ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [392] -- Don't Panic!

[ Posted Friday, May 20th, 2016 – 17:18 PDT ]

This column was written from bottom to top today. The reason we started with the end and worked our way back up is that we were inspired to go off on a rant (rather than our usual talking points for Democrats). This was due to unusually high levels of panic in the media this week (actually it's not that rare that mainstream media panic causes us to go off on a rant, just in general). But because we started with this extended rant, we're going to have to summarize the week in lightning fashion here in this intro, because we are way behind schedule now. So without much extraneous commentary, here are the stories we noticed during the week.

The uninsured rate has now fallen to single digits, as the second year of final stats for Obamacare are in. This means seven million more people with healthcare, in 2015 alone. The uninsured rate stands at 9.1 percent, down 2.4 points last year alone. Oh, and the sky hasn't fallen yet, either.

One town in Mississippi's schools have finally been desegregated -- hey, what's 50 years of waiting, right?

Speaking of long waits, President Obama has finalized new federal overtime rules (we wrote about this effort in detail last January, when the process was getting underway). By doubling the threshold for being considered a "salaried" worker, Obama's new rule is going to boost the pay of millions of workers. Companies that put "managers" on pathetically low salaries and then work them 70 or 80 hours a week will not be able to do so any longer. They've either got to pay the employees time-and-a-half for any work over 40 hours, or they've got to hire enough people that nobody has to work 80 hours a week. Pretty simple idea. Pay people what they're worth. Obama didn't raise the cutoff limit as high as some Union groups wanted, but he did more than double it -- from $23,660 a year to $47,476 a year. Importantly, the new law has a provision in it to adjust the level every three years, so that workers won't have to wait decades for another change. The new rule goes into effect in December, so either a bigger paycheck or a lot of time off (for the same salary) will be Obama's parting gift to millions of American workers.

Let's see, what else happened? Joe Biden wrote a note to himself that was downright endearing.

There was a fracas at a political meeting last week, although not the one you think I'm talking about. Things got rather shouty on the floor of the House of Representatives, as Republicans had to hold a vote on gay rights open long enough for seven Republicans to change their vote to denying rights (after already voting for the bill). Cries of "Shame! Shame! Shame!" and "Regular order!" and booing can all be heard.

There was a lot of marijuana news, some of which we're saving for the awards section. A new study came out showing how much revenue states ($20.5 billion) and the federal government ($8 billion) are missing out on through refusing to legalize (and tax) marijuana.

One marijuana provider is fighting back against government interference in court, which they should have every right to do.

And finally, in the "what have they been smoking" department, we have the editors of USA Today (which bills itself as "America's Newspaper," we might mention), who created a scary map showing (gasp!) weed is moving out of Colorado to other states. Except that they couldn't find Colorado on the map -- which showed Wyoming instead. Whoops!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

For all the state-level progress on marijuana legal reform, the bigger battle has always been with the federal government's outdated laws. While many large goals are still out of reach (descheduling marijuana, or outright federal legalization), smaller goals continue to be achieved.

This week, the House passed a bill that will open up the Veterans Affairs system to medical marijuana. Or at least force them to stop actively fighting against it. This is a step in the right direction. As Tom Angell, Chairman of Marijuana Majority put it:

It's looking like this could finally be the year the federal government stops making veterans jump through costly, time-consuming hoops just to get legal access to medical marijuana. Cannabis has shown great promise in helping veterans deal with PTSD and treat chronic pain, and it's an increasingly attractive alternative to opioids. There's absolutely no reason the V.A. should be preventing its doctors from helping veterans who served our country find relief with medical marijuana.

The bill was introduced by a regular champion of marijuana reform in the House, Representative Earl Blumenauer. Federal law is not going to change all at once -- it's going to require a lot of patient steps like the one that just passed the House. For taking the time and effort to legislate such steps, and for getting bipartisan support for his measure, Blumenauer is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Representative Earl Blumenauer on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania, really stepped in it this week. When asked if Donald Trump could possibly siphon off Democratic voters given his crude comments about women, Rendell responded:

For every one [voter Trump gains] he'll lose one-and-a-half, two Republican women. Trump's comments like, 'You can't be a 10 if you're flat-chested,' that'll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally. He demeans women. He demeans Mexican Americans, I think women are rightfully irritated by how he talks. Plus, you don't know where he stands. One day he's for Planned Parenthood, the next day he's against it.

