ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [390] -- It's My Party And I'll Cry If I Want To

[ Posted Friday, May 6th, 2016 – 17:40 PDT ]

It's been a pretty momentous week in the history of American politics, folks. The Republican Party is going to nominate Donald Trump to run for the highest office in the land. Politics and entertainment are now one. The trend that Ronald Reagan began -- furthered in no small part by Sarah Palin -- is now complete. In other words: welcome to the next episode of Who Wants To Be President?

Of course, this news was such a bombshell that many stunned politicians have no idea how to react. Many Republicans are indeed singing the refrain: "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to..." as they contemplate the chances of success they're faced with in November. Decisions must be made. Follow Trump, distance yourself from Trump, or fully denounce Trump and all he stands for? When else in living memory has a major political party faced such a stark division -- at the precise moment the general election presidential campaign begins? The word "stunning" doesn't even begin to cover the magnitude of the Trump political earthquake.

Last week's Indiana primary was supposed to be when the "Never Trump" people turned the Trump tide and denied him the requisite simple majority of convention delegates. But this turned out to be a bridge too far (you can choose your own military cliché, if you prefer: the Alamo, Custer's Last Stand, etc.). Instead, Trump swept all 57 delegates and Ted Cruz immediately dropped out of the race (as he elbowed and punched his wife in the face -- no, really!). John Kasich slept on it, then also decided it was time to throw in the towel. And then there was one....

Republicans are thus left with a choice: back the party's nominee or denounce the party's nominee. So far, some have gravitated towards Trump, but many notable names have moved as fast as they can in the opposite direction. The two living Republican ex-presidents both said they would skip the party's convention (this was not too surprising, considering George H. W. Bush's age, and George W. Bush's presidential record). Also skipping the party will be the two previous Republican presidential candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. That's not exactly a vote of confidence for Trump. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (who has a few presidential ambitions of his own) said yesterday he isn't ready to back Trump yet.

Republicans like Lindsey Graham are not mincing words, though on why they won't be supporting their party's nominee: "Eating a taco is probably not gonna fix the problem we have with Hispanics. Embracing Donald Trump is embracing demographic death." Some Republicans are even burning their party voter registration cards online, to show their feelings.

Of course, there's plenty in all of this to amuse Democrats. As we've been saying for months now: "It couldn't have happened to a nicer political party." Heh. What we find really funny, though, is how no Republicans are now talking about that "loyalty oath" they made all their presidential candidates sign. Remember that? It was supposed to guarantee Trump would never run as a third-party candidate. But now, why aren't the party leaders excommunicating Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush, both of whom signed that same pledge? Funny how they've all forgotten that supposedly-sacred oath, eh?

Then there's the faulty memory of people like Meghan McCain, who tweeted: "I hope history remembers those who gave up their conservative principles for the cult of personality and celebrity. And those who didn't." Um, yeah, OK... except for that business of your father choosing Sarah Palin as running mate, right? We've personally been pointing out the Palin-Trump progression for a while, too:

Anyone could plausibly run, if Sarah could conceivably be leader of the nation. No experience was necessary, and no quip was too outrageous to utter on stage. Fringe candidates, instead of being ignored by almost everyone, suddenly were given the party's official seal of approval.

But back to Trump, and the continuing implosion of the Party of Lincoln. Some Republican senators and congressmen are keeping to their "Never Trump" vows, although in the end most of them will likely at least not campaign actively for Hillary Clinton or anything, and offer up the most tepid "I support our party's nominee" statements -- but still refuse to outright endorse Trump. Could this be a permanent schism in the Republican Party? Your guess is as good as mine. Will the party end with a bang or a whimper? Who knows?

Of course, Trump becoming the nominee means a whole lot of inside-the-Beltway "journalists" and pundits are having to eat large helpings of crow, right about now. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is literally going to have to "eat his words" (he promised he'd eat a newsprint version of his "Trump will never be the GOP nominee" column if it ever came to pass -- he's now soliciting recipes for how he'll do this). Data guru Nate Silver has been taken down several pegs this year (as late as November, Silver was still snarkily proclaiming: "For my money, that adds up to Trump's chances [of winning the nomination] being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary."). Other pundits have been issuing their own mea maxima culpa statements, in chagrin.

We have to admit a bit of smugness in watching all this. Because we've been paying very close attention to the actual polling data since about last July, so we had to take a little credit of our own this week, pointing out that all of this data has been around for everyone to see for a very long time now -- the only thing necessary to have seen it coming was to believe what was in front of your own eyes, really. Think this overstates the case? Consider that this column has been calling Donald Trump the "frontrunner" since FTP [353], way back in early July of last year. So we do admit we're amused that the punditocracy is now furiously playing catch-up with Friday Talking Points.

Now that people are indeed facing facts, it would also behoove Democrats to not get too complacent about their chances for victory this November. Because there simply are no guarantees in politics. The Washington Post laid out not just a path to victory in the Electoral College for Trump, but five plausible ways he could win in November. In other words, the one big lesson everyone should have learned by now is that "It'll never happen" is no longer an acceptable brush-off when predicting how this whole thing will turn out.

It is a measure of how momentous a week it was in politics that the fabled "nerd prom" (the White House Correspondents' Dinner) got so little attention from the media this week (even though a "nerdy fight" broke out between the Huffington Post and Fox News!). For once, there was a story bigger than the media and politicians schmoozing with Hollywood celebrities. For all we know now, the next such nerd prom might have a celebrity at the head table, after all.

OK, before we move along to the awards, marijuana was in the news in several positive ways this week (one of which will actually be covered within our awards section). Walgreens drug store actually broke the wall of silence between corporate America and medical marijuana this week, by having a discussion about the subject on their own health blog. Good for them! Sooner or later, the realty will sink in, even in the boardrooms.

