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. :)

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

no apologies necessary, friend. i think it's important to get these ideas out there, and have it out factually.

JL

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

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

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

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

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

Just shows ta go ya how deep the Trump Derangement Syndrome runs...

And I thought OBAMA Derangement Syndrome was bad.... :D

Michale

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

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

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

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

Just shows ta go ya...

The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong here in Weigantia...

Michale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

hehehehehehehe

Now THAT's funny... :D

Michale

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

I guess that simply indicates how deep the Trump Derangement Syndrome goes amongst the Left Wingery..

Gobsmacked...

Michale

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

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

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.

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

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

Not disgusting???

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that...

Michale

@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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

JL

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

"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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

Care to elaborate by giving an example or two?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if Comey recommends indictment???

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

:D

Michale

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

"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?).

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

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?

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

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.

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

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 ;)

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

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

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

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!

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

https://youtu.be/HsL1E_-kr2Q

:D

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.

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

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??

Michale

Hard to take ya seriously... :D

Michale

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.

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

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.

;)

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.

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

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 ;)

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

The bet is for Clinton and only Clinton.

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

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-gaslighting_us_56e95d21e4b065e2e3d7ee82

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