That's true.. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario... :D

Michale

There's a term to describe dumping everyone into the same boat, too . :)

That's because no one MAKES ad hominem attacks against him... :D

And, for the love of God, STOP CALLING ME YA'ALL! :)

I don't like singling people out.. It's rude.. :D

Michale

Does he complain about ad hominem attacks against him? I don't think so.

And, for the love of God, STOP CALLING ME YA'ALL! :)

You know, there has only been one or two contributors here who have leveled the "ad hominem" charge against me. Both are relatively new arrivals here and female. 'Nuff said. Heh.

I just hate it when you start sounding like their hypersensitive complaining. Funnily enough, those who accuse others of ad hominem attacks generally tend to be the ad hominem attackers-in-chief.

He brought up the subject of administrations who lie and when I responded with the FACTS of that issue, he got all whiney and bitchy and said it wasn't relevant...

So, yell at him.. :D

Michale

I'll remind ya'all of that the next time ya'all complain :D

You're gonna have to give me a frickin' break on that one. You know what they say about commenters who dish it out but can't take it, right? Right!? Well, I can't remember what it is but it ain't good.

See above.. :D

Michale

No, you are complaining. Take it like a man. :)

Color me shocked..

Well, you shouldn't be, coming from the least hypersensitive person around here!

That's because there hasn't been much in the way of ad hominem attacks here until fairly recently...

You're gonna have to give me a frickin' break on that one. You know what they say about commenters who dish it out but can't take it, right? Right!? Well, I can't remember what it is but it ain't good.

That's because there hasn't been much in the way of ad hominem attacks here until fairly recently...

Michale

You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to:
-Listen

Just stating the facts, Liz..

To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't attack each others opinions or even each other ...

Really?? It's OK to attack, not just the idea or the message, but the people too!!??

Color me shocked..

Michale

It's so ... juvenile. We're all big boys and girls here, or should be.

We never used to have to read about ad hominem attacks around here until fairly recently.

Let's leave that irritating policy behind, yes

Then when I whacked yer pee-pee over it, you claimed that it's not relevant...

Make up yer mind, dood.. :D

Michale

Yes, you did..

"Obama did not continue with that program."

The programs I was talking about were the drone programs and the domestic surveillance programs..

You are wrong. Obama DID continue those programs.

And you support Obama in that..

I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to our discussion. You are wrong again.

Our discussion at that point in time was, due to YOU bringing it up, that Bush knowingly lied..

You are wrong...

PLUS you have no credibility to accuse Bush of lying, when you give Obama a pass when he DID knowingly and blatantly lie..

You are wrong..

You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to: you bring up things that others did that have nothing to do specifically with the matter being discussed.

YOU brought up lying..

Not me...

Whether or not Obama lied about any topic at any point in his life doesn't change any aspect of the conversation we were having concerning the lies told by the Republicans. Zilch, zero, nada!

It has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR credibility on the subject of lying. A subject, I repeat, YOU brought up..

And ad hominem attacks on me doesn't change that simple fact.

You have no moral or ethical foundation to complain about Bush's lying. Even if he DID lie... Which he didn't...

If you want a shred of credibility around here, you need to be honest and admit the faults of your own Party...

Otherwise, it's nothing but hysterical ideological claptrap..

Michale

So, Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's domestic surveillance program??

Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's drone program???.

Never said Obama didn't. You are wrong.

Yet, you completely ignore when Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about Benghazi..

I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to our discussion. You are wrong again.

You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to: you bring up things that others did that have nothing to do specifically with the matter being discussed. You then throw a tantrum and stomp out of the room when it is clear that your distraction didn't work! Whether or not Obama lied about any topic at any point in his life doesn't change any aspect of the conversation we were having concerning the lies told by the Republicans. Zilch, zero, nada! It's not cute when the 5 year old does it, either. But there's still hope that he can be taught that owning up to the truth is the right thing to do even when it is uncomfortable or makes us look bad.

You have absolutely NO credibility to complain about Bush's alleged lies...

With the exception of the Grand Poobah hisself (obviously) there is only ONE person here who has ANY credibility to speak of Bush's so-called "lies"...

He knows who he is and you ain't he...

