ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [385] -- Utter Foolishness

[ Posted Friday, April 1st, 2016 – 17:01 PDT ]

I'm going to start this week's column by apologizing for it, up front. This is because I know it is going to be a weak and wooly-headed column today. I already know this because I myself am getting sick -- I woke up with flu symptoms, complete with the usual weakness and fuzzy thinking. I considered just punting altogether on today's column, but am feeling slightly better now, so I'm going to make the attempt. But it's going to be a pretty poor attempt, I'll warn you of that from the get-go. It will probably not be anywhere near as long as usual, for which some of you might actually be thankful (I do tend to ramble on, every Friday). One last warning -- normally, on such an auspicious date, I have lots of fun writing a piece of satire and then at the end stick in an "April Fools!" But I'm not going to do that today, which I'll explain further in the talking points section.

Normally, I would begin with an overview of the week in politics, but I really don't have the energy to do all the research that entails. Luckily for me, it was a fairly quiet week in the political world, with (for once!) no primaries at all after last Saturday's voting. Next week, all eyes will be on Wisconsin, where Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz seem to be up in the polls. Hopefully by Tuesday I'll be feeling well enough to cover the Badger State primaries.

So while Donald Trump said several outrageous things this week (as usual), and there was plenty of shocked reactions to them (both faux and real), we're going to ignore all of that and instead just present one interesting tidbit of news that may make some headlines tomorrow (or maybe not, considering the type of coverage the subject usually gets from the media).

Marijuana activists are planning a provocative protest tomorrow -- a big "smoke-in" right across the street from the White House, complete with a 51-foot-long joint. Now, holding White House smoke-ins is actually a very old tradition (reaching back to the late 1960's, in fact), although they normally happen on the Fourth of July. We ran down the full history of this event back in FTP [337], in fact, if anyone's interested. We ended that commentary thusly:

It took a long time, but this week pot smokers finally reached the Promised Land in D.C. Oh, sure, it's just a beginning -- the Smoke-Ins themselves are still illegal in at least two major ways. Public consumption is still illegal, which would seem to cover standing in front of the White House smoking a joint. And Lafayette Park is one of many plots of land within the District which are federal property (where pot smoking is still illegal, by federal law). So if this year's event does happen across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, it'll still be a protest for further change.

But mostly it'll be a celebration of victory. If you believe in an issue strongly enough to blatantly break the law in full view of the leader of the country, eventually at times you can convince enough of you fellow citizens to support your cause. So in the midst of all the other celebrations of D.C.'s new legalization law, I thought it'd be particularly appropriate to fully remember those who let their freak flag fly on our nation's birthday. Right across the street from the White House, no less. Everyone who fires up a legal joint in Washington this week should thank those brave souls who protested without much hope of ever winning the political argument.

Smoking pot across the street from the president's house was always a provocative act. But for a long, long time it was also almost an exercise in futility. Nobody really expected weed to become legal any time soon, to put this another way. So while it was a protest, the thought that it would be successful wasn't really considered realistic, especially back in the 1970s and 1980s.

But now Washington has legalized recreational use of marijuana. So the protest scheduled for tomorrow is a lot more specific and a lot more targeted. As mentioned, smoking a doobie in Lafayette Park is still illegal twice over -- because it is "public consumption" and because the park is federal property, meaning federal laws apply (not D.C. laws). The protesters are fully expecting to be arrested for their cause.

Tomorrow's smoke-in was organized by the same group which successfully got the legalization ballot measure passed in D.C. From the Washington Post article, Adam Eidinger, the chief organizer of the smoke-in, explains why he's protesting:

He said the smoke-in is the most aggressive way he could think of to draw attention to the roughly 5 million marijuana-related arrests since Obama took office. He also thinks that Obama must do more in his remaining time to remove marijuana from the country's list of most-dangerous controlled substances. Without that change, decisions by states to legalize pot could be in jeopardy if a Republican wins the White House, Eidinger said.

"Obama -- he smokes, maybe not now, but he did smoke," Eidinger said. "So for him to oversee an enforcement regime that has arrested 5 million people for marijuana... I'm very motivated because I think it's a discriminatory practice."

. . .

Eidinger supports Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential contest. Sanders wants recreational use of marijuana legalized. But Eidinger wants Obama to begin the process of rescheduling marijuana before he leaves office because he thinks it would provide political cover for the probable Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, to finish the job should she win the presidency in November.

"If Obama really wants to help Hillary, he'll do this -- because people like me, who are strong Bernie supporters, we would feel more comfortable supporting the Democratic candidate if this is underway," Eidinger said.

He's probably right about that. Hillary Clinton almost never utters the word "marijuana" on the campaign trail, and when she does so, the only thing she has so far said she'll support is "more research" into medical marijuana. That's pretty tepid, these days. Which means that even if she wins the election, the best chance to see marijuana moved off of Schedule I might be for Obama to begin the process.

For decades, smoking pot outside the White House was no more than a (dangerous) lark. The protesters didn't seriously expect to see the laws changed. Now the laws have changed -- or at least some of them have. Which means that now such protests are a lot more targeted and a lot more important. If the nation's federal marijuana laws -- which are absolutely antediluvian, still -- are ever going to change, it will be because activists hold some Democratic politicians' feet to the fire (so to speak).

For those interested in attending, Lafayette Park is right across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. The smoke-in is scheduled to begin (naturally) at 4:20.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Bernie Sanders just had the best two weeks on the campaign trail he's yet seen. He swept last Saturday's caucuses, which means he has now won six of the last seven primary contests (Alaska, Hawai'i, Idaho, Utah, Washington, and Democrats Abroad) while Hillary Clinton only managed to win in Arizona.

That is impressive. It's even more impressive since many pundits have already written off Bernie's chances entirely -- which sometimes dooms a contender in future primaries. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening to Bernie's campaign. He is actually favored in the next contest as well, if the polls in Wisconsin turn out to be correct. That would be a streak of seven out of eight wins for Bernie.

The delegate math is still daunting, of course. Winning the Democratic nomination might be out of Bernie's grasp. Even so, Sanders continues to ignore the predictions of "Bernie's campaign is dead" that have become a regular drumbeat from the media, and he continues to go out and win state after state. As on the Republican side, the voters are having their say no matter what the inside-the-Beltway crowd thinks.

Bernie Sanders, as he is fond of pointing out, was never supposed to get this far. He was supposed to be some sort of court jester of a candidate, who might goad Hillary Clinton into a few less-timid positions on the issues, but who in the end would largely be ignored by the voters. He is, the media continually remind us, a socialist, after all.

Bernie Sanders has beaten expectations time and time again in the 2016 nominating contests. Whether he is ultimately successful or not, his campaign is already both incredibly impressive and resilient. The pundits can sneer at his message of economic populism all they want, but the voters are paying attention. No matter what happens to Bernie, he has awoken a movement in the Democratic Party which is not going to go away any time soon. People are tired of the platitudes and the "be happy with some legislative crumbs" attitudes from Democratic politicians.

Whether Bernie is the nominee or not, his revolution has already succeeded beyond anyone's prediction. For that, and for his string of recent primary victories, Senator Bernie Sanders is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. A whole lot of people are feeling the Bern, it seems.

[Congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

After having given the MIDOTW award to Bernie Sanders, we're going to hand the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to prominent Bernie supporter Susan Sarandon.

In a recent interview, Sarandon got herself in some hot water when she was asked what would happen if Bernie lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton. She responded:

I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn't have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, "Sorry, I just can't bring myself to."

When pressed on what she'd do if the choice came down to voting for Clinton or Donald Trump, Sarandon said:

I don't know. I'm going to see what happens. Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.... If you think it's pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you're not in touch with the status quo. The status quo is not working.

The most cringeworthy part of this, of course, is the idea that Trump would be better for the country in the end because he would be so bad it would result in Bernie's revolution becoming reality. Also, that "things will really explode," which in a normal year might have been dismissed as hyperbole, but what with the violence from Trump supporters we've already seen is a rather provocative thing to predict.

Now just to be clear -- Sarandon is right in the larger point she's attempting to make. Hillary Clinton shouldn't ever think she's entitled to the automatic support from people who have been backing Bernie, should she beat him for the nomination. She's going to have to earn every one of those votes, should this happen.

But to even suggest that Donald Trump getting elected to the White House would be better than seeing Hillary Clinton beat him is flat-out ridiculous. This line of "things are going to have to get worse before they get better" thinking is a pretty dangerous (and mighty cynical) way of looking at things. On one level, it is no more than schoolyard "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" whining.

Sarandon is free to do whatever she wants, should her preferred candidate lose the nomination. She can stay home, she can vote for Trump, she can hold her nose and vote for Hillary -- it's entirely her choice. But to suggest that Bernie's revolution will happen quicker if Donald Trump is elected president is making a very dangerous gamble. America is still recovering from the last Republican president, and Dubya is looking like a mental giant now, compared to Trump.

Sarandon is probably right about one thing -- Bernie probably will try to convince his supporters to back Hillary should he lose to her. But she should examine the reasons why he'd do so, because it goes beyond him just not having "any ego in this thing." Bernie's a smart guy, and if he weighs a Trump presidency against a Hillary presidency and concludes that Trump must be beaten, there are probably a lot of reasons why beyond Bernie just being a selfless guy.

