ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [391] -- Our "Dopey Donald" Contest

[ Posted Friday, May 13th, 2016 – 17:28 PDT ]

Today, let's just start with some silliness. It just seems appropriate, somehow. Maybe because it's Friday the 13th? For whatever reason, silliness seems like the place to begin (and end) this week. Because, after this silly start, we're going to end this column with a contest to come up with the best playground taunt to call Donald Trump -- and you can't get much sillier than that!

There was both some sad news and some amusing news from the internet recently, so let's get the sad news out of the way first. There will be no "RSS Boaty McBoatface." The British government announced that after it had held an online contest to name its new polar research vessel, the will of the online voters would be ignored. "Boaty McBoatface" won in a landslide, but the vessel will not be christened the RSS Boaty after all. Instead, in a massively disappointing downgrade, one of the robot probe ships on board the research vessel will get the name instead. Our favorite tidbit from this story: one of the other rejected names was: "RSS It's Bloody Cold Here," which we feel would also have been a great name for a polar research vessel.

The amusing news from the internet this week was the announcement that a new dating site will attempt to match up Americans fleeing their country (after Donald Trump wins the presidency) with lovely (but lonely) Canadians. Its name is "MapleMatch.com," and its slogan is: "Make dating great again." The site also helpfully explains: "Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency." This could become wildly popular, say about mid-November. We hope it won't, of course, but it's good to know someone is paving the way, just in case.

In other silly news, the circus came to Washington D.C. Well, not really -- it was just an overhyped meeting between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, but the media went absolutely bonkers over covering it. This was so over-the-top that the media themselves had to sheepishly cover the story of how ridiculous their own coverage efforts were. Life imitating art, or something.

Pretty much every pundit in the mainstream media got down on their knees and thanked a recent poll which showed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck-and-neck in three key swing states this week, because they truly want this gravy train to continue. If the election becomes an absolute blowout for Clinton (something we pondered earlier this week), then it would become boring -- and nobody in the media ever wants to see "boring" in the same sentence as "Donald Trump."

This was pointed out by a man who otherwise seems to be losing his mind this week, former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett (more on his craziness in a moment). In the midst of gleefully applauding the destruction of his own political party, Bartlett took a few interesting shots at the media in general, tweeting: "Until the very last minute the media will maintain that the race for president is close in order to keep people interested," and following it up with: "My guess is that around November 1 the mainstream media will suddenly notice that Trump is nuts and launch an all-out assault on him." It's hard to say he's wrong, really, knowing how the political media normally operates.

In other crazy Republican news, the mills of justice grind slow, but sometimes they grind the right person to dust. That's our conclusion, at any rate, after hearing that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended from the bench by a judicial inquiry commission, over his absolute refusal to follow the United States Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Moore "flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority as the chief administrative officer of Alabama's judicial branch," the commission reported as it levied six charges of violating judicial ethics against him. When the process is complete, Moore could be removed from the bench altogether. Astoundingly, if this happens it will be the second time Moore has had to be kicked out from his post. This is the same guy who insisted on displaying a stone monument to the Ten Commandments, back in 2003. But since the position is an elected one, we fully expect that even after getting booted from office twice, Alabama voters will likely send him right back, at some future point.

Before we move along to our awards and our talking points (complete with our contest to come up with the best anti-Trump playground taunt!), we've got one final silly item to address. Hey, it's been that kind of week.

Budweiser has just announced that they're renaming their beer "America" for the next few months. You just can't make this stuff up, folks! Obviously Trump is beginning to have an influence even outside the world of politics.

Now, personally, we haven't touched a Budweiser in years, since we actually possess taste buds ("this bud's for tasting!"). Budweiser is precisely the beer Canadians think of when they tell the following joke (warning: adult language is an inescapable part of this joke):

"Why is drinking American beer like having sex in a canoe, eh?"

"Because it's fucking close to water."

Taste aside, however, we have another reason for not drinking Budweiser. It was revealed, during the height of the War On Weed in California that Budweiser was underwriting the "Campaign Against Marijuana Planting," to the tune of millions of dollars. They pledged five cents of every dollar made in the state to the CAMP effort, and that's when millions of Californians permanently stopped drinking Budweiser.

Now that they've renamed their product "America," the jokes just write themselves. I mean, really, this is like a bad comedy movie or something. Anyone up for a six-pack of America? Will "tossing your cookies" become "upchucking America"? Will shotgunning America become outlawed, since it could be considered treasonous? Inquiring minds want to know.

With Trump as the Republican Party's nominee, we are all clearly through the looking glass now, folks. Look for more reality to imitate bad satire in the upcoming months, because we predict there'll be a lot more idiocy to come, shortly. But enough silliness, let's get on with our political awards instead.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, because we couldn't see downgrading either one to the level of a mere Honorable Mention. Both, in different ways, were worthy of the full MIDOTW, we felt. The first goes to President Barack Obama, for taking another step towards bending the arc of history in the right direction.

It's hard to even remember now, but President Obama actually got a lot of heat in his first term for moving too slowly on the issue of gay rights. It even got to the point where major gay rights donors were threatening to withhold their donations if he didn't start moving faster on their agenda.

Obama, obviously, is going to go down in history as the president who did more for gay rights than any other -- probably before and after his term in office. The end of the road is obviously to add LGBT definitions to federal civil rights laws, so their basic civil rights are just as protected as people of different races, religions, and ethnic origins. That will likely not take place until Congress is Democratic once again, so Obama won't get credit for this final victory, but when you look at how far gay rights have come in the last eight years, it is nothing short of downright astounding.

Obama furthered this legacy this week, making changes in federal regulations to protect transgender people in two major ways. Since the Supreme Court ended the fight over gay marriage, the battlelines have shifted towards transgendered issues. Obama's Justice Department is forcefully challenging reactionary laws in places like North Carolina, and the next fight will likely happen over school bathrooms. This week, Obama aggressively staked out the federal government's position, so there'll be a lot of skirmishes fought during the upcoming election at the local level in school districts across the country. By being pro-active on the issue, Obama is getting out in front of these inevitable political frays, which is why he fully deserves another MIDOTW for his leadership.

However, our second MIDOTW goes to a Democrat who is fighting to get the Obama administration to do the right thing, and live up to the promises of how wonderfully transparent things were supposed to be under Obama.