Rendell personally wins not only a (Dis-)Honorable Mention award, but also the prize for "not recognizing irony when it comes out of your own mouth," since he apparently didn't link his own "ugly women" comment to his scolding Trump for demeaning women. Next time, engage brain before opening mouth!

But our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award goes to any supporter of Bernie Sanders who actually did engage in violence during last week's state party convention. We've got a lot more to say about this, below, I should mention.

Sure, the media hyped the fight. First-hand reports didn't sound anywhere near as bad as what happened was portrayed, in fact. But while speaking up is allowable (no matter how loud) in politics, violence is not. Chair-throwing is violence, whether it hits anyone or not. Death threats are violence. There is a bright line which has been crossed, to state the obvious.

So anyone who participated in any violence in Nevada, and certainly anyone who made threats either during or after the fracas is hereby awarded our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Violence in politics is always wrong. Always. And everyone should loudly condemn it no matter who does it or for what perceived reason. Period.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 392 (5/20/16)

Every once in a while, instead of writing talking points, I feel the need to unleash a rant. Today is one of those times.

The past week has seen an explosion of panic in the media over Bernie Sanders and his campaign. We can probably expect a lot more of this, right up until the final primary contests early next month, in fact. So I felt it was time to offer up a countering opinion. To anyone else out there who is getting frustrated with the increasing levels of angst out there, I offer up the following advice:

 

Don't Panic!

Can we all just take a deep breath? I'm speaking to many Democratic voters as well as the bulk of the mainstream media, here, just to clarify. Because far too many seem to currently be going off the deep end -- due mostly to selective amnesia, one assumes. But from where I sit, this is an overreaction to a very short-term situation. So please, let's just take a deep breath and try to relax a little bit. Or, as Douglas Adams would say: "Don't panic!"

Last week there was a bit of a fracas at the Nevada Democratic state convention. Rules were bent or ignored, tempers ran high, and the outcome in question was over a grand total of two delegates to the national convention. Two. That's it. Obviously, the entire episode was way out of proportion from the start.

Then the media jumped in, and blew things stratospherically out of proportion. Goaded by this panic-mode reaction, some prominent Democrats began saying things they really shouldn't have. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, wondered on camera whether the 2016 convention would resemble the riots in Chicago in 1968. Really, DiFi? You really think that's what will happen? Because I don't, nor should any sane person who knows a little history.

The history I'm talking about doesn't reach back to the days of the Vietnam War, either. I'm talking about the previous contested Democratic nomination race, in fact, which happened only eight years ago. I'm beginning to get the feeling I'm one of the few who does remember what happened then, because everyone else seems to be having too much fun freaking out right now. Well, not everyone, to be fair. There are a few other sane voices crying in the wilderness, such as MSNBC's Steve Kornacki, who recently tweeted:

Talking about the final days of the '08 primary season with some Dems now, I'm struck by how tame it all seems. "Oh, that was nothing compared to what Sanders is doing now!" I'll hear. But again, go back and find the commentary from Dems back then. There was a lot of panic that [Hillary Clinton] was undermining the party and doing all sorts of dark, devious things. I believe Dems now remember it as being tame because things all worked out for them. She dropped out in June, endorsed Obama and they won, then she joined the admin -- no harm done. So people now remember late May '08 very differently than they experienced it at the time. That happens a lot in life, and I think it's very possible the same will happen with Dems when it comes to this current moment.

He is exactly right. Memories are selective because we now know the outcome -- which we didn't, at the time. Exactly eight years ago, the Democratic Party was split down the middle, and feelings ran a lot higher than anything we've seen this year. Don't believe me? Do some research, if your own memories of the time has faded.

