but anything is better than Trump. I suspect they love their country more than they hate Hillary, and know that the country would be in much better shape after four years of Hillary and four days of Trump.

    They are also investigating ways to deny Trump in Cleveland.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html

    What fun!

  84. [84] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-77

    Hanging an Obama dummy is not an act of violence, but it is race baiting because lynching (the real deal) was associated with the subjugation/intimidation of black people. Hanging a Trump dummy is certainly poor taste, but people of German ancestry were not routinely lynched, so it carries no ethnic connotation. Bad, very bad, very very bad, the degree of insult matters. Conflating real violence with symbolic violence is just a cheap rhetorical trick.

  85. [85] 
    Paula wrote:

    neilm [83]: They are.

    "I suspect they love their country more than they hate Hillary, and know that the country would be in much better shape after four years of Hillary and four days of Trump."

    I'm sure that's true of some republicans.

    think too many lower-level, rank and file repubs have spent too many years rationalizing and making excuses and pretending the constant, wholesale dishonesty meeted out by their leaders really wasn't a problem.

    But when you start trafficking in lies -- when you make lying acceptable, you will inevitably and predictably reach a point where those you have lied to figure it out and react.

    When you traffic in lies to authoritarian-leaning people, the reaction is more likely to be accompanied by violence.

    When you lie to people consistently, and they have to shut themselves off from counter-information in order to be able to believe your lies, you create people who are partly broken. They lose their ability to sift truth from falsehood -- look at Michale! -- they lose their ability to evaluate. They also lose their ability to trust. They stop looking for "the truth" and start looking for protection instead.

    In 2008 Eric Weiner released a book (http://www.ericweinerbooks.com/books/the-geography-of-bliss/description/) where he traveled around the world trying to find what made countries "happy". It was interesting enough -- but what I remember most starkly was his depiction of the unhappiest country he went to: Moldova. It was a former soviet country that was still encrusted with corruption. He stayed there for several days and found himself getting thoroughly depressed. What he discovered was a population that had lost it's ability to trust. Everyone he encountered believed everyone else was a liar, was corrupt. They were all pessimistic and suspicious and themselves dishonest, believing you had to be dishonest to survive.

    I get a bit holier-than-thou about political dishonesty and officially-sanctioned, officially-tolerated, officially-encouraged, officially-excused dishonesty because such dishonesty is malignant.

    TheStig [84]: Yep.

  86. [86] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Despite the wide-spread suspicion that Trump thugs are the same poorly-educated Teabot sheeple who showed up at ACA town halls and acted like disruptive thuggish zombies, it is regrettable that those dirty hippies are playing along the Jerry Springer portion of the Trump Klan rallies. I mean, how else will Drumpf's mob ever hear his violent reality TV message of terrific white supremacy and WWE-style winning if he can be totally silenced by a pack of hippies with signage?

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Did Hillary call Republicans 'enemies' or did Paula? Just askin'.

    Hillary...

    Hillary was asked which enemies she is most proud of.. She listed the Republicans..

    You are torturing dictionaries again in your attempt to make every single thing everybody does 'bigotry'. I can hear the screaming from here.

    This is just like your claim of Trump's racism..

    I go with facts...

    And the fact is, if one hates an entire group of people, if one is intolerant of an entire group of people THAT is bigotry...

    I can't make it any more simple than that..

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unlike you, I don't "KNOW" what to expect because the investigations are incomplete (or, at least, the results have not been reported.)

    Fair enough.. But I DO "know" by virtue of my experience, training and expertise...

    Which is why I am comfortable betting the moon... :D

    Note, btw: "Even PAULA agrees with me…" (78) -- disposes of your argument that Hillary saying Repubs are her enemy is "bigotry". It ain't. It's a fact and you just admitted it.

    It IS a fact that Hillary said that Republicans are her enemy..

    It's ALSO a fact that it IS bigotry...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hanging an Obama dummy is not an act of violence, but it is race baiting because lynching (the real deal) was associated with the subjugation/intimidation of black people. Hanging a Trump dummy is certainly poor taste, but people of German ancestry were not routinely lynched, so it carries no ethnic connotation. Bad, very bad, very very bad, the degree of insult matters. Conflating real violence with symbolic violence is just a cheap rhetorical trick.

    In other words, with YOUR guy, "it's different".. :D

    Got it... {{wink wink}}

    :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Hanging an Obama dummy is not an act of violence,

    Your politically correct masters say different...

    Because it would be classified as a Hate Crime and HATE can be an act of violence..

    Of course, you can disassemble it to the point where we can disagree what the definition of 'is' is, but the reality is, these anti-Trump morons are committing violence and intimidation and ya'all are perfectly OK with that because the ends (stopping Trump) justifies the means (violence and intimidation)...

    Imagine that Trump supporters would pull these kinds of acts of violence and ya'all would go hysterical bat-shit crazy...

    Everyone here knows this to be true...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one has been able to answer the question put forth..

    If the Left Wingery is so sure that Trump is going to lose against Hillary, why are they using violence and intimidation to try and silence Trump??

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since I am full of questions this morning, here's a doozy for ya'all...

    Will ya'all accept the will of the American people if that will means that Trump is the next POTUS??

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a piece I know you won't want to miss ...

    Trumped!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/trumped_b_9509194.html

    Read and then we'll discuss ... :)

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, for something completely different ...

    http://dceaglecam.eagles.org/

    Keep an eye on "the President and First Lady" as they usher in a new generation of bald eagles, perched high above the riff-raff of Washington, DC.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Michale, I don't do bets on things I have no control over.

    It's not about having "control"...

    It's about the strength of one's convictions..

    If you truly believe that Hillary is innocent, then a bet would serve to affirm that conviction..

    If you don't think Hillary is innocent or you are not sure Hillary is innocent, then I agree. Staying as far away from this wager as possible is only logical...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    The Dems have their own problems, of course: too tied both to Wall Street and narrowcast unions, as well as too PC. Their path forward is complex. But the Dems are a party of hope, not hate.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for something completely different ...

    http://dceaglecam.eagles.org/

    I love Eagle Cams.. They are a real hit here at my shop.. :D

    Despite the overly political correctness, that's a great site..

    Thanx Liz... :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I am going to take care of you and your family so you don't have to get a job."
    -Hillary Clinton

    "I am going to get you a job so you can take care of you and your family yourself."
    -Donald Trump

    I know who I am voting for...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    "I am going to take care of you and your family so you don't have to get a job."
    -Hillary Clinton

    "I am going to get you a job so you can take care of you and your family yourself."
    -Donald Trump

    I know who I am voting for...

    Source for the Hillary quote please. Otherwise it falls into the (let's be politically correct here) "fertile mind" category.

    Bet you can't supply one.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    Will ya'all accept the will of the American people if that will means that Trump is the next POTUS??

    Will you accept the result in Cleveland if Trump isn't selected as nominee?

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is just like your claim of Trump's racism..

    We've been thru this so many times, but let's try again.

    Trump is a bigot. You agreed, but then got buyer's regret and have tried to change the definition of the word bigot via dictionary torture to mean anybody being against anything.

    Your dictionary torturing is so ironic in this case because you are the one limiting the scope of the word racist to its purest meaning.

    Thus, when the target is Trump, 'racist' is incredible specific.

    But when you can't argue against Trump being a bigot (i.e. you agree he is) you suddenly become very liberal in your interpretation of 'bigot'. As I said, your liberal approach is ironic.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Source for the Hillary quote please.

    Hillary quote??

    That's the entirety of the Democrat Party platform..

    The Democrat Party is the Free Ride Party.. the Free Stuff Party...

    :D

    Will you accept the result in Cleveland if Trump isn't selected as nominee?

    Depends if the RNC abides by the rules that they set forth...

    Unless there is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence to support the accusation of cheating, will you abide by the will of the people if they elect Donald Trump??

    It's a simple question requiring no mitigation or equivocation..

    Here, let me show you how it's done..

    Unless there is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence to support the accusation of cheating, I will abide by the results of the election if the will of the people puts Hillary in the White House..

    You see how easy that is??

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here's a piece I know you won't want to miss ... Trumped!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/trumped_b_9509194.html
    Read and then we'll discuss ... :)

    I think this paper from Perspectives on Psychological Science proves the point that there is a perception of "I'm a loser" behind a lot of the anger we are seeing:

    Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing
    Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers

    http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Source for the Hillary quote please.

    Hillary quote??

    So she never said it. What have we said about granfalloons my friend?

    To answer your earlier question, but this time with snark overtones:

    Sure I'd accept a Trump Presidency because my taxes will plummet. Cruz would have been even better with his flat tax (not so good if you earn less than $100,000, but nobody earning less than that would be dumb enough to vote Republican so they can give their bosses another big raise, would they?).

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why my post on the motives driving the anger was nanny-netted I'll never know, but here is the link to the paper from Harvard Business School you might find interesting:

    http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now that we have destroyed the credibility of the Hillary quote (i.e. you totally made it up), let's have a look at the Trump quote:

    "I am going to get you a job so you can take care of you and your family yourself."

    Trump, of course, never said this (prove me wrong), but let's pretend he did. This is the point that Trump supporters seem to lose any claims to common sense. If somebody I supported to be President stated this, my next question would be "How?", and then I'd expect a detailed policy with references to statistics and peer reviewed papers backing up that policy. I'd also expect an explanation, again backed up rigorously as to why the current policies are not working.

    So, what will Trump do to "get you a job". There is nothing on his web site. The only thing that comes close is his position on China where he says that cutting taxes and spending more on the military will magically solve all our problems.

    I think Trump, even though he didn't say the quote that was made up for him, has no ideas on how to get anything done beyond the tired old "lower taxes/spend more on the military and get the deficit down" (am I the only person to see the absurdity of this combination of policies?).

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    @CW - please explain why the net nanny is so sensitive? What is it reacting to in my posts? Have you been letting Michale tweak the triggers again ;)

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Source for the Hillary quote please.

    It's funny... JFC makes some of the most ridiculous quotes imaginable, ostensibly from the Right Wingery...

    For some strange reason, you never ask him to source his quotes..

    Funny, iddn't it? :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's funny... JFC makes some of the most ridiculous quotes imaginable, ostensibly from the Right Wingery...

    that sounds a bit evasive. first provide sources for your own citations, then let us know what JFC has inappropriately cited, k?

    JL

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CW - please explain why the net nanny is so sensitive? What is it reacting to in my posts? Have you been letting Michale tweak the triggers again ;)

    heheheheheh

    Do you recall the TOS Episode PARADISE SYNDROME??

    A particular combination of constanants and vowels triggered the trap door in the obelisk..

    Same thing here.. A certain and specific combination of letters and numbers trips the NNL filters...

    A big trigger is a web address.. Back when I was a reader of Taylor Marsh's website (until I personally pissed her off.. Imagine that!?? :D ) I could not list a Taylor Marsh URL to save my live...

    tinyurl.com is a big help in that area...

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#72]

    On the illiberalism of liberals:

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/613428/american-liberals-have-corrosive-illiberalism-problem-donald-trump-exploiting

    "I'm a proud liberal, and a consistent one. I strongly oppose Donald Trump, the style of politics he practices, and the kind of policies he promises. Yet his admirers have every right to assemble to hear him speak at campaign rallies. The effort to stir up dissension and violence at those rallies, as happened in Chicago, is not only tactically counter-productive. It's also illiberal in aim and intent."

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    that sounds a bit evasive. first provide sources for your own citations,

    I already did..

    The entirety of the Democrat Party Platform...

    then let us know what JFC has inappropriately cited, k?

