ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [389] -- Lucifer, Or A Joe McCarthy-Dracula Love Child?

[ Posted Friday, April 29th, 2016 – 16:58 PDT ]

Boy, it isn't every day you get to write a headline like that! But those are the kinds of feelings Ted Cruz seems to bring out in everyone -- left, right, and center.

On the right, doesn't John Boehner sound a lot looser and more relaxed now that he isn't responsible for herding a bunch of hyperactive cats in the House? He certainly seemed like it this week, in what was supposed to be an unrecorded talk. Of course, these days, everyone in politics should just automatically assume that everything they say will be recorded, because the chances are it will be. When asked what he personally thought about Ted Cruz, Boehner responded: "Lucifer in the flesh." In case anyone thought he was kidding, he followed this up with: "I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life." C'mon, tell us what you really think, John!

Not to be outdone, Representative Peter King (who, earlier, said he'd drink cyanide if Cruz were to become his party's nominee) piled on to Boehner's comment by responding: "Maybe he gives Lucifer a bad name by comparing him to Ted Cruz." This is likely the first time that Peter King and actual Satanists have agreed on anything, it should be noted. We're not sure if this is any sort of sign of the impending apocalypse, but then we're not the theological (demonic?) experts that King and Boehner seem to be. And, please remember, this is what fellow Republicans are saying about the man who is supposed to somehow be "saving the party" from Donald Trump!

Over on the left, Al Franken is starting to be confident enough that people take him seriously as a senator to actually give himself permission to be funny once again. Franken, in excerpts from a roast in Minnesota, does a hilarious impression of Paul Ryan as an 18th-century fop denying he has any presidential ambitions ("No, no, I shan't run"), and he also took the time to share his own impression of what, exactly, Ted Cruz really is: "the love child of Joe McCarthy and Dracula."

Perhaps this outbreak of levity was due to Washington currently being in its giddy run-up to the granddaddy of political roasts, the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The White House itself got in on the fun today, and turned over the briefing podium to fictional character C. J. Cregg (press secretary on The West Wing, played by Allison Janney). Since this will be President Obama's last official roast, it'll be interesting to see what jokes he's been holding back until now.

But we're getting distracted. Back to the presidential campaign trail. Ted Cruz, realizing that time is fast running out on any chance he's going to have of winning the Republican nomination (his entire candidacy may actually expire next Tuesday, in Indiana), made a desperation move -- what's being called his "Hail Carly" play. He announced his (non-existent) running mate will be none other than Carly Fiorina.

This is a naked move to grab some California delegates, of course. Carly originally hailed from the Golden State, but what Ted Cruz seems to have missed is that she hasn't exactly been a success out here. But we have to defer to Senator Barbara Boxer, since Boxer was the one Fiorina lost to by 10 points after spending a whopping amount of money (on "demon sheep" ads, no less). Boxer's reaction to Fiorina being named by Cruz was priceless:

[Fiorina] hasn't held office, any office, be it Senate, House, state legislature, local government, not a minute's worth, and her claim to fame is running a large corporation which she practically destroyed, Hewlett-Packard, the pride of California. I think it just shows Ted Cruz has no judgment whatsoever by choosing her. I think if Carly Fiorina is on a national ticket, that would be really good for the Democrats because... in the worst year for Democrats, and I mean it, I beat her by one million votes. We just showed her record when she was at HP and how selfish she is as a human being.

Boxer followed this skewering up with a tweet, in case anyone still had any doubts how she felt: "I predict that the latest @CarlyFiorina merger will be as successful as her last one."

The real irony is that this all might be meaningless, if Ted Cruz loses Indiana next Tuesday. Cruz didn't do himself any good in the basketball-crazy Hoosier State by talking about the "basketball ring" to a crowd. Hoo boy. Basketball ring? Really? Donald Trump then made things worse for Cruz by announcing the endorsement of infamous hometown coach (and chair-hurler) Bobby Knight. Knight, of course, had the best response to the Cruz gaffe: "A guy that would come into this state and think that we play with rings instead of baskets is not a guy that's very well prepared to do a hell of a lot."

We stand on the brink of both parties' nomination races being essentially over, in fact. This was due to Trump sweeping all five states last Tuesday night, and Hillary Clinton winning four out of five. As Hillary begins her pivot (long-awaited, by her) to a general election campaign strategy, she is already going out of her way to attempt to woo Bernie voters over to her camp. George "Mr. Sulu" Takei even helped this effort out, in a video he posted on Facebook taking exception with the "Bernie or Bust" folks.

Tuesday was also a good night for the establishment wing of the Democratic Party in general, as two Senate primaries were won (in Maryland and Pennsylvania) by the party insiders' favored candidates.

In other election news, the citizens of Maine will get the chance to vote on legalizing recreational marijuana this November. Nevada has already qualified a ballot measure, and California will also likely be voting on the issue. Watch for the number of states with outright legalization measures on the ballot to increase, in the coming months. Currently, four states and the Nation's Capital have already legalized recreational adult use, and the sky hasn't noticeably fallen in any of them.

Even with such progress, we've still got a long way to go, though. The Washington Post deserves kudos for shining a spotlight on the worst abuses of the War On Drugs in the past months, in a series of articles they've run on the legal highway robbery known as "asset forfeiture." This week, they published a story about a church group from Burma who were pulled over in Oklahoma for a broken taillight. No drugs or paraphernalia were found in their vehicle, but the cops just went ahead and confiscated over $50,000 because these people had the temerity to carry it around with them in cash.

Mere days later, a followup story ran, because local district attorney Orvil Loge decided to drop all charges and return the money in full. His reason?

"I looked at the case and met with the officers and determined that we would not be able to meet the burden of proof in the criminal case and in the civil case," Loge said in an interview. He also cited the press coverage of the story and said that his office has heard from "a lot of citizens" who were upset about the details of the case.

That is what is known as the mainstream media being a force for good (for once). This happens every day in America -- cops just confiscate money from hapless drivers, and then the legal burden of proof is on the driver, to prove in court that the money wasn't illegal drug proceeds or from anything nefarious. This turns our entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system on its head, and the practice (which is, sadly, all too common) needs to be stopped. The Post is to be applauded for bringing public opinion to bear on these excesses, which obviously worked wonders in this particular case.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

There was really only one candidate for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week, mostly because his action took place as we were writing last week's column. Everyone else had his high bar to match, all week long, and nobody really came close.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe last week restored the voting rights of over 200,000 convicted felons. As the state's executive, his pardon powers are pretty much absolute, and he used them in a muscular way. Beyond his action, he then did the rounds of television interviews to justify what he had just done in exemplary fashion.

His argument was a simple one. First, lifetime voting bans have an ugly history in Virginia, being one of the original Jim Crow laws specifically designed to suppress the African-American vote. Second, and more importantly, there is an excellent moral reason for not banning ex-prisoners from voting forever. As McAuliffe explained multiple times last weekend, when you commit a crime you are tried for that crime by a judge and jury. If found guilty, you are given a sentence. That should be your entire punishment -- what is handed down by judge and jury. When you have served your prison time, your parole, or your probation, you are supposed to have paid your full debt to society. After you have done so, the best possible outcome is that you fully integrate back into law-abiding society and become a productive citizen once again. Part of that is having a voice in your government. Screwing up when you are 20 should not mean you never get to vote again for the rest of your life, unless you are actually given a life sentence in prison.

This is a very basic concept and a very moral argument to make, and McAuliffe did so quite convincingly last week. Of course, he was hit by Republicans for doing so, because (in their opinion) McAuliffe is just trying to create lots of new Democratic voters who will vote for Hillary Clinton in November. This ignores the fact that McAuliffe campaigned on the issue to get where he is today, and it also presupposes that every ex-felon will automatically vote Democratic. What, after all, is stopping the Republican Party from vying for their votes? Nobody's going to force these people to vote, and nobody's going to force them to vote for one candidate over another.

Not every state even has such laws to overturn. Banning ex-felons from voting isn't a universal concept, in other words. In fact, it is nothing more than a Jim Crow era holdover -- one that needs to be thrown on the ash heap of history along with all the rest of the ugliness that era produced.

Terry McAuliffe made a bold stand by doing what was right. No matter when it might have happened, the Republicans were bound to moan about "politics" influencing the decision. But by doing so, they are fully admitting that the policy is designed to suppress Democratic votes. That, right there, is enough of a reason to scrap the policy, in fact. Politics was part of the law all along, and getting rid of it means returning to the constitutional ideal of only being legally punished by the sentence a judge and jury hands down. If some serial voter fraudster is ever prosecuted in the future, then perhaps part of that punishment could be a lifetime ban from voting -- but only if it is part of the actual court sentence.

For doing the right thing, and for standing up to the naysayers with a very cogent and well-delivered moral argument, Terry McAuliffe is indeed this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

President Obama is trying to implement a change in the way Medicare compensates doctors for expensive drugs. Rather than raking off a percentage of the drug's cost (which gives an incentive to doctors to prescribe the absolute most-expensive drug in the marketplace), instead change much of the compensation to a fixed amount. Remove the big cash incentive, and doctors can prescribe the best available medicine -- even if it's cheaper.

However, the drug lobby is pretty powerful on Capitol Hill, which has led to not only the expected Republican balking at the new initiative but also Democrats shamefully pushing back on the White House as well.

This isn't even the most drastic idea for bringing down prescription drug costs -- that would be allowing the federal government to bargain with the drugmakers over the prices themselves (something the prescription drug law passed under George W. Bush specifically prohibits). This is just slightly changing the way doctors rake in what is essentially a kickback for prescribing the most expensive drug they can possibly prescribe.