Back in 2008, the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was tighter than this year's race. Because of this, the Clinton camp was arguing very strenuously for the delegates from Michigan and Florida to be counted at the convention. But, by the rules, these delegates were disallowed. Forty-eight states followed the rules laid down by the party for the primary schedule. Two states ignored the rules, which plainly stated that any state not following the rules would not have its delegates seated at the convention. All the Democratic candidates -- in deference to the party rules -- refused to campaign in the two states. One candidate ignored this, however. Hillary Clinton encouraged these two states' rulebreaking by actively campaigning (and, unsurprisingly, winning) in Florida and Michigan. With the overall race so close, these votes might have mattered, so Clinton pushed very hard for the party rules to be changed -- after the fact.

Remember all that? Kind of puts Nevada squabbling over two delegates in some context, doesn't it? As for the contentiousness and politeness of the race (now versus then), nothing that's happened this year even comes close to how hard Barack and Hillary went after each other.

Almost to the day, exactly eight years ago Hillary Clinton made the most jaw-dropping casual reference I've ever heard any politician utter. Here's the story, in case you've forgotten:

Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn't heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn't even seem to notice she'd just uttered the unutterable.

The nation's political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.

That was on May 23, 2008. Clinton was also speaking out about the Michigan and Florida fight, comparing it to fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, the recount of the 2000 election, and even "the abolition of slavery." Hillary Clinton campaigned to the very end -- and even beyond. When the votes were counted in the final primary, Clinton gave a speech and refused to concede the race to Barack Obama. From that speech:

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we've come and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

She then went on to invite her supporters to "share their thoughts" at her campaign website, and to state that she would be in consultations "to determine how to move forward." This was after the last vote had been counted, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had lost the race. But she still had a plan for convincing a bunch of superdelegates to switch their support to her.

In fact, it took four days -- and a face-to-face meeting with Obama arranged by Dianne Feinstein -- before Clinton would concede she had lost.

That's where we all were, eight years ago.

Clinton supporters were even more fervent back then than the so-called "Bernie Bros" of today. Salon helpfully points this out (with links for all their points):

Back in 2008, we had Hillary Clinton supporters musing openly about Obama being a drug dealer, and her chief strategist went on TV and deliberately said "cocaine" as many times as he could in relation to Obama (who wrote in his memoir about blowing coke as a college student). Clinton herself aimed barbed personal attacks at Obama, calling him a vacant naïf who couldn't do anything beyond give a good speech. There were racially fraught swipes, scornful dismissals, and utterly bizarre insinuations that the race could be upended by anything, including an assassination. After Clinton conceded defeat, we had to tolerate the PUMAs -- remember those assholes? -- who made "Party Unity My Ass" their mantra and got a lot of media attention (primarily from Fox News) for employing incoherent racism as their chief weapon in a deluded quest to keep alive the Hillary-Obama division and make John McCain president.

Remember all that? I do. Which is why I'm not panicking now. Things worked out back then, and they are very likely going to work out now. For all the frenzied calls for Bernie Sanders to get out of the race, stop campaigning so hard, stop hitting Hillary, stop fighting for delegates, and to condemn the violence in Nevada for the umpteenth time, what is most likely is that the period from now until the final primary will not even be remembered by anyone this November. The party is not about to engage in civil war. Don't listen to the idiots in the media who are predicting this (or 1968 happening again, for that matter). They're going to be wrong.

Just reading the headlines in the Washington Post of late, you'd think Bernie Sanders was singlehandedly destroying the Democratic Party. After Nevada, Bernie put out a public statement which clearly showed his feelings towards what had happened (emphasis added, because apparently some people didn't read this part):

Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a "penchant for violence." That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.

The Post ran this under the apocalyptic headline: "This Bernie Sanders Statement On The Nevada Convention Reads Like An Open Threat To The Democratic Establishment." There were zero threats in Bernie's statement. Zero. He didn't even mention the national convention, and yet soon most in the media were spinning it as: "Bernie's threatening violence in Philadelphia." Poppycock. Read the whole statement yourself, and see if anything in it even remotely constitutes any such "threat."