For ignoring this from the man she says she supports, and for even suggesting that "things will really explode" is somehow something to look forward to in any way, Susan Sarandon is clearly our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Susan Sarandon is a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for people not currently in public office.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 385 (4/1/16)

As previously mentioned, normally on April Fools' Day it's fun to write a column to freak people out before they realize it's all a prank. We're going to forego this fun, though, because we are in the midst of living through a freakin' April Fools' Year, in the presidential nominating contest. If, last April first, you saw a man pop out of thin air and announce: "I am a time traveler from one year in the future, and I bring you the news that Donald Trump seems likely to become the Republican nominee," who among us would have believed it to even be possible?

This election season, to date, has been one long string of foolish so-called bits of "conventional wisdom" in politics being proven laughably wrong -- over and over again. So rather than attempting to write up some talking points today, instead we're just going to list all of these foolish predictions, in rough chronological order. I should mention that I did absolutely no research whatsoever to come up with this list -- these are all just off the top of my head. If I had the energy, doubtless I could review the past year and find dozens more of these confident predictions which have all been obliterated by actual events.

So, rather than trying to fool everyone this year, instead here is a list of the things which sounded like wisdom when they were first bandied about, but which now look like nothing so much as utter foolishness. Enjoy for now, and hopefully next week I'll be well enough to write a more normal Friday column.

 

2016 Campaign foolishness (so far)

Everyone knows the election will boil down to Jeb Bush versus Hillary Clinton, so it's likely going to be a really boring primary season.

Jeb Bush's absolute fortune in campaign cash is going to clear the field and convince most Republicans to stay out of the race entirely (before a whopping 17 candidates jumped into the race).

There is no way Donald Trump is serious about running for president -- he's just fooling around, as usual.

Scott Walker will be one of the strongest Republicans in the field, after winning three elections in a blue state (he was actually the second candidate to drop out).

Ben Carson is qualified to be president -- the man's a brain surgeon, after all!

Nobody will ever actually vote for Donald Trump -- his poll numbers are nothing more than name recognition.

Bernie Sanders is a joke -- the man openly admits he's a socialist! This will be the kiss of death, because nobody will vote for a socialist.

Of course Joe Biden is going to get in the race on the Democratic side.

Elizabeth Warren will also jump in the race, too.

Trump's chances of winning a single state are toast, because of what he just said (note: this one should really be copied and pasted repeatedly throughout this entire list, for the sheer number of times all the Beltway pundits convinced themselves it was true).

Hell will freeze over before the Republican establishment will get behind Ted Cruz, because they all hate him so very much.

Jeb Bush will just outlast all the other candidates, because of his unlimited campaign budget.

Donald Trump will never be the GOP frontrunner.

Trump's entire history as a liberal Democrat will be exposed, and once the Republican voters hear it, they'll drop him like a hot potato.

The candidate with the biggest bankroll always wins, because they can swamp all their opponents with campaign ads.

It will be impossible for Hillary Clinton to come out against either the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal or the Keystone XL pipeline, because she supported them while she was in office.

Trump is toast, because of his debate performance (again, this one should really appear multiple times in this list -- rinse and repeat).

Trump will never be the GOP nominee, so they are smart to force him to sign a loyalty oath, so he won't launch a third-party bid after his inevitable defeat at the polls. That'll lock him into supporting the eventual GOP nominee.

All those people who tell pollsters they're supporting Trump won't actually show up and vote for him on primary day.

There are "lanes" in the Republican race, and it'll eventually come down to a Tea Party candidate, a social-conservative candidate, and an establishment candidate.

No modern presidential candidate can run a viable campaign without setting up a super PAC to rake in corporate donations and dark money.

Hillary Clinton is heading for a coronation, because she is so obviously inevitable as the Democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton will win female Democratic primary voters by a landslide, no matter what age they are.

Bernie Sanders won't get any votes outside of liberal college towns.

Hispanic voters will never vote for Bernie Sanders.

Because of the blackout in the media, Bernie will never be able to get his message out.

Ted Cruz will sweep the South, because of all the evangelical voters there. Nobody else will have a chance, unless Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum catch fire.

[Fill in the blank with a Republican candidate's name] has finally come up with a strategy which will defeat Trump! This will surely work!

Chris Christie will never play second fiddle to anyone else.

Either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio will easily win Florida, obviously.

Trump picking fights with Fox News is going to bury him, because Republican voters love Fox News so much.

Bernie will only win New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont -- he doesn't have a chance anywhere else.

There is absolutely no way Bernie will win Michigan.

Because Bernie lost Illinois and Ohio, his campaign is essentially over.

Trump's advocacy of violence against protesters will sink him, because America is better than that.

Maybe Paul Ryan will somehow save the Republican Party by being drafted at the convention.

Somehow, the Republicans will manage to steal the nomination away from Trump at the convention, and then go on to beat Hillary Clinton with whomever they do decide on.

-- 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

 

170 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [385] -- Utter Foolishness”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's Anecdote: could almost be April Fools, but isn't. But kinda is…

    3 guys, white, ages 23, 23, and 24, re-siding a Cape house that has been repo'd a few blocks away. They were tearing off siding but stopped to chat, very friendly.

    What do they think of the election season to date?

    First guy (24): "It's messed up."

    Second guy: "It doesn't matter who they elect, people will still be squabbling. I don't want a woman for president though."

    First guy: "I don't pay much attention to politics but it looks messed up."

    Second guy: "Maybe if it was someone besides Hlllary Clinton I'd consider a woman for President. Why should she be president? Her husband was president, now her?"

    First guy: "That was her husband? I thought that was her father."

    Second guy: "No, they're married. You didn't study government in high-school did ya?"

    First guy looks abashed.

    Third guy: "I don't vote. I never vote. My vote won't make a difference -- they have the electoral college for that. That's why Al Gore wasn't president instead of Bush. Because they (I think he meant the Bush's) had money."

    Second guy: "Yeah, its all about the money. Being president is good money."

    I asked if they were under 30 and they gave me their ages.

    We chatted about the house they were working on for a bit and I moved on. They gave me cheery "have a good day" (s).

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris: hope you feel better!

    Re: Most Disappointing -- One of the reasons I have been leaning Hillary is because I've read she's been helping fundraise for state Dem committees, etc. Way back I read some of her folks had also been doing legal challenges to various voter-suppression efforts, although I haven't heard anything for awhile and don't know how they've been going. But I liked the idea they were being proactive on voter suppression and I like that she's trying to help other Dems. She's looking at the bigger picture, recognizing she will be empowered if the whole team does well -- and is doing practical things to help.

    I contrast that kind of effort and thinking with Susan Sarandon's comments -- which, to be fair to her, were an expression of what lots of Bernie folks are thinking -- and I end up moving even more "Hillary-ward."

    Right now, the differences between Bernie and Hillary are mostly about "degree". Bernie's offerings are more daring, conceptually bigger and broader and that's what I LIKE about him.

    BUT! The "revolution" part of his message remains misty, even in the context of him winning.

    If Bernie wins, the revolution will consist of Bernie, presumably, doing what he can within the parameters of Executive Power, augmented by Dem Senators and Congresspeople offering up legislation. Bernie, like Obama, or Hillary, would be able to veto regressive republican crap. Bernie will be able to select judges. Bernie will be able to put progressives in charge of agencies, etc.

    IOW, Bernie will work within the system -- dare I say -- within the establishment.

    If he intends to upend the system somehow I'd like to hear his plans. But he hasn't said he will -- he has offered a set of plans that work within the system as currently constructed.

    But if Trump wins (because Bernie supporters refuse to vote for Hillary) I'd really like to know what "the revolution" is intended to look like then. Specifically.

    If we work "within the system" all we will be is back to where we were during the Bush years, playing defense and I see no value to that at all.

    Maybe we are to go "outside" the system? If so, how? What exactly is going to take place and who will carry it out? Are there sets of plans being drafted, with players lined up to "execute" when Bernie gives the order? Or is the assumption we will be so upset? outraged? terrified? by Trump we'll…what? What will we do? How will we revolt? Will Bernie be in charge? Is he going to leave the Senate and man the barricades? Where are we going to build the barricades? Out of what? Will there be an overthrow? Just Trump? How? When? What's the plan?

    Or does "revolution" just mean we're all going to spend four years being depressed, appalled and stuck? Trying to stop reactionary Repubs from doing Scott Walker and Rick Snyder and the wacko in New Hampshire on the whole country? Getting up petitions? Having marches no one pays attention to? Cleaning up the blood of our minority neighbors who are victimized by Trumps fascists?

    Bernie is not responsible for Susan Sarandon, or other supporters who may be toying with the idea we should burn down the country in order to save it, but I would be interested in hearing from him on this. It's a destructive and foolish line of thinking.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    but what with the violence from Trump supporters we've already seen is a rather provocative thing to predict.

    Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the violence from Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters??

    I am a time traveler from one year in the future, and I bring you the news that Donald Trump seems likely to become the Republican nominee," who among us would have believed it to even be possible?

    Ahem... :D

    That's all I got for this morning.. I am dead tired but gots to go to work..

    Hope ya feel better, CW... Being sick is a biatch.. :(

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    I had to cover someone else's class, and the students complained loudly that they didn't want to do the busy-work their teacher had left me. i found one worksheet in the packet about trump, but that wasn't enough to get their attention, so then i asked the students (mostly bronx dominican) what will they do or how will they feel if donald trump becomes president? it was tough to parse their answers, but the discussion on that question seemed lively. some claimed they would go back to DR, others said they'd "shoot him," (i responded that i didn't think that would work), a few said either they didn't care, didn't believe trump COULD become president, asked if obama could be president again (i explained the 22nd amendment), and myriad other spanglish verbal wanderings. one girl left the class because i refused to let her play cards.