    Every quote JFC posts attributes to the GOP is bogus...

    Start there.. :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    RD,

    "I'm a proud liberal, and a consistent one. I strongly oppose Donald Trump, the style of politics he practices, and the kind of policies he promises. Yet his admirers have every right to assemble to hear him speak at campaign rallies. The effort to stir up dissension and violence at those rallies, as happened in Chicago, is not only tactically counter-productive. It's also illiberal in aim and intent."

    Well said.. And we can add Arizona to Chicago as to the illiberal of liberals..

    But I bet you won't see more than 2 or 3 Weigantians agreeing with you and I...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Source for the Hillary quote please.

    Hillary quote??

    So she never said it. What have we said about granfalloons my friend?

    And Trump never said what I put in quotes attributed to him...

    I was making a point regarding the respective platforms of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump..

    Apparently, I was a bit too subtle.. :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless there is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence to support the accusation of cheating, will you abide by the will of the people if they elect Donald Trump??

    It's a simple question requiring no mitigation or equivocation..

    Here, let me show you how it's done..

    Unless there is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence to support the accusation of cheating, I will abide by the results of the election if the will of the people puts Hillary in the White House..

    You see how easy that is??

    Apparently, it's not easy at all... :^/

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    RD,

    @Michale [#72]

    On the illiberalism of liberals:

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/613428/american-liberals-have-corrosive-illiberalism-problem-donald-trump-exploiting

    "I'm a proud liberal, and a consistent one. I strongly oppose Donald Trump, the style of politics he practices, and the kind of policies he promises. Yet his admirers have every right to assemble to hear him speak at campaign rallies. The effort to stir up dissension and violence at those rallies, as happened in Chicago, is not only tactically counter-productive. It's also illiberal in aim and intent."

    That deserves more than just a passing KUDOs....

    I am happy to see that my point didn't get lost in all the self-induced noise..

    Because it's a dead on ballz accurate point that, if people actually THOUGHT about it and disregarded their ideological slavery, they would recognize it as a valid point...

    Granted, I might not be the best spokesmodel :D for said point..

    But, I'm the best ya'all got.. :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm OK with Trump winning if he wins cleanly - and I don't expect him to win any other way (he will be helped with the voter id shenanigans, but that is not of his making, rather a tailwind from the Republican Party).

    If you put quotes around a statement and put somebody's name after it, it is weasel-like to then state that they weren't meant to be taken as direct quotes.

    Don't be like a weasel.

    Also, trying to hide behind 'somebody else does it' is also a bit rodent-like.

    C'mon - you can do better than that. Cite sources, or just be regarded as a blowhard.

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    For the record, I think that deliberate provocation by protesters at Trump rallies is perfectly legal (first amendment and all that), but wrong for the following reasons:

    1. Loutish behavior does not help your cause
    2. It is incitement to violence
    3. It gives Trump a chance to whip his crowd into a frenzy and make him look strong
    4. It blurs the lines between who the louts are - it would be much better for the anti-Trump cause if only his supporters were violent
    5. It creates a 'bread and circuses' aspect to Trump rallies making them more popular as people go along for the chance to be part of the excitement

    The sooner Trump has to present his policies in anything longer than fits on a tweet, his nothingness will be clear for all (who are willing to open their eyes) to see.

  119. [119] 
    Paula wrote:

    (95): It's about the strength of one's convictions.. If you truly believe Hillary is innocent, then a bet would serve to affirm that conviction.

    That's how your mind works -- the louder you yell something the more you believe it. Or, alternatively, if you yell something loud enough you think it makes it true.

    With the Hillary emails there's two issues. One is HER motives, about which I have no doubts. She didn't use a separate server for nefarious purposes -- even you and all the idiots you listen to never come up with a "motive" other than your usual vague, unsupported assertions about her being power-hungry or some such nonsense.

    The second question is whether anyone will choose to bring charges for anything surrounding this. Given that for 30+ years she's been accused of one ridiculous thing after another, it is in the realm of possibility. An indictment isn't the same as an conviction, buddy. So it is not "HER" I doubt, it is the possibility of some rightwing plant creating problems for the sake of creating problems. Like the Benghazi joke, in which a bunch of nitwit slimy witch-hunters attacked her (and Obama), for a couple of years and many dollars, culminating in the hearings in which she kicked their asses.

    So I will wait and see.

    (106) In classic conservative argument-avoidance, Michale tries to change the subject by, out of nowhere, claiming someone else isn't asked to support their quotes. It's a well worn technique -- when he can't support one of his baseless assertions he redirects the discussion to something else. (Or maneuvers to try to force his opponent to prove a negative, or uses the scattershot method of throwing out 10 baseless assertions hoping the other will pick one of those to start another round. Or he simply changes the discussion by pretending someone said something they didn't, then turning it into a argument about ALL of the LEFT who he claims believes or stands for whatever, thereby distracting us from the original misquote/non-quote/lie.)

    Michale is good at slithering away -- we all fall for it. My questions is always, does he know he's slithering because his arguments are full of shit? Or does he not know it? Which one is sadder?

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you put quotes around a statement and put somebody's name after it, it is weasel-like to then state that they weren't meant to be taken as direct quotes.

    Don't be like a weasel.

    I'll point out the next time JFC does it and we'll see about the consistency.. :D

    Reminds of a time way back when on Okinawa... I was writing a report (pre-word processing days ) after some stick-time with a drunk jarhead and carting his ass off to jail... I had written my report and our Desk Sgt (SSgt Wally Baugh :D) took exception with the fact I wrote: "SUBJECT said 'Blaa blaaa wing wiper blaa blaaa' or words to that effect"

    Wally Baugh said, in his oh so Texas drawl, "Either he said exactly that what you quoted or he said words to that effect, in which case you don't put it in quotes"

    heh Never forgot that, even though it's been over 30 years... :D

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Paula wrote:

    (116) Neilm: The sooner Trump has to present his policies in anything longer than fits on a tweet, his nothingness will be clear for all (who are willing to open their eyes) to see.

    Yep.

  122. [122] 
    Paula wrote:

    (118) Michale: the dodging continues.

  123. [123] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula 118

    I think gaslighting is better characterization than dodging.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    What "dodging/gaslighting" are ya'all talking about.

    I have already stated that the Hillary *AND* Trump quotes were composites of the candidates' platforms rather than actual quotes....

    If ANYONE is dodging it's ya'all by not addressing the fact that ya'all give JFC a pass for his bogus Right Wingery quotes and in SOME cases (yes I am looking at you TS... :D) even ENCOURAGE such BS quotes... :D

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Paula wrote:

    (121) TheStig: I looked up Gaslighting:
    Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity.

    How perfect.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    (116) Neilm: The sooner Trump has to present his policies in anything longer than fits on a tweet, his nothingness will be clear for all (who are willing to open their eyes) to see.

    Yep.

    Remind me again how many TRUMP IS TOAST predictions ya'all have made that have EVER come to pass??

    Oh that's right...

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA...

    Keep wishing people.. :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Re my #109: I quoted because it was an excerpt from the article I cited therein, not my own wording (though it reflects my sentiment). My apologies if that wasn't clear -- I could have made the attribution more explicit.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity.

    Fits JFC to a TEE..... :D

    Thanx for that little tidbit.. I'll be sure and use it in the future...

    Can't way til JFC weighs in while ignoring the "chatbot" :D heh

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re my #109: I quoted because it was an excerpt from the article I cited therein, not my own wording (though it reflects my sentiment). My apologies if that wasn't clear -- I could have made the attribution more explicit.

    No, it was perfectly clear..

    The fact that it reflects your sentiment (and SHOULD reflect the sentiment of EVERY reasonable and rational person) is the point I was making..

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Paula wrote:

    I never saw the movie Gaslight so I don't know if the husband/wife prevails. But I'm interested in the comparison of the rightwing to an abusive spouse -- particularly this kind of abuse through the selective use, twisting and spinning of information.

    But what an outstanding metaphor.

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I'm interested in the comparison of the rightwing to an abusive spouse

    Of course you are... :D

    Are you as interested in the comparison of the LEFT Wingery to an abusive spouse??

    I am guessing not.. :D

    But the comparison is actually MORE apt in the here and now, what with all the Left Wingery violence of late...

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll point out the next time JFC does it and we'll see about the consistency.. :D

    Stop being such a wimp and take responsibility for yourself. If you want to conduct a 'feelie' life where you hold views that are counter to the evidence, just man up and tell us that you don't want your statements to be seen as intellectually rigorous but as wishes and fairy dust that make you feel good ;)

    Also, if you also want to project views onto granfalloons and then rage against them, remember that without evidence it is just assumed these are fantasy issues and people you made up to be angry at. Who knows why, but then your pathology is fun, so don't stop ;)

    What fun it must be to live the life of an evidence free feelie. If I didn't have a damn good education from the school of intellectual hard knocks where professors ensure that every fact needs to be substantiated, life would be great too.

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remind me again how many TRUMP IS TOAST predictions ya'all have made that have EVER come to pass??

    Mea culpa (again): I was wrong about Trump crashing and burning during the primaries. Got it. I was wrong. No worries, it happens a lot and I learn from my mistakes.

    However, I only need to be right once, you need to be right every time ;)

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mea culpa (again): I was wrong about Trump crashing and burning during the primaries. Got it. I was wrong. No worries, it happens a lot and I learn from my mistakes.

    And yet, you keep making the same mistake... :D

    "We're not going to be making the same mistakes, I can tell you!!"
    "No, No.. You are making all NEW mistakes"

    -Jurassic Park II-LOST WORLD

    :D

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Mea culpa (again): I was wrong about Trump crashing and burning during the primaries. Got it. I was wrong. No worries, it happens a lot and I learn from my mistakes.

    However, credit where credit is due...

    You concede your mistakes...

    That puts ya ahead of many others around here. :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mistake #1: I thought Trump would get bored and give up in some flurry of nonsense like Ross Perot when he claimed Bush 1 was going to spoil his daughter's wedding

    Mistake #2: I didn't think people were gullible enough to fall for Trump's made up stories - I mean fact checking is just not that difficult with Google, snopes.com, etc. even if you don't have an account with an online University library

    Mistake #3: Trump's self aggrandizing - who listens to somebody who talk about how great they are and doesn't just ignore them. I thought only a small number of people would be able to put up with this for any length of time

    Mistake #4: I did not understand just how angry people were. I can see why they are angry, most people got shafted in 2008 and only the rich have recovered, but I thought that might result in a Bernie, not a Mussolini knock-off

    Mistake #5: I totally underestimated how good Trump is at playing the media and how venal they are when it comes to ratings

    So with all my mistakes laid out (and I'm sure Michale will propose some more), let me wander once more into the world of predictions, a world where I'm pretty spectacularly wrong most of the time:

    Prediction #1: Trump will win the delegates he needs and the establishment will roll over long before Cleveland

    Prediction #2: No matter what the FBI says and how the DoJ act, we will have a series of nonsense hearings about emailgate all summer. These will likely backfire again and create sympathy for Hillary, which is a pretty hard thing to do. This effect will be oblivious to the base who will be egging them on to yet more and more shrill accusations and distorted 'facts'.

    Prediction #3: Hillary will have a series of third parties who support her, but are not too close (think Move On), Trump-baiting from April thru November. Trump will be unable to stop himself responding in person and looking even more vulgar (which will be the intention)

    Prediction #4: Trump will lose in November to Hillary

    Have at it Michale ;)

  137. [137] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The sooner Trump has to present his policies in anything longer than fits on a tweet, his nothingness will be clear for all (who are willing to open their eyes) to see.