So we're handing out a group Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week, for any Democrat who has so far signed one of the letters pushing back on this Obama initiative, and certainly for any who ultimately wind up voting against the president. This is precisely what Bernie Sanders is talking about when he rails against the pernicious influence campaign donations have on our political system. The drug industry has one of the most powerful lobbying efforts in Washington, and this is precisely what their money buys them.

[Since this is a group award, you'll have to contact your own members of Congress to ask what their positions are on the issue, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 389 (4/29/16)

This week, we start out with three positive talking points for Democrats, and then (just because) four negative talking points about the insanity that is passing for the Republican nomination race. Enjoy, as always, and use responsibly.

 

1
   Automatic registration

This sort of thing needs to happen everywhere.

"Vermont just became the fourth state -- joining Oregon, California, and West Virginia -- in making voter registration automatic when visiting the state's department of motor vehicles to get a driver's license. Unless you specifically opt out, you are automatically registered to vote as you register to drive. This is nothing short of common sense, and streamlines government paperwork. In fact, how anyone could be against such a good idea is beyond me. After Oregon became the first state to implement the idea this January, voter registration rates there have quadrupled. The only reason to be against such a plan is if you think your political party is incapable of convincing new voters to vote for you -- there is no other reason why voter registration shouldn't be as easy as possible for everyone. This is an idea whose time has come, and I look forward to many other states following Vermont in passing such laws as soon as possible."

 

2
   Brand New Congress

This is heartening to see, because it would be a real shame if all the energy and momentum behind Bernie Sanders dissipated into thin air afterwards. The revolution should continue.

"Former Bernie Sanders staff and volunteers announced the creation of Brand New Congress, which will look ahead to the 2018 midterm elections, in order to 'replace Congress all at once.' Although they're likely to fall far short of that lofty ambition, it is good to see that an effort is being made to translate the enormous wave of support Bernie has gotten into a positive movement for change at the congressional level. They plan to set up local search committees to recruit strong progressive candidates for the House and Senate -- whether they be a Republican or a Democrat. Now that nobody sneers at grassroots campaigns any more (and the millions they can bring in, with very small individual donations), it will be interesting to see if Brand New Congress can make an impact in the next midterm elections. Progressives need to continue the fight that Bernie has been fighting, all up and down the ticket. This is how real political change actually happens"

 

3
   Fourth Amendment should apply to all email

Not many people were even aware of this quirky loophole in the law, but that vote count certainly seems promising.

"The House just voted unanimously -- 419 to 0 -- to close a gaping loophole in the laws concerning searching emails. Due to a law passed long before most people even used email, all emails six months old or older have not required a warrant for police to search. Yes, you heard that right -- only the last six months of your emails are protected from random government searches. Any older than that, and the government could force Gmail or whatever provider to hand over all your data with no warrant at all. This law obviously needs updating, to fit the modern world. Emails should be just as protected by the Fourth Amendment as any other personal records. It was indeed heartening to see the House vote unanimously to do exactly that. It certainly gives hope that the Senate will now act and close this loophole forever."

 

4
   Hand me a 9-bludgeon...

OK, you just knew this one was going to be here, right?

"I hear that Ted Cruz recently referred to a, quote, basketball ring, unquote. Wow. That's just... wow. I look forward to more sports-related observations from Ted, such as his thoughts on: 'the U-shaped poles' on a football field, swinging a 'baseball stick' and hitting 'a tour of the cornerbags,' returning a tennis serve with your 'netswatter' across the 'mesh fence,' or hitting a golf ball with the 'bludgeons' in your bag. Seriously, has Ted Cruz ever even come into contact with the world of sports? Surely he must have been in a bar when a game was on television, or something."

 

5
   Just wait five minutes...

Trump gave a big foreign policy speech this week. He read off a TelePrompTer and everything! Only problem was, as John Soltz masterfully pointed out, he contradicted himself on pretty much everything he said.

"Did you catch Donald Trump's foreign policy speech? It didn't matter whether you agreed with him or not, all you had to do was wait five minutes and he would wind up contradicting what he had just finished saying. America 'must be prepared to let [NATO] countries defend themselves' if they won't pay more... but also America is 'going to be a great and reliable ally again.' America's foreign policy goals need to be defined, because since the Cold War ended 'we've lacked a coherent foreign policy'... but then 'we must as a nation be more unpredictable,' because 'we are totally predictable.' On issue after issue, Trump would state one position and then state precisely the opposite moments later. The whole thing was downright incoherent -- if you didn't like what you heard, all you had to do was hit yourself in the head with a hammer to forget it, and two minutes later Trump would say the opposite. Is that really how America wants to conduct foreign policy?"

 

6
   Most votes against, too!

Thanks to the Washington Post for pointing this one out.

"Donald Trump has been making a big deal out of the fact that he may get the 'most Republican votes ever' for any presidential candidate. Well, that's true, he is within reach of breaking George W. Bush's record. But what he fails to mention is that he's already set a record when it comes to counting GOP voters. More Republicans have voted against Trump than have ever voted against any other nominee in history. The biggest turnout in Republican primary history isn't for Trump -- it is, in fact, against Trump."

 

7
   Carly's nails on a chalkboard

We absolutely must put a warning on this one. Don't follow this link and watch the video if you have just eaten, because you will be in danger of losing your lunch. Don't say we didn't warn you!

"We seriously thought we had seen the last of Carly Fiorina, but then Ted Cruz went ahead and named her his hypothetical running mate. As if it wasn't bad enough to see Fiorina gnashing her teeth on television again, what was truly frightening was when she -- for some unfathomable reason -- decided to woo the audience with her singing. Or, more accurately, her 'alleged singing.' What made it even worse (if that's even possible, which we doubt) was that she says she's been doing this sort of thing in front of children. Now, being the child of Ted Cruz is horrific enough to contemplate without also being frightened by the likes of Carly Fiorina attempting a lullaby. Oh, the humanity!"

-- 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

 

138 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [389] -- Lucifer, Or A Joe McCarthy-Dracula Love Child?”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Orange Crush!

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    No anecdote today: didn't get a chance to get out...

    Enjoyed the Al Franken bits -- Al as Veep is a fun ideal. I love him. When he did Air America I was so impressed. Maybe Al as Veep in 4-8 years, even better.

    Agree Terry McAuliffe's action deserves BIG kudos -- he's right. Sentence served should be the end of it.

    Also, the asset forfeiture story -- that's one of the many kinds of police abuse finally seeing the light of day. A lot of people have been systematically abused for years by law enforcement and corrupt officials. Those kinds of behaviors flourish in the shadows -- sunlight, sunlight, sunlight!

    Most Disappointing Dems: yep.

  3. [3] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    With the trend to towards legalized Marijuana one has to wonder what the tipping point will be before we start to see mass sentence commutations for those in jail for doing nothing more than growing a plant.

    or...

    Will it be a state that does it? California would be a good candidate should we transition to fully legalized consumption. It would go a along way to helping with prison overcrowding.

    In either case I think we are long overdue for a sentencing/punishment overhaul. At the very least this should become part of the national discussion for this movement. I for one find it ridiculous that a registered sex offender, serial squatter, car thief, and meth dealer arrested with an ounce packaged for distribution, in possession of a firearm is in and out in 6 months to return to his ways and decides to try threatening the neighborhood, but the person whose sole crime is growing plants ( yes, Michale, I know an Illegal plant...etc, etc.), no guns involved gets 30 years and still has not been selected for parole despite being a model prisoner. Talk about insanity...

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The real irony is that this all might be meaningless, if Ted Cruz loses Indiana next Tuesday. Cruz didn't do himself any good in the basketball-crazy Hoosier State by talking about the "basketball ring" to a crowd. Hoo boy. Basketball ring?

    Jedi Mind Meld

    'nuff said.. :D

    George "Mr. Sulu" Takei even helped this effort out, in a video he posted on Facebook taking exception with the "Bernie or Bust" folks.

    Takei has absolutely NO credibility any more.. As sad as it is for me to say that..

    When you have served your prison time, your parole, or your probation, you are supposed to have paid your full debt to society. After you have done so, the best possible outcome is that you fully integrate back into law-abiding society and become a productive citizen once again.

    So, you are saying that a serial child molester who has served his sentence, there should be NO further stipulations on his future?? He can live next to a school or daycare???

    What about the 20 year old that shoots up a school and is released after 30 years.. He should be allowed to own guns again?? After all, he "paid his debt to society"... Right???

    The simple fact is, this is an issue only because crooks and criminals by and large vote Democrat..

    THAT should tell ya'all something about the Democrat Party, eh?? :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I for one find it ridiculous that a registered sex offender, serial squatter, car thief, and meth dealer arrested with an ounce packaged for distribution, in possession of a firearm is in and out in 6 months to return to his ways and decides to try threatening the neighborhood, but the person whose sole crime is growing plants ( yes, Michale, I know an Illegal plant...etc, etc.), no guns involved gets 30 years and still has not been selected for parole despite being a model prisoner. Talk about insanity...

    Yes, and if that was the rule and not the exception, then you would have a point..

    But it's not, so you don't...

    It's quite simple, really..

    If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime..

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agree Terry McAuliffe's action deserves BIG kudos -- he's right. Sentence served should be the end of it.

    Sorry, a repeat is too good to pass up... :D

    So, you are saying that a serial child molester who has served his sentence, there should be NO further stipulations on his future?? He can live next to a school or daycare???