    JL

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    others said they'd "shoot him," (i responded that i didn't think that would work),

    Yea.. ALL the violence is amongst Trump supporters.. :^/

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the violence from Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters??"

    What violence? Do you have any specific examples? We have all seen the videos of violence from Trump supporters at his rallies. Do you have any of Sanders or Clinton supporters from either of their rallies?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    What violence? Do you have any specific examples?

    The fact that you have to ask proves my point..

    Chicago... Joshua's students..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    George Soros and MoveOn.org specifically STATING that they are going to "shut down" Trump rallies..

    So we have violence AND suppression of free speech..

    Two items specifically mentioned that TRUMP is guilty of...

    But no one acknowledges that when it comes from the LEFT...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    CLINTON CRACKS UP
    SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — Hillary Clinton snapped at a Greenpeace protester. She linked Bernie Sanders and tea party Republicans. And she bristled with anger when nearly two dozen Sanders supporters marched out of an event near her home outside New York City, shouting "if she wins, we lose."

    "They don't want to listen to anyone else," she shot back. "We actually have to do something. Not just complain about what is happening."

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ba783122da14454b5ef251c53d21f4c/clintons-frustration-grows-primary-race-drags

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [7],

    none of my students owns a gun. there's a big difference between violent verbal diarrhea when it comes from a sixteen year-old and when it comes from a presidential candidate. the former is quickly forgotten and occasionally channeled into more appropriate political expression; the latter can result (and has resulted) in people actually getting hurt.

    JL

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    none of my students owns a gun. there's a big difference between violent verbal diarrhea when it comes from a sixteen year-old and when it comes from a presidential candidate.

    From where I sit, advocating violence is advocating violence.. In 2 years that 16 yr old will be an adult..

    Put another way, if it was a 16yr old TRUMP supporter, you would be making my point..

    the latter can result (and has resulted) in people actually getting hurt.

    Yes, many Trump supporters have been attacked and injured...

    And the condemnation from Weigantia??

    {{chirrrrpppp}} {{chiiirrrrrrrpppppp}}

    Non existent...

    That's my point..

    Violence is perfectly acceptable when it is perpetrated AGAINST Trump supporters..

    It's only condemned when it comes FROM Trump supporters...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie supporter Tommy DiMassimo rushed the stage to attack Trump...

    Now he's a Left Wingery hero..

    Don't tell me ya'all don't espouse violence... :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just got back from the Democracy Spring rally in Philadelphia to kick off their march to DC.
    There were only one or two hundred people there (probably closer to one hundred).
    I thought it was so small because of the rain, but now that I read about the smoke-in at the White House I suppose it might not have been the rain.
    But I did manage to meet Larry Lessig and I was interviewed by someone from the O'Reilly Factor. So if you can watch that show you may see me if they decide to use some of it.(Look for the guy that looks like Willie Nelson.)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought it was so small because of the rain, but now that I read about the smoke-in at the White House I suppose it might not have been the rain.

    (Look for the guy that looks like Willie Nelson.)

    I wonder if there's a connection.. :D Heh

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI Offers to Help Agencies With Locked Phones
    FBI says it would help ‘as much as legal and policy constraints’ allow

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-offers-to-help-agencies-with-locked-phones-1459561489

    Apple's Marketing Worst Case Scenario...

    Frak yea!!!!!!

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    From where I sit, advocating violence is advocating violence.. In 2 years that 16 yr old will be an adult..

    i won't vote that student for president either. your false equivalency is ridiculous bordering on insane.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    i won't vote that student for president either.

    We're not talking about candidates. We're talking about candidate supporters...

    your false equivalency is ridiculous bordering on insane.

    Unless of course, that 16yr old was a Trump Supporter.. Then ya'all would go on and on about how Trump is corrupting youth and encouraging them to violence... :D

    Don't bother denying it.. We both know it's a fact.. :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously, Joshua..

    What would your reaction to that student have been if they advocated shooting Hillary or Bernie...

    Would your response have been "Oh I don't think that would work"

    Of course it wouldn't and we both know it... You would have freaked...

    And THAT's my point..

    Violence is OK as long as it's directed at the RIGHT people..

    Pun intended...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (14)
    If there's not a connection there's going to be one unhappy Willie Nelson.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there's not a connection there's going to be one unhappy Willie Nelson.

    heh

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would your response have been "Oh I don't think that would work"

    yes, because i am a goddamn professional, and it's my JOB to be nonjudgmental about my students' opinions. i had a student this year shout at another teacher about how terrible a person she thought i was, and i came back the next day and treated her warmly and complimented the positive strides she had made.

    now quit making this about everything in the universe other than what it actually is about, which is a presidential candidate explicitly inciting violence on his behalf. if hillary or bernie or jimmy fracking carter suggested that someone should be punched in the face or carried out on a stretcher at one of their speeches, i'd condemn any one of them in a new york minute. now quit being a [symbol of the democratic party] and address THAT issue!

    JL

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, à propos of nothing more than jet lag and reading an old news article, I'd still be amazed if anybody with critical thinking skills could support Trump after this statement:

    "... Trump, who when asked to name his foreign policy advisers said, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”"

    I mean, seriously?

    I get the anger at the flat median incomes, the parasitic and venal pit that Washington has become, the social issues that have gone primarily Progressive (weed, gay marriage, etc.), but this clown of all people to get behind.

    I also get the 'we just want to destroy Washington and don't care what type of hammer we use' attitude, however this same tool has to steer us through foreign policy - some restraint is required.

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] nypoet22 (Joshua? ) -- Hopefully the kids are right and it isn't possible Trump will be President!

    [21] Yep!

    Michale: I haven't seen any evidence people on the left have turned the guy who rushed Trump on stage into a hero. What I HAVE read over and over is people saying Trump protestors need to eschew violence and maintain the high ground. Nor will you find any major Dem luminary encouraging violence or making physical threats.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    now quit making this about everything in the universe other than what it actually is about, which is a presidential candidate explicitly inciting violence on his behalf.

    I am NOT making this about anything other than it is..

    You eschew alleged incitement to violence from Trump, but don't even comment on the actual violence from the Left..

    if hillary or bernie or jimmy fracking carter suggested that someone should be punched in the face or carried out on a stretcher at one of their speeches, i'd condemn any one of them in a new york minute.

    "If they bring a knife we'll bring a gun."
    -Barack Obama

    now quit being a [symbol of the democratic party] and address THAT issue!

    I have addressed that issue. Your accusations about Trump and violence are, just like the racist accusations, based on innuendo, hyperbole and flat out lies..

    Now, would you be so kind as to address MY issue??

    The ongoing violence and free speech suppression from the Left??

    I won't hold my breath...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    See above... :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If they bring a knife we'll bring a gun."
    -Barack Obama

    Wait for it... Wait for it...

    "Oh, that's different!!"

    :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties
    by MARGOT KIDDER

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

    And from those on the Left who routinely decry big money in elections??

    {{chiiirrrrrppppp}} {{{cccchhhhiiiirrrrrrppppppp}}

    Nuttin' but crickets...

    You see why I laugh whenever anyone from the Left criticizes the Citizen's United ruling???

    Democrat "Luminaries" LOVE the CU ruling....

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    March 30, 2016

    The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs.

    The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.

    As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.

    Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington.

    We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.

    Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.

    You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.

    Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.

    Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.

    There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.

    Sincerely,

    Brandon Judd
    President
    National Border Patrol Council

    And this guy is a UNION guy, so what he says MUST be true!!

    Right??? :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is anybody else feeling that Trump is starting to lose control of the race. I think he will still get the necessary delegates, but another week like this one could be fatal for him. He might becomes the first nominee who loses momentum from his own party as the election draws closer.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    FLASH!!!!! Obama Admits Iran Not Following The Spirit Of The JCPOA
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274954-obama-iran-has-followed-letter-but-not-spirit-of-nuke-deal

    Nice ta see Obama has caught up with the rest of the country...

    Who coulda POSSIBLY thunked that Iran would flaunt the terms of the deal!!!

    Oh... Wait..... :D

    Now we'll see those vaunted snap-back sanctions at work!!!

    ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Well, I guess the snap-back guy is asleep... :^/

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:

    You see why I laugh whenever anyone from the Left criticizes the Citizen's United ruling???

    Why? I don't like the pinch hitter rule in baseball, but that does not mean that I would not use a pinch hitter in a game if it would improve my team's chances at winning. Why is it so difficult to accept that a person can want to change a system that they are a part of if that change would be for the betterment of all?

    Bill Gates is very vocal that he believes that people in his tax bracket should be paying a greater share of their earnings than those who make far less than he does, but pay taxes at a higher rate. He wants to change the system that he presently benefits from so that it will be fairer for the masses.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border.

    Wrong. But the real answer doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so most people won't read it.

    Let's take the physical threat: I presume this means threat from foreign sources to the U.S., and by 'open border' he isn't meaning the legal methods of entry into the U.S. All 15 Saudi terrorists in 9/11 and the other 4 came into the U.S. through legal channels. The San Bernardino terrorists came in through legal channels. The list goes on. So can this guy point to one terrorist who caused significant destruction/death in the U.S. who came in illegally?

    Next the economic threat: Again, since this is the 'President, National Border Patrol Council' i.e. the Border Patrol's union, we can't be talking about legal transport of goods, but again must be referring to smuggling. What economic threat is there from smuggling to the U.S. The only class of goods that is illegally smuggled into the U.S. are illegal drugs. These are a social scourge, but not one economist of repute regards them as an economic threat.