The much bigger news came from the Justice Department, as they quietly dropped their case against the Harborside medical marijuana provider in Oakland, California. This was a four-year legal nightmare that never should have been allowed to happen (and came as a result of an overzealous federal prosecutor), which is now thankfully over. Medical marijuana won a big victory in this case, without even having to set foot inside a courtroom. This will doubtless not be the last case the feds try to prosecute against a provider who is scrupulously following state and local law (the government of Oakland was fully behind Harborside, it bears mentioning, throughout their entire legal odyssey), but it certainly was a case with a very high profile. Sooner or later, federal prosecutors are going to have to get used to the new reality and spend their time on more pressing matters. Congress has even passed laws which refuse to spend any federal money on such pointless prosecutions, so it's good to see the Justice Department finally following this new law. The War On Weed isn't over, but the end is indeed in sight.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

President Barack Obama certainly deserves an Honorable Mention this week, as news leaked that he was going to designate the site of the Stonewall riot a National Memorial. Unlike with National Parks, this can be done by Obama without having to get Congress to approve it. So America will soon have an official gay civil rights memorial. Seeing as how the entire country has evolved enormously on this issue during Obama's term in office (including Obama's own evolution), it's a good way to end the most gay-friendly administration in American history.

But instead, we're giving the prestigious Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Gavin Newsom of California. Newsom is currently the lieutenant governor of the state, but he is now running to get a promotion to become its next governor. If he were a normal politician, this would mean he would be shying away from taking strong stands on very contentious issues. Instead, Newsom is showing bold leadership -- the same kind of bold leadership he showed back when he was mayor of San Francisco and marrying gay couples in defiance, long before other Democrats would support such a contentious idea.

This week, Newsom announced that the Adult Use of Marijuana Act ballot initiative was turning in 600,000 signatures to qualify for November's ballot. It needs fewer than 400,000 valid signatures to qualify, so it is likely to make it on the ballot.

Newsom has been involved in this effort for a while now -- he's not just jumping on the bandwagon late in the game. Not only did he head a blue ribbon commission on marijuana policy, he also worked to get all the diverse pro-legalization groups in the state to work together instead of at odds with each other. That's a big deal, because this is likely what killed California's first legalization measure (Proposition 19, back in 2010). Newsom has been out front of the effort to get everyone on board one single proposition, and it looks like it has paid off. While there are more than a dozen other legalization ballot initiatives circulating, it is doubtful that any of them will actually gain enough signatures to make it on the ballot.

Newsom has, in short, stuck his neck out. And not after he was safely in office, but while he's running. That is rare political courage, and shows Newsom's ability to lead. Here is what his campaign website has to say about "rethinking our drug policy," in full (emphasis in original):

The war on drugs has failed. Today we incarcerate too many Americans for non-violent drug crimes, while too few resources are available for effective treatment and prevention.

We can do better. First, it's time to legalize and regulate marijuana for adult users. That means looking at how we transition to legalization while protecting children and ensuring public safety. And more than that, it's time to get serious about the tax and business structure of how this will work.

But it's important to get this right. That's why I'm leading a Blue Ribbon Panel of legal, scientific, medical and public policy experts to help chart a responsible path to legalization.

Our work doesn't stop there. Drug addiction is a threat to families and to public health, and we can't turn a blind eye to the effects. We have to open new and innovative pipelines for non-violent offenders to get counseling and treatment, while doubling down on efforts to keep people – especially kids – from starting drugs in the first place.

What we cannot do is continue sweeping the problem under the rug by sending non-violent offenders to prison. Too many men and women are in jail because of drug addiction. We should focus on rebuilding families by keeping people out of the criminal justice system and instead getting them the help they need so they can return to a productive life.

Drug policy in California and across the country has missed the mark. Now's the time to rethink our approach and get it right.

Sooner or later, more and more Democrats are going to have to "evolve" on marijuana policy. If California legalizes recreational weed, it will be legal on the entire Pacific Coast, all the way up to Alaska. If a handful of other states pass similar ballot initiatives this year, the movement will become unstoppable. Prohibition of alcohol ended because a few brave politicians began standing up and saying "This is stupid -- we're shooting ourselves in the foot." Prohibition of marijuana is in that very phase right now. Brave politicians like Gavin Newsom are pioneering a path others should considering following.

So for showing real leadership instead of trying to pretend the issue doesn't exist (as so many other Democrats are still doing), Gavin Newsom is awarded the Golden Backbone, as he is clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. As a footnote, we also have to say we appreciate the 1960s in-joke in the initiative's title. The "Adult Use of Marijuana Act" will quickly become the "AUM Act" [we suggest you ask an aging hippie to explain, if you don't get the joke]. Hopefully this will become a mantra repeated by other states across the land, very soon.

[Congratulate California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom on his official state contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one is, sadly, an easy call this week. Former speaker of the New York assembly, Sheldon Silver, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison this week, for "honest services fraud, money laundering and extortion."

Now, unlike in some states where political corruption is only exercised by the party currently in power, in Albany political corruption is a game both sides play with abandon. The majority leader of the state senate, a Republican, has also been found guilty of corruption in federal court, meaning the two most powerful New York politicians in the legislative branch are going away for a long spell in the pokey.

In fact, corruption is so downright prevalent in New York government that the article announcing Silver's sentence added a helpful graphic at the bottom, which listed ten other legislators who have been convicted of corruption -- and that only goes back to 2009.

Bruce Roter, the man behind the effort to build a "Museum of Political Corruption" in Albany, New York, reacted to the news of Sheldon Silver's sentence being handed down:

Silver's sentence is severe, and rightfully so. But Silver's sentence will not serve as a cautionary tale to those who, like Silver, believe they are above the law. Nor has justice been served. Justice will only be served when comprehensive ethics reform in Albany prevents actions such as Silver's from happening again.

We fully agree, and we fully support the effort to see this museum built (we should mention that they have just launched a fundraising drive, in case anyone would like to give a tax-deductible donation to this worthy cause). Obviously, Albany needs such a museum more than most state capitals, these days.

Sheldon Silver is the official winner of this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but it really should be shared among all New York Democrats currently serving (or about to serve) prison sentences for corruption. We don't want anyone to feel left out, in other words.

[Sheldon Silver is now a private citizen but will soon be available for contact through the federal Bureau of Prisons, so look for his contact information there, we suppose, if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 390 (5/6/16)

We are not going to even bother jumping all over Donald Trump's nomination this week. The temptation is strong, but we're going to resist it, sorry.

There's one big reason why we say this -- because it is just too easy. Seriously, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. And where's the fun in that?