    What about the 20 year old that shoots up a school and is released after 30 years.. He should be allowed to own guns again?? After all, he "paid his debt to society"... Right???

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, the asset forfeiture story -- that's one of the many kinds of police abuse finally seeing the light of day. A lot of people have been systematically abused for years by law enforcement and corrupt officials. Those kinds of behaviors flourish in the shadows -- sunlight, sunlight, sunlight!

    AG Lynch is up to her eyeballs in asset forfeitures....

    Funny how no one condemns her for it..

    Ahhhh, that's right. The magical '-D' after her name protects her from ANY condemnation...

    Silly me... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta ask yourselves 2 questions..

    1. Would ya'all be cheering MacCauliffe's move if crooks and criminals overwhelmingly voted Republican??

    and

    B. Would McCauliff even have DONE what he did if crooks and criminals overwhelmingly voted Republican...

    The answer to both is, of course, an unequivocal HELL NO...

    That says it all...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    More Republicans have voted against Trump than have ever voted against any other nominee in history. The biggest turnout in Republican primary history isn't for Trump -- it is, in fact, against Trump."

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    We don't know the count of the people who voted AGAINST Trump...

    That's like saying every vote for Bernie is, in reality, a vote AGAINST Hillary...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The House just voted unanimously -- 419 to 0 -- to close a gaping loophole in the laws concerning searching emails. Due to a law passed long before most people even used email, all emails six months old or older have not required a warrant for police to search. Yes, you heard that right -- only the last six months of your emails are protected from random government searches. Any older than that, and the government could force Gmail or whatever provider to hand over all your data with no warrant at all. This law obviously needs updating, to fit the modern world. Emails should be just as protected by the Fourth Amendment as any other personal records. It was indeed heartening to see the House vote unanimously to do exactly that. It certainly gives hope that the Senate will now act and close this loophole forever."

    So... The Republican House did a GOOD thing...

    Let's give credit where credit is due... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protesters clash with cops at California Trump rally: Hundreds of Mexican flag-waving demonstrators smash up a squad car, punch a Donald supporter and scuffle with riot police amid angry scenes
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3565010/Police-clash-protesters-outside-Donald-Trump-rally-California.html#ixzz47JURSFUj

    Someone remind me again how it's ONLY Trump supporters who are violent and attack people??

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary...... :^/

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Someone remind me again how it's ONLY Trump supporters who are violent and attack people??

    Ask yourself another question. Why do these things only happen at Trump events?

    It can't be because he is hated by the left because of his right wing stances - as you've stated several times, Trump is more liberal than Hillary on a lot of issues, and way, to the right of even Kasich, let alone Cruz. Yet nobody is lighting up Cruz rallies.

    Could it be Trump's extreme bigotry?

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump is more liberal than Hillary on a lot of issues, and way, to the right of even Kasich, let alone Cruz.

    Should read:

    Trump is more liberal than Hillary on a lot of issues, and way to the left of Kasich, let alone Cruz.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask yourself another question. Why do these things only happen at Trump events?

    Because Left Wingers are violent thugs..

    Are you saying that TRUMP is to blame for the actions of these scumbags??

    In other words, NO MATTER WHAT, it's all Trump's fault...

    Color me surprised.. NOT...

    It can't be because he is hated by the left because of his right wing stances -

    Ahhhh

    So, if Obama is hated because of his Left Wing stances and violent scumbag thugs attack Obama rallies, it's all OBAMA'S fault!??

    Do you even HEAR yourself???

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    What about the MILLIONS of Americans who LOVE Trump??

    Don't they matter???

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why does Trump hate America? He keeps calling us all losers. I'm bored with my country being called a loser by a jerk who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

    He thinks China and Mexico are beating us. He has probably not been outside of 5 star hotels in China or Mexico in his whole life. If he had ventured onto the streets, he'd realize that most of those countries are way, way behind us. Most of their countries are poorer than the poorest parts of Mississippi. How is that beating us?

    Even his own rhetoric defies the logic - if Mexico is beating us, why aren't the Mexicans building a wall to keep our poor out? If China is so wonderful, why are pregnant Chinese women flying over to give birth in the U.S. so the babies get citizenship?

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why does Trump hate America?

    When did you stop beating your wife???

    Do you honestly think such nekkidly absured and moronic questions belong in an intelligent debate??

    What about the millions of Americans who love Trump..

    Do they count???

    Yes or No

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    Other reasons people might hate Trump enough to protest his rallies - his lies. Here are just two from this week:

    1. "And now ISIS is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling Libya oil."

    ISIS are not exporting any oil from Libya, of course.

    2. "There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more."

    There are nowhere near 'scores' of charges. In fact, I can't find one terrorist case involving a recent migrant (i.e. one who has come in this year).

    3. "We have no idea where these people are coming from. There’s no documentation. There’s no paperwork. There’s nothing."

    Just a standard Trump lie. There is more paperwork and investigation screening potential immigrants from Syria, etc. than there is on just about any American citizen.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other reasons people might hate Trump enough to protest his rallies - his lies. Here are just two from this week:

    So, it's ALL Trumps fault..

    The people who are attacking and destroying are completely blameless..

    Again, I have to ask you..

    Do you even HEAR yourself???

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    What about the millions of Americans who love Trump..

    Do they think we are losers?

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, why are there protests only at Trump events?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly don't know if you are saying such ludicrously inane bullshit because you know it pisses me off??

    Or if you actually believe that those that attack and destroy at Trump rallies are perfectly justified in doing so because it's Trump..

    Either way, it's just sad.....

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, why are there protests only at Trump events?

    Because illegal immigrant and those that advocate for illegal immigrants are scumbag thugs...

    But I am glad to hear you concede that Trump supporters are not violent...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or if you actually believe that those that attack and destroy at Trump rallies are perfectly justified in doing so because it's Trump..

    I said "protest" not "attack and destroy" - you are putting words in my mouth again. Desist.

    Why are there only mass protests of Trump events?

    My premise: he lies more and more egregiously than other politicians (evidence from only one speech this week above), and he is an extreme bigot (evidence supplied earlier this week).

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    But I am glad to hear you concede that Trump supporters are not violent...

    99.9% of Trump supporters are not violent. Some are, and they go to Trump events hoping for a fight.

    99.9% of Trump detractors are not violent. Some are, and they go to Trump events hoping for a fight.

    There are violent jerks. They don't define my ideas or your ideas. So why are you only focused on the few and not the large groups of peaceful protestors that Trump inspires?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I answered your question now you answer mine..

    1. Do the millions and millions of Americans who support Trump count???

    2. Are the scumbag thugs who commit these crimes responsible for their actions. Or is Trump to blame??

    Fair is fair.. I showed you mine now you show me yours. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some are, and they go to Trump events hoping for a fight.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    There are violent jerks.

    Yes there are.. And they are not limited to Trump supporters..

    THAT's the point you don't get...

    So why are you only focused on the few and not the large groups of peaceful protestors that Trump inspires?

    Because every Weigantian here insists that ONLY Trump supporters are violent..

    And that is just plain bullshit..

    As the FACTS prove..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    99.9% of Trump supporters are not violent.

    Credit where credit is due..

    That's a helluva statement and I am very pleased to see it come from you... :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because every Weigantian here insists that ONLY Trump supporters are violent..

    You are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there. Re-read:

    99.9% of Trump supporters are not violent. Some are, and they go to Trump events hoping for a fight.

    99.9% of Trump detractors are not violent. Some are, and they go to Trump events hoping for a fight.

    My question was about the masses of legitimate protesters - you are only focusing on the violent ones because you won't answer the question:

    Are the scumbag thugs who commit these crimes responsible for their actions. Or is Trump to blame??

    Fair is fair.. I showed you mine now you show me yours. :D

    Why are there mass protests at Trump events but not any of the other four candidates' events?

    My premise: Trump is an extreme bigot who tells big lies. This pisses the people off who he is scapegoating and the people who don't like being lied to.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    MY point is that Trump is NOT responsible for the violent attacks perpetrated by thugs on Trump supporters any more than Bernie is responsible for the attacks committed by Hillary/Trump supporters on Bernie supporters....

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    We crossed lines there Michale - apologies - you did read my post.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    MY point is that Trump is NOT responsible for the violent attacks perpetrated by thugs on Trump supporters any more than Bernie is responsible for the attacks committed by Hillary/Trump supporters on Bernie supporters....

    I completely agree. But that isn't my question.

    Bernie out pulls Trump at his events, yet Trump out pulls protestors at his events. I expect that a 0.1% go for a fight, but most just want to show how much they dislike Trump's ideas and statements. What, in your opinion, is the cause of so much anti-Trump energy?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there.

    It HAS been there...

    Right up to the point that you made that statement that I congratulated you on..

    So, yes.. YOU agree that it's not only Trump supporters who are violent..

    We'll see if anyone else chimes in...

    My premise: Trump is an extreme bigot who tells big lies. This pisses the people off who he is scapegoating and the people who don't like being lied to.

    Even if it were true, it's completely irrelevant..

    If people don't like his scapegoating and don't like being lied to they have ONE recourse and ONE recourse only..

    DON'T VOTE FOR TRUMP...

    Trump could be Hitler reborn and that STILL wouldn't justify the violent attacks..

    THAT's the point you continue to miss...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    What, in your opinion, is the cause of so much anti-Trump energy?

    It's not relevant to the question of the violence, but I'll be happy to answer..