    So here we have it, the key value that the Border Patrol union leader claims to deliver is nonsense. So, do we think this guy might have another motive?

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    The only class of goods that is illegally smuggled into the U.S. are illegal drugs. should have read:

    The only class of goods of any great value that is illegally smuggled into the U.S. are illegal drugs.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Apple's Marketing Worst Case Scenario...

    Do you really think this is Apple Marketing's wort case scenario?

    If you do, let's see who the sales of the Blackberry Priv are going to do - according to the above hypothesis, Priv sales should spike over the next few months. Should make my friend who runs Blackberry's marketing group happy if you are right (you're not, of course, sadly for him).

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen

    Why? I don't like the pinch hitter rule in baseball, but that does not mean that I would not use a pinch hitter in a game if it would improve my team's chances at winning. Why is it so difficult to accept that a person can want to change a system that they are a part of if that change would be for the betterment of all?

    If someone is on record as saying that the pinch hitter rule is morally detestable and would destroy baseball as we know it and then they go ahead and USE the rule to their benefit??

    Well, that makes them a complete and utter hypocrite..

    That's the equivelant situation..

    Neil,

    Do you really think this is Apple Marketing's wort case scenario

    In light of Apple's statements regarding the "harm" that would come to consumers' privacy if they were to assist the FBI...

    Well, maybe not "WORST" case.. But certainly up there..

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't think Apple Marketing will give a damn. Tim Cook might, but for more personal reasons than ones that will impact Apple's revenues. Of more concern to Apple is that smart phones are becoming boring. Apple need a new category, and to date it doesn't seem as if the watch is it (I have an Apple Watch and love it, but in this case it seems I'm in the minority).

    Also, because Apple were not forced to create a back door, they can find out how Cellebrite (if that is who actually help the FBI) hacked in and update their software and/or hardware in the future.

    I'm on the fence about this, but assume that the NSA have already hacked into iPhones, and probably the intelligence communities have inside information into the hardware and software (it would not surprise me if the NSA had iOS source code for example).

    I want my phone to be protected enough to stop some regular criminal from using my Apple Pay etc. if I lose my phone or it is stolen, but on the other hand I don't need military level security for my credit card information or the pictures of my pets.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [29]:

    “Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that are going to scare businesses off,” Obama said at a press conference.

    In other words there is no problem from the nuclear side, but Obama also hoped that it would be part of a larger change in policy, which hasn't happened and he is calling the Iranians out on it.

    Frankly it is to be expected. So save face for backing down on one area, they are sabre rattling on another to signal that the leadership are still calling the shots.

    There was an interesting segment on the BBC's 'From Our Own Correspondent' podcast this week - what do you MEAN you don't listen to it, it is incredible! :) - about South Korea returning the remains of Chinese soldiers from the Korean War (can you believe that was over 60 years ago). As an aside they contrasted the exchange of remains between China and S. Korea and N. Korea and S. Korea where none are happening. The summary was that the relationships built on trade overwhelm the hatreds of history - U.S./Vietnam relations are similar.

    Let's see what happens in 10-20 years with Iran and the U.S. - I predict (uh-oh you all know my prediction percentages) that Iran will value trade over ideology.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, because Apple were not forced to create a back door, they can find out how Cellebrite (if that is who actually help the FBI) hacked in and update their software and/or hardware in the future.

    Yea, I've read how Apple is begging the FBI to let them in on the process..

    "Revenge is a dish best served cold"
    -Old Klingon Proverb

    :D

    Let's see what happens in 10-20 years with Iran and the U.S. - I predict (uh-oh you all know my prediction percentages) that Iran will value trade over ideology.

    That would require Iran to actually be pragmatic and recognize what's in their own best interests..

    There is no evidence that the religious zealots who lead Iran are capable of such an epiphany.. :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    That would require Iran to actually be pragmatic and recognize what's in their own best interests..

    Exactly. Now lets see if they can keep control without the U.S. as the bad guy. My Iranian friend tells me that the religious zealots have totally lost the younger generation and are under increasing pressure.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "They pull a knife, you pull a gun"
    ~the untouchables

    obama's quotation was a metaphor for political attacks, and understood as such by his audience. trump's statement that he'd like to punch a particular protester in the face, and that people used to be taken out on a stretcher, was not a metaphor. misusing the untouchables quote is just another dodge on your part.

    I have addressed that issue. Your accusations about Trump and violence are, just like the racist accusations, based on innuendo, hyperbole and flat out lies..

    trump has indeed engaged in innuendo, hyperbole and flat out lies, as well as explicit incitement to violence and (according to two former employees) overt racism as well. wait, you were talking about me? well in that case you're wrong - the evidence of trump's incitement to violence is ironclad and conclusive. his words in direct support of violence are responsible for the climate that resulted in incidents on both sides.

    everyone here is well accustomed to your dodges, false equivalencies, false counter-accusations, logical fallacies and other myriad attempts to divert attention from questions on which you're clearly wrong. we're a forgiving bunch, but that doesn't mean you stop being called on your bs.

    "All right, Clanton... you called down the thunder, well now you've got it!"
    ~wyatt earp, tombstone

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    obama's quotation was a metaphor for political attacks, and understood as such by his audience.

    Exactly.. It was Campaign Hyperbole...

    Just like Trump's.... If you give me the exact quote and context, I'll prove it to you...

    everyone here is well accustomed to your dodges, false equivalencies, false counter-accusations, logical fallacies and other myriad attempts to divert attention from questions on which you're clearly wrong. we're a forgiving bunch, but that doesn't mean you stop being called on your bs.

    You mean like when ya'all kept accusing Trump of being a racist and I completely and utterly proved you wrong..

    You mean like THAT kind of "bs"?? :D

    Your accusations of Trump and his violence is simply more of the same.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly. Now lets see if they can keep control without the U.S. as the bad guy. My Iranian friend tells me that the religious zealots have totally lost the younger generation and are under increasing pressure.

    Yea.. Let's see how much that pressure increases when the mullahs start executing the "younger generation"...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically ya'all keep repeating the lie often enough that it becomes the self-evident "truth"...

    Never mind that, like the racist accusations, there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the "truth"...

    The Left Wingery says it, ya'all believe it and that settles it..

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    misusing the untouchables quote

    A> I didn't quote The Untouchables... I quoted Obama. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Obama..

    is just another dodge on your part.

    If proving you wrong is a "dodge" than I accept your label.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you give me the exact quote and context, I'll prove it to you...

    exhibit A: if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.

    except for the part about the tomato, which is just weird, that's not hyperbole.

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You mean like when ya'all kept accusing Trump of being a racist and I completely and utterly proved you wrong..

    except you didn't. trump's overtly racist citations may be unconfirmed, but they're not exactly out of character based on his bigotry against mexicans and muslims, which you have acknowledged. i agreed that trump's racism cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's a FAR cry from being proven wrong.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dodge (noun) - a cunning trick or dishonest act, in particular one intended to avoid something unpleasant.

    in your case, avoiding the unpleasant reality that donald trump is a proven bigot, misogynist, inciter of violence, and unlikely to be the next president of the united states.

    JL

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Basically ya'all keep repeating the lie often enough that it becomes the self-evident "truth"...

    no, just repeating the truth about trump's bigotry and incitement of violence every time you try to dodge the truth.

    JL

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    except you didn't. trump's overtly racist citations may be unconfirmed,

    MAY be???

    So, basically, what you are saying is, "I know Trump is a racist, I just have no facts to support it."

    Don't you see how ridiculous that is?? :D

    if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.

    That's not advocating violence.. That's advocating self-defense..

    It's as I thought. It's just like the racist accusations..

    in your case, avoiding the unpleasant reality that donald trump is a proven bigot, misogynist, inciter of violence,

    As is Bill Clinton.... And Clinton is PROVEN racist as well..

    But he has a '-D' after his name so he gets a pass...

    It's why I can't take any of ya'all's accusations seriously.. Because I know for a fact that they are all nothing but political bigotry speaking...

    and unlikely to be the next president of the united states.

    Yea?? He was "unlikely" to be the nominee... Remember that?? :D

    So, if ya'all were wrong then, then ya'all could be wrong now...

    Considering what's going to happen to Clinton, I can almost guarantee ya'all that ya'all will be wrong.. :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, basically, what you are saying is, "I know Trump is a racist, I just have no facts to support it."

    no, what i'm saying is that the facts on trump's racism would be insufficient to hold up in court. not the same as saying they don't exist.

    JL

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, what i'm saying is that the facts on trump's racism would be insufficient to hold up in court.

    So, you agree that Trump is innocent of being a racist until proven guilty in court.

    Basically you are saying the same thing that I would be saying if I said, "Hillary is a criminal and there are facts to support the claim, just not sufficient to stand up in court"...

    If THAT's the standard ya'all want to use, that would kinda put a dent in the REALITY BASED portion of CW.COM

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's not advocating violence.. That's advocating self-defense..

    telling a raucous crowd to beat up anyone who is "getting ready to throw a tomato" is not advocating self-defense. it would have to be one heck of a tomato.

    JL

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYU’s pro-Trump students fear for their safety — and grades.

    They may be flooding caucus rooms across the country, but Donald Trump supporters at NYU keep their heads down, mouths shut and their correspondence secret.

    Lying in class about their political beliefs and keeping online conversations strictly private are typical precautions taken by The Donald’s badly outnumbered followers on campus.

    “Supporters generally try to keep it hidden from the rest of the student body,” said junior Dylan Perera, 22. “They’re afraid of losing friends, being ridiculed in class, getting worse grades and are even afraid of being assaulted and physically hurt.”