Bernie's statement wasn't enough for many in the media and in the Democratic Party. He was told he had to denounce the violence stronger and more unequivocally. He then began doing so, any time a television camera was on him. That's really the sum total of the story -- "Bernie denounces supporters' violence" -- but you wouldn't have known that from the panicky coverage all week long.

The Washington Post has, for months, pretty obviously been in the tank for Hillary Clinton. Back in early March, it was even pointed out that they ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders in the space of 16 hours. But occasionally, you do hear some actual facts from someone at the Post, as in today's story comparing 2008 to 2016. Facts and figures plainly show that the Democratic Party is a lot more unified now than it was back then. The most striking data point comes from a comparison over the polled question: "Does a long primary race help or hurt the Democratic nominee?" In 2008, only 38 percent thought a tough race "helps the nominee," while a whopping 54 percent said it "hurts the nominee." And now? The numbers are reversed. Only 34 percent think a long race hurts the nominee, while 59 percent say it helps.

That really puts things in perspective. No matter what the media mavens think, Democratic voters are just fine with Bernie staying in the race until the end. Just like Hillary Clinton did back in 2008. Doing so will toughen Clinton up and put her in fighting form to face off against Donald Trump -- just like it sharpened Barack Obama up in 2008.

Bernie Sanders is going to lose the nomination race. I say this while fully intending to proudly cast my own primary vote for Sanders in a few weeks, I should point out. But he has certainly earned the right to stay in until California and New Jersey get a chance to vote. He is not some gadfly who won a single state or maybe two. He has run a campaign that has surprised everyone -- including him. He got farther than anyone expected, and tapped into an astonishing amount of discontent with the status quo. He deserves to have a lot of input in writing the party's platform this year, and hopefully his movement won't fizzle out after Clinton locks the nomination up. But he's far from being Ralph Nader or anything. Voting for John McCain seemed semi-reasonable for Clinton supporters angry with Barack Obama in 2008, but my guess is that voting for Donald Trump is just not going to be a conceivable option for the vast majority of Sanders supporters.

So my advice to Democrats is to just flat-out ignore the pearl-clutching frenzy in the media for the next few weeks. Primary season is almost over, and all of this will soon be forgotten. It will likely make not a dime's worth of difference if Bernie quit the race tomorrow versus staying in until the final votes are counted. The end result is going to be the same. My guess is that Bernie will accept defeat more graciously than Clinton did back in 2008, in fact. I bet he'll concede long before she did, back then. And I bet he won't demand a face-to-face meeting before he does so, too.

The Democratic Party is going to unite. Oh, sure, some disenchanted Bernie voters will either refuse to vote in November or vote for the Green Party (or maybe even write in Bernie's name). The majority of Bernie voters, however, will go through a period of disappointment and then realize that "President Trump" is so horrifying a concept that they'll vote for Hillary anyway (while holding their nose or not). Feelings always run high at the end of a close race. Tempers flare. But it's 2016, not a re-run of 1968 (sorry, DiFi). Heck, it's not even a re-run of 2008.

It'll all be over soon. Until then, keep calm. Don't panic.

-- 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

 

143 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [392] -- Don't Panic!”

  1. [1] 
    Dawn wrote:

    Thanks so much for this, Chris! I can always count on you to be the voice of reason. I didn't follow the 2008 race at all, so I didn't have all that information. You've eased my mind considerably.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris: I agree a lot of this will blow over. I disagree with your assessment of the NV events.

    You chose to print the middle section of Bernie's statement, the part sandwiched between his various justifications and excuses for what occurred. Context is everything. Not only did I read the section you posted, I read it several times, as the portion it is of the entire statement. Within the statement it reads like it was forced out of him -- OF Course I'm against violence you nitwits! But if you had to put up with the crap I'm putting up with, well you might throw chairs and call old ladies bitches too! Geez, you people are so sensitive!

    Maybe it's just a girl-thing, right? Maybe we estrogen-people overreact to certain words and threats and stuff. You know the old saying: Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.