Former Senator Bob Graham is pushing very hard to get the censored 28 pages of the official government report on 9/11 released to the public. Graham served on the congressional Joint Inquiry committee which looked into the 9/11 attacks, and knows what the 28 pages have to say about Saudi Arabia's possible involvement in either funding or assisting the attackers. Saudi government officials have even been implicated by some, so it is important that the public know about this (since Saudi Arabia is usually described as "America's closest ally in the region").

Graham lays out four unanswered questions in an opinion piece he wrote this week which urges the Obama administration to reveal the 28 pages:

  • Should we believe that the 19 hijackers -- most of whom spoke little English, had limited education and had never before visited the United States -- acted alone in perpetrating the sophisticated 9/11 plot?
  • Did the hijackers have foreign support? If so, who provided it?
  • [C.I.A. Director John] Brennan stated the 28 pages contain information that is "uncorroborated, unvetted" and "inaccurate." What is the investigatory basis for his conclusion?
  • Has the 13-year delay in empowering the American people with the information in the 28 pages affected national security, delayed justice to the families of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 or undermined the confidence of the American people in their federal government?

These are not questions asked by some conspiracy theorist on the internet. These questions are posed by someone who already knows the answers (but who is sworn to secrecy and cannot publicly reveal them).

Bob Graham is right. The American public deserves to know what is in those 28 pages. American foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia needs examination and re-evaluation, to put it mildly. The only way that is going to happen is if the truth is revealed to the public.

The White House swears it'll make a decision by June. Bob Graham is fighting hard to convince Obama to live up to his campaign promises of transparency. It has been a decade and a half since the attacks happened, and it is high time the American people knew everything his committee discovered. For his ceaseless efforts to make this happen, Bob Graham wins his second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week (his first was way back in FTP [78]).

[Congratulate President Barack Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. Bob Graham is a private citizen, and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such people, sorry.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We're not going to hand out a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, instead we're going to create a Most Disappointing Pundit Of The Week award instead. We realize we're going to have to use these new MDPOTW awards very sparingly, because otherwise we'd be handing them out by the dozen, each and every week. But this week in particular was notable for the continuing chorus of "Mea culpa!" echoing through the halls of just about every news organization around, as the reality sinks in that Donald Trump is indeed the 2016 Republican nominee.

The entire mainstream press corps pretty much completely screwed the pooch on covering Donald Trump, right up until about last week. The circus atmosphere (of their own creation) blinded them to the reality, to be blunt.

It's entirely fitting that a fake pundit created specifically to be pure satire has a better record this year than people like Nate Silver, who absolutely refused to believe what his own poll numbers were telling him about Trump for far too long. Carl "The Dig" Diggler, a fictional character created as a parody of horserace "journalists," called 77 out of 87 primary races correctly -- an astounding record of being right 89 percent of the time. Carl was "predicated on being myopic, vain and -- frankly -- wrong," but his predictions turned out to be better than those of most of the professional pundits out there. That, more than anything else, sums up the kind of year it's been. The comedians have been better than journalists in predicting reality. An example of Carl's deep thoughts: "Wisconsinites are mostly a simple people. They eat their three lunches, kiss their often enormous children on their often featureless faces, and go to church so they can pray for the 2 Broke Girls." And yet, Carl was right 89 percent of the time. The whole article on the ruse is worth reading, because it is the most brutally accurate scathing indictment about how everyone else got everything wrong this year that we've yet read.

Back in the real world of punditry, the respected Dana Milbank of the Washington Post ate one of his own columns this week. No, that's not a metaphor -- he physically consumed a page of newsprint. Milbank was making good on a promise he made back in October, when he ran a column titled "Trump Will Lose Or I Will Eat This Column," where he reassured his readers that Trump simply was not going to become the Republican nominee, because he said so. At the same exact time, we were trying to point out the cold fact that Trump was still doing a lot better than anyone else, to anyone who would listen to what the actual data indicated:

The pundit world has been trumpeting the fall of Donald Trump for quite a while now, and in the past few weeks they've been joyously pointing out that Trump's poll numbers have fallen for the first time. What this fails to acknowledge is that Trump is still leading the pack, and still has poll numbers any of the other candidates would kill for.... While most pundits breathlessly await that one gaffe that will take down Donald Trump forever, I'm paying more attention to Carson and Fiorina -- because I think it equally likely that one (or both) of them could implode spectacularly at some point, given their inexperience at politics. The rest of the media is already writing Donald Trump's political obituary, but methinks that's a little premature. He's still leading the race, after all -- just not as comfortably as he used to.

Milbank, to his credit, did actually eat his column. But our very first MDPOTW goes to Ben White at CNBC, who made a similar promise, back in July. From his confident article:

Donald Trump is not going to be the next president of the United States. This reporter is already on record pledging to eat a bag of rusty nails if the real estate tycoon with the high hair manages to snag the GOP nomination, much less takes down likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton next fall.

White had plenty of soothing conventional wisdom for nervous Americans, about how Trump's numbers "would dwindle following the debates." You know, the usual inside-the-Beltway cocktail party chatter:

For those who think Trump has a real shot at winning the nomination, a little history lesson is in order. Republican primary voters often flirt with charismatic, fringe candidates but in the end almost always come home to the next-in-line, establishment figure. Think George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Ben White wins the very first MDPOTW this week, for not following Dana Milbank's brave lead in living up to your promises. In print, White stated that he would "eat a bag of rusty nails." We have yet to see him actually sit down and do so. While we would advise him to at least get a tetanus shot before doing so, we do think it important that anyone calling themselves a journalist should either keep their own promises made in print, or else retire permanently from the job of holding politicians accountable for the promises they make. Put up or shut up, in other words. Milbank put up. Ben White, so far, has not. Maybe this will make him think twice about making such rash predictions in the future, at the very least.

[We're not going to provide Ben White's contact information at CNBC, because he is neither in office nor even a politician. So you'll have to look it up yourself, if you'd like to let him know what you think of his inaction on the promise he made.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 391 (5/13/16)

As the general election campaign truly gets underway, we've been avoiding directing our talking points at Donald Trump, mostly because this field has been so crowded with Republicans badmouthing their own party's nominee. We couldn't hope to ever reach the scathing levels of what Lindsey Graham has been saying (just as one example). But this week, we have to gear up for what is likely going to be a very long and nasty campaign.