    The computer-science major from LA said he was verbally accosted by a student who had asked about his affiliation.
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/nyu-students-who-back-trump-fear-for-their-safety-on-campus/

    So, no violence committed against Trump supporters???

    Like I said, it's not the violence that bothers ya'all..

    It's just the violence coming from the Right... The violence coming from the Left is perfectly acceptable...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    being a racist, although reprehensible, is not a crime. which is why i think trump should not go to jail, and also i'm not required to support my opinion with the same standard of proof as say, criminal assertions. i know you'd love to change the subject to make it all about the clintons, but the subject at the moment is trump's unfitness to be president. try to stay with us here.

    JL

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    telling a raucous crowd to beat up anyone who is "getting ready to throw a tomato" is not advocating self-defense. it would have to be one heck of a tomato.

    Throwing a tomato at someone is assault..

    The size of the tomato is not relevant..

    It's a clear cut case of self-defense. At WORST, Trump is advocating violence in response to violence...

    No different than Obama's knife/gun hyperbole...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    . i know you'd love to change the subject to make it all about the clintons, but the subject at the moment is trump's unfitness to be president.

    No, the subject is how ya'all continue to make accusations about Trump with absolutely NO FACTS to support the claims...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[55],

    there are many facts supporting my opinion that trump is a bigot, racist, misogynist and inciter of mob violence. i'm off to watch premier league, but i'll be back later to refute whatever additional defense of trump who is indefensible, or other misconceptions you may have written by match's end.

    until then,

    JL

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are many facts supporting my opinion that trump is a bigot, racist, misogynist and inciter of mob violence.

    There are no facts to support your opinion that Trump is a racist...

    As for the others, there are ALSO facts that support the exact same accusations against Hillary and Bernie..

    Which is why, as I said, I can't take your accusations seriously because they are part and parcel to ideological bigotry, not to any real sense of indignation...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    but i'll be back later to refute whatever additional defense of trump who is indefensible, or other misconceptions you may have written by match's end.

    Don't bother.. Until you address the points below, our discussion is over...

    Now, would you be so kind as to address MY issue??

    The ongoing violence and free speech suppression from the Left??

    I won't hold my breath...

    If I HAD held my breath, I would likely be dead by now..

    "If only... If only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now, would you be so kind as to address MY issue??
    The ongoing violence and free speech suppression from the Left??

    as yet, you haven't provided anything to address. trump supporters feel threatened? by whom exactly? with what action precisely? and which candidate suggested that trump supporters ought to be beat up? where's the video or transcript? there's nothing, nothing and more nothing.

    it's a false-equivalence because when it comes to anyone other than trump saying they'd like someone beat up for protesting, punished for having an abortion, harmed in any direct way, there's no there there.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles,” wrote [Kevin] Williamson.

    “Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.”

    Wow.

    Imagine the reaction from William F. Buckley if such an article were written about the same voters who helped propel candidates like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush 43 to power.

    Wow indeed!

    As Michale spotted before the rest of us, it doesn't matter what letter ('R' or 'D') the establishment put after their name (the 'D' equivalent of the above is "What's the Matter with Kansas"), there is a cadre of angry anti-Washington voters who want Trump to overturn the consolidated power structure in Washington DC - both 'D' and 'R'.

    A lot of Trump voters have failed at life and blame others for their own poor decisions. They’re using Trump as a vehicle for revenge.
    - Tweet, April 1st, Erick Erickson (and it wasn't an April Fool's day tweet)

    The Republican establishment really has become indistinguishable from the Democratic elite who now both look down equally scathingly on a core group of Republican voters.

    This may not end well.

    Quote from above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/02/trump-leaves-the-conservative-establishment-arrogant-and-unmoored/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    This may not end well.

    Seriously, with the calls for guns on the floor of the Cleveland convention, Trump's prediction that there will be "riots", and Roger Stone's "days of rage" statement, the possibility of violence is growing.

    Remember, the largest terrorist attack on the U.S. after 9/11 is the Oklahoma City bombing by right wing inspired criminals.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    as yet, you haven't provided anything to address.

    Really??

    I have mentioned Chicago MANY times... I have provided MANY links how George Soros and MoveOn.Org are organizing groups to SHUT DOWN Trump rallies.. There is your Freedom Of Speech suppression..

    Even in THIS commentary, I gave ya a link about how Trump supporters are attacked..

    The problem here is you don't WANT to acknowledge all the violence and acknowledge the free speech supression...

    Because it proves how biased your position really is..

    Neil,

    Seriously, with the calls for guns on the floor of the Cleveland convention,

    you DO know that the call for guns was from a Hillary Supporter, right???

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember, the largest terrorist attack on the U.S. after 9/11 is the Oklahoma City bombing by right wing inspired criminals.

    So, the entirety of the Right Wing is responsible for Oklahoma City??

    It might interest you to know that the VAST majority of domestic terrorist attacks are from Left Wingers....

    I mean, since we're throwing around bigotry.. :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's a false-equivalence because when it comes to anyone other than trump saying they'd like someone beat up for protesting,

    You would be right if that's what Trump said..

    But your own quote from Trump PROVES he didn't say that...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Even in THIS commentary, I gave ya a link about how Trump supporters are attacked..

    incorrect. i read the article behind the link, and there's nothing about anyone being attacked, just quotes from trump supporters saying they were afraid of being picked on - nothing from anyone who actually was.

    I have mentioned Chicago MANY times... I have provided MANY links how George Soros and MoveOn.Org are organizing groups to SHUT DOWN Trump rallies.. There is your Freedom Of Speech suppression..

    nothing more specific than moveon.org and the entire city of chicago? nary a video, not a single transcript, and why?

    i'll tell you why. because every video of violence revolving around trump shows clearly that his campaign staff and supporters have been the ones (in trump's words) "throwing punches," with trump verbally cheering them on, while assertions that said actions are self-defense against violent protesters have zero foundation in reality.

    JL

    and it's getting worse:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/trump-rallies-are-getting-more-violent-by-the-week.html

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    incorrect. i read the article behind the link, and there's nothing about anyone being attacked,

    The computer-science major from LA said he was verbally accosted by a student who had asked about his affiliation.

    That's as much of an "attack" as you accuse Trump of..

    You see... THAT's the problem.

    You have different definitions depending on if you are talking about Left Wingers or Right Wingers..

    If Trump verbally "attacks" someone, it's violence..

    If a Hillary or Bernie supporter verbally attacks someone, it doesn't matter...

    There is simply no proving ANYTHING to you because you discount ANY facts that don't support your agenda...

    The mere fact that you STILL insist on calling Trump a racist even though you don't have ANY facts to support the accusation is proof of this..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "verbally accosted?" really? how awful for them, having to listen to someone tell them their point of view might be wrong.

    michale, if that's the worst you can find, you're making my case for me.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The mere fact that you STILL insist on calling Trump a racist even though you don't have ANY facts to support the accusation.

    i've provided copious facts before, but just for you, here's gawker's compilation of trump's quotes on "the blacks."

    http://gawker.com/the-collected-quotes-of-donald-trump-on-the-blacks-1719961925

    as to whether his quotes against latino immigrants are according to hoyle racism or some other form of anti-nationality bigotry, their veracity is not in dispute.

    JL

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    and it's getting worse:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/trump-rallies-are-getting-more-violent-by-the-week.html

    Yer right..

    It IS getting worse..

    That's a Bernie supporter that PHYSICALLY tried to attack Trump...

    You prove my point for me..

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Trump verbally "attacks" someone, it's violence..

    no, trump's verbal attacks are not violence. but when someone is punched, kicked, thrown, spit-on, grabbed or otherwise manhandled on trump's behalf, in his presence and with his explicit encouragement, THEN it's violence. here's another of those specific examples you seem to have such a difficult time finding:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/337735-teenager-assaulted-trump-rally/

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's all academic anyways..

    Once Hillary is indicted, there won't be a Democrat who could be elected dog catcher..

    Ya'all better get used to President Trump, because it's inevitable...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, it's pointless to argue with you..

    You only acknowledge what you want to see.. You only believe what you want to believe...

    But, as I said.. It's academic...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's a Bernie supporter that PHYSICALLY tried to attack Trump...

    like Michelle Fields "tried" to attack trump, by moving too close and using all those pesky vocal cords to ask questions?

    JL

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, the entirety of the Right Wing is responsible for Oklahoma City??

    Yes. Of course. Including Republicans all the way back to Lincoln!

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You guys know baseball starts today, right?

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As I said, it's pointless to argue with you..

    i accept your concession.

    JL

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David Price is about to embark on the first day of the worst year of his career. Believe me.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    like Michelle Fields "tried" to attack trump, by moving too close and using all those pesky vocal cords to ask questions

    And Huma shoved a Hillary supporter who tried to ask Hillary a pesky question.....

    Where is your indignation over that??

    There is none because violence from the Left is perfectly acceptable to you..

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I hope his dog is happy, too.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    i accept your concession.

    Yea.. And proving you wrong is a "dodge"... :D

    As I said, if that's what ya want to call it, far be it from me to dissuade you... :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's all academic anyways..

    Once Hillary is indicted, there won't be a Democrat who could be elected dog catcher..

    Ya'all better get used to President Trump, because it's inevitable...

    Michale, 4/3/2016

    now where have i heard those things before, hmmm.... oh yeah, now i remember....

    There WILL be a reckoning on Benghazi... You can take that to the bank...

    At the VERY least, it has totally blown out of the water ANY future political plans of Hillary Clinton...