Hillary Clinton's team wasted no time in proving how easy it is to do so by releasing two ads. These ads literally write themselves, folks. The first is composed completely of other Republicans denouncing Donald Trump in the most scathing language you can imagine. Over and over and over again, prominent Republicans tell you what they think of their party being hijacked by Trump. In no uncertain terms. Graphically. And please remember, this is just what fellow Republicans are saying -- not a single Democrat is quoted, because there is no need.

As we said, shooting fish in a barrel. Oh, sure, it's amusing as all get out, and we certainly look forward to dozens of these ads to appear from Team Clinton over the next few months. They're downright irresistible for her campaign, and they'll certainly be effective. Her second ad is even more devastating, and will also hopefully be the first in a long series of similar ads. The second ad is composed entirely of Donald Trump, in his own words. Hillary is not going to let anyone forget all the outrageous things Trump has already said on the campaign trail, that's for sure. Since he is an absolute fount of such statements, we look forward to more and more of these "Trump speaks" ads to come. But even with so much juicy material to work with, we're still going to leave it to Clinton to come up with the snark this week. Watch those ads if you need a quick dose!

Instead of snarky talking points, we have some quotes from President Obama, from his press briefing today. He was asked repeatedly about the presidential race, but the two answers worth printing here are the most interesting, because they offer the framework of the entire Democratic campaign this year. Obama did admittedly get a little snarky on his own (it's been that kind of week for Democrats), in answer to a question about Trump's "taco bowl tweet":

I have no thoughts on Mr. Trump's tweets. As a general rule, I don't pay attention to Mr. Trump's tweets. And I think that will be true I think for the next six months. So you can just file that one.

Kidding aside, however, Obama was asked twice about Donald Trump being the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. His first answer was to pin a whole lot of the blame for Trump's success on the media themselves. As Ronald Reagan used to say, Obama "took them to the woodshed," very publicly.

Well, with respect to the Republican process and Mr. Trump, there's going to be plenty of time to talk about his positions on various issues. He has a long record that needs to be examined, and I think it's important for us to take seriously the statements he's made in the past.

But most importantly -- and I speak to all of you in this room as reporters, as well as the American public -- I just want to emphasize the degree to which we are in serious times and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States.

And what that means is that every candidate, every nominee needs to be subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny. It means that you got to make sure that their budgets add up. It means that if they say they got an answer to a problem that it is actually plausible and that they have details for how it would work. And if it's completely implausible and would not work, that needs to be reported on. The American people need to know that. If they take a position on international issues that could threaten war, or has the potential of upending our critical relationships with other countries, or would potentially break the financial system, that needs to be reported on.

And the one thing that I'm going to really be looking for over the next six months is that the American people are effectively informed about where candidates stand on the issues, what they believe, making sure that their numbers add up, making sure that their policies have been vetted and that candidates are held to what they've said in the past.

And if that happens, then I'm confident our democracy will work. And that's true whether we're talking about Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or anybody else. But what I'm concerned about is the degree to which reporting and information starts emphasizing the spectacle and the circus, because that's not something we can afford. And the American people, they've got good judgment, they've got good instincts, as long as they get good information.

President Obama is right. The time has come to look beyond the circus atmosphere and take Trump seriously as a candidate. The media has been woefully inadequate in vetting Trump, and that needs to end. Reporters have to take Trump's policy ideas and research them and have facts at the ready to confront Trump with. The only times this has so far happened, it has always been big news -- but the instances of Trump confronted with hard facts have sadly been few and far between. So Obama's right in trying to shame the media into changing their lazy ways.

The next answer came in response to a question about Paul Ryan refusing to back his own party's nominee. Obama brushed off that one, but then answered in a larger sense how he sees the upcoming campaign to define the differences between the two parties.

Well, I think you have to ask Speaker Ryan what the implications of his comments are. There is no doubt that there is a debate that's taking place inside the Republican Party about who they are and what they represent.

Their standard bearer at the moment is Donald Trump. And I think not just Republican officials, but more importantly, Republican voters are going to have to make a decision as to whether this is the guy who speaks for them and represents their values.

I think Republican women voters are going to have to decide, is that the guy I feel comfortable with in representing me and what I care about. I think folks who, historically, have been concerned about making sure that budgets add up and that we are responsible stewards of government finances have to ask, does Mr. Trump's budgets work. Those are going to be questions that Republican voters, more than Republican officials have to answer.

And as far as Democrats, I think we run on what we're for, not just on what we're against. For the last seven and a half years, we've been pretty clear about what we believe will help working families who are struggling out there. And although it has been difficult to get through Republican Congresses to get those things done, the truth is, is that they continue to be prescriptions that would really help people.

Making sure that families get paid sick leave and family leave and early childhood education -- that would help families. Raising the minimum wage would help a lot of people. Rebuilding infrastructure would put back to work a whole bunch of guys in hardhats and gals in hardhats that need to work. And those are good jobs that can't be exported. Now is the time to do it.

So I want Democrats to feel confident about the policy prescriptions we're putting forward, and the contrast, I think, will be pretty clear. I'll leave it up to the Republicans to figure out how they square their circle.

-- 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

 

78 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [390] -- It's My Party And I'll Cry If I Want To”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't see how a Hillary ad with all the outrageous statements made by Trump will help her campaign. It is those statements that attract the people that support him. Why would she pay for ads that benefit Trump?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, I think it's going to take a very smart campaign on the part of the Democrats to beat Trump.

    Smart but, not too sophisticated.

    Hillary is going to have to walk a very fine yet wobbly line in opposing Trump.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, the really scary part is that I think Trump knows that, all too well ...

  4. [4] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I have to go with Don on the whole trump speaks ads.

    I think that running the ads that have trump speaking not only gives him more face time, it opens the door to more free air time for trump when he reacts to those ads. To run these types of ads pretty much has the dems walking into the "we got this in the bag" trap. The end result of these ads is that is will only piss off the dedicated trump supporter and could push the "protest" trump supporter firmly into the trump column.

    As I have said before, this is the Dems race to lose, but, they have to avoid the habits of previous campaigns and mental perspectives. In this election the GOP are not the only ones that need a reboot, aside from the obvious Dems, add the media as well, time for them to get back to being the fourth estate. Perhaps it is time we reinstate the old "equal time" requirements.