Other than our first talking point, we're devoting the rest to ideas for how to attack Trump. We only included one surreal one, and only one from a fellow Republican. And then in the last one, we're announcing a contest to see who can come up with the best playground taunt for Donald Trump, just because. Hey, we've got six months of this to look forward to, so we're all going to have to pace ourselves.

 

1
   Too, too funny, Mitch

We had intended to devote all of these to Trump, but this one was just too juicy an opportunity to pass up.

"Mitch McConnell seems to be trying his hand at being a comedian. This week, on the floor of the Senate, he said to his fellow Republican senators, quote:

Some have said because it is an election year, you can't do much. I'd like to remind everyone: We've had a regularly scheduled election in this country every two years since 1788, right on time. I've heard people say, 'Well, we can't do it because we have an election next year.' And people have said, 'We can't do whatever it is because we have an election this year.' It is not an excuse not to do our work.

Unquote. This is either his attempt at comedy or else he is more clueless than he normally looks. Funny how the election is 'not an excuse to not do our work' for everything other than actually doing your job by holding confirmation hearings and a vote on the president's Supreme Court nominee, isn't it? If Mitch McConnell really wants to become a comedian, perhaps he should ask for some tips from Senator Al Franken, because this was a pretty weak attempt at humor -- unless, of course, it was just sheer and blatant hypocrisy."

 

2
   Bruce Bartlett losing his marbles?

Bruce Bartlett is not the only Republican currently going off the deep end, but he is perhaps the most amusing, these days.

"Now that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president, some Republicans are just flat-out losing it. Bruce Bartlett, a man who once worked for none other than Ronald Reagan, is excited that Trump will be the GOP nominee, because he thinks it will hasten the end of the Republican Party -- a group that Bartlett now refers to as (you'll have to excuse me for this): 'wankers.' Bartlett not only calls Trump 'the surest path to complete and total destruction of the Republican Party as we know it,' but also gleefully tweeted: 'With Cruz out and Trump guaranteed the wanker nomination, Phase 1 of my plan to destroy the wanker party is now complete.' You can almost hear the evil-genius cackling in the background, can't you? Bartlett does have a few good points to make, such as: 'All wankers who oppose Trump should prove they opposed Sarah Palin in 2008 or else they have zero credibility,' as well as: 'If Newt Gingrich is Trump's VP he will be worse than Dick Cheney at filling the president's head with terrible ideas.' But he seems to be strangely eager to see his own party destroyed, don't you think? I mean, while other Republicans may be thinking such things privately, Bartlett is openly predicting: 'Does anyone believe the wankers will come out of their convention more unified? I think not.' Grab hold of your seats, folks, because this rollercoaster ride has just gotten started!"

 

3
   Get naked to protest Trump!

No, seriously.

"Photographer Spencer Tuck, famous for his landscapes filled with nude bodies, is looking for 100 women to pose nude in Cleveland, during the Republican convention this year. The women will all be holding up mirrors in an attempt to shine some light on the Republican convention, which seems entirely fitting. So if you have nothing better to do on July 17, if you're comfortable with your body becoming part of an artistic piece, and if you'd love to make a bold anti-Trump statement, Tuck wants to hear from you! We look forward to seeing the results of what could be the best street theater of the entire convention."

 

4
   He's not as rich as he says he is

OK, the rest of these are direct talking points for Hillary Clinton (or her surrogates) to consider attacking Trump with. Clinton better have some zingers ready, because she's definitely going to need them during the upcoming brutal campaign season. These are just the first that sprang to mind, really.

"Donald Trump is quite obviously not as rich as he claims. This is really the only reason he is so scared to release a single tax return, because then it would be painfully obvious to all just how much Trump lies about his wealth. Audits don't go back to the beginning of time, so why hasn't he at least released a tax return from before the period he says he's being audited for? I'll tell you -- because he isn't worth ten billion dollars now, he wasn't worth whatever he said he was back then, and he really, really doesn't want the American people to know it. That's why he's so afraid to release a tax return, because it would show people what a complete blowhard he truly is."

 

5
   Speaking of being afraid...

Fear grips the countryside, over in Republicanland.

"Ever since Donald Trump won Indiana (and the nomination), other Republicans have faced a stark choice. Either swallow their fear and support him, or denounce their own party's nominee. Republicans are caught between being afraid of Donald Trump and being afraid of Trump's voters. Most of them know, deep down, that Trump is not presidential material, but at the same time they envy his fervent support among the GOP base. What we're about to see is a whole lot of Republicans attempting to run with Trump and away from Trump at the same time. I don't ever remember such a bizarre situation, where Republican politicians are essentially afraid of their own voters. Even the Tea Party wasn't this bad, when you think about it."

 

6
   Establishment paper tiger

This also needs pointing out, just to rub salt in their wounds.

"For a long time, the so-called Establishment Republicans have been a force to be reckoned with in the GOP. The Establishment was to be feared, as it controlled the party's levers of power. But Donald Trump has just proven how toothless they really are. They poured millions of dollars into attempts to stop Trump, to no avail. They were caught flat-footed when he secured the nomination. All they've done is mutter about some mythic third-party conservative candidate, without actually doing any of the groundwork that would have made such a thing possible. Now more and more of them are kowtowing to Trump, in the hopes of being re-elected. It's really pathetic to see the powerlessness of the supposedly omnipotent Republican Establishment laid bare in such brutal fashion. I guess they were nothing more than a paper tiger all along."

 

7
   Dingbat, anyone?

OK, as promised, we've saved our contest for last. We were prompted to create this contest by an article about how Team Clinton was test-driving "Dangerous Donald" as a playground taunt to level at Trump. The article expresses some skepticism that this will work, and we tend to agree. So what label can you come up with for Hillary Clinton (and all the Clintonistas) to use for the next six months?

We'll start the suggestions off with a few of our own, to get the playground ball rolling (as it were). Trump has reached into the land of cartoons to come up with "Goofy" as a label for Elizabeth Warren, so we thought "Dopey Donald" might be a good comeback. Of course, this one would have to get tweeted from Warren to be the most effective. Or how about "Dingbat Donald"? The idea is to ridicule Trump, which "Dangerous Donald" doesn't really achieve. Get under his skin. Make him tear his hair out (now that would be worth watching!). The last one we came up with (before we open up the comments for your entries) is a bit long-winded, but it does have a nice 50's rock-n-roll ring to it: Trumpa-Lumpa-Ding-Dong. Can you do better than this? Sure you can! Let everyone know about it in the comments, as always.