    Whiney thugs who don't like that Trump is likely to be our next President...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You might enjoy this. It is a long podcast, but the story hooks you fast, and the background might change your opinions about our immigration system.

    http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510311/embedded

    (Download the latest one: "The Immigrant")

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, *LEGAL* immigrants LOVE Trump... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Whiney thugs who don't like that Trump is likely to be our next President...

    That is obvious, but it takes time and effort, along with an expectation that you might be involved in a violent scuffle and arrested to attend any protest.

    What is it about Trump being the next President that motivates this?

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, for the record, *LEGAL* immigrants LOVE Trump... :D

    Trust me on this one, all the legal immigrants I know, and I'm in IT so I know lots of legal immigrants, hate Trump. There is a burning, intense hatred for the man and his ideas.

    I try to tell them that Trump is better than Cruz, but most of them are not pasty white like me and tell me it is no fun having a darker skin and an accent since Trump came on the scene. The bigots don't check to see if they have greencards or passports.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    My only concerns regarding our immigration system is how the laws governing illegal immigrants are ignored solely and completely for a partisan agenda...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is it about Trump being the next President that motivates this?

    "He's going to do everything he says. That's why everybody is so scared right now because they know change is coming. Change is coming. We demand Americans first. We don't care about illegal aliens. Americans first. First means first."
    -Jamiel Shaw, whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant

    Change is coming.. The people who are criminals and prey on Americans are going to get the shaft and then the boot.

    THAT is what motivates the violence against Trump...

    The criminals and the scumbags are afraid..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    We crossed lines there Michale - apologies - you did read my post.

    No worries. Bound to happen when there is passion and a LOT of back and forth.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    My only concerns regarding our immigration system is how the laws governing illegal immigrants are ignored solely and completely for a partisan agenda...

    You really should listen to the Embedded podcast I linked to above - not because I'm trying to push liberal ideas on you, but because I'm trying to show you that you are right about many things, and there is a lot more depth that 99% of people don't understand.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive"

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

    An explanation of why Trump supporters are:

    "What's made Trump's rise even more puzzling is that his support seems to cross demographic lines — education, income, age, even religiosity — that usually demarcate candidates. And whereas most Republican candidates might draw strong support from just one segment of the party base, such as Southern evangelicals or coastal moderates, Trump currently does surprisingly well from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the towns of upstate New York, and he won a resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses."

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive"

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really should listen to the Embedded podcast I linked to above - not because I'm trying to push liberal ideas on you, but because I'm trying to show you that you are right about many things, and there is a lot more depth that 99% of people don't understand.

    I'll give it a go, but it won't be til Monday..

    I am not a big fan of listening to other people.. Never been a fan of Talk Radio, but I promise I'll give it a shot.. :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    Listen to the end of the podcast. The most important parts come unexpectedly.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not a big fan of listening to other people..

    Let me qualify that with I am not a big fan of listening to other people audiologically...

    An old word I just made up... :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predict that one of two things will happen with the Left Wingery vis a vis a Trump administration..

    1. The Left will, as his administration progresses, say to themselves, "Ya know what?? This really ain't that bad. Trump is actually doing things that we AGREE with..."

    OR

    B. The Left will do to Trump EXACTLY what the Republicans have done to Obama..

    It'll be interesting to see which way things go....

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We’re going to keep showing up and standing against the actions and the hate Donald Trump is creating."
    -Moron activist..

    The ironic thing here is that it is THESE morons who are the architects of the hate..

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no time to get into it today, but i think the issue neil/michale is not whether trump supporters or trump detractors do more violence, it's why trump seems to attract the violence both for and against, when none of the other candidates do.

    i believe the answer is that his rhetoric, whether by intent or by accident, encourages it. that's why nobody hit anyone or vandalized anything at anyone else's speeches or rallies. not clinton, not cruz, not bernie, not kasich, not bush, carson, fiorina, christie, rubio, etc.

    furthermore, naming protesters scumbags, thugs or morons (especially when conspicuously NOT using the same terms to describe those who favor trump) detracts from the validity of michale's argument. either the violent actors are ALL thugs/scum/morons or they're ALL "just defending themselves."

    ...but that's different....?

    JL

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    “We’re going to keep showing up and standing against the actions and the hate Donald Trump is creating."

    Trump is using two classic hate mechanisms:

    i/ point to some injustice being done
    ii/ point to a group that are to blame

    The problem is that he accuses innocent people of crimes by casting a wide net - Mexicans, Muslims, etc. Thus the 'hate' label.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all's partisan bias is particularly transparent in this thread..

    Ya'all go on and on and on about Trump's "violence" (even though there isn't any) and you completely ignore and, by default, approve of the REAL violence coming from Left Wingery morons..

    Until such time as ya'all take your blinders off and condemn the REAL and ACTUAL violence coming from the Left Wingery, no logical or rational discussion is possible..

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way..

    It would be as if you pointed out violence and destruction committed by Trump supporters at Bernie rallies and my only response is, B"Well, they hate Bernie... So that justifies the violence"

    Pretty ridiculous, isn't it??

    It's JUST as ridiculous when it comes from ya'all...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is using two classic hate mechanisms:

    i/ point to some injustice being done
    ii/ point to a group that are to blame

    And Bernie and Hillary do the EXACT same thing...

    Ya'all don't have a problem with it THEN, do ya'all??

    Funny how that is, iddn't it...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the Israeli/Palestinian discussion all over again..

    ISRAEL DOES THIS AND THAT!!!!

    Doesn't justify the terrorism...

    BUT ISRAEL REALLY DOES THIS AND DOES THAT!!!!

    Doesn't justify the terrorism...

    BUT ISRAEL IS EVIL AND HITLER!!!!

    Doesn't justify the terrorism...

    Now replace 'ISRAEL' with 'TRUMP', replace 'does' with 'says' and replace 'terrorism' with 'violence' and it's the EXACT same argument...

    Ya'all CAN'T justify the violence so ya'all simply ignore it and press your case..

    But your case CAN'T be a valid case because NO MATTER WHAT TRUMP SAYS, it DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE VIOLENCE...

    Can't make it any plainer or simpler than that...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your lack of argument is further compounded by the fact that these thugs and scumbags AREN'T just attacking Trump supporters..

    They are also attacking people and destroying property of people that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump..

    These people are being attacked SOLELY because they just happen to be in the area...

    Like I said...

    Ya'all have absolutely NO moral, legal or ethical foundation to condemn Trump....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChPLo6eWgAAL9z4.jpg

    There is the problem with the thugs and scumbags...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    And CNN catches up on the history of "America First"

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/trump-america-first-ugly-echoes-dunn/index.html

    Maybe Trump et al didn't know the history. Let's see if he drops it as a slogan (as I suggested a few days ago).

    Echoes of appeasement and anti-Semitism - doesn't Trump have enough problems with fascist overtones without adding two more?

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChPLo6eWgAAL9z4.jpg

    There is the problem with the thugs and scumbags...

    Bloody hilarious!

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Would ya'all be cheering MacCauliffe's move if crooks and criminals overwhelmingly voted Republican??"

    You mean they don't???? :-D

    A few examples:

    Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) was arrested on December 23, 2012 and later pleaded guilty to drinking and driving in a Virginia court. The court fined him 250 dollars. He was sentenced to 180 days in prison, but served no time.

    Rick Renzi (R-AZ) on June 12, 2013 was found guilty of 17 of the 32 counts against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators.

    Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of misdemeanor possession of cocaine in November, 2013. As a first time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would do so.

    Samuel B. Kent (R) The Federal District Judge of Galveston, Texas was sentenced on May 11, 2009, to 33 months in prison for having lied about sexually harassing two female employees. He had been appointed to office by George H. W. Bush in 1990.

    Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) Married Senator and vocal critic of Clinton’s affair, pled guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport men’s room, after having been arrested on a charge of homosexual lewd conduct.

    Bill Janklow (R-SD) convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. Resigned from the House and given 100 days in the county jail and three years probation in 2003.

    Let us not forget two of the biggest in recent memory, former Republican President "I am not a crook." Richard Nixon, and former Republican House Speaker and serial child molester (according to the judge who heard the case and pronounced sentence) Dennis Hastert.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Seriously??

    Do you REALLY want to compare criminal politicians???

    Do you REALLY want to go there?? :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years' imprisonment.

    William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was charged in August 2005 after the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from his home freezer. He was re-elected to the House in 2006, but lost in 2008. He was convicted November 13, 2009, of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (2009)[23] Jefferson's Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was sentenced to 84 months for bribery. (2006)

    Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005 and was sentenced to four years in prison.

    Jim Traficant (D-OH) was found guilty on ten felony counts of financial corruption, sentenced to eight years in prison and expelled from the House of Representatives. (2002)

    Wade Sanders (D), Deputy Assistant United States Secretary of the Navy, for Reserve Affairs, was sentenced to 37 months in prison on one charge of possession of child pornography. (2009)

    Darleen A. Druyun (D), Principal Deputy United States Under Secretary of the Air Force.[33] She pleaded guilty to inflating the price of contracts to favor her future employer, Boeing. In October 2004, she was sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.(2005).[34] CBS News called it "the biggest Pentagon scandal in 20 years" and said that she pleaded guilty to a felony.

    Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. (1997) He was later convicted of 12 counts of bank fraud. (1999) Reynolds served his entire sentence stemming from the first conviction and served 42 months in prison for the bank fraud conviction at which point his sentence was commuted by President Bill Clinton.[36] As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served his remaining time in a halfway house.