"There's only 2 people in this world I trust. One of 'em's me and the other ain't you."
-Nicholas Cage, CON-AIR

:D

Michale

Actually this is not factual, but why let FACTS get in the way of a perfectly good rant, eh??

But it's funny.. You complain about the Bush government lying when it really didn't..

Yet, you completely ignore when Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about Benghazi..

When Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about TrainWreckCare...

You have absolutely NO credibility to complain about Bush's alleged lies...

Not when you give Obama a pass for HIS blatant and knowing lies..

Michale

So you have a one off...

And I have the Bernie supporter who rushed Trump on stage to attack him..

Unlike you, *I* don't paint an entire group for the actions of a single moron...

Michale

You do remember that it was Obama that was President when BinLaden was killed, correct?

I remember it was intelligence developed from the Bush Administration, intelligence gleaned from torture, that allowed Obama to kill Osama..

Ya'all always forget that part...

Gee, I wonder why....

Michale

So, Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's domestic surveillance program??

Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's drone program???

You guys are so transparently blinded by ideology, it's just sad..

And so goes any claim you have to be an independent.

Actually, our own JL said it best..

I hate BOTH Partys, I just hate the Democrat Party more...

With very good reason... :D

Michale

And so goes any claim you have to be an independent.

This is a stream of RWNJ nonsense - you're smarter than that.

Your entire post in (55) is a joke missing its punchline! I love that in one breath you attack anyone who says "Republicans do this..." for thinking that ALL Republicans are a monolith, yet In the next breath you wear you hypocrisy like a crown bashing all Democrats for committing acts that are not even the truth!

People were outraged to learn that we used torture on the captives we took prisoner. Obama did not continue with that program. When it became clear that there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that our government had knowingly lied about them, people got pissed. When our vets got back and weren't taken care of, people got pissed. Your argument that Bush's policies kept us protected after 9/11 is the same as my saying my dogs being dragon hounds have kept my house safe from dragon attacks.

Congress, and the whole country, were engulfed by the emotional swell of grieve that swept across our country after 9-11. How did the Democrats side with al-Qaeda? Bush was given just about anything he asked for in the Patriot Act. You do remember that it was Obama that was President when BinLaden was killed, correct? Odd show of support, if you ask me. Your saying the Democrats are the ones who put party before country is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the reality that it is the Republican Party that has blatantly put party politics above doing what is best for our country since Obama took office!

Racist Trump fan arrested with stockpile of pipe bombs after threatening Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-roos-fbi-pipe-bomb_us_5723a97be4b01a5ebde593d4 via @HuffPostPol.

Our country had just been brutally attacked.. THOUSANDS of innocent people had been brutally butchered in an unprovoked attack..

And the Democrat Party en masses sided with Al Qaeda and opposed CT policies that were designed to keep this country safe..

And kept this country safe, they did.... In SPITE of the Democrat Party's attempt to weaken this country, there hadn't been a terrorist attack on US Proper for the remainder of Bush's term..

But even though the Democrat Party sided with Al Qaeda, I wasn't TOO peeved... They took a position based in principle and morality and I could respect that.

Even though they were completely, utterly and unequivocally WRONG, I respected their position because it was a position taken in principle..

Or so I thought...

Then when a POTUS with a '-D' after his name came into office, the Democrat Party did a complete 180... All the policies that they said were bad, were horrendous would mean the end of our country...

ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the Democrat Party SUPPORTED those policies!!

It was an eye-opener for me...

I came to realize that the Democrat Party put this country at risk and sided with a group of ruthless terrorist thugs...

NOT based on principle or integrity or morality..

BUT SOLELY AND COMPLETELY FOR PARTISAN GAIN!!!

That's your Democrat Party, people. THAT is your LEFT Wingery....

Bush's policies that were horrendous and horrible, policies that made Bush a "War Criminal" and "Hitler" were, MIRACOUSLY and ALL OF THE SUDDEN not only acceptable but NECESSARY under a POTUS that has a '-D' after his name..

It's all about principles and integrity and morality...

And the Democrat Party has proven beyond ANY doubt that they have none....

Michale

No, but it WAS the Left that sided with Al Qaeda in opposing Bush's policies..

Policies that the Left TURNED RIGHT AROUND AND SUPPORTED TO THE HILT when it was a POTUS with a '-D' after his name that was pushing them...