    If the Dems fail to learn the lessons of the full frontal assault coupled with the "tit for tat" defense that was on dispaly in the GOP primary, they will lose. The smart young and hungry operative will realize that the way to go is to ignore the trumpbait and run a "here is what we think will work and here is how" campaign, designing responses to a trump attack in such a vein.

    Unfortunately, there are no new young up and comers at the helm in this go around so we are doomed to a repeat of history, and that could easily lead to a trump presidency.

    I hope for change, but i just don't see it....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    When else in living memory has a major political party faced such a stark division -- at the precise moment the general election presidential campaign begins?

    Ronald Reagan...

    Republicans are thus left with a choice: back the party's nominee or denounce the party's nominee. So far, some have gravitated towards Trump, but many notable names have moved as fast as they can in the opposite direction. The two living Republican ex-presidents both said they would skip the party's convention (this was not too surprising, considering George H. W. Bush's age, and George W. Bush's presidential record). Also skipping the party will be the two previous Republican presidential candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. That's not exactly a vote of confidence for Trump. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (who has a few presidential ambitions of his own) said yesterday he isn't ready to back Trump yet.

    That just shows their level of immaturity..

    "My candidate didn't win!! Waaaaa Waaaaa!!!! So I'm going to stay home and act like a spoiled brat!! Waaaaa Waaaaaa!! That'll show 'em!!!"

    Pathetic...

    No other words describes it..

    Pathetic...

    Of course, there's plenty in all of this to amuse Democrats.

    {{cough}} {{{cough}}} #NeverHillary, #BernieOrBust

    ..... ^^^ real coughs... :D

    Anyone could plausibly run, if Sarah could conceivably be leader of the nation. No experience was necessary, and

    Obama proved that beyond ANY doubt..

    Funny how everyone ignores this little factoid.. :D

    Of course, Trump becoming the nominee means a whole lot of inside-the-Beltway "journalists" and pundits are having to eat large helpings of crow, right about now. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is literally going to have to "eat his words" (he promised he'd eat a newsprint version of his "Trump will never be the GOP nominee" column if it ever came to pass -- he's now soliciting recipes for how he'll do this). Data guru Nate Silver has been taken down several pegs this year (as late as November, Silver was still snarkily proclaiming: "For my money, that adds up to Trump's chances [of winning the nomination] being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary."). Other pundits have been issuing their own mea maxima culpa statements, in chagrin.

    Yet, one amongst us stands tall and holds his head high.. :D

    In other words, the one big lesson everyone should have learned by now is that "It'll never happen" is no longer an acceptable brush-off when predicting how this whole thing will turn out.

    A million quatloos says that the lesson has NOT been learned...

    Regarding Obama's childish snarkiness...

    He said many of the same things about Trump during the primary.. And they probably HELPED Trump to win the nomination...

    Basically, Obama is looking millions and millions of Americans in the eye and saying, "Yer a bunch of frakin' morons!!"

    Par for the course from our so-called "leader"...

    We'll see who is the frakin' moron come November..

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Well said...

    Hillary needs to play a whole new game when it comes to running against Trump..

    The ONE time she tried, Trump handed her ass to her all bloodied and chewed.. She shut up real quick after that...

    Hillary is way WAY over her head...

    Trump eats pieces of shit like her for breakfast.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary is going to have to walk a very fine yet wobbly line in opposing Trump.

    And Hillary has proven that nuance and fine-line-walking is not her strong suit..

    She is going to get demolished.. Even without the coming indictment..

    Speaking of which, Hillary got caught in ANOTHER lie.. She told Andrea Mitchell that her and her staff has NOT been contacted by the FBI for interviews..

    Turns out the FBI has been interviewing Hillary's staff for WEEKS!!!

    And Hillary's neck is next up on the chopping block..

    And here's the thing..

    Hillary is facing not ONE deposition under oath, not TWO depositions under oath, but THREE... count em... UNO DOS TRES depositions under oath..

    And if all of those depositions don't line up PERFECTLY.....

    Guess who's going to jail???

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Aspiring Novelist Who Became
    Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
    How Ben Rhodes rewrote the rules of diplomacy for the digital age.
    “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the {JCPOA}. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=1

    Looks like those who supported the JCPOA got had and were manipulated by the Obama Administration...

    Puts it all in perspective..

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We need to wake up {Americans}. We need them to take them away from the TV and drinking beer, to working hard, to getting the skills, to getting knowledge, and they will come along, like everybody else."
    -Vincente Fox

    Yea...

    A former leader of one of THE most corrupt countries in the world is going to lecture Americans about working hard!???

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that crap like this from the likes of Fox and Pelosi is just going to make more and more Trump supporters..

    So, by all means. Continue to have Democrats collude with foreign despots and scumbags against Americans...

    It'll make Trump's win all the more sweet...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Trump supporters are nothing but lazy uneducated TV-watching drunks"
    -Vicente Fox

    I am SURE that ya'all will fall all over yerselves in castigating Fox for his blatant and unabashed bigotry...

    {{cchiiiirrrrrppppp}} {{chiiiirrrrrrppppppp}}

    Yea... That's what I thought.. :^/

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What Vicente Fox actually said: "We need to wake up that citizen. We need them to take them away from the TV and drinking beer, to working hard, to getting the skills, to getting knowledge, and they will come along, like everybody else does."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-vicente-fox-plot-to-defeat-trump-mexican-calls-trump-voters-lazy-drunks/article/2590642

    Vicente can be excused for getting a few minor details wrong. Lazy Trumpthugs are poorly-educated rather than uneducated and, while they're watching WWE and TLC, their drug of choice is Oxycontin.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Vicente Fox actually said: "We need to wake up that citizen. We need them to take them away from the TV and drinking beer, to working hard, to getting the skills, to getting knowledge, and they will come along, like everybody else does."

    Uh... Yea... That's what I said..

    Vicente can be excused for getting a few minor details wrong. Lazy Trumpthugs are poorly-educated rather than uneducated and, while they're watching WWE and TLC, their drug of choice is Oxycontin.

    Yea... No bigotry there... :^/

    Like I said.. Ya'all don't mind bigotry, hatred and intolerance...

    Just as long as it's the Right people who are targeted...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-slams-hillary-clinton-nasty-mean-enabler-husband-s-affairs-n569791

    And so it begins...