    All the candidates websites have roughly the same amount of policy information including Trumps. The democrats are a bit more verbose on the issues but Trump has about as much policy information and detail as Cruz. His tax/economy plan gives massive tax cuts without paying for them to the tune of 10 trillion of increased debt over a decade. And that does not include paying for his military build up (which is short, vague and in video format). Cruz is just as bad from a tax cut/deficit standpoint.

    The real question is what are these candidates plans going to morph in to one congress says no? And they likely to will say no to most of all the candidates plans. Hillary to a lesser degree but mostly because she does not change much...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prediction #2: No matter what the FBI says and how the DoJ act, we will have a series of nonsense hearings about emailgate all summer.

    Here's a prediction that's more in keeping with reality...

    The FBI will recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff...

    Obama's DOJ will likely (on orders from the White House) refuse to follow Director Comey's recommendation..

    There will be wholesale resignations from the FBI starting with Director Comey.. Once this happens, the leaks will begin in earnest.. No cop wants to see years of investigative labor totally sacrificed on the altar of political expediency...

    This will hit the Hillary campaign like a runaway juggernaut.. And will prompt a huge exodus of rats leaving a sinking ship... People who held their tongues in fear of the vaunted Clinton enterprise will feel empowered to speak up...

    The NSA, who has a LOT bigger beef with Clinton than any other agency will then take THEIR turn in extracting a pound of flesh from the Clinton dynasty...

    If this happens AFTER the primary is over, then ANY Democrat on the planet wouldn't stand a chance being elected as dog catcher...

    And ALL because Clinton felt that the rules didn't apply to her. That she could use her own email server with impunity..

    Now, I ask you.. Honestly... Wouldn't Clinton (and this country) had been better served if Clinton DIDN'T elect to use her own private insecure home-brew bathroom closet server??

    Of course..

    So, this begs the question..

    How can ANYONE trust the judgement of someone who has done something so egregiously stoopid and moronic??

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    The public will see the email server nonsense as what it is - another Bhengazi!!!!!

    The Republicans blew it, they tipped their hand that they would be unfair to Hillary regardless, and she made them look childish.

    Nobody likes a mean bully picking on somebody. As I said, the Republicans are the only ones that can make people feel sorry for Hillary, and they will gleefully play into her hands because there are so many people thinking the same line of 'I can't wait until' that you outlined above.

    Plus Trump will be unable to resist himself. He will be totally oblivious, as will all the true believers, as to how this is being parsed by the rest of the country.

    Be careful what you wish for ;)

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    The public will see the email server nonsense as what it is -

    That is simply not factually accurate...

    Plus Trump will be unable to resist himself.

    You mean like when Trump body slammed Hill *AND* Bill when Hillary tried to paint Trump with the SEXIST brush??

    Funny that we haven't heard anything more from Hillary about Trumps sexism, eh??

    Because she got her fanny spanked hard and she is still smarting.. :D

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    The public will see the email server nonsense as what it is -

    But, by all means, continue with your fantasy...

    It'll just make it that much more pleasant for me when your fantasy world comes crashing down...

    One thing to keep in mind.. The DOJ is notoriously finicky about giving out immunity.. The fact that the DOJ authorized immunity for Hillary's IT guy is proof that the FBI is calling the shots..

    And Director Comey is a cop's cop who follows the facts WHERE EVER they lead...

    Doesn't bode will for Hillary or the Democrat Party...

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    You are buying the whole right wing happy dance Michale. Any search for information about the email server is swamped with right wing links. It isn't an issue for the rest of the country because most people don't know what an email server is, and are not going to blame Hillary for not being a techie.

    As far as the 'immunity' thing goes, I think that the FBI and the DoJ are going to clear Hillary, but expect a massive political temper tantrum and so are going to be able to prove time after time that they looked at every possibility in extreme detail and came up with nothing. Even to the point of granting immunity to key players.

    We will see.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are buying the whole right wing happy dance Michale.

    Nope.. I am going directly to the source. The FBI...

    It's YOU who is buying into the Left Wingery Hippy Dance that is full of NOTHING but wishful thinking...

    The mere fact that it is the FBI who is running with this PROVES there is NOTHING Right Wing about this issue..

    As far as the 'immunity' thing goes, I think that the FBI and the DoJ are going to clear Hillary,

    Yet, you have absolutely NO FACTS to support that opinion...

    That's where we differ...

    I have ALL the facts on my side..

    You have none on yours...

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny that we haven't heard anything more from Hillary about Trumps sexism, eh??

    Hilarious. But maybe it is just too good a joke to tell yet?

    Trump better win in November, because if he doesn't he is going to be the target of a lot of "Bill/Donald telephone conversation" conspiracies. The angry will not forgive him if he turns out just to be another loudmouth who bragged about what he was going to do for them then failed to even beat Hillary - a person they will have painted as even worse than Obama by that time.

  145. [145] 
    neilm wrote:

    How to undermine Trump all summer:

    1. Any policy move to the center is immediately parroted by Obama
    2. Bill uses the line "I talked to Donald about this and it looks like he copying me."

    Should be pretty devastating.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hilarious. But maybe it is just too good a joke to tell yet?

    That's a possibility..

    But not the most likely of possibilities... :D

    2. Bill uses the line "I talked to Donald about this and it looks like he copying me."

    Should be pretty devastating.

    Yea... A former POTUS using the line I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!??

    Yea... Devastating...

    To the former POTUS...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump better win in November, because if he doesn't he is

    Hillary better win in November, because if she doesn't.... SHE IS GOING TO JAIL!!!

    :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party is the party of hope, not hate
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/trumped_b_9509194.html

    Now Trump’s older sister gets threatening letter just a day after son Eric's white powder scare
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501506/Now-Trump-s-older-sister-gets-threatening-letter-just-day-son-Eric-s-white-powder-scare.html

    Yea... The Party of "HOPE" not "HATE" :^/

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party is the party of hope, not hate
    huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/trumped_b_9509194.html

    Now Trump’s older sister gets threatening letter just a day after son Eric's white powder scare
    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501506/Now-Trump-s-older-sister-gets-threatening-letter-just-day-son-Eric-s-white-powder-scare.html

    Yea... The Party of "HOPE" not "HATE" :^/

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale has "ALL the facts" on his side! Granted, his "facts" consist of meaningless observations which do not support his arguments one way or the other; such as the FBI "is running with this". Yes, Michale, they are! Way to claim "facts" that both sides of the argument agree on somehow justifies only your position!

  151. [151] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey I know lets watch some more fun talking about the supremes.

    Before I was interrupted by several hundred kilos of blow needing to be transferred and a SINKEX organized...

    The question was posed McConnell Rule...The McConnel rule is quite simply.

    " regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote."

    Seems pretty clear to me.

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea... Devastating...

    To the former POTUS...

    You are missing the conspiracy theory angle Michale. Bill has to only hint that this is a 'black flag' operation and all the armchair-military-intelligence-experts will be pawing all over Trump. A few clips of Trump's past Democratic leanings plus some ads on Breitbart and we are off to the races.

    Remember, all this will be happening at the same time that a steady drumbeat of "Trump is sexist", "Trump is the new Mussolini", "Trump endorses violence", "Trump has no real policy ideas", "Trump is racist" (yes I know), and lots of stories from disgruntled ex-Trump employees are hitting the news day after day.

    This will be a new low, but Hilary is just about smart enough to play the Kasich role and deplore the 'tone' the election is taking because of Trump (even though it will be the left wing groups throwing all the mud).

    When Donald runs into the big boys, he will run home with his tail between his legs. It is amazing what a couple of billion of attack ads and initiatives can do.

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    " regardless of party, any President’s* judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote."

    You missed the '*' from your quote:

    * So long as the President is 'one of us', you know, somebody who is ... well ... of 'true stock' ... you get the idea, don't make me uncomfortable here, why are you guys always bringing up race, you guys are the real racists (aka the Michale rule ;)?

    ;)

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fields soon resigned, along with Shapiro and at least three other employees. Fields also declined to comment, saying, "Breitbart has sent me legal documents preventing me from speaking about this."

    I wonder why?

    Republican-on-Republican fighting. And some people think Trump has a hope in the general election. No matter how committed Sanders voters are, and I respect Sanders a lot, nobody, not even most Republicans, are going to be enthusiastic about voting for Trump.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-breitbart-rise-fall-20160318-story.html

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    " regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote."

    Seems pretty clear to me.

    But it's completely contradictory to the Biden Rule..

    So, in the spirit of bi-partisanship and compromise, the GOP will adopt the DEMOCRAT's rule for SCOTUS nominees...

    I think the GOP deserves some well-earned applause for their bi-partisanship... Don't you?? :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    * So long as the President is 'one of us', you know, somebody who is ... well ... of 'true stock' ... you get the idea, don't make me uncomfortable here, why are you guys always bringing up race, you guys are the real racists (aka the Michale rule ;)?

    Actually, that's the essence of the BIDEN rule..

    But why quibble with facts.. They are such annoying things... :D

    The simple fact is, when it's a GOP POTUS, the Democrats wanted to hold off on ANY nominee until AFTER the Election...

    NOW that "rule" is coming back to bite the Democrats on the arse...

    And so it goes and so it goes.... :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republican-on-Republican fighting. And some people think Trump has a hope in the general election. No matter how committed Sanders voters are, and I respect Sanders a lot, nobody, not even most Republicans, are going to be enthusiastic about voting for Trump

    Except for the vast majority of GOP voters, the VAST majority of INDEPENDENT and NPA voters and upwards of 30% of Democrat voters..

    Except for ALL those voters, you are right...

    NO ONE is going to be enthusiastic about voting for Trump...

    Funny thing is, ya'all pretty much said the same thing back when Trump started his campaign...

    "No one is going to vote for Trump!!!"

    And yet... Here we are... :D

    I know, I know.. Ya'all have admitted that you were wrong..

    But the problem is, ya'all are DOUBLING DOWN on being wrong, while claiming that "THIS TIME" ya'all are right... :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will be a new low, but Hilary is just about smart enough to play the Kasich role and deplore the 'tone' the election is taking because of Trump

    Yea.. Hillary's going to play the victim and whine and cry that the mean old men are picking on the poor frail woman...

    Yea.. The ONLY people who will accept that are people who vote with their vaginas...

    Women AND men... :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-comes-the-opposition-book-clinton-and-her-allies-prepare-for-trump/2016/03/20/0fc0fb04-ed51-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

    Basically Hillary is going to use the same tireless tactics that everyone else has used against Trump..

    Tactics that have failed over and over and over and over again...

    Go for it, Hillary!! :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    neilm wrote:

    Several outside groups — including Emily’s List, which supports Democratic women who favor abortion rights — are compiling dossiers of statements denigrating women that were taken from the candidate’s own mouth, not just in this campaign but far into his past.

    Did I not make this very point earlier? (I had Move On instead of Emily's List.)

    Trump is going to get thumped amongst women, who only happen to be over 50% of the electorate. And the more personal the Trump attacks (and what other sort of attacks does he employ?) the more women who may not vote for Hillary, but won't pull the level for Trump.

  161. [161] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The FBI will recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff...

    Obama's DOJ will likely (on orders from the White House) refuse to follow Director Comey's recommendation..

    so... no indictment. if this latest prediction of yours comes true, trump may win the white house, but I still win the bet.