So, please... Spare me the whinings of the mean old Right and the poor victimized pure Left..

It's a pile of shit....

Michale

It wasn't the Left that met after Obama's inaugural speech and agreed that they would no longer make deciding if a piece of legislation was in their constituent's best interests how they determined whether to vote on said legislation. It was not the Left that chose to make whether or not the President supported a piece of legislation the sole determining factor for whether they voted for a piece of legislation. It was not the Left that intentionally voted against the best interests of the country simply to prevent the President from taking credit for signing legislation that would be viewed as helping our country!

It's the Obama Derangement Syndrome and especially the demonize all things progressive that have made such a reasonable discussion impossible.

SPOT ON! This kinda goes along with Michale's post asking what is wrong with Trump's "America First" slogan. Nothing is wrong with it. But what President did not put America first in how they governed? I know Michale will have a list ten miles long in response to that question, but my point is that no person works their way up the political ladder and go through all the BS that comes with politics just so that when they reach the highest office, they can carry out their master plan to destroy this country! Will any president be able to have every policy and piece of legislation that they sign meet the public's expectations for whether it truly was putting "America First"? NEVER! Does "America First" mean that it's OK for American companies to benefit at the cost of the people...but only American companies? "America First" is a slogan. It is simple, patriotic (which my autocorrect changed to "parrot erotic" for some reason), and it fits nicely on a bumper sticker. I have no problem with the slogan, but I do question how he plans to live up to that slogan if he were to be elected!

We can't even fix small, easy-to-fix things b/c the Right won't even help.

Yea, because the Left gives the Right *SUCH* a huge incentive to work together, calling them "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage takers"...

:^/

Cue cries of "THEY STARTED IT!!!!" :^/

If the Left wants to have a partner in governing, the Left needs to BE a partner in governing...

Michale

There is an exceptionally strong argument for gov't-provided universal health care that is conservative in nature (at least, in accord with the business wing of the conservative alliance).

If the basic model is employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, then the price of goods reflect that. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. The problem arises when most all of the countries we compete with economically don't include this in the cost of their goods.

An argument can be made about whether the taxes necessary to make this a reality would be just as large a bite (I don't agree with this argument, but it isn't an unreasonable one to make).

This then becomes a cost-benefit analysis. It's the Obama Derangement Syndrome and especially the demonize all things progressive that have made such a reasonable discussion impossible.

We can't even fix small, easy-to-fix things b/c the Right won't even help.

Superdelegates continue to exist in the Dems precisely b/c they have never overturned the will of the pledged delegates. Should they ever do that, they won't exist in the following cycle.

To your broader point about GOP changing their rules, they have done that in large ways for both 2012 and 2016.

The problem for them is that they have basically looked at what was successful for the Dems and changed along those lines (exc for the new, make the Convention earlier to enable access to fundraising).

Unfortunately for the GOP, this did not work in 2012 and I wouldn't expect it to work in 2016. Even if the GOP wins in Nov, it will be in spite of their mimic-the-Dems rule changes rather than b/c of them.

I think she began to believe in the possibility and went harsh and things followed.

Cruz would absolutely be the best version of this from a progressive point of view.

Cruz has absolutely no chance of expanding the electoral map with its blue firewall and purple-turning-bluer demographic changes.

As I said before, 2020 is redistricting. Progressive reforms would be helped tremendously by a Cruz 2020 campaign.

Of course, Progressives have to vote in 2018 and left-wing money and elites need to take a more local view of elections. They need to mimic what the GOP began in 2002 and look to make the 2020 redistricting their ultimate goal.

If Clinton decides to call it a one-term presidency then perhaps Franken or Brown, perhaps not.

Think Amy Klobuchar (55 now, fabulous record with veterans; a bit too centrist, but that could change with the times).

Or, perhaps a Castro brother has reached the experience-level needed by then (Perez is 54 and would make another attractive latino nominee, especially due to his progressive beliefs).

That's the point that ya'all don't see...

Ya'all are so hysterically emotional about the '-R' after Trump's name and enamored by the '-D' after Hillary's name that you can't analyze the situation calmly and rationally..

There are MANY issues that Trump is on the LEFT of Hillary on...