    Walter R. Tucker III (D-CA) was sentenced to 27 months in prison in 1996 for extortion and tax evasion. (1995)

    Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) was convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms. Mavroules pleaded guilty to fifteen counts in April 1993 and was sentenced to a fifteen-month prison term. (1993)

    Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) was convicted of accepting bribes and sentenced to three and one-half years in prison. (1993)

    I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let us not forget two of the biggest in recent memory,

    Actually, the biggest crook in recent memory is Hillary Clinton..

    But, of course, you don't want to go there... :D

    And, for the record, I listed dozens of Democrats who have been convicted of crimes as well..

    But the NNL filter snagged it...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil & JL,

    Re #51, #52, #53, #54 and #55...

    I accept ya'all's concession.. :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all's TDS is ten times worse than ANY ODS experienced by the Right Wingery...

    Think about that...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    You have yet to address exactly what is wrong with America First??

    I don't mean it's history...

    I mean it's concept..

    What is wrong with an American President putting Americans first??

    Your position is illogical and irrational...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is wrong with an American President putting Americans first??

    Conceptually there is nothing wrong with it. It isn't anything new either. All presidents have put America first, they just don't use a capital 'F', probably because they've read some history.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChPLo6eWgAAL9z4.jpg

    There is the problem with the thugs and scumbags...

    Bloody hilarious!

    democracychronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/obama_hitler1.jpg

    So'se this... :^/

    theconservativestandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/imageedit_107_9842043057.jpg

    Another one that bloody hilarious

    And THIS one???

    atdcdn.jobs4dems.com/RacistObamaPic47.jpg

    THAT one is a bloody hoot!!!

    :^/

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conceptually there is nothing wrong with it.

    OK Great.. We are in complete agreement...

    There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with an American President putting Americans first..

    All presidents have put America first,

    Except for Obama, you are correct...

    If Obama put Americans first, he wouldn't be dumping millions and millions of criminals into the US job market...

    If Obama put Americans first, he wouldn't be pushing trade deals that will screw each and every American...

    they just don't use a capital 'F',

    So, your entire bitch is based on capitalization of a word!?? :D

    Well, OK... I am sure that's important. :^/

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Except for Obama, you are correct...

    Blindspot. You need to fix.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, your entire bitch is based on capitalization of a word!?? :D

    I'm not bitching, I'm just pointing out that Trump will probably drop the "America First" slogan.

    Then again, it is Trump, so he'll be so angry about the criticism that he'll double down and change it to "America Second" - that'll show 'em ;)

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    You miss the joke in the "Make America Mexican Again" obviously.

    Your other pictures are stupid.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    You miss the joke in the "Make America Mexican Again" obviously.

    Your other pictures are stupid.

    And to someone that thinks differently than you, the Mexican pic is stoopid and offensive and then ones I posted are "bloody hilarious"..

    What makes THEM wrong and YOU right???

    That's the point ya'all consistently ignore...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not bitching, I'm just pointing out that Trump will probably drop the "America First" slogan.

    Maybe.. Maybe not..

    But it really has no bearing on anything...

    Your complaints against Trump can easily be applied to Obama or Hillary or Bernie..

    But you ignore this fact because you are enslaved to the Party ideology...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blindspot. You need to fix.

    You first... :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    What makes THEM wrong and YOU right???

    Explain the joke in the "Make America Mexican Again" to me, because I don't think you get it.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you can address the points in comments 51 thru 55, then... and ONLY then, will you have a foundation to comment on my "blind spot".... :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Explain the joke in the "Make America Mexican Again" to me, because I don't think you get it.

    That's because it's NOT a joke...

    It's a desire by criminal immigrants to make the US into a third world shithole like Mexico.. There are many more examples of this. Claiming that the US was once Mexico and will be again... Garbage like that..

    Ha ha... funny... :^/

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    I can't be bothered addressing every single one of your ravings.

    Hint about the joke - what city was the pic taken in?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's as "funny" as that sign that tells Obama to hang in there...

    Yea.. REAL funny.. :^/

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't be bothered addressing every single one of your ravings.

    Like I said... When you address your own blindspot, then you can come talk to me..

    Hint about the joke - what city was the pic taken in?

    Costa Mesa....

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Okay, see, the pre-requisite for a joke, is that it be funny."
    -Agent J, MEN IN BLACK 3

    :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    And Costa Mesa was in which country again.

    The joke is that Trump wants to go back into the past to make America great again, and this kid is saying don't go back to the 1950's, go back to the 1830's.

    The second joke is that both the 1950's and the 1830's are much worse than today. The third joke is that Trump wants to take America back to Mexican times, which, given his and his supporters antipathy for Mexico completes the joke out.

    I liked it.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW...

    That's some incredible tap-dancing...

    Extrapolate that a little bit more and you can PROVE that the kid was on the grassy knoll... :^/

    When you hear hoofbeats, you think ZEBRAs, don't you?? :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If Obama put Americans first, he wouldn't be dumping millions and millions of criminals into the US job market..."

    Let's go back to what really started this, which was the Virginia governor restoring the voting rights of ex-felons and ex-cons who had paid their debt to society. If you do not allow ex-criminals to reintegrate back into a normal society then what you are really doing is keeping them permanently in a criminal lifestyle. The alternative is, do you really want to support them with your tax dollars for the rest of their lives, either on welfare or in prison, taking care of them forever? Or allow them to repeatedly injure you through their dependence on criminal activity, because that is the only choice you have made sure to leave them with?

    That goes for whatever it is you are talking about when you say Obama is dumping millions of criminals into the job market. Whether it is pardoning criminals, restoring rights to ex-cons, allowing some refugees into the country, who have not been proven to be terrorists, have been thoroughly screened, and are mostly women and children, or giving some illegal immigrants some kind of legal status, since the vast majority of them are never going to be realistically deported anyway.

    I would much rather they get jobs and boost the economy, and generate even more jobs thereby, for everyone else, then support them with my tax dollars in prison, on welfare, or in detention centers, etc. Wouldn't you?

  86. [86] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "That's some incredible tap-dancing..."

    How's this for tap dancing? Maybe Trump should take note of this joke. The whole southwest of the USA back in the 1830's from California, to Utah, to Arizona, to Colorado to Texas, used to be part of Mexico. Many of the people of Mexican ancestry who have lived there for generations, were there BEFORE the white Anglo settlers came. One of their favorite sayings is this: "They did not move over the border, the border moved over them!" The point being, they are still living only where they have historically ALWAYS lived.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Let's go back to what really started this, which was the Virginia governor restoring the voting rights of ex-felons and ex-cons who had paid their debt to society.

    Child Molesters have "paid their debt to society"... Using your reasoning, there should be no further restrictions on their lives.. So there is ample precedent for the idea that punitive measures be taken AFTER the "debt to society" has been paid..

    Don't get me wrong... I don't really care that criminals get the right to vote again...

    My point is that it's not some altruistic move, but rather cross political machinations...

    As far as #84...

    So you want go back to when Mexico owned California??

    Fine.. Let's go back there:

    http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/occupation/occupation.htm

    Back when the US Army occupied Mexico...

    The fact that Mexico once owned California is as relevant to this discussion as the fact that the entirety of the United States was once owned by native Americans..

    Mainly, NO RELEVANCE whatsoever...

    All of this tap-dancing is nothing more than to avoid the issues in comments #51 thru #55....

    Ya'all have NO JUSTIFICATION for the violence being committed by these moronic criminal thugs...

    So you drag up completely irrelevant felgercarb....

    MIchale

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW- Point 2 Brand New Congress
    There is nothing wrong with you recognizing that Bernie's movement needs to be expanded to Congress and the efforts of Brand New Congress to make that happen in 2018.
    But they have only just started and will not do much in 2016. We need to strike while the iron is hot with something that can be successful right now.
    There is an opportunity in the 2016 New York congressional primaries to do just that.
    Over 760,000 citizens voted in the New York presidential primaries for Bernie Sanders. They are registered and can vote in the New York congressional primaries on June 28th. Unregistered citizens and possibly even the purged voters can register by the June 3rd deadline. This could total over 1 million voters- and that's just the Democratic side.
    These voters can send a message to the establishments of both political parties by voting in the congressional primaries for anti-establishment candidates such as Zephyr Teachout. Citizens without an anti-establishment candidate can running in their district in the primaries can write in their own name to register a vote against the establishment candidates and create demand for anti-establishment candidates in the 2016 general election.
    Citizens that want to make this statement more powerful can also register at http://www.vouchervendetta.org that in the 2016 elections they will only vote for small contribution candidates.
    This will encourage thirds party, independent and even some of the token Current Major Party candidates running in a gerrymandered safe district for the other CMP to run as a small contribution candidate in the 2016 general election.
    Some of these small contribution anti-establishment candidates will win in the 2016 general election and some will act as spoilers destroying a gerrymandered district by allowing the other CMP candidate to win.
    This will get more citizens to participate in 2018 and future elections.
    When I contacted Brand New Congress about this idea they responded quickly and positively about the idea, but said this idea was not possible at this time and wished me luck.
    I explained in my reply that there was plenty of time and that starting this now when citizen are starting to pay attention would do more to set the table for 2018 than thousands of hours of protests, organizing and soliciting contributions in 2017 when no one is paying attention. I also pointed out that they sounded more like Hillary supporters by saying this was too much to try for now instead of Bernie supporters that are open to new ideas and believe in possibilities.
    I hope they will still respond but this is usually the point where the replies end.
    If grassroots movements are truly acceptable then isn't it time to write about Voucher Vendetta, a potential grassroots movement that has been in existence for longer than a week or two and can actually impact the 2016 elections?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point is that it's not some altruistic move, but rather cross political machinations...