    ;)
    JL

  162. [162] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdote: Hubby and I went to the library this afternoon. I intended to ask some librarians their thoughts but got absorbed looking at books and forgot to talk to anyone until we were leaving. So I talked to the lady who was walking to the exit as we were. She was probably early 60's, white.

    What does she think of the election season so far? (That is what I'm asking people -- I'm not asking them who they support. I feel it's more open-ended and people are less wary of responding.) She immediately launched into a statement about how she thinks Trump will be stopped, She said he will either get taken out at the convention or the electoral college will "handle it" and it will end up in the Supreme Court. I couldn't tell if she thinks that would be good or bad. She went on to say she hasn't made up her mind who she's for, although she does like the idea of the first woman president. But she's still undecided.

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    Here's another piece I'd ask you to read. It deals with the real consequences of the use of torture. It highlights a very important reason why I keep saying that the use of torture should never be justified or condoned by anyone in the US government or by entity working on behalf of the US government.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/owning-up-to-torture.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump addresses Aipac tomorrow.

    Good luck with that.

    Wouldn't it be remarkable if Aipac brought Trump down?

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    “For rent: Downtown apartment, 2 bedrooms. Includes organic garden space, hot tub, great backyard. You can bring your dogs if they have references as good as yours. If voting for Donald Trump, do not call,” the ad in The Nickel states.
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/03/20/grand-junction-apartment-donald-trump/

    Ahhhhh yes... The "tolerance" of the Left Wingery...

    Nothing but a bastion of unfettered hate.... :^/

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jl,

    so... no indictment. if this latest prediction of yours comes true, trump may win the white house, but I still win the bet.

    Au contraire..

    The bet was based on the actions of the FBI, NOT the actions of the DOJ..

    If the FBI recommends indictment, then I win the bet... :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's another piece I'd ask you to read. It deals with the real consequences of the use of torture. It highlights a very important reason why I keep saying that the use of torture should never be justified or condoned by anyone in the US government or by entity working on behalf of the US government.

    Ahhh Ahhh Ahhh.... I read the last piece you requested.. Let's talk about THAT first before we move on.. :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    so... no indictment. if this latest prediction of yours comes true, trump may win the white house, but I still win the bet.

    As to the wager...

    Will the FBI forward to the DOJ the report with a recommendation of indicting Clinton and/or senior staff..

    If the FBI forwards the report AND a recommendation of indictment.. I win...

    If the FBI forwards the report with a recommendation of NO indictment... ya'all win...

    If the FBI simply forwards the report with NO recommendation, it's a push....

    Senior Staff is defined as:

    Bill Clinton
    Huma Abedin
    Cheryl Mills
    Jake Sullivan
    James B. Steinberg
    Jack Lew
    Anne Marie Slaughter

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/02/18/clueless-media-refuses-to-vet-candidates/#comment-70433

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police said that's when the suspect, April J. Foster, 29, approached an officer and his horse, Dan, and began screaming in the horse's face in an attempt to scare him. When that did not work, Foster reportedly slapped the horse in the face with an open hand.
    http://fox4kc.com/2016/03/19/woman-charged-for-abuse-of-police-service-animal-at-kc-trump-protest/

    Ahh yes, Part Duex... The peacefulness and non-hate exudes off the Left Wingery..

    Remind me again how it's the RIGHT Wingery that is all about violence and hate?? I seem to have forgotten what with all the facts to the contrary...

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    She went on to say she hasn't made up her mind who she's for, although she does like the idea of the first woman president.

    Seems like a pretty piss poor reason to vote for a candidate..

    Things like integrity, honesty and trustworthy.. THOSE are reasons to vote for a candidate..

    Voting for the candidate who has the vagina???

    That's worse than voting for a guy because he will be the first Affirmative Action POTUS.. :^/

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember all the whining and crying from the Left Wingery when Israel allegedly was "interfering" in the 2012 election??

    Mexico is mounting an unprecedented effort to turn its permanent residents in the U.S. into citizens, a status that would enable them to vote -- presumably against Donald Trump.
    http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O456J56KLVS301-5OHO56QVPTHKGV6KERV4TKI7QA

    Of course there will be the same level of whining and crying from the Left Wingery NOW, right???

    That was sarcasm, in case ya'all missed it...

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private e-mail server, career agents say.

    Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term.

    With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence Clinton broke the law.
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/

    It doesn't look good for the Clinton Camp..

    Better scope out ya'all's T-Shirt purchases, people.. :D

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    neilm,

    "I'll point out the next time JFC does it and we'll see about the consistency.. :D

    Stop being such a wimp and take responsibility for yourself. "

    That's not what gaslighters do (Republicans either). Of course, if the gaslighter wanted to point out one of my quotes, there's one in this very thread. No need to wait until "next time". I quoted the chatbot's fascist hero.

    The Donald says Kelly is sick, crazy and biased . . .

    Why are you all letting me get away with that?

    Huffbook had an article about gaslighting just this past week.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-williams/gaslighting-emotional-abu_b_9493898.html

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again, I win.. :D JFC stoops to actually talking to the "chatbot".. :D

    The Donald says Kelly is sick, crazy and biased . . .

    There ya go, neil.. Demand that JFC attribute that quote..

    Here's yer chance to go for that consistency we talked about..

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Ahhh Ahhh Ahhh.... I read the last piece you requested.. Let's talk about THAT first before we move on.. :D

    If you don't want to dicuss the HuffPoo link you posted previously, we can discuss this one:

    Why it’s time for a Trump revolution
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/

    I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on that, as it goes to the heart of the WHY of Donald Trump...

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "JFC stoops to actually talking to the "chatbot".."

    Dear chatbot,

    Now I'm talking to you. My last post was clearly addressed to neilm. Please do something about your reading comprehension issue. When combined with your gaslighting, it's really appalling.

  178. [178] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Dear chatbot,

    There's no double standard. You lie a lot. That's why they don't believe you.

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwwww, JFC called me "dear"...

    You lie a lot.

    Says the guy who wouldn't know a fact if it came up and Gibbs Slapped him... :D

    Now I'm talking to you.

    JFC stoops to actually talking to the "chatbot"... :D

    You are so easily played, John... :D

    "Never match brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces everytime."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    :D

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't win, JFC..

    And do you know WHY you can't win??

    Because ALL you have is immature name-calling and childish personal attacks.. That's it..

    Many like you have come and gone.. Michy, Biga and a whole slew of others who couldn't handle the heat..

    They all have one thing in common.. ALL they had was childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..

    Now they are on the trash heap of Weigantian history..

    Where you too will be...

    Michale...

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    The Donald says Kelly is sick, crazy and biased . . .

    So, did you do the research to see if this was an accurate portrayal of what Trump is saying?

    First, it isn't in quotes, so JFC isn't implying Trump said these exact words. So time for 5 minutes of research into what exactly Trump is saying about Kelly:

    1. Sick:

    Donald J. Trump ? ?@realDonaldTrump
    Everybody should boycott the @megynkelly show. Never worth watching. Always a hit on Trump! She is sick, & the most overrated person on tv.
    2:55 PM - 18 Mar 2016

    2. Crazy:

    Donald J. Trump ? ?@realDonaldTrump
    Can't watch Crazy Megyn anymore. Talks about me at 43% but never mentions that there are four people in race. With two people, big & over!
    5:05 PM - 15 Mar 2016

    3. Biased

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BBAvs0rmheW/

    3 minutes on Google.

    Seems JFC's claim is correct.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, it isn't in quotes, so JFC isn't implying Trump said these exact words. So time for 5 minutes of research into what exactly Trump is saying about Kelly:

    And let the equivocation and mitigation begin!! :D

    Just as I knew it would.. heh

    Seems JFC's claim is correct.

    Of course he is.. :^D Just as I knew you would say he would be..

    "And I used to live on Whidbey!!"

    :D

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    Will the FBI forward to the DOJ the report with a recommendation of indicting Clinton and/or senior staff..

    The bet is for Clinton and only Clinton.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    3 minutes on Google.

    Are you going to put your Google prowess to work to see if Trump is RIGHT about Megyn??

    Of course not...

    That's about the ONLY thing that's transparent around here.. The bigotry.. heh

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Exactly which of the quotes I used to check the statement are you objecting to?

    You just don't like the result, or, in most likelihood, the whole concept of fact checking because it causes you problems.

    Trump either tweeted or said these exact words (sick, crazy, biased), and isn't exactly hiding them.

    There were no quotes as there were in your case. Also, you never backed up your statements with references, just your opinion of the democratic platform.

    Opinions are of no value, my friend, they are like my predictions in that way ;)

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Opinions are of no value, my friend, they are like my predictions in that way ;)

    Hehehehehe Kudos to you.. It's nice ta see someone else besides me indulge in self-deprecating humor.. :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, 10 minutes on Google to see if the claims are true:

    1. Sick - what does Trump mean by this? Here is my take, you can tell me if you want to use another interpretation:

    Sick (Trump's use) - mentally ill, so Google "megyn kelly mentally ill"

    It turns out the Megyn Kelly was admitted to a psychiatric ward according to newslo.com (you can find the link yourself) and also is accursed of being sick because she discussed her sex life on the Howard Stern show. That is about it, but before you comment, make sure you do your own search of these, there will be a test.

    You can handle the rest from here. I think Megyn Kelly's biggest 'crime' is that she is meant to be a Fox pushover but she has bigger ideas that stretch beyond Fox and Trump is stupid enough to let himself be her stepping stone out of Fox into the professional news arena.

  188. [188] 
    neilm wrote:

    2. Crazy - see 'sick'

    3. biased - who knows. I think the whole cast of the Fox News TV series are acting, so it is impossible to tell if they are biased.

    What say you do some research to protect poor Trump from a crazy, sick woman and demonstrate she is biased.

    ;)

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am renovating my shop (STILL :( ) so research is not in my cards..

    I will accept your research....

    So, when Trump said that Megyn was "sick" and, if we assume that Trump meant "mentally ill", then we can conclude that there IS factual evidence to support the claim that Megyn is, indeed, "syck".. :D

    But you were correct.. This wasn't the best example to use because, as you pointed out, JFC didn't put the claims in quotes...

    I'll concede the discussion until such time as there is a better example of what I was referring to...

    JFC, don't let me down!! :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-169

    Since FTP383 is about deconstruction, let's deconstruct comment 169.

    A link to the NY Post...good.

    Paragraph the first,

    "FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private e-mail server, career agents say." A verbatim quote of the lede, but not a verbatim quote of anything actually said by anybody. The mention of James Comey and career agents notwithstanding. The only facts here are Comey and Clinton, who by most accounts, exist.

    Paragraph the second,

    "Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term." a verbatim quote of the second paragraph from the NYP, attributed to a source by the name of "Some." "Some" is a close relative of "they that say". Actual facts in paragraph two: White House and Clinton. I've toured the first and glimpsed the second.

    Paragraph the Third,

    "With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence Clinton broke the law." This is a verbatim quote of the 3rd paragraph in the NYP piece...(of shite, in the opinion of theStig). Unnamed "agents" have been spreading "the word" that their "boss" (Comey?) is "getting stonewalled despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law." To which I say "what F'cking Evidence"?!!! No evidence, hard or even semi-soft of any sort has been presented... just rumors, or veiled accusations (take your pick) have been presented by the NYP contributor, nothing more.

    A disturbing richochet of this editorial is the unsubstantiated allegation that FBI agents are talking "agents in the private sector" about an ongoing investigation. Is it leak or smear, and is it even really happening? OOOh I'm not telling!

    What Michael fails to mention is that the NYT piece is An Editorial, an opinion piece, not a fact piece. With the proper weasel words, you can say anything you want in an editorial and not get sued.