    Michale, 11/3/2012

    Once again, to the boots on the ground, the election is clearly Romney's....

    So, quote polls til the cows come home. They don't mean a damn thing...

    As this election will prove... :D

    Michale, 11/5/2012

    just as my insane optimism about the midterms was demonstrably incorrect, so shall yours be in the presidential election - if not sooner.

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72 -73] Both a dodge and a concession!

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're working on a huge welcome for his return to Rogers Centre. It's going to be a beautiful thing.

  86. [86] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdote (actually talked to the fellow yesterday but didn't have time to post it) -- middle-aged white man wearing a Post Office uniform exiting the library. What did he think of the election season to date?

    "It's been a spectacle. It's like a reality show. I have friends in Germany who can't believe it. It's been like Last Man Standing (was that a reality show?)...Presidential Idol. The dumbing down of the public. Terrible."

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And Huma shoved a Hillary supporter who tried to ask Hillary a pesky question....

    FINALLY, something factual! and almost true! the supporter had spread her arms to encircle and hug abedin, which was rejected physically and verbally - i guess she's not a hugger. no bruises, no actual violence, but still, you get credit for providing something specific enough to be falsifiable.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Baseball used to be your favourite national pastime ... I guess that was when America was great.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    yankees opening day is tomorrow.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can hardly wait.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Yankees arrive in Toronto middle of next week.

    We're going to see winning all over the place. There'll be so much winning that everyone in Canada is going to become sick of winning. The Blue Jays will get tweets about time to stop winning for a change and give us all a break!

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Things aren't looking any better for the Orioles, either, let me tell you.

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    oh, now it's on!

    heh.

    JL

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You betcha!

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    FINALLY, something factual!

    AND, as I stated, you ignore it with a "well, that's different"..

    It's UNCANNY that it's ALWAYS different... :D

    Let's face the facts here.

    You won't accept ANYTHING that puts Trump in a good light and/or puts ANYONE with a '-D' after their name in a bad light..

    Given that you have just PROVEN this (AGAIN) beyond any doubt, you can understand why any further discussion is pointless..

    Democrats are pure as the driven snow..

    Trump is Satan, Stalin and Hitler all rolled into one..

    So say you all.... :^/

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You won't accept ANYTHING that puts Trump in a good light and/or puts ANYONE with a '-D' after their name in a bad light..

    incorrect, as usual (but not always).

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/31/convention-dreams/#comment-73170

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Given that you have just PROVEN this (AGAIN) beyond any doubt, you can understand why any further discussion is pointless...

    your concession of the point is again accepted.

  99. [99] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:

    Trump is Satan, Stalin and Hitler all rolled into one..

    Trump is not Hitler! But Satan (red devil) and Stalin (jaundice) combined would result in the Trump (Oompa-Loompa orange). ;)

  100. [100] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Everyone does realize that it is an even year....right?

    I think we will have another parade for my guys in SF

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You gives give a parade for the runners-up? Hmmm ... that's really nice.

    I'd really love to see a Jays-Giants world series!

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You guys give a parade for the runners-up? Hmmm ... that's really nice.

    I'd love to see a Jays-Giants world series!

  103. [103] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Mariners fan. At least I have the mid-90s to keep my spirits up.

    My fantasy baseball team though, that may stand a chance.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When your home team is the Blue Jays, who needs fantasy baseball? :)

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    your concession of the point is again accepted.

    So, we agree...

    Discussing this is pointless... :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is not Hitler! But Satan (red devil) and Stalin (jaundice) combined would result in the Trump (Oompa-Loompa orange). ;)

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
    -Dr Martin Luther King Jr

    I guess we're not there yet. :D heh

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is not Hitler! But Satan (red devil) and Stalin (jaundice) combined would result in the Trump (Oompa-Loompa orange). ;)

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
    -Dr Martin Luther King Jr

    I guess we're not there yet. :D heh

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    You won't accept ANYTHING that puts Trump in a good light and/or puts ANYONE with a '-D' after their name in a bad light..

    incorrect, as usual (but not always).

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/31/convention-dreams/#comment-73170

    OK....

    So, you agree that Trump's rise is a direct result of the incompetence of Obama and the Democrat Party.

    That being the case, then I concede I was wrong about you. YOU can find fault with Obama and the Democrat Party and can give them the blame when they deserve it..

    :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let the back-pedaling commence!!! :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if ya'all want to talk baseball...

    I think it's exciting when the batter steps up to the goal and belts a touchdown right out of the arena, runs around the court and then takes the checkered flag!!

    It's awesome!!!

    :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it would be kewl if we could do a social experiment and compare the violence of Bernie supporters vs the violence of Trump supporters..

    Oh wait.. It was already done..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0

    Turns out Trump supporters are laid back and easy going and Bernie supporters are violent pricks...

    Facts don't lie, people... :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Meanwhile, at stately Weigant Manor, a feverish Caped Prognosticator slowly rises from his sick bed into his slippers. "Must ....call...primary ......races......uhhhhh."

  113. [113] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Meanwhile, at stately Weigant Manor, a feverish Caped Prognosticator slowly rises from his sick bed into his slippers. "Must ....call...primary ......races......uhhhhh."

  114. [114] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The posting mechanism has also caught some sort of bug and is seeing double.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, at stately Weigant Manor, a feverish Caped Prognosticator slowly rises from his sick bed into his slippers. "Must ....call...primary ......races......uhhhhh."

    hehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny...

    BOTH times.. :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    Asia has replaced Latin America (including Mexico) as the biggest source of new immigrants to the U.S. In a reversal of one of the largest mass migrations in modern history, net migration flows from Mexico to the U.S. turned negative between 2009 and 2014, as more Mexicans went home than arrived in the U.S. And after rising steadily since 1990, the unauthorized immigrant population has leveled off in recent years, falling to 11.3 million in 2014 from a high of 12.2 million in 2007. Meanwhile, Asians are now the only major racial or ethnic group whose numbers are rising mainly because of immigration. And while African immigrants make up a small share of the U.S. immigrant population, their numbers are also growing steadily – roughly doubling every decade since 1970.

    Why are we building a wall again? To keep Mexicans in the U.S.?

    Nobody said Trump was educated.

    Source:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So, what are you saying??

    That we don't need a border wall because there is no illegal immigrant problem??

    Well, let's ask Kathleen Steinle about that...

    Oh wait... We can't. She was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant scumbag...

    Maybe you can try and convince her parents that we don't need a border wall...

    Good luck with that.. :^/

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, let's ask Kathleen Steinle about that...

    Silly argument. I could respond with "ask the parents of all the kids killed in school shootings if they are happy with gun control", but that would be, as Anderson Cooper points out, a five year old argument, just like yours.

    Good laws and policy are not made by individual instances, but by major trends.

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Baseball story for Mets and Yankees fans:
    I was working a few years ago doing resets in supermarkets and we were resetting the nut section. There were bags of dry roasted peanuts with the Mets logo on some bags and the Yankees logo on some bags.
    The guy I was working with asked if they were the same or if they had to be separated. I said it's the same kind of peanut, in the same size package, with the same UPC number on the back- but there is one difference.
    He asked what the difference was and I said "The Yankees peanuts you can eat right now- but the Mets peanuts you have to wait 'til next year."

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Silly argument.

    Not to the Steinles, it's not...

    "ask the parents of all the kids killed in school shootings if they are happy with gun control",

    If gun control would have prevented school shootings, then you would have a point.

    But it won't, so you don't...

    Good laws and policy are not made by individual instances, but by major trends.

    You mean a major trend such as hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, raped, robbed and assaulted by illegal immigrants??

    THAT major trend??

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter how much you try and spin it, you simply CANNOT justify open borders...

    The ONLY reason Democrats want the status quo on the border is so they can mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters...

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was working a few years ago doing resets in supermarkets and we were resetting the nut section.

    There's GOT to be a political angle there somewhere. :D

    He asked what the difference was and I said "The Yankees peanuts you can eat right now- but the Mets peanuts you have to wait 'til next year."

    hehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean a major trend such as hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, raped, robbed and assaulted by illegal immigrants??

    THAT major trend??

    Why not say what you mean??

    The hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, raped, robbed and assaulted are not reliable Democrat voters..

    Illegal immigrants are...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Having attended 6 smoke-ins in DC, I can personally attest that the risk of arrest is actually quite small... or, at least used to be... as my time on the front lines was 88-94... back when it was hopeless.
    Plain clothed types taking pictures of everybody was pretty much the limit of draconian oppression... plus we got an official escort for safety for the march from Lafayette Park to the Lincoln memorial.

    I witnessed more arrests at the anti-apartheid punk percussion protests in Lafayette and at the S. African embassy.

    Moving on...
    Kind of amazing when the Democratic frontrunner is set to have lost seven out of the last eight contests by MASSIVE LANDSLIDES.
    And I'm surprised there was no mention of the supposed victory for Bernie in Nevada once all the votes were finally counted... though I'm not sure it's official yet.
    Hillary is such an inevitable, strong candidate.

    Hillary losing her cool to a Greenpeace activist should have been the MDDOTW.
    Hillary taking millions from fossil fuel interests while claiming to be progressive and to worry about climate change and then freaking out for being asked about the TRUTH is pathetic.

    Whether it's banker money, oil money, pharma money, insurer money or MIC money and her warmongering, Bernie supporters have very good reasons to be reluctant to promise support for her.

    Voters taking a principled stand does not disappoint me in the least.

    Of course, my personal opinion is that that the status quo which Hillary defends wholeheartedly is wackadoodle craziness on par with what the Trumpon is supporting.