-- 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

 

68 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [391] -- Our "Dopey Donald" Contest”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i was thinking "troompa loompa," but somebody had already thought of it. do a google image search.

    then i thought donald mcdonald the clown, but somebody had thought of that too. look it up.

    then donald duck trump, but lo and behold, that too has been done.

    "crazy uncle" donald? "dumb" donald? donald shmuck? or perhaps "Donald Duke" (triple entendre there)...

    so much of it has already been said. but if it's good enough for godwin it's good enough for me, so let's go full godwin and take the hyperbole to its ultimate pinnacle. call him "donald hitler" and be done with it.

    JL

  2. [2] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Go with alliteration.

    Donald Drumpf is already out there. Tedious Trump (I'm tired of him, you?)?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, as promised, we've saved our contest for last. We were prompted to create this contest by an article about how Team Clinton was test-driving "Dangerous Donald" as a playground taunt to level at Trump. The article expresses some skepticism that this will work, and we tend to agree. So what label can you come up with for Hillary Clinton (and all the Clintonistas) to use for the next six months?

    We'll start the suggestions off with a few of our own, to get the playground ball rolling (as it were). Trump has reached into the land of cartoons to come up with "Goofy" as a label for Elizabeth Warren, so we thought "Dopey Donald" might be a good comeback. Of course, this one would have to get tweeted from Warren to be the most effective. Or how about "Dingbat Donald"? The idea is to ridicule Trump, which "Dangerous Donald" doesn't really achieve. Get under his skin. Make him tear his hair out (now that would be worth watching!). The last one we came up with (before we open up the comments for your entries) is a bit long-winded, but it does have a nice 50's rock-n-roll ring to it: Trumpa-Lumpa-Ding-Dong. Can you do better than this? Sure you can! Let everyone know about it in the comments, as always.

    Last time, ya'all tried ta ridicule Trump supporters with cutesy names and then Donald Trump one the nomination..

    Do ya'all REALLY want to tempt Fate a second time?? :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    so much of it has already been said. but if it's good enough for godwin it's good enough for me, so let's go full godwin and take the hyperbole to its ultimate pinnacle. call him "donald hitler" and be done with it.

    Leave it to the Democrat Party, the party of the KKK, to elevate a Godwin as "legitimate" political discourse...

    That says more about the Left Wingery than it does about Donald Trump..

    On the plus side, NONE of ya'all will EVER have cause to complain about Obama Derangement Syndrome..

    Because, as is obvious, Trump Derangement Syndrome makes ODS seem tame and normal by comparison... :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last time, ya'all tried ta ridicule Trump supporters with cutesy names and then Donald Trump one the nomination..

    WON the nomination, even... :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    If the venerable New Yorker can find room for a few fucks per issue I have no problem with CW.com firing off a few. If Eustace Tilley ever said anything, he'd probably use them. He man spreads on the subway as he hurtles through the 21st century.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How about the "Oligarch Orangutan" that I used in my "I am Trumpface" Ironman song parody YouTube video?

    I am hoping that if Voucher Vendetta ever gets the media coverage I think it deserves that I will become known as "The Other Donald" (like "the other white meat")

    note: This is a reference to the "Other White Meat" campaign run a few years ago by pork producers. It has nothing to do with race.

    #BlackMeatMatters

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the venerable New Yorker can find room for a few fucks per issue I have no problem with CW.com firing off a few.

    Typo??? :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There will be no "RSS Boaty McBoatface.

    The science blogs were funny about that. There were many variations of: I came here to be indignant but RRS Sir David Attenborough is just such a dignified and perfect name...

    But as it has become a meme that can be modified to describe anything, I will go with Trumpy McTrumpface...

  10. [10] 
    karen rusk wrote:

    I know it's all in fun (to be honest, Donald Schmuck did make me laugh), but the problem with coming up with names to call Donald is that it's just stooping to his level. It seems nothing can make him look bad to his supporters, and if one is trying to sway the undecided, name calling probably isn't going to do the trick.

    I do, however, think that whoever pointed out his fear of being seen as weak had a point. I don't think that Hillary going after his refusal to share his tax returns will hit any sore spots but there's got to be some buttons she can push.

    I was wondering if he's not releasing his statements simply to prolong the drama and get more free media coverage. If in the end he releases them and they're just your average millionaire's tax returns, everyone who's criticised him loses credibility.

    And I hope that guy doesn't eat rusty nails.

  11. [11] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I'll chime in...

    so much of it has already been said. but if it's good enough for godwin it's good enough for me, so let's go full godwin and take the hyperbole to its ultimate pinnacle. call him "donald hitler" and be done with it.

    I'm surprised you didn't go for the other obvious one "Trumpenfuhrer"....but then again he would like that one.

    I guess we could go for the all to simple "ding dong Donald", however, I think that one would also fail as it plays right into his grade level and provides ammo for him to whip up his base.

    I thought about "Smirkin' Mirken" but I think that one might be freshman college and so is disqualified as not being sophomoric enough, not to mention not enough of the populace knows what a mirken is...

    I kinda want to go for "Needledick McTrumpstick" given the propensity for bragging about "prowess" I kinda like this one as for each time it is invoked we will have a 5 minute brag about his "prowess" before receiving the non-answer dujour. It can be used for everything from one of Donalds attacks on Bills' transgressions to policy issues. Guaranteed to incite some sort of argle bargle. I also can't help but chuckle a little bit imagining HRC saying something like " Needledick Mc Trumpstick has yet another small idea for a large problem". Plus it lends itself nicely to AP style...

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I've been calling him Doompla Troompla for years. I just know Willie Wonka has to be missing him by now.

  13. [13] 
    Steedo wrote:

    The nickname should flow naturally as a response to what we know he will say. He has already started with the notion that Bill is a sexual predator making Hil an enabler. Her debate answer should be:" There were 17 Republicans running for President but only one was accused of rape, by one of his eastern European mail-order brides. From now on I'm calling him Raping Donald." And proceed to do so at every available opportunity.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm not saying he actually is Hitler mind you, just that anything less than over the top won't really make a dent. Il Duce is much closer in terms of a true comparison, but not nearly as headline grabbing.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You have been taking this mission too lightly, Kirk!!!!"
    "On the contrary, Mr Barris.. I take this mission very seriously.. It's you I take lightly."