    Also not mentioned by our intrepid M is the source of the editorial. F'cking Charles Gasparino a F'cking Fair and unbiased Fox Business senior correspondent. Post 169 is nothing more than rumors dressed up in an editorial modesty patch. Or gaslighting, take your pick.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    M-169

    Since FTP383 is about deconstruction, let's deconstruct comment 169.

    Uh... TS????

    COMMENT #169
    Remember all the whining and crying from the Left Wingery when Israel allegedly was "interfering" in the 2012 election??

    Mexico is mounting an unprecedented effort to turn its permanent residents in the U.S. into citizens, a status that would enable them to vote -- presumably against Donald Trump.
    http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O456J56KLVS301-5OHO56QVPTHKGV6KERV4TKI7QA

    Of course there will be the same level of whining and crying from the Left Wingery NOW, right???

    That was sarcasm, in case ya'all missed it...

    Michale

    Hard to take ya seriously... :D

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what the hell.. I'll do it anyways..

    A disturbing richochet of this editorial is the unsubstantiated allegation that FBI agents are talking "agents in the private sector" about an ongoing investigation. Is it leak or smear, and is it even really happening? OOOh I'm not telling!

    I am just following the standards set by ya'all when you castigate and denigrate Donald Trump... :D

    Ya know.. By calling him "RACIST" with absolutely NO FACTS, but rather editorialized unsubstantiated allegations...

    So, if you have a problem when I do it, mebbe yer best course of action is to look in the mirror.. You handsome devil you!! :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Check the 'megyn mentally ill' link - it was a joke piece - she has never been to a psychiatric ward to the best of my knowledge - it was funny and I thought you'd enjoy it when you found it.

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:
  195. [195] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    nypoet22 wrote:
    (let's say for the sake of argument that if there's no indictment then you lose, and if someone important but lower on the totem poll gets indicted then it's a wash.)

    [ Permalink ] [ Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 10:22 PST ]
    [27] Michale wrote:
    (let's say for the sake of argument that if there's no indictment then you lose, and if someone important but lower on the totem poll gets indicted then it's a wash.)

    Someone lower than the list above + Bill and I can agree to that...

    Michale

    your initial challenge may have been whether or not the FBI would "recommend" indictment, but first of all I didn't realize at the time that you were splitting hairs there, and second of all you agreed to my reply, which was not about a "recommendation" of indictment, but an indictment itself. you agreed to my terms, i didn't agree to yours.

    now perhaps there will be an actual indictment, or no recommendation of indictment, in which cases the distinction will be moot, but perhaps not.

    JL

  196. [196] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-188

    So, most of you output is simply well veiled sarcasm. You are not trying to make think I'm being too hard on you? Doubt my own perceptions and sanity?

    Help me out here Paula!

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    your initial challenge may have been whether or not the FBI would "recommend" indictment, but first of all I didn't realize at the time that you were splitting hairs there, and second of all you agreed to my reply, which was not about a "recommendation" of indictment, but an indictment itself. you agreed to my terms, i didn't agree to yours.

    Then we have a miscommunication.

    As I said at the time, the entire crux of the wager is whether or not a crime was committed.. The decision by the DOJ whether or not to indict is a POLITICAL decision and won't be based on criminality..

    Since we are in complete agreement on the integrity of Director Comey, the decision to RECOMMEND indictment (or not) is solely and completely based on whether or not the evidence shows that a crime was committed...

    In short, the decision by the DOJ to indict or not won't prove diddley squat..

    The decision to recommend indictment or not is the ONLY way to determine whether or not a crime was committed...

    If you don't want to wager based on the actual criminality of the case, I can readily understand that.. :D

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, most of you output is simply well veiled sarcasm. You are not trying to make think I'm being too hard on you? Doubt my own perceptions and sanity?

    Nope. I doubt whether or not you know the difference between COMMENT #169 and COMMENT #170 :D

    To be fair to you, there might be a perceptual difference in how your device displays the listings to you..

    In my view (Windows 7 PC, 24" LED Monitor) comment #169 deals with the fact that ya'all whined and cried when Netanyahu "interfered" with the 2012 Elections even though he didn't, but ya'all are silent when Mexico blatantly interferes in the 2016 Elections..

    COMMENT #170 is the comment that deals with the fact that the investigation is wrapping up and it's all but assured that Director Comey will recommend indictment..

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In short, the decision by the DOJ to indict or not won't prove diddley squat..

    The decision to recommend indictment or not is the ONLY way to determine whether or not a crime was committed...

    perhaps that would be the case in China, but here in the United States a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. an indictment is one of many steps of due process required in the fifth amendment to protect the rights of the accused, precisely because being accused of a crime is NOT proof that you committed it. as far as i'm concerned, i was already meeting you more than halfway by including senior staff other than bill and abedin, AND not demanding a conviction - but if you don't believe comey has enough evidence even to convince the DOJ to indict a top underling, your case may not be as strong as you think it is.

    JL

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    So let me get this straight ... Trump is telling us that there is an illegal immigration problem and the Mexican Government is trying to make immigrants legal citizens and there is some problem with that?

    I joke, of course, what it really means is that they expect tougher immigration enforcement and want to help their citizens. The numbers will be far too small to impact the election, even in the states with large immigrant numbers, except maybe Arizona.

    What is going on in Arizona - I was there twice last year - once at a conference and one for a week of camping/hiking around Sedona/Grand Canyon - and the casual right wing nuttery is endemic. They seem to assume everybody (who is white I suppose) is a gun lovin', 'them' hatin' proto-psychopath, or as Michale would call them, buddies ;)

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    - but if you don't believe comey has enough evidence even to convince the DOJ to indict a top underling, your case may not be as strong as you think it is.

    But that's the point..

    The DOJ's decision will be based MORE on politics than on criminality...

    In other words, we do NOT agree that AG Lynch is a person who is above reproach, a person who will ignore politics.. There is ample evidence that indicates that politics will likely be the ONLY determining factor in which Lynch will make her decision..

    We DO, however, agree that Director Comey's integrity is above reproach, a person who will ignore politics and make the decision solely and completely on the merits of the case w/o any partisanship whatsoever..

    Given these facts, it seems only logical to wager on COMEY's decision, rather than Lynch's because COMEY's decision will be free of any political agenda...

    I have been completely and unequivocally consistent in that it's COMEY's recommendation is all that matters....

    What Lynch does or does not do is completely irrelevant because she can't be trusted to follow the evidence wherever it leads..

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Michale ... been too busy to comment because I've been spending most of my spare internet time checking in on Mr. President and the First Lady and their two eaglets!

    I did read your link and I do have a few thoughts about it, not surprisingly. :)

    "I voted for President Obama in 2008, believing he meant it when he said no red states, no blue states, only the United States. The barrier he broke added to his appeal. Six months later, I was off the bus. It was already clear Obama had no intention of building a consensus on anything, although few realized he would be such a radical and partisan polarizer. He may love America, but doesn’t seem to like actual Americans. Other than himself, of course."

    There is certainly valid and constructive criticism to be made about how President Obama has handled any number of issues - domestic and international - but, it's hard to take very seriously the notion that Obama is nothing but a partisan polarizer and imply that the president may not love America when there is no mention of the rabid obstructionism that has been directed at Obama courtesy of congressional Republicans since the day he was first inaugurated.

    I will never forget the abhorrent behavior of the congressional Republican leadership and their party colleagues during the first several months of the Obama administration when they did everything they could to thwart Obama as he was working to mitigate the financial crisis without seeming to care, I hasten to add, about how their actions were harming America and Americans.

  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Given these facts, it seems only logical to wager on COMEY's decision, rather than Lynch's because COMEY's decision will be free of any political agenda...

    if that's the case, then the wager logically has to be only for Hillary herself. if (A) comey is 100% apolitical and (B) he decides not to recommend indictment against hillary herself, then by your own rationale hillary could not possibly be proven guilty, and you need to wear her t-shirt.

    JL

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That sounds like fun. :)

  205. [205] 
    Paula wrote:

    TheStig (187) -- very nice deconstruction! That was one of the slew of rightwing articles I found when searching on the Hillary indictment question. They are exactly the kind of sources Michale uses -- editorials/opinion-pieces, speculative assertions, etc. by people who do FOX, Washtington Times, Breitbart (that bastion of integrity!) and the scores of other rightwing outlets.

    I did some more research last night into such coverage as I could find (not including the hysterical rightwing speculative stuff) about the email situation. From what I read, at the time Hillary set up the server it was not illegal or prohibited, and it was not unusual. The Rules were changed in 2014 I believe. Plus all the stuff about the "classified" designations all being done retroactively, and Colin Powell coming out about the ridiculousness of it all, etc. Just wanted to satisfy myself on the topic and I'll stand by what I said earlier -- I have no doubts about Hillary's motives in all of this, but I have plenty of doubts about Repubs trying to find any way they can exploit it, a la Benghazi.

    After TheStig's takedown of Michale's source article (187) Michale follows up with a classic redirect: he brings in a NEW article unrelated to the Hillary emails story or 187 and throws out one of his blanket statements: Of course there will be the same level of whining and crying from the Left Wingery NOW, right???

    He later says "Since we are in complete agreement on the integrity of Director Comey," --- so, can we believe, Michale, that should Director Comey announce they DON'T believe a crime was committed, you'll be satisfied?

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    if that's the case, then the wager logically has to be only for Hillary herself.

    But the discussion centers around whether or not a crime has been committed..

    When one reads all the comments from those few who deigned to address the issue, the ONE common theme is that this is much ado about nothing.. That NO CRIME has been committed...

    Again, I have been consistent insofar as my conclusion is that crimes HAVE been committed..

    Now, if you are ready to concede that, yes.. it's likely that crimes have been committed, just not by Hillary... Well then we can take the discussion from THAT point..

    But if you are are still claiming that there are no crimes here at all, then THAT would seem to be the construct of the debate and the wager...

    Michale

  207. [207] 
    neilm wrote:

    Paula [203]

    "Since we are in complete agreement on the integrity of Director Comey,"

    I also did some research - it takes a few pages of scrolling thru right wing sites to find anything slightly unbiased, but basically think that unless Comey is convinced that there is real intent and egregious lawlessness he isn't going to play politics.

    However, to the quote above: one thing that I did see scanning thru the right wing websites is a bromance with Comey - there are dozens of gloating quotes about how Comey is Clinton's worst nightmare, etc.

    If Comey comes up with nothing, I expect the right wingers to claim 'cover up', 'whitewash' etc, etc but these quotes are going to haunt them (or will they will 'pull a Trump' and pretend they never said them?).

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    He later says "Since we are in complete agreement on the integrity of Director Comey," --- so, can we believe, Michale, that should Director Comey announce they DON'T believe a crime was committed, you'll be satisfied?

    I have stated such on NUMEROUS occasions that if Comey states that no crime has been committed, then yes.. All things being equal, I will accept that.. Completely and unequivocally..

    Will YOU state for the record the converse??

    Will YOU state for the record that, if Comey recommends indictment of Hillary and/or senior staff, that you would concede that you were wrong??

    I am betting 10,000 quatloos that you won't agree to that..

    So, who re-directs??? :D

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Comey comes up with nothing, I expect the right wingers to claim 'cover up', 'whitewash' etc, etc but these quotes are going to haunt them (or will they will 'pull a Trump' and pretend they never said them?).

    And if Comey recommends indictment???

    Will the Left Wingery scream hysterically about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"??

    :D

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    You can read in Paula's comment how exactly right I am...