    Silly women.

    His statement did NOT satisfy me. He needed to come out, in person btw, not in writing, with an unequivocal denunciation of those behaviors, without any preambles or justifications. Period. He could have spoken for 2 minutes as long as it was clear, to the point, and without excuses.

    I don't do television so I have not seen his repeated statements about being against violence which you say he said every time a microphone was waved under his face. (All this was after his response was badly received.) I don't doubt he did say words to that effect, nor do I doubt his basic sincerity re: violence. I doubt very much, however, that he made any reference to anything else he's said/done or not done that might have lead his people to believe these behaviors were acceptable. I doubt that he's acknowledged in any way that he has been fostering anti-Hillary hostility at his rallies in ways that are more than her being his political opponent.

    You seem to think his response was sufficient to the events. I disagree. All the rest is really deflection. Hillary didn't concede in 2008, so Bernie doesn't have to now because tit for tat? Because that's what she gets? Because no one ever should because the eventual winner is always strengthened by a long primary? Whatever. Not the issue.

    Everything will blow over? Probably. We hope so.

    Bernie won't be a jerk when he loses and won't screw up the convention? We hope so.

    Bernie handled the aftermath of NV well? No. Bernie have any responsibility for what went down? Yes. Bernie have fences to mend? Yes.

    It wasn't really a big deal?

    That is an unknown at this point. If nothing like that occurs again we can all write it off as the kind of things that happen when campaigns are at their fever pitch. I think that's what you're trying to do.

    I've seen a couple of reports today that Bernie has been in touch with various Dems trying to smooth the waters and all that. Which makes me believe he understands, now, full well that this was something of a big deal. And maybe it will pull him up and cause him to dial down the anger and paranoia, which is ultimately what I would like to see.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Over on DailyKos there's a post of an interview with a longtime activist about why he's been doing that all his life and lessons he's learned, etc. Re: Obama's 2008 campaign he says: I also noticed the high ideals and ethics demonstrated by senior leadership. These were MADE a part of our campaign culture. There was no anti-Hillary talk, no jokes, no negative e-mails allowed. Period. We were repeatedly told that if we were ever caught being guilty of an anti-Hillary smear tactic or some nasty internet anti-Hillary garbage, we would be fired that day and asked to leave the national offices immediately. We did joke a bit about being “fired,” because no one was actually on a salary or even a stipend, but we appreciated the message.

    That impressed me.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/20/1526093/-The-heart-of-political-activism-Five-questions-for-Bob-Haisman

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Hillary's gonna take your guns away just like Obama did.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now they're sending suicidal/homicidal gunnuts to attack the White House and openly holding NRA-Klan meetings (and traffic jams) in Derby City and what is Obama doing? Golfing. He should be in his cushy mansion keeping America safe from the Orange Menace.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Hillary should be pre-impeached for allowing men in dresses to go into America's ladies rooms and molest little girls! How can this not already be illegal?

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I find it difficult to believe that Twitter Troll Trump would ever nominate an anti-Trump Twitter troll to the Supremes. It's almost as if he's a con man with an unserious list of "suggestions".

    https://twitter.com/JusticeWillett/status/703044774643642368/photo/1

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    John: on a roll!

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't recall any violence such as Nevada in 2008...???

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think everyone here is ignoring the biggest point of the Nevada fracas...

    Clan Clinton invoked VOTER ID and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT to deny Bernie his win..

    VOTER ID!!! VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!!

    As CW pointed out, it was ONLY 2 delegates.. Clinton is ahead.. She could have afforded to be gracious...

    But to disrespect Bernie supporters in such a manner using VOTER ID as an excuse???

    While the violence was certainly wrong, it's also equally certainly understandable...

    "I'm glad you approve."
    "I said I understand. I did not say I approve."

    STAR TREK, A Taste Of Armageddon

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Hillary and (from yesterday's commentary) treatment of women...

    http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201294/reg_1024.ChristinaAguilera.HillaryClinton.jc.10312.jpeg

    I know EXACTLY what Hillary is thinking...

