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

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.

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

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

Sad.

Bye.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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.

“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?

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

:D

Michale

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

:D

Michale

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

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.

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

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

Michale

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

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

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

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

Michale

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

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

Michale

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Michale

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

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.

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

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

"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!!!

That would be crass political machinations...

My bust.. :D

Michale

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

"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.

"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?

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

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.

:D

Michale

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

Yea.. REAL funny.. :^/

Michale

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

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

Michale

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

You first... :D

Michale

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

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

Your other pictures are stupid.

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 ;)

Blindspot. You need to fix.

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

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

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.

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

Think about that...

Michale

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

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

Michale

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

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

Seriously??

Do you REALLY want to compare criminal politicians???

Do you REALLY want to go there?? :D

Michale

"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.

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

Bloody hilarious!

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?

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

Michale

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Michale

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

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

Michale

"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

Michale

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.

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?

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")

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

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

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?