    The issue is whether or not any crime has been committed...

    That forms the foundation of our wager...

    The fact that Hillary committed the crimes is secondary...

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is also one point to keep in mind..

    When it comes to LEO and criminal investigations, I have never been wrong....

    That might influence whether anyone wants to continue the wager.... :D

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Comey comes up with nothing, I expect the right wingers to claim 'cover up', 'whitewash' etc, etc but these quotes are going to haunt them (or will they will 'pull a Trump' and pretend they never said them?).

    All ya'all want to talk about is Comey coming up with nothing..

    No one wants to talk about what happens when Comey recommends indictment of Hillary and/or senior staff...

    Funny... iddn't it .. :D

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    neilm wrote:

    Since Comey is the darling of the right wing media, I totally expect claims of bias if he goes rogue in indicts Hillary and the DoJ has to step in to rein the FBI in.

  214. [214] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now, if you are ready to concede that, yes.. it's likely that crimes have been committed, just not by Hillary... Well then we can take the discussion from THAT point...

    at least in constitutional parlance, there is a distinction between high crimes, misdemeanors and violations. based on the level of FBI attention, i think violations by somebody at state are highly likely, misdemeanors somewhat less likely, high crimes and felonies very unlikely.

    i accept that we misunderstood each other as to the terms of the bet. i won't bet against a broad procedural recommendation because i think it's likely that there IS sufficient evidence for the FBI to WANT to prosecute SOMEONE for SOMETHING, which is essentially what you're saying. if that is a concession on my part, so be it.

    still, it's a step further to actually get an indictment, much less a conviction, much less a conviction of a high-profile candidate on a low-level violation, MUCH less a high-profile candidate on a CRIME.

    so ...yeah. if you want to accept what I thought the terms were initially, which i admit you did agree to unknowingly - or if you'll limit your terms to a "recommendation" to indict hillary herself, i'm still game. otherwise, i say you're doing exactly what hillary did - use legal language to weasel out of an position where there's at least chance you might lose.

    ;P
    JL

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Comey is the darling of the right wing media, I totally expect claims of bias if he goes rogue in indicts Hillary and the DoJ has to step in to rein the FBI in.

    Actually, Comey is the darling of the Left Wingery ever since he stood up to President Bush regarding the warrantless wire-tapping..

    That's my point. Comey is a Left Winger's wet dream...

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    i accept that we misunderstood each other as to the terms of the bet. i won't bet against a broad procedural recommendation because i think it's likely that there IS sufficient evidence for the FBI to WANT to prosecute SOMEONE for SOMETHING, which is essentially what you're saying. if that is a concession on my part, so be it.

    If we were talking about anyone but Director Comey then I would agree that the FBI wants to prosecute someone for something..

    But we're talking about Comey so that's really not a possibility..

    And keep in mind, the recommendation is completely and unequivocally in Comey's court.. The entirety of the FBI may WANT to recommend indictment for SOMEONE... But such desires won't influence Comey in the least...

    still, it's a step further to actually get an indictment, much less a conviction, much less a conviction of a high-profile candidate on a low-level violation, MUCH less a high-profile candidate on a CRIME.

    My only concern is that we be SURE that NOTHING is tainting the legal process.. We can't have that assuredness with Lynch...

    We CAN have that assuredness with Comey...

    so ...yeah. if you want to accept what I thought the terms were initially, which i admit you did agree to unknowingly - or if you'll limit your terms to a "recommendation" to indict hillary herself, i'm still game. otherwise, i say you're doing exactly what hillary did - use legal language to weasel out of an position where there's at least chance you might lose.

    An indictment of senior staff (as listed) will have the same effect as an indictment of Hillary herself. Mainly destroying her candidacy..

    So, what you are asking under the new terms of the wager is basically, that Hillary's campaign will be utterly destroyed, but I would still lose the wager....

    .........

    Yea.. I can live with that... :D

    Seriously, I am not sure.. Because, as you point out, Hillary is the consummate lawyer.. She might have a golden parachute to protect her own ass while throwing Bill, Chelsea or her senior staff under the bus...

    I'll be perfectly honest with you. The idea of wearing a HILLARY IS MY HERO t-shirt makes my skin crawl... Literally... Plus I am not real thrilled thinking about how many customers I may lose...

    While I am sure there will be an indictment, Hillary's golden parachute gives me pause..

    Let me mull that over for a day or so...

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    There is certainly valid and constructive criticism to be made about how President Obama has handled any number of issues - domestic and international - but, it's hard to take very seriously the notion that Obama is nothing but a partisan polarizer and imply that the president may not love America when there is no mention of the rabid obstructionism that has been directed at Obama courtesy of congressional Republicans since the day he was first inaugurated.

    Which was really no different than the rabid obstructionism from Democrats against President Bush...

    It's always different when it's YOUR guy on the receiving end, eh? :D

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Paula wrote:

    [204} neilm:
    If Comey comes up with nothing, I expect the right wingers to claim 'cover up', 'whitewash' etc, etc but these quotes are going to haunt them (or will they will 'pull a Trump' and pretend they never said them?).

    That's what I'd expect. They'll no longer like Comey and/or they'll pretend they never did. But Michale says I have stated such on NUMEROUS occasions that if Comey states that no crime has been committed, then yes.. All things being equal, I will accept that.. Completely and unequivocally..

    So that will be interesting.

    Time will tell.

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Michale says I have stated such on NUMEROUS occasions that if Comey states that no crime has been committed, then yes.. All things being equal, I will accept that.. Completely and unequivocally..

    Yes... I have said that..

    Can you say the converse??

    Can YOU say that, if Director Comey recommends an indictment of Hillary and/or senior staff that you will admit that you were wrong...

    I guess not.. :D

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which was really no different than the rabid obstructionism from Democrats against President Bush...

    Care to elaborate by giving an example or two?

  221. [221] 
    Paula wrote:

    [216]: I don't know anything about Comey. I haven't read about him and therefore have zero opinion of him.

    If there is an indictment I will follow what happens from there and will find out on what basis the indictment was made, and then I will see what Hillary's defense is made of.

    You have staked out the position that Comey is to be implicitly trusted therefore you will abide by his decision. Good for you.

    I have NOT staked out that position and I don't have to adopt it simply because you have.

    My position is that investigations are happening and I will wait to see what they come up with. Until then what I think is nothing but speculation.

    I have read other people's speculations about the events and Hillary's initial explanations. They lead me to believe this will collapse a la Benghazi, however I grasp the difference between "believing" and "knowing".

    You also have read other people's speculations and have decided you believe them, or even "know" them to be definitive.

    Now we wait and eventually we find out.

  222. [222] 
    neilm wrote:

    Will I accept a Comey recommendation for an indictment? Nope - because Hillary has done nothing wrong - this is just another Republican fishing expedition that started with Whitewater in the 1980s and has never let up - thru Starr, Troopergate, the pointless impeachment, Benghazi!!!, the Hillary hating, etc.

    Nobody who attacks Hillary has any credibility left, their whole goal (short of actually finding something - and nobody who gets in their way is safe either - remember Vice Foster and what the scumbags did to his poor family?) is to try to play the 'no smoke without fire' game.

    Here is the last line from Vince Foster's suicide note:

    Here ruining people is considered sport.

    Pathetic.

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have staked out the position that Comey is to be implicitly trusted therefore you will abide by his decision. Good for you.

    I have NOT staked out that position and I don't have to adopt it simply because you have.

    Fair enough.

    I'll quit hounding you about it then.. :D

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will I accept a Comey recommendation for an indictment? Nope - because Hillary has done nothing wrong - this is just another Republican fishing expedition that started with Whitewater in the 1980s and has never let up - thru Starr, Troopergate, the pointless impeachment, Benghazi!!!, the Hillary hating, etc.

    The only problem with your theory is that this issue has NOTHING to do with Republicans..

    Republicans are NOT involved in the FBI investigation in any way, shape or form...

    It's OBAMA'S FBI that is investigating...

    This FACT kinda kills your entire theory.. :D

    Michale

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Will I accept a Comey recommendation for an indictment? Nope - because Hillary has done nothing wrong - this is just another Republican fishing expedition that started with Whitewater in the 1980s and has never let up - thru Starr, Troopergate, the pointless impeachment, Benghazi!!!, the Hillary hating, etc.

    I have to confess.. I am a little cornfused...

    To the best of my recollection, there were 4 Weigantians who went on record as stating that they would accept Comey's assessment of Hillary's Email Server issue..

    I could have sworn you were one of those...

    Am I mistaken??

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    neilm wrote:

    No, you are right Michale - I'll accept it. Just tweaking you a bit.

    The FBI investigation would never have happened without the Benghazi fiasco stumbling over the email server. Would you like to take a bet on how many FBI investigations there would be is every member of te senate and house were put under the same level of scrutiny?

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, you are right Michale - I'll accept it. Just tweaking you a bit.

    OK Whew... I thought I was losing it.. :D

    The FBI investigation would never have happened without the Benghazi fiasco stumbling over the email server.

    Well, then I guess it's a good thing that Benghazi was investigated..

    So, NOW we know that there was a problem and, once Hillary is indicted, there can be a damage assessment..

    Would you like to take a bet on how many FBI investigations there would be is every member of te senate and house were put under the same level of scrutiny?

    If they created their own private home-brewed insecure bathroom closet email server and used that EXCLUSIVELY for government business???

    Then they should be investigated and prosecuted JUST like Hillary Clinton...

    Michale

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoa...

    "But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us..."
    -Bill Clinton

    Bubba body slams Barack!!!

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    DISGUSTING! HUNDREDS of Anti-Trump Protesters Taunt Jews at AIPAC With Nazi Imagery
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/disgusting-hundreds-of-anti-trump-protesters-taunt-jews-at-aipac-with-nazi-imagery/

    There's yer Left Wingery, people..

    There are your "progressives"... The ones that condemn "hatred" in others...

    Be proud.... :^/

    Let the silence become deafening...

    Michale

  230. [230] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that was a very misleading headline. the protesters didn't "taunt jews," they scorned trump. not that it's exactly in good taste, but trump has more in common with hitler than obama does, and righties have been pretty free with the wielding of moustaches where the president is concerned.

    JL

  231. [231] 
    Paula wrote:

    [220] Michale: Fair enough.

    I'll quit hounding you about it then.

    Good!

    Today's anecdote: middle-aged black man walking down the street as I returned from my dog walk.

    He said he wasn't thinking much about the election although he expects Hillary will win. He said he probably wouldn't vote. I asked why. He said he lives under the poverty level and the election "is above my paygrade. I don't have money for anyone. What they do doesn't affect my life. Maybe things will get better after the election and I'll have something to vote for."

    My goal is to get people to tell me their views without me influencing them. So after I got his views I said: "Now I'm going to try to influence you. If it's Trump vs. Hillary or Trump vs. Bernie, please, please vote!" He said "yeah, Trump would be bad news, so he might." He thanked me and smiled and went on his way.

    Just for a bit of context, I live in an interestingly mixed neighborhood. It's a housing development from the late 1920's-30's (my house was built in 1928) with a bunch of homes with lots of character: hardwood floors, woodwork, interesting details, etc. It is probably 60% black, 40% white. It is anchored by a Catholic grade school so the white population is largely elderly or young Catholic families with kids at that school. (The public school across the street from the Catholic school is almost 100% black,)

    The neighborhood also includes middle-class white and black folks and many poor black folks. There are foreclosed homes, abandoned homes, and lots for sale where abandoned homes have been torn down, on every block, intermixed with really nicely-kept houses with carefully landscaped yards.