    That would be crass political machinations...

    My bust.. :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Citizen Summons for Ralph Nader
    Ralph Nader is promoting his Breaking Through Power conference in May. On his radio program and on the BTP website there was reference to his idea for citizens to send Citizen Summons to their legislators demanding that the legislators address issues that they have been ignoring.
    As Mr Nader has been ignoring my contacts about Voucher Vendetta (even though he wrote articles specifically asking for new ideas) I decided that Mr. Nader should get the first Citizen Summons demanding he address Voucher Vendetta and the issue in post 86. But I don't expect him to "Get Smart" about this issue from just my summons. I believe these summons work better when the subject of the summons receives multiple summons on an issue from many citizens.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    P.S.- CW- Maybe a good hook for a story- Will Ralph Nader respond to the Citizen Summons that he advocates for citizens to send to other people?

  91. [91] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Child Molesters have "paid their debt to society"... Using your reasoning, there should be no further restrictions on their lives.. So there is ample precedent for the idea that punitive measures be taken AFTER the "debt to society" has been paid.."

    Except that child molesting is a chronic condition that is never going to go away. A lot of times, such people, are kept in prison indefinitely, like serial killers. Stealing because you live in a poverty stricken neighborhood among gangs, does not necessarily have to been a permanent chronic condition.

    "Back when the US Army occupied Mexico..."

    If the USA had stayed in Mexico, and made it part of the USA after conquering it, like we did with Hawaii, you would have a point. But we didn't, so you don't.

    Now, what would BE ironic would be if, after conquering Hawaii, and making it an American state, Anglo settlers from the mainland in Hawaii started complaining about all the illegal or non-illegal Polynesian immigrants in Hawaii. Then it would be like, well, DUH!!!

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except that child molesting is a chronic condition that is never going to go away.

    So, their "born that way"??? :D

    Psychology, I can make the same claim about career criminals..

    A lot of times, such people, are kept in prison indefinitely, like serial killers.

    And sometimes not..

    My whole point is that the "paid their debt to society" is not a valid argument...

    If the USA had stayed in Mexico, and made it part of the USA after conquering it, like we did with Hawaii, you would have a point. But we didn't, so you don't.

    No, you made the point that, because Mexico owned California in the past, that justifies the violence and destruction the moron criminals are committing today..

    And MY point is YOUR point is whacked.. :D

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    No, you made the point that, because Mexico owned California in the past, that justifies the violence and destruction the moron criminals are committing today..

    Forgive me.. That may not have been the point YOU were trying to make..

    But it is A point that was trying to be made..

    And it's a whacked point...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To send Ralph Nader a Citizen Summons put the following message in the subject box of an email to info@csrl.org
    "NOTICE: Citizen Summons for Ralph Nader"
    The body of the email should be something like:
    Dear Mr. Nader,
    Consider this email official notice that you have been served a Citizen Summons to address in a public forum the issue of Voucher Vendetta and the idea to wage a write-in campaign in the New York congressional primary (and other states that still have not had their 2016 congressional primaries) for citizens to write-in their own names in the 2016 congressional primaries to register a vote against the establishment candidates and create demand for small contribution anti-establishment candidates in the 2016 general election and futures elections.

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Psychology, I can make the same claim about career criminals..

    There are recidivism rates and there are impact analysis that need to be taken into account.

    For example, I'd be a lot more alarmed if a serial child molester moved into my neighborhood, even if s/he hadn't committed a crime in 20 years, than a serial shop lifter who hadn't committed a crime in 20 years.

    Who would you rather have to deal with?

    Thus we have laws that make sex offenders whereabouts available even after they are out of jail, but not shoplifters.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    As I said, I don't have a problem with restoring voting rights to criminals..

    My beefs are A> the "paid their debt to society" argument and the 2> BS spin that it's being done for altruistic motives...

    There is ample precedence to the idea that restrictions are still reasonable even after the "debt to society" has been paid and there is NOTHING altruistic about this move by MacCauliff...

    Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is almost as bad as doing the wrong thing....

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is almost as bad as doing the wrong thing....

    Now THAT'S an argument that has a good chance of coming back to bite me on the ass!! :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    Restrictions on felony voting at decided at the state level and this right is part of the 14th amendment. So, while I'm against restrictions after prison time is served, it is the right of the people of the state to decide.

    The main issue for me is the impact of the laws. The impacted are disproportionally poorer Americans who are more likely to become felons (can't afford good lawyers, would lose their jobs so take a plea deal, etc.).

    You are right that poorer Americans vote more for the Democrats than the Republicans, but that should not be part of the equation. However everything is politicized in this environment (especially on this board ;) so if you claim that lifting the restrictions are political decisions, you also have to accept that imposing them is as well.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    The main issue for me is the impact of the laws. The impacted are disproportionally poorer Americans who are more likely to become felons (can't afford good lawyers, would lose their jobs so take a plea deal, etc.).

    Which is more of an incentive NOT to commit crimes... :D

    However everything is politicized in this environment (especially on this board ;) so if you claim that lifting the restrictions are political decisions, you also have to accept that imposing them is as well.

    Depends on when these laws were enacted.... If they have been on the books for a hundred years or even 50 years, then I doubt any Party-agenda motivations...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is more of an incentive NOT to commit crimes... :D

    I mean, if one's vote is so all get out, life and death important, then why would one risk that oh so important thing by committing crimes?? :D

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Depends on when these laws were enacted.... If they have been on the books for a hundred years or even 50 years, then I doubt any Party-agenda motivations...

    On the other hand, if these laws were enacted during the Jim Crow era, then it would have been the Democrat Party who enacted them...

    So...... :D hehehehehehehehe

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Which is more of an incentive NOT to commit crimes... :D

    There are plenty of incentives not to commit crimes, but voter disenfranchisement should not be one of them. That is the point of this discussion.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are plenty of incentives not to commit crimes, but voter disenfranchisement should not be one of them.

    I disagree.. If you don't care enough about society to obey it's laws, you can't be trusted to vote....

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale
    If the laws have greater effect on poor people because they can't afford to buy their way out of trouble then the incentive not commit crimes only effects poor people. It increases the risk of people committing more crimes and bigger crimes that effect more people if the people committing the crimes feel they will be able to buy their way out of trouble.
    And wasn't there something about Nixon saying that the drug laws would be a way to disenfranchise minorities?
    When you have broken a law the punishment should fit and be related to the crime. You shouldn't lose your driver's license for shoplifting. You shouldn't lose your vote for crimes unrelated to voting or treason.
    Otherwise it opens the door for abuses like using drug laws to disenfranchise minorities.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the laws have greater effect on poor people because they can't afford to buy their way out of trouble then the incentive not commit crimes only effects poor people.

    But if poor people don't commit crimes, then they have nothing to worry about...

    And if poor people are envious that the rich can afford better legal representation, there is an easy solution..

    Work hard and become rich...

    And wasn't there something about Nixon saying that the drug laws would be a way to disenfranchise minorities?

    I wouldn't know...

    You shouldn't lose your driver's license for shoplifting.

    I wasn't aware that this is the case...

    You shouldn't lose your vote for crimes unrelated to voting or treason.

    If you believe that, then lobby your government to change the law...

    Otherwise it opens the door for abuses like using drug laws to disenfranchise minorities.

    Minorities cannot be disenfranchised without their explicit permission..

    If voting means THAT much to them, the solution is simple..

    Don't do drugs...

    If voting isn't all that big o thing?? Then they are free to do all the drugs they want...

    Don't do the crime, if you don't want to do the time..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would be willing to wager that ya'all wouldn't have a BIT of a problem disenfranchising Trump voters, eh?? :D

    Once again, it's all just partisan ideology at work... Nothing more...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You did not address that people that can buy their way out trouble have increased incentive to commit crimes.
    And poor people and dissidents can be targeted, charged and convicted of crimes they didn't commit or even civil disobedience that should be a misdemeanor but is instead prosecuted as a felony.
    Then it becomes harder to lobby and work to change the laws when you no longer have the power of the vote behind you.
    This not a partisan issue. Just as I invited all voters to take on the establishments of both current major parties in comment 86, even people that would vote for Trump or Hillary should be able to participate. There is no intelligence test for voting.
    What did I win?

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    You did not address that people that can buy their way out trouble have increased incentive to commit crimes.

    Because it's an assumption unsupported by any facts...

    Basically, you are saying that a rich person is more inclined to break the law...

    If you have any facts to support that claim...

    "Well, I am all ears.."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    :D

    And poor people and dissidents can be targeted, charged and convicted of crimes they didn't commit or even civil disobedience that should be a misdemeanor but is instead prosecuted as a felony.

    ANYONE *can* be targeted, charged and convicted of crimes they didn't commit or even civil disobedience yada yada yada...

    If you have any relevant evidence that proves that poor people are specifically targeted for this type of activity, let's examine it together...

    This not a partisan issue. Just as I invited all voters to take on the establishments of both current major parties in comment 86, even people that would vote for Trump or Hillary should be able to participate.

    So, then you completely and unequivocally CONDEMN the Left Wingery thugs that have made it their mission to shut down Trump rallies...

    Correct???

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Once again, it's all just partisan ideology at work... Nothing more...

    Once again, it's Michale's argument on every issue....Nothing more....

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, it's Michale's argument on every issue....Nothing more....

    Hay, I got with what works... :D

    If you are tired of hearing it, you got 2 choices..