But all ya'all can see is '-D'/'-R'......

Michale

{{chiirrrrppppppppp}} {{chiiirrrrrpppppppp}}

Yea... That's what I thought....

Michale

Nice dodge....

Another typical tactic of the Left Wingery.. :D

Michale

All lives matter

Not according to your Left Wingery nutballs of the BLM racist hate group..

not just those who fit your political bias du jour,

Really?? Then why hasn't ANYONE on the Left talked about Kathleen Steinle??

Apparently HER life didn't matter to ANYONE on the Left... Present company included...

At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..

All evidence to the contrary...

NO evidence to the contrary...

There... Fixed it for ya.. NOW it's accurate.. :D

Michale

Like I said.. Typical Left Wingery bullcarp....

So, do have a text file to copy and paste from or do you type this copy pasta out each time?

All lives matter not just those who fit your political bias du jour, or at least wasn't that what you are trying to convince us with the anti black lives matter rants? Guess it's only important when it furthers your political agenda...

And then have the gall to say that MY sense of morality is "strange"..

Indeed...

At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..

All evidence to the contrary...

It's just like the black lives matter crap...

"Let's address the .08% of black people that are killed by cops and ignore the 96% of black people that are killed by other black people!!"

It's an agenda borne COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY from a partisan ideological agenda and has absolutely NO BEARING on the facts or reality....

Like I said.. Typical Left Wingery bullcarp....

Michale

You still haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that terrorists are amongst christian refugees that are immigrating to the US..

When you can some facts to support THAT claim, then we can talk.. :D

Michale

Which is infinitely better than IGNORING those lives which is what ya'all do...

And then have the gall to say that MY sense of morality is "strange"..

At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..

Michale

So, you'll be all for universal healthcare then - since it is proven to be by far the most effective method to keep a population healthy?

Despite all the horror stories to the contrary.. :D

Time to ban Christians? No, that would be about as stupid as banning Muslims.

You have 4...

Do you want me to list the TENS of THOUSANDS of dead innocents due to muslim extremism...

But, that's so typically Left Winger....

"Let's ignore the 60,000 armed scumbags terrorists staring us in the face and concentrate on the 2 or 3 pea-shooter armed scumbags that are a mile away..."

Typical...

Michale

Tasty copy pasta...

But I guess in the vaunted halls of the Left Wingery it's "extreme" to care about Americans first.... :^/

Or at least lives are only worth memorializing if they are killed by illegals, eh? Strange sense of morality you have there...

I was just hoping there might be a 'safe list' in the nannybot software that allowed pre-screened users to bypass the nannybot.

Hey, I believe this site is THE best for immediate posting of comments - my very limited experience with such, notwithstanding.

I can tell you that at the only other site I comment at, from time to time, it can take days - no joke! - to have your comment posted and there are only a handful or two of commenters there. Matters of Principle, Senator Gary Hart's blog, could sure use that "safe list" you talk about!

1. Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009: Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester."

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed.

You want some more? Like the Oklahoma City bombing? The Centennial Olympic Park bombing? Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994?

etc. etc.

Time to ban Christians? No, that would be about as stupid as banning Muslims.

You're right - and I understand from CW's post earlier this week that the Nannybot is really important to keeping this blog free of the crazy stuff (I have my own blog and have to scroll through dozens of spam comments).

I was just hoping there might be a 'safe list' in the nannybot software that allowed pre-screened users to bypass the nannybot.

So, you'll be all for universal healthcare then - since it is proven to be by far the most effective method to keep a population healthy?

And, to save 30,000 American lives per year, you'll accept strong controls on gun access?

You'll also want to fund a program to remove lead from pipes, even if that means we only have to spend more than the top 5 other nations on defense instead of the top 11?

Otherwise it might seem to others that you just want to pick on one group to single out to make America safer.

Yea.. It's because he is rich and successful...

You mean like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and the constant claims of racism that trail them around wherever they go in the World?

If that's the case, give me "extreme" any day of the week and twice on Sunday....

Michale

Where is Hillary and Bernie on this???

They are too busy coddling the very criminals and scumbags that CAUSED The Remembrance Project...

That puts Trump WAY WAY higher on the morality ladder than either Hillary OR Bernie...