    Obama's failure to prosecute the Bushie torturing war criminals has enabled the current repub candidates to embrace that disgusting policy.
    Obama's failure to prosecute Wall Street fraud has enabled fraud to continue and likely to get worse.
    Obama kept us in Afghanistan and has bombed 7 predominantly Muslim countries and is little different than Bush.
    Obama has effected, attempted or supported regime change in Venezuela, Honduras, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain and Syria and is little different than Bush.
    The continuation of the Global War on Terror policies that the CIA's own website documents that the number of terrorists has grown 1200%... yes 12 times as many today since 2001. Proof of failure should be cause to reevaluate these policies... but no, Hillary is even more gung ho.
    More women have lost access to reproductive rights under Obama than during any period of repub rule and I couldn't even find a major speech by Obama or Hillary about that reality.
    More voters have been disenfranchised through voter suppression under Obama than with Bush with next to no pushback.
    Inequality increased under Obama to levels not seen since the 30's.
    NSA and FBI Constitutional violations of American's rights continued to worsen under Obama.
    Oil exports, fracking in National Forests, the attempt to open up the East coast to extraction, corporate healthcare, corporate subsidies, shrinking unions, the grand bargain attempt, a trillion dollars for new nuclear weapons, ever growing "defense" budgets, etc. etc. etc... the neolibcon establishment under Obama and what will continue under Hillary has been disgusting.

    If Bernie doesn't make it, I will be voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party and won't feel the slightest bit hesitant about it.

    It's not "taking your ball and going home", it's called being unwilling to support more of the same.

    If you look at the list above, the "Republicans are worse" argument that is the centerpiece of Hillary's campaign rings rather hollow.

    Let's hope this novel makes it through the filter.

    BTW, I left you a little note on the Conventions post too.

    A

    PS- Hope you feel better.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    I asked Bartels and several other women at the rally whether they were troubled by the controversy over Trump's various statements recently on abortion. Bartels wasn't. "They asked him a hypothetical question and he answered a hypothetical answer," she said. "It doesn't bother me at all."
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wis.-trump-voters-unfazed-by-controversy-stand-by-him/article/2587555

    Everyday Americans aren't buying the faux-Trump "scandals" that the Left Wingery is selling...

    Better get used to President Trump, my friends.. :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having attended 6 smoke-ins in DC,

    Ahhhhh That explains a lot.. :D

    It's not "taking your ball and going home", it's called being unwilling to support more of the same.

    I actually understand and fully support that.. It's the exact same point I have been making for years..

    Those who always settle for half a loaf have NO foundation to bitch and moan when they can't get quality candidates...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    You won't accept ANYTHING that puts Trump in a good light and/or puts ANYONE with a '-D' after their name in a bad light..

    incorrect, as usual (but not always).

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/31/convention-dreams/#comment-73170

    Oh jesus, Joshua!!!

    You posted that comment in the other thread AFTER I made my comment in this thread... :D

    So, yes.. At the time I made the comment I *WAS* correct... :D

    Nice try though...

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    altohone wrote:

    Yup.

    Being on the right side of history... er, correct side... sure beats the alternative.
    Ahem.

    The apartheid victory was sweet too.

    Oh, and my final for Speech in HS was about getting rid of the 55 mph speed limit... using safety stats from Germany... brings a smile to my face every time I hit a 65 or 75 zone.

    Gay marriage, solar and wind, fisheries management, Cuba...

    Always more to do and always pathetic trolls in the way.

    A

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and my final for Speech in HS was about getting rid of the 55 mph speed limit... using safety stats from Germany... brings a smile to my face every time I hit a 65 or 75 zone.

    Gay marriage, solar and wind, fisheries management, Cuba...

    yea, cuz Germans and Cubans and Americans are ALL exactly alike..

    I spent quite a bit of time in Germany. Bavaria region...

    Why is it that every starry eyed Left Winger thinks that what works in one country, in one society will work in every other country and society..

    Morons...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    Maybe somebody can clarify...

    Do you think the troll is unaware that higher speed limits "work" in this country?

    Or that solar and wind are the fastest growing segment of new energy supplies in the world and America?

    Or that the country didn't collapse when gay marriage became law?

    Or that opening up relations with Cuba isn't about us becoming like Cuba?

    Or that projection can be bloody obvious sometimes?

    Anybody?

    I'm guessing the troll was actually thinking (stretch) about single payer healthcare for all... but that doesn't explain the portion of my comment he quoted.

    Here's a bit of wisdom from Confucius-

    Only a fool would fail to adopt a good idea simply because it was not his own.

    A

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    The hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, raped, robbed and assaulted are not reliable Democrat voters..

    Illegal immigrants are...

    It's that simple...

    Some simple facts:
    1. The illegal immigrant community is already here - the wall won't do anything about them, in fact it will keep them in (which is why my original point, while tongue-in-cheek was accurate
    2. They are less likely to commit criminal acts than the general community
    3. Illegal immigrants can't vote and there is no evidence of material voter fraud
    4. After Dunblane and Tasmania Britain and Australia put gun control laws in place - neither have had any mass shooting since. We don't have any gun control laws, we have feel better laws that don't work.

    These are all simple facts that you will ignore because they don't fit your world view.

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    My predictions for tomorrow (WI):

    D- Bernie
    R- Cruz

    I can't be too pleased with myself, I just read the polls on this one.

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    @michale:

    Every combination I use means Trump needs CA to get to 1237 - care to try? I predict he will do it, but it is going to be squeaky bum time in late May for everybody (and you know my prediction accuracy).

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh jesus, Joshua!!! You posted that comment in the other thread AFTER I made my comment in this thread... :D

    it wasn't intentional.

    at the time, i was looking through the other thread, not this one. regardless, it's nothing i haven't written before about obama. if it's really that important to you, i'll go search back through old threads to find my prior posts to the same effect. on this thread, you've been wrong so many times it's practically comical.

    JL

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  136. [136] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ...and another, which was a kinda awesome thread overall:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/05/06/opw1304/#comment-36532

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. The illegal immigrant community is already here - the wall won't do anything about them, in fact it will keep them in (which is why my original point, while tongue-in-cheek was accurate

    The scumbag illegal immigrant/criminal (I know. Redundant) that killed Kathleen Steinle had been deported several times. So, yes. A border wall would have saved her life..

    2. They are less likely to commit criminal acts than the general community

    Bullshit.. 100% of the illegal immigrant community commits criminal acts..

    3. Illegal immigrants can't vote and there is no evidence of material voter fraud

    No evidence that you would accept. But, as has been aptly proven, ya'all won't accept ANY evidence that proves ya'all wrong..

    After Dunblane and Tasmania Britain and Australia put gun control laws in place - neither have had any mass shooting since.

    Again with the bullshit. Britain and Australia didn't put gun control laws in place..

    They put gun BANS in place....

    But ya'all have gone on and on about how ya'all are NOT talking about gun BANS..

    Now the truth comes out. Ya'all ARE talking about gun bans... Nice ta have ya'all out of the closet.. :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    if it's really that important to you, i'll go search back through old threads to find my prior posts to the same effect.

    It's not that important to you. I have always maintained that, of all Weigantians, you were the most even handed and rational....

    on this thread, you've been wrong so many times it's practically comical.

    ....until recently, that is.. :^/

    But I chalk it up to your severe case of TDS, so...

    No harm, no foul.. :D

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not that important to you. I have always maintained that, of all Weigantians, you were the most even handed and rational....

    Sorry.. Tortured syntax...

    That should read:

    It's not that important. I have always maintained that, of all Weigantians, you were the most even handed and rational....

    My bust...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think the troll is unaware that higher speed limits "work" in this country?

    Still doing Goebbels' work I see.. :D

    I never made the claim that they didn't..

    I simply pointed out that YOUR reasoning (that it works in German means it will work here) is specious, self-serving and moronic..

    The drinking age in Germany is 16..

    Does that mean a 16 age limit on buying and consuming alcohol will work in the US??

    If you do, you are a bigger fool than I first thought..

    I would have not thought that possible. :D

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    100% of the illegal immigrant community commits criminal acts..

    yes, being in the country without permission is a crime. but if that's the statistic we're looking at, let's not pretend these crimes are rape or murder. when one adds up all state and federal cases, rates of violent crime among undocumented immigrants is consistently lower than among the native-born.

    JL

  143. [143] 
    altohone wrote:

    Nothing like a troll projecting and then dragging out a strawman to prove the label apt.

    As for the increased speed limits, it would seem that MY reasoning was convincing as it is now the law of the land and works just fine, so the trolls depiction would seem to be the specious one.

    Of course, it was a left/right coalition that made it possible, so it wasn't my reasoning alone, but rather a widespread understanding that facts matter when new policies are being considered... except to wingnut trolls who try to cram every issue into their narrow and twisted ideology to attempt to make points they can't substantiate while using quotes that bear no relation to the subject.

    Just pathetic.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, being in the country without permission is a crime. but if that's the statistic we're looking at, let's not pretend these crimes are rape or murder. when one adds up all state and federal cases, rates of violent crime among undocumented immigrants is consistently lower than among the native-born.

    Fine.. But you don't get to say "They are less likely to commit criminal acts than the general community" because, simply by BEING in this country illegally, they are committing "criminal acts"....

    So I am being 100% factually accurate when I say that 100% of the illegal immigrant community commit criminal acts..

    Now, if YA'ALL want to be 100% factually accurate (like me :D), you have to say "They are less likely to commit violent criminal acts than the general community"...