    1. Prove me wrong

    or

    B. Concede the point...

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    The claim that it's all a vast right wing conspiracy to disenfranchise loses some of it's luster, not to mention it's believability and credibility, in light of the fact that no one wants to condemn the Left Wingery thugs and scumbags for trying to shut down Trump Rallies, violently attack ANYONE that gets in their way and disenfranchise Trump voters...

    Crocodile tears, people.. Crocodile tears....

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If punishment didn't deter people from committing crimes there would be no point to it. So the lack of the threat of punishment can lead people to commit a crime.
    That's an opinion. If you want to waste your time looking up empirical studies to try to disprove the obvious, be my guest.
    You are right that anyone can be targeted, but poor people are less able to defend themselves.
    I could care less what happens at a Trump rally and to the people that are disrupting them. I do condemn those disrupters if they interfering or infiltrating instead of protesting at a reasonable distance nearby.
    I also condemn the wingnuts from both the left and the right anytime they try to disenfranchise anybody.
    Was it someone else's comment that inspired the vast right wing conspiracy reference?
    Do I get to find out what I won yet?

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    If punishment didn't deter people from committing crimes there would be no point to it. So the lack of the threat of punishment can lead people to commit a crime.
    That's an opinion.

    And it's a logical and rational opinion.. I just don't think it's supported by any factual data...

    You are right that anyone can be targeted, but poor people are less able to defend themselves.

    But in and of itself, that is not evidence that they ARE targeted..

    That's my point..

    I could care less what happens at a Trump rally and to the people that are disrupting them.

    Could you care less what happens at a Bernie rally or a Hillary rally??

    I do condemn those disrupters if they interfering or infiltrating instead of protesting at a reasonable distance nearby.
    I also condemn the wingnuts from both the left and the right anytime they try to disenfranchise anybody.

    Then you are alone in that... Well, ya got me.. :D

    Was it someone else's comment that inspired the vast right wing conspiracy reference?

    It's a logical inference based on everyone's comments to date.. :D

    Do I get to find out what I won yet?

    Ya gots ta win first! :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    104
    You were willing to wager that no one would care if Trump voters were disenfranchised.
    110
    I said I condemn anyone trying to disenfranchise anybody.
    This is just an opinion, but I think that includes Trump voters.
    Can I get a "Mission Accomplished" ?

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    I would be willing to wager that ya'all wouldn't have a BIT of a problem disenfranchising Trump voters, eh?? :D

    Wrong.

    I'd vote against any candidate that wanted to disenfranchise Trump supporters, including voting for Trump as easily the lesser of two evils.

    You can't say the same thing however because you want to disenfranchise people based on their prior actions.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Yep, you win.. :D

    Neil,

    I'd vote against any candidate that wanted to disenfranchise Trump supporters, including voting for Trump as easily the lesser of two evils.

    Yet you won't condemn a bunch of violent thugs who are, in essence, announcing, "If you go to a Trump Rally, yer gonna get your ass beat down!!"

    Until such time as you can condemn ALL the violence no matter WHO it's directed at, all you have is a partisan agenda...

    I mean, seriously, Neil..

    Blaming Trump for the violence that LEFT WING thugs commit at his rallies is absolutely no different than blaming the rape victim because she wore a short skirt...

    I am amazed that no one else can see that...

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don..

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now let's see if we can get anyone else to do the OBVIOUSLY right thing and condemn these violent scumbag thugs..

    :D

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I still want to know what I won, though I guess I can't hold you to anything because that would have had to been agreed on beforehand to make it an official wager.
    I would like to suggest comment 92 if your looking for ideas. But I will settle for the Mission Accomplished if that's all I can get.
    Besides, I was kind of hoping to get some cooperation on comment 92 anyway as we are sometimes kindred spirits.

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, seriously, Neil..

    You're losing it Michale. You're making stuff up now.

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now, if you are against all violence, like I am, would you vote for somebody who said:

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

    “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

    “See, in the good old days this doesn’t happen, because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily.”

    “I love the old days—you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

    Or a candidate that wants to pay the legal fees of a supporter who said: “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”

    Or a candidate who mimes punching a protestor while mouthing: "I'll beat the crap out of you"

    So, are you going to stay on the anti-violence position with me and vote against any candidate who says any of the above statements, let alone all of them?

  122. [122] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I've been thinking about a meme CW has been pushing recently. He says that given Clinton's actions as a candidate in 2008, she can't say that Sanders should drop out.

    I don't know that I agree. I think, of course she can. Look at this election cycle and think about the "long-term memory" of your average voter.

    Might she catch some flak for making such a statement? Sure, even some ads with videos of her in 2008.

    Would that make one whit of difference? NO!

    The only difficulty would be any alienation or disrespect felt by Sanders supporters. That's valid as a political strategy question. However, that's totally independent of her 2008 actions. That would be an issue regardless of whether she bowed out earlier in 2008 or stuck to it to the end.

    CW: You're giving too much to the voters in your sentiment. What she did in '08 is utterly irrelevant to 2016.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're losing it Michale. You're making stuff up now.

    And you're dodging the issue..

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

    Absolutely..

    Because what Trump is talking about is self-defense..

    And, further, it was nothing more than campaign rhetoric..

    YOU voted for a guy who said, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."

    How is that any different??

    So, are you going to stay on the anti-violence position with me and vote against any candidate who says any of the above statements, let alone all of them?

    You see no difference between campaign rhetoric and this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/donald-trump-rally-protest-costa-mesa.html?_r=0

    Why not just state what is obvious..

    Like bigotry, intolerance and discrimination... You don't mind violence, as long as it's directed at the RIGHT people...

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, Neil...

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

    THAT is equal to this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChLydEMUkAAe050.jpg

    Hay, I get it. It's only a Trump supporter.. Who cares, right???

    :^/

    Ya'all have gone on and on about the depravity and violence and fascism of Trump..

    And yet, when we see REAL depravity and REAL violence and REAL fascism coming from the Left AGAINST Trump..

    {{chirrrrppp}} {{chiirrrrrrpppppp}}

    Ya'all are strangely silent..

    How ya'all sleep at night is beyond me...

    :^/

    I realize that's a harsh thing to say.. Usually I am used to the hypocrisy and bigotry..

    But I am honestly taken aback by this callous disregard for the right thing..

    What's it going to take to wake ya'all up and condemn this garbage??

    Is a Trump supporter going to have to be killed???

    Is that what ya'all need to wake up? A murder of a Trump supporter??

    Would THAT even do it???

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, turning towards the future...

    It's obvious that we are facing a Trump/Clinton matchup for the general election..

    Sure, something could happen that changes that dynamic..

    Hillary gets indicted or Trump get's popped..

    Or Trump gets indicted or Hillary gets popped..

    But barring any of that, it's going to be Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump...

    Now there are many of ya'all, if not ALL of ya'all who believe that Trump doesn't stand a chance against Hillary in the General...

    And ya'all base this assumption solely and completely on the polls and the betting markets...

    But keep in mind one salient and oh-so vital point..

    The polls and the betting markets ALSO said that there was no way in hell that Trump could be the GOP nominee..

    So, they have not only been wrong but they have been fantastically wrong and spectacularly wrong..

    So I ask ya'all to at least be receptive to the idea that ya'all MIGHT be wrong about Trump losing the General....

    I know, I know.. It's like asking a christian to be receptive to the idea that there is no god..

    It's borderline (if not crossing the border) insanity..

    "Oh Peter?? He was borderline for a while. Then he crossed the border.."
    -Egon, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    But it will make for far more interesting discussions here in Weigantia if ya'all could at least attempt to NOT have such a closed mind...

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Sorry, I missed this before..

    furthermore, naming protesters scumbags, thugs or morons (especially when conspicuously NOT using the same terms to describe those who favor trump) detracts from the validity of michale's argument. either the violent actors are ALL thugs/scum/morons or they're ALL "just defending themselves."

    You show me Trump supporters who are behaving like the anti-Trump supporters and I'll label them scumbags and thugs too..

    But your problem is, is that you have just a few Trump supporters who are actually physically violent and you have hundreds and THOUSANDS of ANTI-Trump supporters who are physically violent...

    But if it makes you feel better...

    Yes... *ANY* person who expresses their opposition to a candidate with physical violence is a thug and a scumbag..

    If only ya'all were as even handed as I am when it comes to condemning across Party lines, then there would rarely be an issue here in Weigantia...

    But, then again, what fun would that be if we all agreed all the time.. :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Are They Going To Kill Me?:’ Trump Supporter Talks About Being Injured During Melee

    COSTA MESA (CBLA.com) A political blogger who was injured during an anti-Trump rally in Orange County Thursday spoke out today about the unruly mob.
    Cole Bartiromo of Mission Viejo is also a Trump supporter. He says he became quite fearful when a mob turned on him.
    “Suddenly, out of nowhere, ” says Bartiromo, “I felt this thud in the front of my head.”
    He needed six stitches to close his head wound.
    Bartiromo told Gile he only got in the middle of the melee to document it, not to participate.
    Within moments, he says someone knocked off his Trump hat, hurled slurs at him and then slugged him.

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/04/29/are-they-going-to-kill-me-trump-supporter-talks-about-being-injured-during-melee/

    Now imagine a bunch of RWNJs had done this at a Bernie Sanders rally to a Political Blogger who was wearing a FEEL THE BERN hat??

    Everyone here would have lost yer frakin' minds!!

    But, because it happened to a Trump supporter, it's cricket city with the entirety of the Left Wingery including around here...

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/DCMZaBFcxrk

    Yea, feel the love of Hillary and Bernie supporters...