    -STAR TREK, The Trouble With Tribbles

    :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How about we call Trump "Hillary Trump" and Clinton "Donalda Clinton".
    Washington Journal just showed Donalda Clinton's ad about Hillary Trump not releasing his tax returns.
    Which included the incredibly hypocritical statement "What is he hiding?".
    Wall Street speech transcripts anyone?

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    The greatest threat to our liberty comes the real threat to their liberties came not from without, but from within.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which included the incredibly hypocritical statement "What is he hiding?".
    Wall Street speech transcripts anyone?

    Oh snap!!! :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/chaos-police-threaten-arrests-nevada-dem-convention/

    Yea... No unruliness at Democrat Party gatherings.. :^/

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Trump-Clinton battle has barely begun and the only thing that keeps me from puking is the pain of knowing I will have to endure this until November and knowing how much worse the pain will become after January.
    There is not enough vaseline in world for even one of the many that will need it.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea... No unruliness at Democrat Party gatherings.. :^/

    "Well.... That's different..."

    Of course it is.... :^/

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Donald Trump: A guy who believes that accumulation of wealth is the true sign of a man's worth, who easily takes both sides of any issue for political expediency while his true loyalty lies with himself, a confident con no matter which side he's taking, and the biggest threat to our country coming not from without, but from within, a guy who fancies himself a true patriot but who'd turn coat on America and her people in order to satisfy his insatiable greed and lust for power and title... a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

    "Benedict Donald": pronounced "Been A Dick," with a silent "T" like Stephen Colbert.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    even if one were to assume the very worst about both trump and clinton, there's absolutely zero case to be made that they're identical. they have very different strengths and very different flaws. the allegations against clinton is that she runs her political operation like organized crime. the allegations against trump is that he whips up a frenzy of irrational rage and exploits it like a fascist dictator.

    even assuming the worst, it's a very different worst.

    JL

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's true they have many different weaknesses and whatever minimal strengths they may have are different.
    But close is good enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and the current major parties and their candidates.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A solution just occurred to me.
    We could tell Trump and Clinton that instead of the first debate they could play a game of horseshoes against each other on July 4th.
    Then we could give each of them hand grenades shaped like horseshoes.
    Problem solved!

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    close? i think my point was they're not close at all. what does a president do? represent the country, appoint judges, run the military, resolve national emergencies, sign bills into law. you can honestly say that those jobs will not be done differently by hillary clinton and donald trump? i'm not talking about what kind of people they are, i'm talking about how they'd do the job. it's okay to hate one or hate both of them, but to call them similar, much less identical, is not to be paying any sort of attention.

    JL

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    [22] Yep!

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Your point is that they are not close. My point is that they are close enough for me to be nauseated by either.
    You may be satisfied with the one that will abuse you less. I prefer not to be abused. And if that means that if the people that choose between the abusers outnumber the people like me that are willing to stand up and say no more and THEY elect the worse of two, I will have to suffer a little more.
    But at least I will working to stop the abuse and will continue to try to get enough other people to grow a pair and join me so that we will outnumber the enablers and can finally get rid of the abusers all together.

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What is it about Hillary Clinton becoming President that the Republicans are so terrified of? Yes, they cannot stand her, I know, but the effort that they have put forth to prevent her from being elected goes well beyond it just being a disdain for her, personally. They were working on a TV movie about her that would make her look horrible back in 2007, but she didn't win the Democratic primary (much to their shock) so it never got finished. Then this time around we had the Benghazi hearings that were supposed to hurt her polling numbers...according to the Republican leadership that slipped up and admitted what we all already knew was the reason for the hearings! So, I guess I just want to know what it is about her that they fear so much? Is it what she represents more than her, personally? Are they afraid that if we have a woman as president who leads the nation well, their world, as they know it now, will forever be destroyed?

    I must admit, the Republicans excessive fear and loathing at the thought of a Hillary presidency does get me excited at what might be.

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Republicans don't really hate Hillary, Bill or Obama. They just demonize their opponents as a strategy to fire up and manipulate their base. As stated in previous posts this is a show to distract people from what is really going on.
    That is why the Republicans were able to change from supporting RomneyCare to opposing the same basic idea when it became Obamacare. It has nothing to do with principles or personal hatred- it's all business.
    The Democrats don't mind because it fires up their base. Hillary, Bill and Obama are willing to play their part in the show by pretending that they are appalled by the Republicans. After all, it's all business for the Democrats too.
    If you are buying into the show then(to quote NYpoet) you're not paying any sort of attention.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I must admit, the Republicans excessive fear and loathing at the thought of a Hillary presidency does get me excited at what might be.

    How is that any different than some Republicans saying, "I must admit, some Democrats excessive fear and loathing at the thought of a Trump presidency does get me excited at what might be."???

    The unique thing about Trumps candidacy is that he is REALLY exciting Americans on BOTH sides of the aisle..

    UNIONS are mulling over endorsing Trump over Hillary... 20%-30% of black Americans are supporting Trump over Hillary...

    Are they afraid that if we have a woman as president who leads the nation well, their world, as they know it now, will forever be destroyed?

    Why must the Left always play the race card or the gender card??

    Isn't it possible that race or gender has NOTHING to do with anything?? I mean, isn't what what we're all striving to achieve??? A world where race or gender is meaningless?? How can we ever get there if the Left keeps dragging it out??

    Obama being incompetent has absolutely NOTHING to do with his being black..

    Hillary being an evil manipulating criminal has absolutely NOTHING to do with she being a woman..

    A person who plays an identity card is signaling that they have absolutely no logical or rational argument and is taking the cheap lazy way...

    They were working on a TV movie about her that would make her look horrible back in 2007,

    You mean, like the movie that depicted a Bush assassination??? Fareinheit 9/11???

    THOSE kinds of movies??? :D

    Then this time around we had the Benghazi hearings that were supposed to hurt her polling numbers...according to the Republican leadership that slipped up and admitted what we all already knew was the reason for the hearings!

    Nobody admitted any such thing..