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving rhymes-with-witch... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump attacking Hillary for being an enabler will happen, but it won't work. It didn't work for Bernie when he pointed out that she is a Wall Street enabler.
    I just hope that Trump leaves Monica Lewinsky out of it. There are plenty of other examples to use.
    Besides, The whole Lewinsky affair could have just been a misunderstanding caused by dyslexia.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump attacking Hillary for being an enabler will happen, but it won't work. It didn't work for Bernie when he pointed out that she is a Wall Street enabler.

    Apples and alligators..

    One of Hillary's platforms is defense of women who were sexually assaulted...

    The fact that Hillary was instrumental in destroying the lives of women who were sexually assaulted and raped by Bill Clinton....

    Well, that just can't be pooh-pooh'ed away....

    Besides, The whole Lewinsky affair could have just been a misunderstanding caused by dyslexia.

    Yea, I am sure Lewinsky felt it was just a big misunderstanding... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sure, let's talk about hillary. she's a polarizing figure; people who hate her REALLY hate her. but she has also been responsible for many positive changes in our country.

    whether or not she becomes the president, she has made it the norm for a woman to run and to be a front-runner. she was among the first who tried to make health care happen in 1992, and was largely responsible for the SCHiP program. she was instrumental in convincing president obama to approve the operation to get bin laden. she did a serviceable job in the senate, notwithstanding the vote to authorize force in iraq. she has already successfully negotiated a ceasefire in israel. she rebuilt the US international reputation from all-time lows.

    i'm not calling hillary the second coming of LBJ, but there's a solid record of positive change. what's trump's record?

    JL

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The misunderstanding would have been by Clinton.
    Monica Lewinsky could have shown up for her first day of work with a letter of introduction that read "This is Monica Lewinsky, your intern."
    If Clinton were slightly dyslexic he might have read "This is Monica Lewynski, your tern in."

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't think what happened to monica lewinski was funny at all. she gave a great ted talk on public shaming. yes, that incident was certainly an example of hillary being less than perfect. but i don't think the way you reacted poorly twenty years ago by publicly shaming the person who your spouse cheated with is an indication of fitness to be president.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, let's talk about hillary. she's a polarizing figure; people who hate her REALLY hate her. but she has also been responsible for many positive changes in our country.

    And so has Trump...

    i'm not calling hillary the second coming of LBJ, but there's a solid record of positive change. what's trump's record?

    Shurley, you jest...

    Do you know how many JOBS Trump has provided...

    You want me to see the good that Hillary has done, yet you refuse to see the good that Trump has done..

    Non sequitur...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, that incident was certainly an example of hillary being less than perfect.

    Yea.. And Trump calling illegal immigrants "rapists" and "Murderers" is certainly an example of Trump being less than perfect... :^/

    It works both ways...

    but i don't think the way you reacted poorly twenty years ago by publicly shaming the person who your spouse cheated with is an indication of fitness to be president.

    If it was JUST Lewinsky, you might have a point..

    But it wasn't just Lewinsky.. It was DOZENS of women.

    It's also kinda a big thing since she is running on the platform of BELIEVING sexual assault victims, not DESTROYING sexual assault victims...

    Don'tcha think???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I think everything is funny. That's one reason why I could never run for office- I can't resist a joke.
    What happened to Monica Lewinsky afterwards may not have been right, but the part I made fun of was her own doing. Even though Bill Clinton took advantage she should have known what she was getting into when she took the job and she could have said no to the job or at any other point. Two wrongs of varying degrees don't make the lesser one of them right.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    she was instrumental in convincing president obama to approve the operation to get bin laden.

    Yea, that's what she claims.. But she also claims she had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia... :^/

    Further, Joe Biden claims he had more to do with that then Hillary...

    And Joe Biden has more credibility in his little pinky nail than Hillary has in her whole body...

    she rebuilt the US international reputation from all-time lows.

    Libya... 'nuff said...

    And her decision to use a private home-brew insecure email server SOLELY to evade FOI requests, AT BEST, shows an appalling lack of good judgement....

    I mean, forget about partisan politics... A logical objective assessment of Hillary Clinton shows she is NOT qualified for POTUS...

    The *ONLY* thing that qualifies her is she has a vagina...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    What happened to Monica Lewinsky afterwards may not have been right, but the part I made fun of was her own doing.

    Oh it was ALL her own fault.. I am certainly not claiming otherwise...

    Lewinsky is far from a victim in all this..

    My only point is that Hillary is running on a platform of the idea that sexual assault victims MUST be listened too and believed...

    But the ONLY time we know that Hillary was involved in something along those lines, HILLARY was the one bent on destroying the sexual assault victims...

    "You drag a hundred dollar bill thru the trailer park and you get these women.."

    And ya'all contend that TRUMP has a problem with women!???

    Step back and assess the logic of THAT position, eh!?? :D

    MIchale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Clinton were slightly dyslexic he might have read "This is Monica Lewynski, your tern in."

    heh Now THAT was funny!! :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yes, hillary's behavior twenty years ago was bad. but that doesn't reflect at all on her ability to do the job as president. a truly objective analysis would conclude that she does have the political chops to do a solid job.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/why-hillary-clinton-wont-pay-for-disparaging-her-husbands-accusers/283801/

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I stand corrected. Three wrongs of varying degree doesn't make the lesser one right.

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The *ONLY* thing that qualifies her is she has a vagina...

    no, what qualifies her is what qualifies you, me, trump or anyone else, she's a natural born citizen over 35 who has lived here over 14 years.

    what makes people willing to vote for her is that she's worked competently in all three branches of government, has shown she can handle the rough and tumble of politics, and has become a national symbol of a powerful woman who can escape the shadow of a powerful man and become respected worldwide in her own right.

    JL

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I always find the "They have no experience" argument to be very lacking as there is no job that can compare to being the President of the United States! No other government position comes close. Heck, I would argue Hillary's being the First Lady makes her more qualified for the job as President than her role as Sec. Of State does. Trump has plenty of experience running his own little empire where Donald was all-powerful and always right. The bureaucracy of government might be a little shocking to his system.

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don wrote:

    I stand corrected. Three wrongs of varying degree doesn't make the lesser one right.

    True, but three left turns does make a right.

  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Last month The Orange Thing ranted in sentence fragments about "the rigged system" on a daily basis, but now that Republicans are supporting, but not endorsing The Presumptive Nominee Who Shall Not Be Named, he says he doesn't care about that rigged system. It's as if it's all about Trump.