Michale

Yea.. It's because he is rich and successful...

Far right wing Christians have committed terrorist acts on American soil. Is it "prudence" to ban all Christians?

If there was a massive immigration of christians whereas some of them had been DOCUMENTED as being terrorists...???

Yea, damn skippy it would be prudent to limit their immigration until such time as they can be deemed NOT a threat..

I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that whatsoever...

And you are in your own circle that seems to suffer the same problem.

My circle encompasses facts and reality, whereas ya'all's circle is solely made up of the concept that anything Right is evil incarnate and anything Left is pure as the driven snow..

My circle is a lot better and a lot more realistic than ya'all's circle...

:D

Michale

If you lost some comments for reasons you can't understand, then one of two things needs to happen ... have some patience, number one ... and, number two, always make a copy of your comment in case this glitch happens to you again and, remember, you may have to change it up a bit to avoid that nasty message that says you may have already said this once and it's not worth repeating. Heh.

Given that you pre-clear us to post, can you not put reliable commentators like Paula, Michale, myself, etc. on a list that the nannybot ignores. If we go off reservation we can be taken off the list, but I just lost another couple of comments for a reason I can't understand.

Thanks.

Far right wing Christians have committed terrorist acts on American soil. Is it "prudence" to ban all Christians?

The problem is, you are within the circle, so it's impossible for you to see outside the circle...

And you are in your own circle that seems to suffer the same problem. You know look in the mirror and all...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

Trump is regarded generally as being an extreme bigot and a racist, and not just for partisan reasons. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care about Democrats vs. Republicans. For example, in the U.K. the only two nominees most people have heard of were Trump for his bigoted remarks, and Clinton because her husband used to be President.

They think Trump is a bigot and a racist from seeing clips of his speeches. I'm on calls to Europe and Asia frequently and my friends ask me if Trump has a chance of becoming President because they think he is odious.

Hell, the British Parliament even had a session on banning Trump from the country based on his remarks - the footage is hilarious ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZunCEYtER0 ). This was prompted by an online petition that got the required 100,000 signatures forcing the debate (it quickly got 584,364 signatures).

My friends in Germany are appalled because they are extremely sensitive to populist politicians who single out groups to scapegoat (just edged around Godwin's law on that one). In China, like in Britain, they think he is a dangerous buffoon.

So, you tell me, if the 'circle' includes basically everybody in the World except Trump supporters, who is inside the circle, and who is outside?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html

THAT's extreme....

Michale

If Trump had called Mexicans, rapists, the you would have a point.

But he didn't, so you don't...

Pretending to forget who David Duke is just before a southern primary (he'd even dissociated himself from Duke two days earlier when the big cameras weren't on him) is extreme.

You mean pretending to forget David Duke the 13th time after being asked and answered the previous dozen times???

I don't see any problem with that...

Calling for banning entry to all Muslims is extreme.

That's not extreme.. That's called prudence...

Making funny hand gestures to mimic a disabled reporter is extreme.

So is a Democrat saying something about "fucking retards"...

So, yes, Trump is an extreme (and odious) bigot.

No more than Democrats who ridicule and attack a class of Americans they don't like...

The problem is, you are within the circle, so it's impossible for you to see outside the circle...

Michale

Pretending to forget who David Duke is just before a southern primary (he'd even dissociated himself from Duke two days earlier when the big cameras weren't on him) is extreme.

Calling for banning entry to all Muslims is extreme. As is falsely claiming that thousands were celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.

The whole birther movement fiasco was extreme (and racist).

Mocking Asian accents is extreme (and racist).

Making funny hand gestures to mimic a disabled reporter is extreme.

Tweeting bogus murder statistics that humiliate blacks is extreme (and racist by the way).

So, yes, Trump is an extreme (and odious) bigot.

Or, more accurately, "Colloquial" in the sense of "whatever we want it to mean at any given moment"... :D

It's like, if you want to believe you are a black person..

POOOF

You're a black person....

If you want to believe you are 17 instead of 30???

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/americas/jonathan-nicola-said-he-was-17-but-the-high-school-basket-player-may-be-closer-to-30.html

POOOOF

You are 17 instead of 30....