    But why let facts intrude on a good rant.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that there are MANY Democrats who have the same feelings about Hillary that some Republicans do..

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-supporters-agree-clinton-has-weaknesses-as-a-candidate-what-can-she-do/2016/05/15/132f4d7e-1874-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

    So, maybe it's not just hysterical partisan ideology at work..

    MAYBE, it has something to do with how Hillary does things?? MAYBE it has something to do with Hillary's conduct and actions...

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm??

    "We can't discard the possibility just because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    A person who plays an identity card is signaling that they have absolutely no logical or rational argument and is taking the cheap lazy way...

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/16/wire-actor-wendell-pierce-arrested-at-atlanta-hotel-cops-say.html?intcmp=hpbt4

    Ahhh yes... The "peaceful" Hillary supporters... :^/

    I am surprised that Rachel's father would be such a prick..

    Well, no.. Not really.. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bottle Blond McDonald

    The Mystic Tan Misogynist

    Tiny-fingered Twitter Troll Trump

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bottle Blond McDonald

    So, coloring one's hair is now disqualifying for the Presidency...

    Say good-bye to Hillary... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange Thing likes to call the other contestants "puppets" because they take campaign donations just like him.

    His nickname should be Sock-puppet Miller.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you can come up with a better name than that. Ahem.

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'd like to take a page out of the 1992 playbook and echo Ann Richards' devastating characterization of George senior:

    "Poor George: born with a silver foot in his mouth."

    "Poor Donald" is apt in so many ways, from his thinner-than-rice-paper skin, to his actual bank account, to the way he is in completely over his head.

  40. [40] 
    JoeG wrote:

    I came up with Trumpty Dumpty as a storybook character that has a very fragile ego.

  41. [41] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [34],

    It's not as if I drew that one out of a hat!

    There are worse crosses to bear. Think of the unfortunate people named Trump.

    Ball Buster HilRod really should call him a Bottle Blondie. He probably gets his nails done too.

  42. [42] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Leatherface is probably appropriate for Donald on multiple levels.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, and I forgot his little, tiny sterling silver feet (both feet, to fit in his big mouth). In fact, forget "Poor Donald", I'm throwing my vote to "Littlefoot".

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    We had a conversation on last Friday's FTP that is relevant to this FTP, so I am going to bring it forward..

    oh wait, you meant the OTHER kind of trumps...

    hehehehe Touche'

    your position calls my position names?

    Uhhh.... You DID read the above FTP commentary, right?? :D

    incites its supporters to beat my position up?

    Uhhh... You DID see the Nevada Democrat Convention, right??? :D

    promises to build a wall between the positions and make my position pay for it?

    Why do ya'all complain about Trump's wall, but give Obama a pass on his building a higher wall around the White House??

    Seems like a double standard to me... Democrats *LOVE* their walls and are constantly building bigger and taller walls to protect their stuff and their asses..

    But a wall to protect everyday American's stuff and their asses??

    That's somehow wrong??? How does that work... Exactly...

    The facts are clear.. Every charge you can level at the Right can also be leveled at the left...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny thing about that wall.. Southern California had a HUGE illegal immigrant problem. San Ysidor, Otay Mesa, Imperial... All were battlezones with illegal immigrants crossing the border....

    What did California do??

    California put up a wall...

    Now the illegal immigrant crossing problem in Southern California is nearly non-existent...

    Whoever claims that walls don't work are talking out their arses and pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with reality...

    Walls DO work....

    If there can be no wall along the southern border than Obama must take down the wall that surrounds his house...

    EVERY Democrat must take down the walls that surrounds their houses. Get rid of the human walls that protect their persons..

    We need to build bridges, not walls..

    Right???

    Oh.. I get it..

    "Walls are for me, but not for thee"
    -Democrat Party

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Orange Thing likes to call the other contestants "puppets" because they take campaign donations just like him.

    For the record, Trump doesn't take campaign donations "just like" the other candidates.

    And this is documented fact..

    But, as I said above, why let facts intrude on a good hysterical rant, eh? :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    STILL love that name!! :D

    "Poor Donald" is apt in so many ways, from his thinner-than-rice-paper skin, to his actual bank account, to the way he is in completely over his head.

    In over his head??

    People have been saying that since he announced his candidacy..

    And lo and behold, the guy that is "in over his head" kept winning and winning and winning and winning...

    Unlike the Dem candidate who keeps on losing and losing and losing and losing..

    So, of the two, who do the FACTS show who is over their head???

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.

    Who said that???

    Donald Trump???

    Nope... Bill Clinton.... :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale wrote: In over his head?? People have been saying that since he announced his candidacy..

    You don't have to take my word for it. Trump's friend and fellow billionaire, Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, expressed some reservations yesterday on MTP Daily. He endorsed Trump early on, but now -

    "..you don't say, 'wow he's really come a long way, his positions are more detailed, he's showing a detailed understanding, he's really made an investment in time to learn about any given position or issue'. He just hasn't....and that's a real problem. You know, as I said before, it's become a candidacy about nothing, the 'Seinfeld' candidacy."

    "Donald...has not shown..the ability to learn and understand what the issues are."

    "..most CEO's to be successful..have to get in there and do the work 24/7. You have to always be learning, always be contributing, always finding better ways. I just don't get that sense from Donald. 10 months later, after he's announced, he's just not the candidate where you just say, 'wow, this guy has really picked up an in-depth understanding of the issues'. And that is a problem."

    In over his head, or willfully ignorant?

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    One man's opinion...

    My point is still valid...

    People have been talking trash about Trump since Day One...

    Apparently, he is doing SOMETHING right because he continues to win and win and win...

    Write him off as Dopey Donald or any other cutesy name ya'all want to come up with...

    And Trump will continue to prove ya'all wrong over and over again..

    You don't get to be as successful as Trump by being a clown...

    Many MANY people said the exact same things about Reagan that people are saying about Trump...

    And we know how THAT little rodeo went...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You don't get to be as successful as Trump by being a clown...

    tell that to willard scott

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Many MANY people said the exact same things about Reagan that people are saying about Trump...

    And we know how THAT little rodeo went...

    Uh huh.