    . . . and he says he's going to bring the hillbillies their coal jobs back too. In addition to trade wars, his economic plan apparently includes putting the frackers out of business.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @listen,

    regardless of whether or not we want to believe it, experience in the government tends to be helpful to new presidents. one of the reasons obama got off on the wrong foot to start his presidency was he didn't know how to herd the cats who were out to get him. it took two years for him to figure out what to do, and by that time a lot of the damage had been done. there's always been tension between the powers of the three branches, no matter what party you are - and the type of politicking that gets you elected is very different from the type that lets you effectively govern.

    hillary has a lot of experience in that type of politics, bernie has a little experience and donald (just like obama in '08) has next to no experience. sure i disagree with her on some important issues, and it would be nice if there were someone available who was a better fit for the job of president than hillary, but there isn't. right now she is the best we have. unless she gets indicted (which i think is doubtful), she'd be the best of the three at being president.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    [31] Yep!

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... one of the reasons obama got off on the wrong foot to start his presidency was he didn't know how to herd the cats who were out to get him. it took two years for him to figure out what to do, and by that time a lot of the damage had been done.

    That might be true, Joshua, if the vice president wasn't Joe Biden.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LWYH,

    The bureaucracy of government might be a little shocking to his system.

    That may qualify as the understatement of the year.

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    maybe obama didn't listen enough to biden. maybe he listened too much to rahm emanuel. took nearly two years (november '08 to october '10) for rahm to leave. good for the country, sad for chicago.

    JL

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That could be. And, if so, I believe Obama now regrets that very much.

    It was interesting to watch how the Obama/Biden relationship evolved over the course of the administration.

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Trump supporters are nothing but lazy uneducated TV-watching drunks"
    -Vicente Fox
    I am SURE that ya'all will fall all over yerselves in castigating Fox for his blatant and unabashed bigotry...

    Actually I DO condemn those remarks. Just like I condemn Trumps remarks about Mexicans being rapists and criminals. Or when conservative commentators on blogs call Hillary or Sanders supporters "Liberal Retards." I am an equal opportunity anti-bigot. Can you say the same?

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i wonder what fox would say about hillary supporters, or bernie supporters. would he play softball or be equally harsh? how well does he know them?

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know anything about Trump supporters but, I think they are playing with fire.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    trump supporters tend to fall mostly into the following 4 groups:

    1. They Didn’t Go to College

    2. They Don't Think They Have a Political Voice

    3. They Want to Wage an Interior War Against Outsiders

    4. They Live in Parts of the Country With Racial Resentment

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/

    you'll note that none of those categories is necessarily white, male or non-hispanic.

    hillary clinton supporters on the other hand are very numerous, but not a lot of statistical analysis has been published about it. are the results just less interesting?

    JL

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's an article about hillary clinton voters from new republic:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary supporters are not playing with fire.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    unless she gets indicted (which i think is doubtful), she'd be the best of the three at being president.

    OK, now we're getting somewhere..

    Say, for the sake of the argument, that Hillary is the nominee, Bernie is out and then Hillary gets indicted.

    What's your position then??

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually I DO condemn those remarks. Just like I condemn Trumps remarks about Mexicans being rapists and criminals. Or when conservative commentators on blogs call Hillary or Sanders supporters "Liberal Retards."

    Then you are one of the few exceptions around here..

    You'll notice that no one else has stood up to be counted, eh? :D

    Acknowledging that there are those few who are on record as opposing such bigotry.. Ya'all know who you are.. :D

    I am an equal opportunity anti-bigot. Can you say the same?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly..

    But I am also faithful to truth in advertising. :D

    And, when Trump stated that most of illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers and drug dealers, he was being somewhat accurate...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, now we have an idea of what this election is going to be like..

    Trump goes after Hillary very nastily and it's covered by three major news sources... :D

    Say what you want about Trump, but he DOES have the media dancing to his tune.. :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    True, but three left turns does make a right.

    "4 Lefts??? 4 lefts is a circle you idiot!"
    -Nicholas Cage, TRAPPED IN PARADISE

    :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    here's an article about hillary clinton voters from new republic:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter

    Not much real data on the hillary voter..

    But what I take away from that article is that the Hillary voter is the voter who wants free stuff, the voter who wants to continue to be the victim, the voter who wants the status quo, who wants to continue to have Wall Street pulling the strings of their POTUS..

    Yep.. That sounds exactly like the Hillary voter...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, hillary's behavior twenty years ago was bad.

    And the fact that she refuses to apologize to those she wronged makes the bad behavior on-going...

    but that doesn't reflect at all on her ability to do the job as president.

    It shows a level of hypocrisy and bad-judgement that is ALSO indicated by current actions in the here and now...

    and has become a national symbol of a powerful woman who can escape the shadow of a powerful man and become respected worldwide in her own right.

    That's your opinion and I do respect that. More so than many others here. :D

    But the truth is, Hillary is "respected" by a small small percentage of the world's population..

    She is feared much more than respected (a type of respect, I grant you) but she is hated by far FAR more of the world's population..

    And why is she hated??

    Because of her sense of entitlement. Her sense that the laws and rules don't apply to her... Her DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO attitude...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    sure i disagree with {Hillary} on some important issues,

    Would it be fair to say that you also AGREE with Trump on some important issues??

    There are several issues that Trump is to Hillary's LEFT on...

    So, if you disagree with Hillary on SOME issues but agree with her on others... And you disagree with Trump on SOME issues but agree with her on others.....

    The question becomes...

    Why Hillary over Trump???

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    trump supporters tend to fall mostly into the following 4 groups:

    1. They Didn’t Go to College

    2. They Don't Think They Have a Political Voice

    3. They Want to Wage an Interior War Against Outsiders

    4. They Live in Parts of the Country With Racial Resentment

    That's a Left Wingery assessment and the only one that is truly accurate and free from ideological bias is #2...

    And, coincidentally, that is the one that is actually the most prevalent Trump Supporter trait by far...

    And that trait has stitched together a far reaching and diverse crowd of Americans..

    Republicans, Democrats, black Americans, white Americans, hispanic, rich, poor, middle class......