    THAT is factually accurate..

    But, I doubt that the particular stat, even if it IS accurate, is a comfort to the parents of Kathleen Steinle or any of the other hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families who have been the victims of illegal immigrant violent crimes....

    The fact of the matter is the "general community" have the RIGHT to be in this country...

    That's the difference that makes ALL the difference...

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the increased speed limits, it would seem that MY reasoning was convincing as it is now the law of the land and works just fine, so the trolls depiction would seem to be the specious one.

    Your reasoning was to use the German speed limit (or in this case, lack thereof) for the US...

    Which is why I told you that you were completely fraked in the head if you thought that what would work over there would work here. Hence the comparison to the drinking age in Germany vis a vis here in the US..

    While it would be nice for you to man up and actually address me, I have come to expect nothing but childishness and immaturity from you...

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[144],

    But, I doubt that the particular stat, even if it IS accurate, is a comfort to the parents of Kathleen Steinle or any of the other hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families who have been the victims of illegal immigrant violent crimes....

    i'm sure the families of victims of most violent crimes don't say, "well, he may have raped and murdered my sister, but hey, at least he's an american!"

    JL

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm sure the families of victims of most violent crimes don't say, "well, he may have raped and murdered my sister, but hey, at least he's an american!"

    Touche'

    But the point is, that it's the government's job to PREVENT illegal immigrants from ENTERING this country...

    NOT throw out a welcome mat for them... Which is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration has done...

    For a person who has had a family member brutally raped or killed by an illegal.....

    That's just adding insult to injury...

    And all for what!!??

    To get more freshly minted voters for Democrats...

    Do you think it's by accident that illegal immigrants are referred to as "Undocumented Democrats"??

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all go on and on hysterically about Senate Republicans "doing their jobs"....

    How many hundreds or thousands of Americans would be alive and living happy lives if your guy Obama would DO HIS JOB when it comes to combating illegal immigrants!?

    So next time ya'all feel the need to whine and cry hysterically about the Republicans who don't do their jobs!??

    Don't...

    Ya'all have absolutely no moral foundation whatsoever...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How many hundreds or thousands of Americans would be alive and living happy lives if your guy Obama would DO HIS JOB when it comes to combating illegal immigrants!?

    are you kidding? deportations under obama have been rampant, whether the person deserves it or not!

    https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, that's the myth..

    But the FACTS say other wise..

    High deportation figures are misleading

    WASHINGTON — Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the "deporter in chief" and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.

    But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

    Obama hasn't been deporting MORE illegal immigrants.. He has been deporting MUCH LESS...

    The only change is how deported illegals are counted...

    You see???

    You have the Obama myths..

    And you have the facts..

    Which are you going to accept??

    Silly question.. :D

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's the same thing when Obama touted how there are THOUSANDS less arrests on the border..

    That's because Obama has ordered that BP officers DON'T ARREST any more...

    They just TBS and viola...

    The border is more secure....

    It's all bullshit...

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not that I'll get any credit for providing FACTS......

    But......

    Lies, damned lies, and Obama’s deportation statistics
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so... you're defending obama for not being as indiscriminate a deporter of immigrants as he seems??? the raw statistics may not be so easy to parse, but it sure seems to me like they mean he kicked out more people than bush, not less.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    o... you're defending obama for not being as indiscriminate a deporter of immigrants as he seems???

    Really???

    but it sure seems to me like they mean he kicked out more people than bush, not less.

    Of course, it SEEMS to you that this is the case.. Despite ALL the facts to the contrary..

    Let me explain it to you...

    The Obama Administration has changed the definition of "deported".. In changing the definition, they increase the number of "deported", even though the actual deportations have gone way down..

    Put another way..

    It would be as if we, here in Weigantia, changed the definition of "correct" to mean "those with the most posts"... Under the NEW definition, I am ALWAYS correct....

    You get it??

    But this little side-trip proves beyond any doubt what I said before..

    Ya'all don't accept any facts that prove you wrong..

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    but it sure seems to me like they mean he kicked out more people than bush, not less.

    And if you apply Obama's methodology to the Bush years, you would discover that Bush kicked out tons more people than Obama... That, by comparison, Obama hasn't kicked out ANY people...

    Obama is simply using a different way of counting than Bush did to make Obama's numbers look better than they are..

    It's called "spin"... Maybe you've heard of it.. :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It would be as if we, here in Weigantia, changed the definition of "correct" to mean "those with the most posts"... Under the NEW definition, I am ALWAYS correct....

    yes, that would definitely be the case.

    But this little side-trip proves beyond any doubt what I said before..
    Ya'all don't accept any facts that prove you wrong..

    i'm neither accepting nor rejecting your commentary on border statistics, pending hard data to substantiate your claims. i'm certainly open to being proven wrong here, you just haven't made the numerical case yet. care to expand your argument to include hard data from both the bush and obama admins? the article you cited seems to indicate that a comparison is too difficult to even attempt:

    (Table 39: Aliens Removed and Returned, FY 1892-2012) his cumulative numbers since taking office show Obama has removed a total of 1,974,688 people and returned 1,609,055 others. There have been more returns than removals only in FY 2009 and 2010. Moreover, comparing across administrations is not wise given the changes in law and counting procedures.

    JL

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm neither accepting nor rejecting your commentary on border statistics, pending hard data to substantiate your claims. i'm certainly open to being proven wrong here, you just haven't made the numerical case yet. care to expand your argument to include hard data from both the bush and obama admins? the article you cited seems to indicate that a comparison is too difficult to even attempt:

    It is..

    Which means there is no evidence that Obama has actually increased deportations..

    But we CAN use simple logic to make the case that he hasn't..

    The following is an example of stats for 2008:

    10,000 RETURNS

    5,000 TBS

    50,000 DEPORTATIONS

    Now, let's assume that, in 2009, the numbers stay the same..

    BUT.... For 2009, the current administration decides to lump ALL of the numbers into a single DEPORTATIONS number. Which, incidentially is exactly what happened..

    So now.... The number looks like this..

    65,000 DEPORTATIONS

    Lo and behold.. The new administration has INCREASED deportations!!!! WOWSA!!!!

    Of course, that's not the case... But because the administration has changed the counting labels, it LOOKS like it's the case...

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so, presuming that they've done what you're saying, why can't the numbers be teased back apart? e.g. if the number is 65,000 can't we get a reasonable estimate based on previous statistics?

    JL

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    so, presuming that they've done what you're saying,

    It's been well documented..

    why can't the numbers be teased back apart? e.g. if the number is 65,000 can't we get a reasonable estimate based on previous statistics?

    Because now it's impossible to know which numbers are from what category..

    It would require the Obama Administration to tell the reporting agencies to revert back to the old labels..

    And Obama ain't about to do that and prove to the world what a liar he is...

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moreover, comparing across administrations is not wise given the changes in law and counting procedures.

    So, you are making an "unwise" comparison.. :D

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, you are making an "unwise" comparison.. :D

    you got me on that one. still, it would be nice to know one way or another what the real numbers have been.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    you got me on that one.

    "Could you say that into my GOOD ear. I coulda swore ya just called me 'Ace'."
    -Ace Ventura

    :D

    still, it would be nice to know one way or another what the real numbers have been.

    Yes it would...

    But, unfortunately, politicians in general and Obama in particular only pay lip service to transparency..

    But we DO have anecdotal evidence from the line grunts on the ground that clearly indicate that deportations, arrests, returns and TBSs are all way way down...

    In other words, illegals are being let thru lock stock and barrel..

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!!!

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, JL...

    Previous Administrations are not blameless with the illegal immigrant problem.. There's enough blood to cover MANY administration's hands...

    But you have to admit. Obama has gone way out of his way and expended a buttload of political capital to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters..

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But you have to admit. Obama has gone way out of his way and expended a buttload of political capital to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters...

    obama hasn't had to do much of anything to mint new democratic voters. the republican debates did more on that count than a porous border ever could (if that's true, which based on your citation there's no way to tell).

    you're right about obama's hypocrisy on transparency though. that campaign promise wasn't just broken, it was shattered like a crystal vase dropped from the sears tower.

    JL

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Global Warming Forecasts May Be Flawed
    https://in.news.yahoo.com/climate-forecasts-may-flawed-says-170007812.html

    I am SHOCKED!!!! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!!

    :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're right about obama's hypocrisy on transparency though. that campaign promise wasn't just broken, it was shattered like a crystal vase dropped from the sears tower.

    Well said.... :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    "Your reasoning was to use the German speed limit (or in this case, lack thereof) for the US...

    Which is why I told you that you were completely fraked in the head if you thought that what would work over there would work here. Hence the comparison to the drinking age in Germany vis a vis here in the US..
    "

    Your reading comprehension is as pathetic as your arguments.

    I used the safety statistics from Germany, not the lack of speed limits to prove the case.
    Physics and materials science do not vary by country numbnuts.

    The drinking age argument was a strawman, not a comparison.

    I know definitions and context don't matter to trolls, or wingnuts, or wingnut trolls, but hey, I'm sure that didn't keep you from patting yourself on the back.

    I don't expect trolls to man up and apologize though.

    BTW- every time I mention the troll, wingnut, or serial liar, you respond because you know I'm addressing you.
    Nobody else here qualifies.
    And you know it too.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your acknowledgement of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant. :D

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.progressivestoday.com/chaos-sjw-students-crash-students-trump-meeting/

    Well, I am sure glad there is no suppression of free speech amongst the Left Wingery..

    Cause that would just be sad, eh?? :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.