    Supported Apartheid
    Tripled the National Debt
    Trained Osama bin Laden
    The Meese Report
    The Office of Public Diplomacy
    Said Trees cause pollution
    Had a (record) total of 138 administration officials investigated, indicted or convicted in scandals including:

    The Savings & Loan Scandal: 747 failed S&L's, $160 billion bailout
    The Iran contra scandal: 12 officials convicted, including three National Security Advisors, two others pardoned, including the Sec. of Defense
    Also financed cocaine smuggling, crack sales in US cities, secret wars in Central America, supported 'death squads', and sold missiles to Iran in exchange for hostages, all part of that same scandal. Reagan testified under oath that he 'didn't remember' if he had or had not ordered any of it.
    HUD grant rigging scandal: 16 convicted, including the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury
    Lobbying scandal: 2 convicted - Reagan's Chief of Staff and Press Secretary

    Ah, yes, I remember it well. Sorta makes the current dustup over a rogue server seem sorta silly now, doesn't it?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, Reagan is known as one of the best Presidents this country has ever had..

    Do you want me to list all the scandals associated with the Clintons??

    Do you want to talk about ALL of those!?? No??

    Didn't think so.. :D

    Regardless of all that, you miss my point..

    My point being that everyone said the exact same thing about Reagan that they are saying about Trump..

    And Reagan won. And went on to win a second term in a LANDSLIDE election...

    Ya'all have been wrong about Trump at every turn.. Just like people were wrong about Reagan at every turn..

    History may not repeat, but it surely rhymes.. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least Reagan wasn't impeached... :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, yes, I remember it well. Sorta makes the current dustup over a rogue server seem sorta silly now, doesn't it?

    A rogue email server that allowed North Korea, Russia and China to read EVERYTHING going thru the SecState's office..

    Silly??

    Well, that's not the word I would use, but I have a military background so... "silly" stuff like that is important to people who actually LOVE their country...

    Maybe that's just me, I spose...

    But maybe this will help...

    Pretend that it's a POTUS and a SecState who have an '-R' after their names..

    NOW try and convince me it's just "silly" as opposed to what ya'all would be hysterically screaming to the high heavens... :^/

    Ya'all went batshit hysterical crazy over nothing more than college hazing in a prison filled with scumbags, murderers and terrorists...

    All because the POTUS at the time had a '-R' after his name...

    But an email server that allows our enemies to read EVERYTHING that is going on in our State Department??

    That to you is.... "silly"???

    You people have some really strange priorities.. :^/

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    You people have some really strange priorities.. :^/

    Noted exceptions noted... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    not sure you got the reference, so just in case:

    http://www.aarp.org/entertainment/television/info-02-2011/willard-scott-pioneer.html

    see? a person can become immensely successful by being a clown!

    ;)
    JL

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh :D

    Yes, a person who INTENDS to be a clown can be very successful at being a clown..

    But a person who INTENDS to be a real estate mogul CAN'T be successful at that if he is a clown...

    A subtle difference that makes ALL the difference..

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    First off, Donald Trump is living proof that a "real estate mogul" CAN be successful if he is a clown, whether or not that is his intention. Honestly, though, Donald is more a smoke and mirrors type success, the whiff or stench of success, the king of debt. Seriously, you could lose the "l" and the "w" in "clown," and that more aptly describes Trump to a "t": CON... "Con Don" or "Don the Con," take your pick.

    =========================

    "A rogue email server that allowed North Korea, Russia and China to read EVERYTHING going thru the SecState's office.

    Silly??

    Well, that's not the word I would use, but I have a military background so... 'silly' stuff like that is important to people who actually LOVE their country..."

    =========================

    I too have a "military background." Not sure which branch of the "military" your "background" is actually in, but in most of the military circles I've run in, they are keenly aware of knowledge of which you seem to be curiously bereft. Might you have ever heard of JWICS (fka DSNET2/DSNET3), GWAN, READOUT, OPSNET, NSANET, or maybe SIPRNET? I'm going to guess you haven't since you seem so adamant that "EVERYTHING" (your word) in the State Department actually resides on a single server. "EVERYTHING that is going on in our State Department" or "EVERYTHING going thru the SecState's office" is contained in multiple networks (above) AND multiple servers that cannot communicate with each other, which you seem to have lumped all in with the NIPRNet, which makes you sound like a clown, whether or not that was your intention.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I too have a "military background." Not sure which branch of the "military" your "background" is actually in,

    I was USAF LE, SPI and OSI...

    I was an Army MI Eltee during Desert Storm...

    Sufficient??

    What's your background??? 702?? 92S??? :D

    I'm going to guess you haven't since you seem so adamant that "EVERYTHING" (your word) in the State Department actually resides on a single server.

    It's not some podunk analyst that sits in the basement's server..

    It's the SecState's server...

    That's like saying that, if the POTUS has a completely open communications system bereft of even the most basic security, it's perfectly acceptable because not "everything" is on that server..

    ENOUGH is on that server that it's catastrophic that it falls into enemy hands...

    I realize that you must try and mitigate the seriousness of Clinton's transgression.. I understand. I really do..

    PARTY before Country..

    I get it..

    But your ideology doesn't make up for the FACT that this was a HUGE security breach...

    And you would be saying the exact same thing if Hillary had a -R after her name...

    Oh... By the bi...

    "Welcome to the party, PAL!!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, Donald Trump is living proof that a "real estate mogul" CAN be successful if he is a clown, whether or not that is his intention.

    That's assuming that Donald Trump IS a clown..

    Do you have any FACTS to support your fantasy???

    No???

    Didn't think so...

    Honestly, though, Donald is more a smoke and mirrors type success, the whiff or stench of success, the king of debt.

    Envy doesn't become you....

    :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Envy doesn't become you....

    Of course, how would I know that?? I don't even know you...

    It's entirely possible that envy becomes you just fine... :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    That's like saying that, if the POTUS has a completely open communications system bereft of even the most basic security, it's perfectly acceptable because not "everything" is on that server..

    ENOUGH is on that server that it's catastrophic that it falls into enemy hands...

    I realize that you must try and mitigate the seriousness of Clinton's transgression.. I understand. I really do..

    PARTY before Country..

    I get it..

    But your ideology doesn't make up for the FACT that this was a HUGE security breach...

    =========================

    Seriously? You make a lot of assumptions. LOL

    I pointed out that you were mistaken that "EVERYTHING" that resides in the SOS's office does not even reside on a single network, let alone a single server connected to NIPRNET, and you go off on an exercise in speculation about all kinds of superfluous BS.