    These kids parent's must be SOOO proud... :^/

    Remind me again that it's TRUMP supporters who are nasty and vile and fascist??

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#122]

    And yet, when we see REAL depravity and REAL violence and REAL fascism coming from the Left AGAINST Trump..

    {{chirrrrppp}} {{chiirrrrrrpppppp}}

    Ya'all are strangely silent..

    That's not fair, Michale: several of us have spoken out against such violence by Trump protesters in previous posts.

    The fact that each particular act is not specifically spoken against on this blog is less about a commenter's tolerance for violence by those they sympathize with politically and more that we'd assume other regular readers would take it as a given that our attitude would remain the same in the next case. This is the same reason you don't see explicit condemnation here on each specific transgression by Trump supporters.

    Your broad brush is unjust and weakens what persuasive power your arguments could have.

    If we're going to restore civility to the political climate, maybe we stop acting like those that disagree with us somehow have less of a sense of right and wrong than we do. One can fairly express dismay at Mr. Trump's casually aggressive rhetoric against his opponents as promoting a culture of violence without forgiving those who behave violently regardless of affiliation. Trump shouldn't say it (at least that way) and neither his supporters or protesters should do it.

    So, blanket statement: "Violence is not appropriate except to defend yourself or others from violence by others or to prevent an immediate threat of such violence. It is not somehow less or more inappropriate based on political objectives of the violent actor."

    Michale, unless you see someone here disagree with that statement, I think it fair to explicitly assume we all feel that way, so there's little point in trying make hay in assuming we don't other than trying to make yourself sound somehow morally superior or to stand up straw men for rhetorical tinder.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's not fair, Michale: several of us have spoken out against such violence by Trump protesters in previous posts.

    I'de like to see where...

    But even if it was a sporadic post here or there...

    If it doesn't rise to the same level as the anti-Trump posts, my point still stands..

    This is the same reason you don't see explicit condemnation here on each specific transgression by Trump supporters.

    You must be reading a different blog.. Because I see explicit condemnation on each specific transgression by Trump and his supporters on a DAILY basis...

    Even in this commentary thread, it was TRUMP that was condemned for the violence perpetrated by the Anti-Trump Left Wingery..

    Now don't THAT take the cake... :D

    Your broad brush is unjust and weakens what persuasive power your arguments could have.

    It's not unjust.. Show me ANYONE in this commentary that condemned this latest violence against Trump and his supporters..

    If we're going to restore civility to the political climate, maybe we stop acting like those that disagree with us somehow have less of a sense of right and wrong than we do. One can fairly express dismay at Mr. Trump's casually aggressive rhetoric against his opponents as promoting a culture of violence without forgiving those who behave violently regardless of affiliation. Trump shouldn't say it (at least that way) and neither his supporters or protesters should do it.

    Agreed..

    But the problem here is that the rhetoric of Weigantians begins AND ends with "Trump shouldn't say it"

    So, blanket statement: "Violence is not appropriate except to defend yourself or others from violence by others or to prevent an immediate threat of such violence. It is not somehow less or more inappropriate based on political objectives of the violent actor."

    Fair enough...

    But here's the thing.. If someone who MAKES that blanket statement then goes on to condemn JUST the violent rhetoric from the Trump side of the equation and ignores the rhetoric AND the violence from the other side of the equation???

    Well, then that "blanket" statement develops quite a few holes in it.... Wouldn't you agree???

    Michale, unless you see someone here disagree with that statement,

    People here disagree with that statement by omission every day of the week and twice on Sunday... Do you see anyone here condemning the acts of these scumbags?? Don did.. He's the only one...

    The *ONLY* condemnation here in this commentary was against TRUMP!!! Because TRUMP had the unmitigated GALL to say something that these scumbag thugs didn't like...

    And the girls that get raped deserve it because they wear short skirts and low-cut tops..

    It's the same bigoted logic in play..

    so there's little point in trying make hay in assuming we don't other than trying to make yourself sound somehow morally superior

    I *AM* morally and ethically and legal superior in this particular issue..

    Because I condemn ALL acts of violence equally and without equivocation...

    And, to date, I am the ONLY one that does so...

    Like I told Listen the other day.. I know it gets annoying to see the same thing over and over.. The simple solution is to prove me wrong or concede the point... :D

    Nothing shuts me up more than a more logical/factual argument.. Except maybe a "OK, yea... yer right..."

    :D

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, blanket statement: "Violence is not appropriate except to defend yourself or others from violence by others or to prevent an immediate threat of such violence. It is not somehow less or more inappropriate based on political objectives of the violent actor."

    While that's pretty good, I like a simpler version..

    If a person doesn't like what someone else says or stands for, the **ONLY** recourse is to not vote for that person or not attend that person's rallies...

    Going to that person's rallies to obstruct or attack supports is violence and should NEVER be employed OR condoned...

    Now, if everyone can agree to this, IN WORD AND DEED then it's likely ya'all will never hear another peep out of me on the subject...

    But it's been my experience in over a decade of being part of Weigantia that the WORD part is easy..

    It's the DEED part that gives people problems.. :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#129]

    If a person doesn't like what someone else says or stands for, the **ONLY** recourse is to not vote for that person or not attend that person's rallies...

    Well, there are other fair ways. For instance, it's fair to criticize a candidate's viewpoint in all sorts of forums, but to your point...

    Going to that person's rallies to obstruct or attack supports is violence and should NEVER be employed OR condoned...

    Yes, it's wrong to either attempt to interfere with the peaceful assembly (such as a rally) by obstructings others' ability to attend or gather. And I categorically condemn it where others do. And I think my stand on violence is now pretty clear.

    On the flip side, it is not particularly wrong for a protester to attend and to speak up at an opposition rally. I draw the line at interfering with the speaker's ability to speak or interfering with participants to gather. I'm not fond of heckling a speaker (i.e., attempting to interfere with speech) as I see that as uncivil speech, but speaking up with an opposing point of view at a rally when not otherwise interfering with the speaker is fair game and should not be grounds for being physically attacked by other attendees.

    So I condemn the violence and obstruction by protesters regardless of political outlook. I have no issue with protesters who attend with signs or other silent displays of opposition or free speech that otherwise doesn't interfere with the speaker's ability to speak.

    Michale, I'm unable to comment on this site daily and so would appreciate not being lumped in as somehow supporting violence or obstruction any time it happens. You know now how I regard it and you don't have visibility of ways I combat it away from this site, so stop saying with your blanket accusations that I, by omission of daily comments here, somehow condone violence or obstruction.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, it's wrong to either attempt to interfere with the peaceful assembly (such as a rally) by obstructings others' ability to attend or gather. And I categorically condemn it where others do. And I think my stand on violence is now pretty clear.

    Clarity has never been a problem around these here parts..

    CONSISTENCY...

    Now THAT's been a biatch... :D

    Michale, I'm unable to comment on this site daily and so would appreciate not being lumped in as somehow supporting violence or obstruction any time it happens. You know now how I regard it and you don't have visibility of ways I combat it away from this site, so stop saying with your blanket accusations that I, by omission of daily comments here, somehow condone violence or obstruction.

    Fair enough... I will make a sincere effort to qualify my broad brush strokes...

    Having said that, I will say this..

    If someone has the time to come in here and condemn Trump and his supporters for their alleged "violence" and alleged "hate speech" then they damn well have the time to give equal time and condemn the REAL hate speech and REAL violence that comes from Hillary and Bernie supporters..

    Would you agree that that is a fair expectation??

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we were talking about TrainWreckCare earlier...

    Obamacare's November surprise
    Many consumers will see large rate increases for the first time Nov. 1 — a week before they go to the polls.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obamacare-rate-hikes-a-looming-political-headache-for-democrats-222663

    The timing couldn't be worse for Democrats.... :D

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, when we see REAL depravity and REAL violence and REAL fascism coming from the Left AGAINST Trump..

    {{chirrrrppp}} {{chiirrrrrrpppppp}}

    Ya'all are strangely silent..

    How ya'all sleep at night is beyond me...

    Sad.

    Bye.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sad.

    Bye.

    Yes.. It's sad that you would rather leave than do the right thing and condemn this gross and perverse violence..

    But let some old fart deck a Bernie supporter that was interfering with free speech and, all of the sudden, ya are balls to the wall big steaming batch of hysterical condemnation

    "The {ideological slavery} is strong with this one.."

    :D

    That's my point about this whole thing..

    Everything the Left does to the Right is perfectly acceptable and justified..

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#131]


    Fair enough... I will make a sincere effort to qualify my broad brush strokes...

    Thanks, Michale!

    If someone has the time to come in here and condemn Trump and his supporters for their alleged "violence" and alleged "hate speech" then they damn well have the time to give equal time and condemn the REAL hate speech and REAL violence that comes from Hillary and Bernie supporters..

    Would you agree that that is a fair expectation??

    I would. One should be even-handed in their condemnations or recognize that they're unduly partisan.

    If we're going to restore civility, we have to stand up to our friends on their transgressions as much as we do our opponents. More even, really. That's why I like CW's MDDOTW as an example of at least trying to be even-handed.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't drive angry! Don't drive angry!!"
    -Bill Murray GHOSTBUSTERS

    I am going to use a corollary of Mr Murry's excellent advice and say,

    "Don't post while yer puking your guts out and freezing in 90deg weather! Don't post while your puking your guts out and freezing in 90deg!!"

    Yea, I know it doesn't have the same ring, but the concept's the same..

    So I'll be off the grid for a day or two until this thing breaks..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.