    Trump supporters cut a WIDE swath all up and down the diverse Americans spectrum..

    As I have often said, Trump is a TRUE progressives DREAM candidate...

    If Trump had run as a Democrat, there would have been NOTHING to stop him from winning the Presidency... I would have even voted Democrat again, even though I got royally burned the last time I did..

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    NYpoet22 said:

    "one of the reasons obama got off on the wrong foot to start his presidency was he didn't know how to herd the cats who were out to get him. it took two years for him to figure out what to do, and by that time a lot of the damage had been done"

    But there was no possible way to "herd in the cats who were out to get him." Obama did absolutely everything he could have done to gain bi-partisan cooperation from the Republicans -- but the GOP did something that no other Congress has done before: they made blocking the President from passing any legislation that would be viewed as helpful to Americans their sole purpose in Congress. Yes, I realize other Congresses have voted out of spite on legislation instead of doing what was best for their constituents, but they didn't begin day one of the presidency and continue on for seven years without cease! You literally had members of Congress voting against legislation that they, themselves had introduced; but ONLY because and after Obama signaled he supported the bill and would sign it into law if it made it to his desk! How could Obama have seen that coming? Obama was a Senator, so he DID have some experience in government, but I don't think anyone thought the Republicans would completely refuse to negotiate on every piece of legislation that Obama supported -- regardless of how many years they had been in government work!

    "Say what you want about Trump, but he DOES have the media dancing to his tune.. :D

    Well, if you are talking about getting lots of free air time and publicity, then I agree. Of course, mass murderers do that, too. ;)

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if you are talking about getting lots of free air time and publicity, then I agree. Of course, mass murderers do that, too. ;)

    As do SEAL TEAM members who take down terrorists... ;^)

    but I don't think anyone thought the Republicans would completely refuse to negotiate on every piece of legislation that Obama supported

    You DO realize that Obama and the Republicans are working together and have worked together on many an agenda...

    The GOP's treatment of Obama was no different than the Democrats treatment of Bush...

    A lot of hysterical hyperbole but then Obama and Bush got pretty much, anything they wanted...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrrr......

    Well, if you are talking about getting lots of free air time and publicity, then I agree. Of course, mass murderers do that, too. ;)

    As do SEAL TEAM members who take down terrorists... ;^)

    but I don't think anyone thought the Republicans would completely refuse to negotiate on every piece of legislation that Obama supported

    You DO realize that Obama and the Republicans are working together and have worked together on many an agenda...

    The GOP's treatment of Obama was no different than the Democrats treatment of Bush...

    A lot of hysterical hyperbole but then Obama and Bush got pretty much, anything they wanted...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a down-on-its-luck Oregon mill town, the savior they're waiting for is Donald Trump
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-trump-nation-oregon-20160502-story.html

    Thanx Obama... Thanx Democrats

    :^/

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are either a bigot or an anti-bigot. You cannot be both so you better make up your scrambled mind. :)

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale[43],

    if hillary gets indicted, i'd suggest bringing in biden as a last minute pinch hitter. as you said, your intuition about hillary voters isn't based on any data, it's just your own view. the main point the article brings up is that people tend to make many assumptions about hillary's support without any hard data to back them up.

    [50],
    the atlantic article backs up its conclusions with numerous sources of hard data. "smart" or "dumb" is an opinion; "didn't go to college" is a fact. resentment of outsiders can just as easily be harbored by naturalized legal immigrants as natural-born citizens. the article says straight out that most of the stereotypes (including those that vicente fox mentioned) don't apply.

    @listen [51],

    yes, the GOP made it public that the first item on their agenda was to prevent a second obama term. that's always been the case, at least from kennedy forward. bill clinton found a way to deal with it, obama didn't. obama chose rahm emanuel to lead the 2008 transition, a signal that perhaps he didn't take his promise of more inclusive politics seriously. instead of moving the GOP off their obstructionist position, emanuel ossified them and they hunkered down.

    obama was in a uniquely difficult position, but he made some very inexperienced leadership decisions that continue to cost him even today. that's why i believe it's important to have someone who knows what they're doing on day 1. if not hillary then joe biden, john kerry - hell, even jeb bush.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    yes, the GOP made it public that the first item on their agenda was to prevent a second obama term. that's always been the case, at least from kennedy forward. bill clinton found a way to deal with it, obama didn't. obama chose rahm emanuel to lead the 2008 transition, a signal that perhaps he didn't take his promise of more inclusive politics seriously. instead of moving the GOP off their obstructionist position, emanuel ossified them and they hunkered down.

    That's the best analysis I have seen in a long LONG time...

    I rarely give you enough credit for your fair-minded and objective -ness, Joshua...

    The next time I give you shit, please remind me of this... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You are either a bigot or an anti-bigot. You cannot be both so you better make up your scrambled mind. :)

    I am against bigotry under most circumstances...

    But I readily concede that I DO have my bigotries..

    I think that's what JM meant as well...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279077-decision-time-for-fbi-on-clinton

    It's coming down to the wire, people....

    I was hoping for a 4 May announcement by Director Comey... Obviously that didn't come to pass.. :)

    But it looks like that we're not going to get out of May without the announcement..

    It's funny... Obama thought that he was defending Clinton when he said that she was just "careless" with handling classified material...

    What he was actually doing is spelling out EXACTLY why Comey will recommend indictment...

    Because being "careless", in other words, NEGLIGENT is all that is required to prosecute....

    Hillary's going down!!! :D

    And ya'all will see one very happy Michale on that day... :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am against bigotry under most circumstances...But I readily concede that I DO have my bigotries..

    Yes, Michale, I've noticed that you like to have it both ways.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Michale, I've noticed that you like to have it both ways.

    Naaaww... I don't ride that bike.. :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hmmmm ...

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 wrote:

    "yes, the GOP made it public that the first item on their agenda was to prevent a second obama term. that's always been the case, at least from kennedy forward. bill clinton found a way to deal with it, obama didn't"

    I agree with your view that every president faces an opposing party bent on making them in & out in four, but Obama's first term was different in that the Republicans' made keeping Obama from signing legislation into law the sole factor in their decision making process on whether to support a bill or vote against it. The fact that Congress has been the least productive in history is not by chance. The Republicans even were willing to vote against legislation that they knew would be wildly popular with their constituents (like passing the Zagruder Bill for covering the medical expenses of first responders who became ill after the towers fell on 9/11). They kept complaining that Obama wouldn't negotiate with them, but they were the ones who had no intention of working with Obama to find common ground. You claim Obama failed to find a way to get the Republicans to work with him, but I argue that there was never a "way" for him to find! I don't care who you put in place of Obama, the results would not have changed simply because the Republicans had been taken over by extremists willing to run the country into the ground rather than work with a Democrat!