    I have nothing to prove and couldn't care less what you think about me.
    Again, you are wrong. Your POTUS It's only a security breach if someone

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    That's like saying that, if the POTUS has a completely open communications system bereft of even the most basic security, it's perfectly acceptable because not "everything" is on that server...

    ENOUGH is on that server that it's catastrophic that it falls into enemy hands...

    I realize that you must try and mitigate the seriousness of Clinton's transgression.. I understand. I really do..

    PARTY before Country..

    I get it..

    But your ideology doesn't make up for the FACT that this was a HUGE security breach...

    =========================

    Seriously? You make a hell of a lot of assumptions. LOL

    You characterized the HRC server as an "email server that allowed North Korea, Russia and China to read EVERYTHING going thru the SecState's office," so I point out that you are mistaken that "EVERYTHING" that resides in the SOS's office does not even reside on a single network, let alone a single server on the non-classified network. Then you begin an exercise in speculation about all kinds of superfluous BS including a hypothetical "completely open communications system" of the POTUS, pure conjecture about me and my political ideology, and continue your mischaracterization regarding Hillary Clinton's server, an email server attached to the NIPRNET -- Non-classified Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network.

    Information sent to any server through the NIPRNET is deemed non-classified by federal personnel or it is not allowed to be disseminated through that net. Information deemed classified (multiple different levels of classification) is kept on entirely separate networks. It's not complicated.

    Your statement that the server allowed North Korea, Russia, and China to read "EVERYTHING" going through the SOS's office is simply utter nonsense and not even logistically possible based on facts. Your insistence that it is a "FACT that this was a HUGE security breach" is mere conjecture on your part and assumes facts not in evidence. There is indeed only a breach of security if someone was able to hack into the server, and if anyone hacked into the server they would have gained access to only that information which was deemed non-classified by SOS personnel and allowed on the NIPRNET on which the HRC server was allowed access.

    Your attempt to conflate the contents of a server containing information deemed non-classified by SOS personnel into some kind of "HUGE security breach" that "allows our enemies to read EVERYTHING that is going on in our State Department" does not equal an attempt on my part to mitigate anything and does not somehow magically divulge my "PARTY" affiliation. I belong to no "PARTY," and I'm merely stating facts. Anything that would be deemed "catastrophic" if it "falls into enemy hands" is not to be disseminated by federal personnel over the NIPRNET to a non-classified email server, no matter who accesses that server or what political ideology they hold, if any.

    I have a few friends who view Edward Snowden a hero for his breach of NSANET and Bradley/Chelsea Manning a patriot for his/her breach of SIPRNET and JWICS, and these same friends vilify HRC for receiving information deemed non-classified by SOS personnel on an email server that showed no evidence whatsoever that it had been breached. Most of them are Republicans, but me assuming that all Republicans agree with them would be a fool's errand, and I don't envy fools or clowns and particularly don't envy con artists like Con Don, no matter what party affiliation he is claiming today or what position he is changing from one minute to the next.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:


    Seriously? You make a lot of assumptions. LOL

    Yes I do. It's what breeds conversation and debate.. :D

    I pointed out that you were mistaken that "EVERYTHING" that resides in the SOS's office does not even reside on a single network, let alone a single server connected to NIPRNET, and you go off on an exercise in speculation about all kinds of superfluous BS.

    Being somewhat hyperbolic does not negate the validity of the point I am making..

    I actually do it on purpose so that any tangential response (such as yours) emphasizes the fact that the person I am debating has no argument to address the main point and must concentrate on the intentional red herring..

    So... Would you like to address the main point or are you still amusing yourself by playing with my fish?? :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Being somewhat hyperbolic does not negate the validity of the point I am making..

    I actually do it on purpose so that any tangential response (such as yours) emphasizes the fact that the person I am debating has no argument to address the main point and must concentrate on the intentional red herring..

    So... Would you like to address the main point or are you still amusing yourself by playing with my fish?? :D

    =========================

    Your original post about HRC's server was nothing more than political rhetoric that is not logistically possible and assumes facts not in evidence. Your subsequent exercise in moving the goalposts to "ENOUGH" due to. Your exercise in moving the goalposts is neither conversation nor debate

    Clownfish Von Trump, the type of utter nonsense that breeds that breeds nothing but ignorance. the type of . If you think my pointing that out is a tangential responseyour fish

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Being somewhat hyperbolic does not negate the validity of the point I am making..

    I actually do it on purpose so that any tangential response (such as yours) emphasizes the fact that the person I am debating has no argument to address the main point and must concentrate on the intentional red herring..

    So... Would you like to address the main point or are you still amusing yourself by playing with my fish?? :D

    =========================

    Your original post about HRC's server was nothing more than political rhetoric that is not logistically possible and assumes facts not in evidence. Was that supposed to be your "main point" or was it your subsequent exercise in moving the goalpost from the proverbial enemy being able to see "EVERYTHING" to being able to see "ENOUGH"? Either way, your exercise is barely conversation but not remotely debate and doesn't in any way change the fact that the only information an "enemy" is going to obtain from a server with access to the NIPRNET is information that has been deemed by SOS or other federal personnel to be non-classified at the time it was sent.

    If you think that facts are a tangential response, then your little clownfish is getting quite enough play at your own hands and doesn't need any help from anyone else, and while I do wish you luck "Finding Nemo," hence forward YOYO, solider. LOL

    As a parting note, you've at least inspired another good name for The Donald: "Clownfish Von Trump"

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your original post about HRC's server was nothing more than political rhetoric that is not logistically possible and assumes facts not in evidence. Your subsequent exercise in moving the goalposts to "ENOUGH" due to. Your exercise in moving the goalposts is neither conversation nor debate

    Clownfish Von Trump, the type of utter nonsense that breeds that breeds nothing but ignorance. the type of . If you think my pointing that out is a tangential responseyour fish

    In other words, you don't have a response to the insecurity of Hillary's server and the threat it poses to national security..

    You just want to play with the fishies.. :D

    Gotcha {{wink}} {{wink}}

    As a parting note, you've at least inspired another good name for The Donald: "Clownfish Von Trump"

    Crooked Hillary is a LOT more accurate... But, of course, you can't see that enslaved by Party Dogma and all that.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.