    My group of blocks abuts (to the north) a very upscale old neighborhood with 1920-30's Tudor mansions owned by execs, doctors, lawyers -- to the south we have a rough neighborhood with the occasional gunshots. All in a square mile.

  232. [232] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-228

    Unless your interviewee votes in NM,MN,NH,CO,WI,IA,PA, VA,NV,OH,FL or NC, he sort of has a point...the electoral college and locked in states that it produces does little to motivate a casual presidential voter. If he votes in OH, FL or NC see if you can give him a ride.

    For any of you interested in this kind of thing, the website

    Predictwise.com

    is now updating a list state by state probabilities of a generic Democratic candidate winning that state. The 2016 list looks a lot like the 2012 list, but Dems are a bit worse off.

    I've reached deep into my computer archives and pulled out some of my old computer programs from way back when.

    My quick and dirty rank ordered probability model give the generic Dem a 67% chance of winning. This is almost exactly the same probability I observed in 2012, the slightly better Electoral Map doesn't change the outcome very much.

    My Monte Carlo simulation (which incorporate the tendency of state preferences to move somewhat together) gives Republicans a slightly better chance, up to to 2% better if the herd effect is strong by historical standards.

    If anybody knows of a website with up to date state by state probabilities of electoral victories, I'd appreciate a heads up. So far, only PredictWise is giving me grist for my cranky Xcell driven election mill. The more data the merrier, and the quick and dirty model works well with qualitative probabilities like Solid, leaning, toss-up etc.

  233. [233] 
    Paula wrote:

    [229] TheStig: I live in Akron, Ohio and yeah, I just might track him down and give him a ride!

    I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but it has links to a couple of articles with some statistical analysis: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/gaming_out_a_clintontrump_cont060002.php#

    It's encouraging. Utah, (you probably heard this) might actually go Blue if Trump is the candidate. The Mormons there don't like him in general and didn't appreciate him dissing Romney's Mormon bonafides.

    Others are gaming out how we could possibly retake the House. Good stuff!

  234. [234] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula/ts,

    good point about utah. trump is such a polarizing figure, he'd probably turn quite a few states on their heads in terms of voting blocs. not that he'd win, but the electoral map could look atypical in general - just off the cuff, he could lose nebraska and arkansas but win new jersey and connecticut. so much of politics in the US is about culture rather than policy; the deep south notwithstanding, he plays much better on the east coast than west of the mississippi.

    JL

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    that was a very misleading headline. the protesters didn't "taunt jews," they scorned trump.

    If you were there and you saw all the disgusting signs, would you KNOW that it was directed at Trump??

    And even if you knew, would you care??

    That's like a bunch of Trump supporters showing up at an Obama speech to the NAACP wearing KKK sheets...

    And then I tell you, "Joshua, it's OK. It was directed at Obama, not at the black audience."

    You would be like, "Yea, SO!??? It's still vile and disgusting!!!"

    Seriously, JL... You have gone off the reservation with this one.. It shouldn't matter WHO the vile and disgusting imagery was directed at.. The mere fact that it was used by the Left Wingery should be sufficient to condemn the Left Wingery without ANY mitigation or equivocation...

    Do you hate Trump THAT much that you would pooh-pooh and make excuses for the Left Wingery for such acts??

    Michale

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    "is above my paygrade. I don't have money for anyone. What they do doesn't affect my life. Maybe things will get better after the election and I'll have something to vote for."

    Paula et al...

    Doesn't that tell you something about the state of affairs in this country..

    Bill Clinton just said something about the "awful legacy of the last 8 years"...

    Paula's interview provides the anecdotal evidence...

    And ya'all that 4 more years of the last "awful" 8 years is the way to go??

    Seriously!??

    Where is the logic??

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ever since she showed her support for the billionaire, she has been harassed at her business. Before thousands of eyes were on her Saturday afternoon, Trump spotted not her, but her sign which read "Latinas support D. Trump."

    While KGUN9 was inside Sammy's Mexican Grill, the phone rang several dozen times, many calling Betty Rivas and her family racists, vulgar names and threatening their business.
    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/trump-thanks-latina-supporter-now-mounting-backlash-threatens-her-business

    Ahhh yes.. The "tolerance" of the Left Wingery on full display again..

    Once again, I am forced to ask about all the violence and hatred from the Right Wingery..

    I have to ask because all the facts and evidence indicates that the violence and hate is coming from the LEFT Wingery..

    So you can see how I would be confused by ya'all's accusations...

    As an aside to JL... Grammar Check?? :D heh

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Seriously, JL... You have gone off the reservation with this one.. It shouldn't matter WHO the vile and disgusting imagery was directed at.. The mere fact that it was used by the Left Wingery should be sufficient to condemn the Left Wingery without ANY mitigation or equivocation...

    @michale,

    what in hades are you talking about? the headline is misleading, the signs are in no way supporting nazism nor taunting jews, and there's nothing disgusting about them. i don't agree with the protesters' sentiment, but the characterization both you and the author of the article are making are completely inaccurate.

    When'd you shoot him?
    - What?
    At what point did you shoot the clerk?
    - I shot the clerk?
    Yes. When did you shoot him?
    - I shot the clerk?
    Hey, we need ya out here. I'm in the middle of a damn confession here!
    - Whoa! Wait a minute!

    ~my cousin vinny

  239. [239] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and yes, i saw my double grammar error, but alas, no edit function.

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carrying Nazi related signage at a Jewish meeting??

    Not disgusting???

    Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that...

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Carrying Nazi related signage at a Jewish meeting??

    Not disgusting???

    my friend, you are treading very close to a very sensitive area here, and you know damn well that a sign saying "trump = nazi" is not anti-jewish, it's anti-trump. calling it "nazi-related" is intentionally mis-representing the content, as if calling trump a nazi were supportive of nazism, which it is not.

    if you want to say that calling trump a nazi is insensitive to jews, have at it, but failing to disclose the full content of the sign is a lie of omission, and a false accusation of a hate crime.

    JL

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    my friend, you are treading very close to a very sensitive area here, and you know damn well that a sign saying "trump = nazi" is not anti-jewish, it's anti-trump. calling it "nazi-related" is intentionally mis-representing the content, as if calling trump a nazi were supportive of nazism, which it is not.

    I am saying that using ANY Nazi imagery at a jewish gathering is perverse and disgusting, no matter WHO it is directed at...

    And I honestly believe that you would agree with me if Trump wasn't involved at all..

    if you want to say that calling trump a nazi is insensitive to jews, have at it, but failing to disclose the full content of the sign is a lie of omission, and a false accusation of a hate crime.

    You can spin it however you want..

    But it's NAZI imagery at a jewish gathering... The full content is not relevant to the fact that it's NAZI imagery at a jewish gathering..

    And, as I said, THAT is disgusting and perverse, no matter WHO it is directed at...

    See my KKK/NAACP example..

    As I said, we can agree to disagree.. But you will NEVER convince me that NAZI imagery at a jewish gathering is appropriate and acceptable... Any more than I would ever convince you that KKK robes at an NAACP gathering is appropriate..

    I apologize if this is overly insensitive, but it's how I feel...

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-242

    Excuse me, but have you visited the Holocaust Museum in DC? Nazi symbols and paraphernalia are on display. On any given day there are a lot of Jewish visitors, including children. The point of their visit is remember the Nazis and their rancid belief beliefs. The symbols are potent and not to be used lightly, but disgust is not the same as phobia. Trump uses language in a way that scares a lot of people who haven't forgotten. You can't have a meaningful discussion about fascism without mentioning the Nazis.

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    Excuse me, but have you visited the Holocaust Museum in DC? Nazi symbols and paraphernalia are on display. On any given day there are a lot of Jewish visitors, including children. The point of their visit is remember the Nazis and their rancid belief beliefs. The symbols are potent and not to be used lightly, but disgust is not the same as phobia. Trump uses language in a way that scares a lot of people who haven't forgotten. You can't have a meaningful discussion about fascism without mentioning the Nazis.

    And there are also KKK Musuems that probably have a lot of black Americans visiting...

    But that is completely different than someone FORCING that imagery on other people via a protest...

    But you already knew that I am sure... It's only because it's Trump that ya'all refuse to condemn what's disgusting and perverse...

    If a bunch of Right Wingers protested Obama at a NAACP wearing KKK robes, I am sure you would agree with me THEN that it's disgusting and perverse..

    But because it's Trump who is the target, common sense and common decency apparently takes a day off... :^/

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    Postulate a scenario where there are groups of American voters who take many of Hillary's actions and liken her to a fascist or Hitler..

    These groups protest at Hillary's speech at AIPAC carrying signs of NAZI imagery..

    Would ya'all be perfectly OK with it as ya'all when it's TRUMP?? Would ya'all claim, "Oh, it's not taunting jews..." etc etc??

    Of course not.. Ya'all would scream hysterically to the high heavens over such a disgusting and perverse display...

    The only difference between THAT scenario and the reality of there here and now is that we would all be in complete agreement...

    Michale

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    Frankly, I am gobsmacked that we are actually HAVING a debate on the question, "Is NAZI imagery at a jewish conference an acceptable form of protest??"

    I guess that simply indicates how deep the Trump Derangement Syndrome goes amongst the Left Wingery..

    Gobsmacked...

    Michale

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Yarmulkes Are Biggest Seller at AIPAC Conference
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-yarmulkes-are-biggest-seller-at-aipac-conference/

    Ya'all just don't get the popularity, do you...

    Do you think that if there was even the SLIGHTEST hint of fascism about Trump that Trump Yarmulkes would sell so well???

    It's a sign of the TDS that the entirety of the Left Wingery would go GODWIN on Trump...

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Daniels said he sold two or three Ted Cruz yarmulkes and three or four for John Kasich. By 8 p.m. on Monday, the vendor said he only had Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders caps left over, and was finding those tougher to unload.

    hehehehehehehe

    Now THAT's funny... :D

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Frankly, I am gobsmacked that we are actually HAVING a debate on the question, "Is NAZI imagery at a jewish conference an acceptable form of protest??"

    there is no agreeing to disagree on this. every time you mention that out of its context, that is a lie of omission, and you're making yourself a liar.

    if there were ample evidence that hillary clinton had scapegoated ethnic minorities and encouraged mob violence, which was hitler's modus operandi as well as donald trump's, then i would fully support an attempt to show jewish voters that she were similar to our mortal enemies. nazism is disgusting, and so is trump's violent, anti-minority rhetoric. signs pointing out the similarities between the two are not.

    JL

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that you are going full on Godwin on Trump...

    THAT right there should indicate to you the depth of your TDS...

    That's ranks right up there with Obama is a communist muslim...

    if there were ample evidence that hillary clinton had scapegoated ethnic minorities and encouraged mob violence,

    You mean like Hillary scapegoating fellow Americans who happen to be successful and encouraging mob violence at Trump rallies???

    But you see, I stay within the realm of reality and don't liken that to Hitler, even though I easily could...

    The only difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump attacks foreigners who have brutally murdered innocent people..

    Hillary attacks fellow Americans whose ONLY crime is being successful in business...

    Yea.. Yer right.. Hillary is SOOOO much better....

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    there is no agreeing to disagree on this. every time you mention that out of its context, that is a lie of omission, and you're making yourself a liar.

    And, just for the record, there IS absolutely NO CONTEXT for using Nazi imagery during a protest at a jewish gathering..

    NO CONTEXT in the galaxy would make such a disgusting and perverse act acceptable to any sane, civilized person...