If you want to believe Trump is a racist...

POOOOF

Trump is a racist...

No reality or facts required...

:D

Michale

There is no evidence of "extreme" any more than Hillary or Sanders are "extreme" bigots...

The only difference is the choice of scapegoated group...

but he's still a racist in the colloquial use of the word

I agree.. "Colloquial" in the sense of "whomever we don't like"... :D

Michale

Yeah, correctly he is an extreme bigot ... but he's still a racist in the colloquial use of the word ;)

I think you are spot on, Paula. If Trump loses I think that there will be some serious 'rules making' to limit candidates who are 'official' Republican nominees - I expect a nomination committee that prospective candidates will have to get approval from. Rogue candidates will not be allowed to participate in the debates, etc. There would also be lawsuits if somebody uses the party label (they also own "GOP", "Grand Old Party," "Republican National Committee," "RNC" and the official GOP elephant logo).

I also expect that there will be serious tinkering with the delegate allocation process. I would imagine that the Republicans will introduce superdelegates (for the same reason that the Democrats adopted the practice).

We must do our own little part to change that up ... and, never miss an opportunity even when opportunity comes knockin' - left, right and center, at the same time!

Yep... Just as unbelievable as when hordes and hordes of people insist Trump is a racist without a SINGLE FACT to back it up..

So I get it.. It's unbelievable and it's annoying...

But it's the world we live in... Or, more accurately, it's the politics of the world we live in...

Facts don't matter. Hysterical Hyperbole is the coin of the realm...

Michale

Is it understandable when Republican members of Congress accuse a treasury secretary of being a former employee of Goldman Sachs and when the secretary says that is untrue, then the congressman retorts with, well you worked in the investment banking industry. And, when the secretary says that is also untrue and that he has spent his entire career in public service, the congressman fires back with a "whatever" ... unbelievable!

It's all about perception..

That is also a problem that few seem willing to contest.

I'm not arguing or lecturing or correcting anyone. My objective is to get their response without trying to influence them.

Yes, well, that is the overarching problem with the media - mainstream, social, and otherwise. It's how falsehoods continue to be viewed as the truth and history becomes meaningless.

Perception trumps reality in these cases...

The fact that none of the Wall Street bigwigs were held responsible for the catastrophe and many on Obama's team WERE those same Wall Street bigwigs, it's understandable that people would conclude that the SecTreas was a Wall Street insider...

It's like when people assume Hillary is a murderer... Technically, she isn't, but the body count associated with the Clintons is huge, so people can be forgiven for this assumption..

Or like when everyone thinks Trump is a racist.. It was more fun and easy to just follow the herd rather than actually LOOK at the facts...

It's all about perception..

Michale

I started by writing down comments but after awhile I started recording people.

Are you secretly taping these people you stop for your anecdotes?

Just curious ...

And, in one of life's ironies, he now has left public service and is spending the latter years of his working life in the financial sphere that everyone and their brother thought he was in all along.

I would be remiss if I said I wasn't disappointed by his choice but, he did write a fascinating book (Stress Test). Though, it wasn't exactly a life's memoir written on some South Pacific island. Ahem.

He appointed someone from Goldman Sachs as Secretary...

I sure hope you set that well-dressed, mid-40s man from China in the store parking lot straight on that misinformed comment.

Who does this man think saved the US economy, President Obama? ... the Republicans? Well, he can guess again!!

My hope is that the Christianist/End-times nuts who follow Cruz will go third party or just pull out of politics for awhile.

On Dem side, I live in Akron Ohio and Sherrod Brown's wife, journalist Connie Schultz, has a very active facebook page/group here. She has said repeatedly Sherrod Brown does not want to be President and doesn't intend to run. I suppose that could change but methinks we'll be looking elsewhere. And, although I love Elizabeth Warren, she'll be 70 in 2020… May not matter. But she is so very, very good where she is.

What does he think of the election season so far?

"I don't know, I don't know."

Heavy sigh.

"I don't think one person can do very much. Obama seemed so revolutionary but seven years later what has changed? He appointed someone from Goldman Sachs as Secretary...Donald Trump is an outsider but I doubt even he will make much difference. I come from China - we didn't have elections. But the election of one politician here, not enough. It is a process."