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    because the Republicans had been taken over by extremists willing to run the country into the ground rather than work with a Democrat!

    Sounds exactly like Democrats during the Bush years...

    I know, I know.. You think it's "different"...

    But it really isn't...

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
    Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, the Party that refers to the other Party as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" takes the award for most hysterical extremists refusing to work with anyone that doesn't see things their way...

    There is plenty of blame to spread around...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Most of the 60+ comments are focusing on messaging tactics. Important, but more important is maximizing Dem turnout in "poorly serviced" = disenfranchised districts of swing states. Early voting, mail in voting, pews to polls etc. High turnout should give Clinton a win. Most minds are made up...this cycle is all about identity politics, it's hard to shift self identity.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    pews to polls etc.

    So much for the separation of church and state, eh??? :D

    High turnout should give Clinton a win.

    Only by suppressing the high turnout of Trump supporters..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

    Facebook censors conservative news!!???

    I am SHOCKED!!! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

    No... Not really.... :^/

    That's the only way that the Left Wingery has a fighting chance.. Cheating.. Stacking the deck...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://lawnewz.com/columnists/behavior-experts-guccifer-telling-truth-about-hacking-clintons-email-server/

    And for Clinton, the lies keep piling up and the hits just keep on coming...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-limits-audience-press-for-virginia-campaign-event/

    This is how Hillary treats Americans who don't toe her line...

    And ya'all complain about how TRUMP treats people!???

    Take a look at your candidate, Hillary.. She has her goons manhandle people out of her rallies...

    How is that any different than what ya'all accuse Trump of??

    Once again, ya'all (with few notable exceptions) refuse to see any side but one single side... YOUR side... of any issue...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "Sounds exactly like Democrats during the Bush years...

    I know, I know.. You think it's "different"...

    But it really isn't.."

    I do not recall ever hearing a Democrat say that the more a piece of legislation would be viewed as "helping Americans", the harder they had to fight to block it from passing. This is where the GOP under Obama has done things "different"...

    If they voted against a piece of legislation based on differing political philosophies or views, that would not bother me. It's one thing to want a President to be a one term turkey; it is another to intentionally vote against your constituent's best interests and the best interests of this nation to achieve that goal.

    Remind me when the Democrats demanded Bush repeal a law he had signed or they would refuse to support legislation that they thought would benefit their constituents? If it was not "different", then you should have no problem giving me examples. But you can't, because the Democrats did not block legislation just for the sake of it nor did they make unreasonable demands that had to be met in order to be willing to work with Bush.

    The GOP refused to pass the Zagruder bill that helped cover the medical expenses of police, fire, and first responders who became ill from the destruction of the Twin Towers after 9/11. People who are dying of cancer were made to sit and wonder whether or not they would have the money available to continue their treatments. Why? Because the GOP did not want Obama to get the credit for helping these heroes.

    If you see no difference, then I can't help but feel bad for you.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do not recall ever hearing a Democrat say that the more a piece of legislation would be viewed as "helping Americans", the harder they had to fight to block it from passing.

    I don't recall hearing a Republican say that either..

    This is where the GOP under Obama has done things "different"...

    It's not really different at all.. Democrats opposed Bush's policies hysterically and repeatedly..

    Republicans opposed Obama's policies hysterically and repeatedly...

    No difference..

    It's one thing to want a President to be a one term turkey; it is another to intentionally vote against your constituent's best interests and the best interests of this nation to achieve that goal.

    You mean like when Democrats fought tooth and nail against Bush's CT policies???

    If you see no difference, then I can't help but feel bad for you.

    Feel bad all ya want, but the facts are clear..

    Democrats oppose a Republican POTUS and Republicans oppose a Democrat POTUS...

    Same ol, same ol... Nothing new under the sun...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting mad at Republicans because they oppose Obama's policies is like getting mad at the sun because it rises in the east and sets in the west...

    It's what the sun does....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    CLINTON TECH STAFFER EMAILS GO 'MISSING'
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-found-hillary-clintons-senior-staffer-state-department/story?id=38989504

    It's downright SHOCKING!!!!!!! :^/

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    It's always "different" when you are on the receiving end..

    Give you a perfect example..

    Dean lied to Sam when Ezekiel/Gadreel was possessing Sam.. As a result of the subterfuge, Gadreel killed Kevin...

    Flash forward a couple years...

    Sam lied to Dean about working with Rowena and Castiel to remove the Mark Of Cain from Dean... As a result of the subterfuge, Charlie was killed by the Steins...

    Now, if Sam would have confronted Dean with Kevin's death when Dean was blaming Sam for Charlie's death, what would Dean's response have been??

    "That's different"....

    It always is...

    But, in reality, it never is..

    Need another example???

    In STAR TREK:VOYAGER END GAME, Admiral Janeway was going to use a time displacement field to travel back in time to get Voyager home sooner..

    She is pursued by the USS RHODE ISLAND, captained by Captain Harry Kim who tries to stop her..

    If Admiral Janeway had had her wits about her, she could have confronted Harry Kim with the time that Harry Kim used a Borg temporal interlink node to send a message back in time to Seven Of Nine (AKA 38 of DD :D ) and prevented Voyager from crashing into an ice planet and being destroyed in TIMELESS...

    Of course, Harry's response would have been, "Well... That's different..."

    You see the point??

    It's always "different"... But it never is...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    every behavior follows patterns and every behavior is unique. that applies to political behaviors as well as any others.

    and above romance there's your mind going, "ah, i believe you're both right"
    ~robin williams live at the met

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme"
    -Mark Twain

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    and above romance there's your mind going, "ah, i believe you're both right"
    ~robin williams live at the met

    "...... We must perpetuate the species, but we also must have good conversation afterwards.. That's why I'm looking for a woman who gives mind... if you know what I mean..."

    :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.