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Paula wrote:

    [249] nypoet22:

    there is no agreeing to disagree on this. every time you mention that out of its context, that is a lie of omission, and you're making yourself a liar.

    Yep.

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    there is no agreeing to disagree on this. every time you mention that out of its context, that is a lie of omission, and you're making yourself a liar.

    Yep.

    So, you agree that there is a context whereas NAZI imagery would be appropriate at a jewish gathering??

    Once again.. Gobsmacked....

    I guess it's true.. There ARE no boundaries of decency anymore...

    Anything goes, no matter how vile, perverse and disgusting..

    "He who fights monsters should be careful lest thereby he becomes the monster. ."
    -Nietzsche

    Michale

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Israel Loves Donald Trump
    ... and why that’s awkward for Israel.

    TEL AVIV — This might be the most surprising poll from a wild, unpredictable 2016 campaign: One in four Israeli Jews would vote for Donald Trump.

    Yet, a recent poll found Trump was by far Israel’s favorite GOP candidate, and the second-most popular overall. A plurality even thought he would be best at “representing Israel’s interests,” better than Hillary Clinton, with her decades of advocacy at the highest levels of government.
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-israel-2016-netanyahu-213748#ixzz43kAwl1J5

    Looks like ya'all are on the wrong side of this issue...

    Color me surprised.. :D

    Michale

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all simply don't get it..

    If you are completely OK with NAZI imagery for protesters at a jewish gathering, then you HAVE to be OK with it for WHOMEVER wishes to utilize it for WHATEVER reason they deem fit... Otherwise your position REEKS of political hypocrisy and bigotry...

    Ya'all don't get to be the arbiter of saying "it's appropriate here, but not appropriate there"...

    Ya'all don't get to say, "Since I agree with your agenda, YOU can use NAZI imagery for protesting at jewish gatherings.. But YOUR use of NAZI imagery is perverse and disgusting because *I* don't agree with your agenda.."

    "My god, people!! The ARROGANCE is mind-boggling!!!"
    -General Hank Laundry, STARGATE SG1: CONTINUUM

    Michale

  256. [256] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that you are going full on Godwin on Trump...

    even godwin himself went godwin on trump. i think that it's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not beyond the pale by any means.

    "Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about.
    The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate."
    ~mike godwin

    I guess it's true.. There ARE no boundaries of decency anymore...

    Anything goes, no matter how vile, perverse and disgusting..

    you're absolutely right, and the success of donald j. trump's rhetoric is proof positive.

    JL

  257. [257] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya'all don't get to be the arbiter of saying "it's appropriate here, but not appropriate there"...

    true, i didn't invent fair use. it was created to clarify copyright law, but applies to political statements as well. fair use distinguishes content that is used as it was initially intended from the same content used for a “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody (fairuse.stanford.edu). calling trump a nazi when he is speaking at aipac, although not 100% accurate, is still fair use. bringing nazi imagery to support the nazi cause would not be fair use, although i hear tell where trump is concerned there's quite a bit of that going on also...

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/17/david-duke-trump-makes-hitler-great-again.html

    JL

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    calling trump a nazi when he is speaking at aipac, although not 100% accurate, is still fair use.

    And if Right Wingery groups feel that Hillary is a facist than you would agree that THEIR use of NAZI imagery at an Aipac gathering is also still fair use..

    Right??

    That's my whole point..

    Personally, I feel that ANY use of Nazi imagery during a protest at a jewish garthering is perverse and disgusting..

    The political aspect of it matters not a bit to me..

    It's disgusting and perverse.. PERIOD..

    Michale

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about.

    Which, apparently, you don't..

    How can Trump be a Nazi when the people of Israel prefer him 4 to 1???

    So, apparently, you don't know what you are talking about.

    Hence, GODWIN still applies..

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly never thought I would see that day that ANY Weigantian would defend the use of Nazi imagery at a jewish conference..

    Just shows ta go ya...

    The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong here in Weigantia...

    Michale

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess it's true.. There ARE no boundaries of decency anymore...

    Anything goes, no matter how vile, perverse and disgusting..

    you're absolutely right, and the success of donald j. trump's rhetoric is proof positive.

    So, YOUR reasoning is, if you can't beat them, join them...

    Again, gobsmacked... Absolutely gobsmacked..

    I would have thought there were SOME lines ya'all simple WOULD NOT cross..

    Apparently, I was wrong....

    Tis a sad day indeed....

    Michale

  262. [262] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And if Right Wingery groups feel that Hillary is a facist than you would agree that THEIR use of NAZI imagery at an Aipac gathering is also still fair use...

    see post [249]

    How can Trump be a Nazi when the people of Israel prefer him 4 to 1??? So, apparently, you don't know what you are talking about.

    i know exactly what i'm talking about, and you got the numbers wrong, it's not 4 to 1, according to the article you cited it's 1 out of 4 (25%). the article goes into some detail about the reasons why a quarter of israelis support trump, which i won't re-hash here. again, i don't believe trump is a nazi, but as godwin points out, the comparison isn't as far-fetched as you're making it out to be.

    JL

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if Right Wingery groups feel that Hillary is a facist than you would agree that THEIR use of NAZI imagery at an Aipac gathering is also still fair use...

    see post [249]

    Ahhhh Because YOU don't think it's a fair description, then they can't use Nazi imagery..

    But, wait a tic. Trump supporters don't think YOUR view is a fair description...

    So, explain to me why Democrat/Republican is not like religion??

    That's the point you don't get... YOU don't get to decide what's "fair" for another group of people...

    If you approve of Nazi imagery for one group, then you have to approve it for ALL groups..

    Anything less is political bigotry and hypocrisy..

    i know exactly what i'm talking about, and you got the numbers wrong, it's not 4 to 1, according to the article you cited it's 1 out of 4 (25%).

    So I'm dyslexic.. Sue me.. :D

    The point is still valid..

    i don't believe trump is a nazi,

    Yet you STILL approve of Nazi imagery to protest at a jewish gathering...

    the comparison isn't as far-fetched as you're making it out to be.

    The fact that you think so is no different than those of the Right Wingery who said that Obama was a communist muslim...

    Michale

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you think so is no different than those of the Right Wingery who said that Obama was a communist muslim...

    They also had "proof" and "facts" to support their contention..

    Which was as much bullshit as your "proof" that Trump is a racist.

    Ya'all were completely dead wrong about Trump being a racist..

    But you are right about Trump and the Nazi crap???

    How does that work exactly??

    Michale

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    even godwin himself went godwin on trump. i think that it's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not beyond the pale by any means.

    Just shows ta go ya how deep the Trump Derangement Syndrome runs...

    And I thought OBAMA Derangement Syndrome was bad.... :D

    Michale

  266. [266] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The fact that you think so is no different than those of the Right Wingery who said that Obama was a communist muslim...

    They also had "proof" and "facts" to support their contention..

    @michale,

    right now your mind is working in such opaque spirals i'm having difficulty even understanding it. trump has made statements on camera, scapegoating minority ethnic groups as "rapists and murderers," explicitly supporting mob violence to prevent peaceful (if loud) protest, explicitly supporting torture and the murder of innocents, making statements that are 76% demonstrably untrue. that stuff is firmly on the record, not on some hidden birth certificate in kenya. although trump's two overtly racist quotes, attributed by people who worked with him directly, are unconfirmed, that doesn't qualify them as "dead wrong," just unproven - but given the related evidence, thoroughly believable.

    if repeating facts that have been proven true and debunking facts that have been proven false qualifies as derangement in your universe, then i'm very sorry to intrude.

    Yet you STILL approve of Nazi imagery to protest at a jewish gathering...

    and you still lie by ignoring the facts that make the use of such imagery a valid protest. if trump becomes president, so be it - our constitution is strong enough to take it. but if you're going to post flame-bait about my religion and its history, be prepared to be challenged on your inaccuracies.

    JL

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    ight now your mind is working in such opaque spirals i'm having difficulty even understanding it. trump has made statements on camera, scapegoating minority ethnic groups as "rapists and murderers,"

    No he has not. That's just Wingery spin..

    But even if it WERE true, how is that ANY different than Clinton or Sanders scapegoating those Americans whose ONLY crime is being successful...

    Scapegoating is scapegoating..

    and you still lie by ignoring the facts that make the use of such imagery a valid protest. if trump becomes president,

    Let me make this perfectly clear since you have obviously missed it the first dozen times I have posted..

    When you are talking about using Nazi imagery in a protest at a jewish gathering......

    This is the important part.. Pay attention..

    ******CONTEXT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!*********

    I didn't "lie" about the context..

    I IGNORED THE CONTEXT BECAUSE.... Ready again??? It's important...

    ******CONTEXT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!*********

    Now, if you want to continue to call me names completely unfounded, by all means continue..

    But like your "proof" that Trump is a racist, like your spin that Trump called an ethnic group murders and rapists, like your totally bigoted claims about Trump..

    It's all complete and utter BULLSHIT...

    Now I hope I was clear enough that you will understand... If not, I will be happy to repeat it one more time..

    When you are talking about using Nazi imagery in a protest at a jewish gathering......
    ******CONTEXT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!*********

    And anyone who CLAIMS that Nazi imagery in a protest at a jewish gathering IS appropriate, well they are a few fries short of a happy meal.....

    Got it??? Have I been clear enough now???

    Michale

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, I apologize.. I should have left it at "agree to disagree"...

    My belief is that there is NO context in this galaxy where I would feel it's appropriate to display Nazi imagery in a protest at a jewish gathering...

    I would feel that way regardless of ANY political convention or ANYONE it's directed at...

    I should have left it at that point and I apologize for my part of it getting so out of hand...

    Michale

  269. [269] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ******CONTEXT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!*********

    i understood what you meant the first time you wrote it - the problem is that no matter how loud you shout it, that statement is wrong.

    let's remove the nazi thing for a second and bring it to the most basic level: would you characterize a no-smoking sign as "cigarette imagery?"

    when you leave out the context, you're implying that something means the exact opposite of what it actually does mean - which is a kind of lie.

    JL

  270. [270] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No he has not. That's just Wingery spin..

    Fox News, July 5, 2015:

    "The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

    are you saying that trump didn't actually say that? or are you claiming that there's some alternate... what was the word again... context?

    JL

  271. [271] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Look, I apologize.. I should have left it at "agree to disagree"...

    no apologies necessary, friend. i think it's important to get these ideas out there, and have it out factually.

    JL

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    let's remove the nazi thing for a second and bring it to the most basic level: would you characterize a no-smoking sign as "cigarette imagery?"

    Yes I would.. And I would also believe that posting tons of NO SMOKING signs in a cancer ward to protest the Tobacco Industry would be completely and wholly inappropriate... NO CONTEXT needed or relevant...

    But I am an anti-smoking na....... nut.... :D So that's probably not a fair analogy...

    "The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

    Those unwanted people are the ILLEGALS which was made clear early on in the speech.. The ones who cause drain on our resources and suffering for our citizens... Those would NOT be legal immigrants....

    or are you claiming that there's some alternate... what was the word again... context?

    Yes.. In THIS case, context matters... Other cases?? Well, in my not so humble opinion, some things are so heinous and wrong that NO context is relevant...

    no apologies necessary, friend. i think it's important to get these ideas out there, and have it out factually.

    Thank you.. Yer wise... :D

    Michale

  273. [273] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    some things are so heinous and wrong that NO context is relevant...

    With all other things, including selective excerpts from Biden speeches in 1992, context is not only relevant but absolutely essential lest things be rendered meaningless. :)

Comments for this article are closed.