    "Wow! Nice rack!!" :D

    Imagine the reaction from the Left if it was Trump instead of Hillary....

    Once again... Double standards at work... One set of standards for the Right. A completely different set of standards for the Left...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Bernie Support vs Hillary Support...

    A third of cash is held by 5 U.S. companies
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/

    And ALL 5 corporations have Hillary Clinton in their pocket....

    So what it all boils down to is this....

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for Corporate Interests....

    A vote for Bernie/Trump is a vote for eliminating the status quo...

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

    Michale

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Concerning media panic: It sounds like you don't remember that in 1995, Gingrich and company revised Newton's third law of motion mandating that in D.C., for every action there shall be an overreaction. Clinton, in triangulation mode, signed the bill into law.

  14. [14] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I've always said that a long, drawn out race is good for Dems. Not b/c it sharpens the candidate, but rather, because it enables them to build deeper campaign infrastructure in every state.

    The 50-state strategy should never have been abandoned. Long primaries go a long way to bringing that back.

  15. [15] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    My concern (not panic) is not that we'll have chaos or anything like that. Unlike '08 Clinton supporters, many of Sanders supporters don't have a history of voting. They won't vote for Trump, but Sanders gets a lot of support from exactly the kind of voter (young) who might very well stay home in November.

    Clinton would still win, but without the Sanders supporters, do Dems flip the Senate? Do Dems move the needle in the? Hard to say.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm with Paula on this - Bernie was, off the charts, TMDDOTW. I appreciate pointing the finger at the supporters who caused the violence, but to me they are just criminals who need to be brought to justice. Bernie really let himself down. He sounded just like Trump - all mealy mouthed and adopting a victim mentality - do we really now only have one adult running?

    My sister in Britain thinks Trump is insane - they can't believe he made up an "invite" to 10 Downing Street - the Brits are hoping he will come over so they can have a big party to ridicule him (the Brits are good at that - they think the term "wazzock" is perfect for him (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/jan/19/why-wazzock-may-be-ideal-term-abuse-donald-trump). He is toast in Britain for at least 10 years - he may as well sell his properties there.

    There was also a report this week that the Trump Taj Mahal Casino managers used to get all the non-white staff to leave the Casino floor in the 1980's when Trump was visiting because he didn't like seeing black staff - so all the 'Trump isn't racist' nonsense is getting even more difficult to believe.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm with Paula on this - Bernie was, off the charts, TMDDOTW. I appreciate pointing the finger at the supporters who caused the violence, but to me they are just criminals who need to be brought to justice. Bernie really let himself down. He sounded just like Trump - all mealy mouthed and adopting a victim mentality - do we really now only have one adult running?

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Brits think Trump is insane - they can't believe he made up an "invite" to 10 Downing Street - they are hoping he will come over so they can have a big party to ridicule him (the Brits are good at that - they think the term "wazzock" is perfect for him (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/jan/19/why-wazzock-may-be-ideal-term-abuse-donald-trump). He is toast in Britain for at least 10 years - he may as well sell his properties there.

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    There was also a report this week that the Trump Taj Mahal Casino managers used to get "certain" staff to leave the Casino floor in the 1980's when Trump was visiting - so all the 'Trump isn't racist' nonsense is getting even more difficult to believe.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    How much ass do you think the Brits will kiss when President Trump is sworn in??? :D

    heh

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm with Paula on this - Bernie was, off the charts, TMDDOTW. I appreciate pointing the finger at the supporters who caused the violence, but to me they are just criminals who need to be brought to justice. Bernie really let himself down. He sounded just like Trump - all mealy mouthed and adopting a victim mentality - do we really now only have one adult running?

    It's a sad state of affairs when Hillary LOOK AT THAT RACK!!! Clinton is considered "the adult"....

    But I have to ask...

    What are your thoughts on the fact that Clan Clinton used VOTER ID as an excuse to deny Bernie his Nevada win???

    Seems to me that those who accept VOTER ID DISENFRANCHISEMENT now will be forever barred from the moral high ground when Republicans push VOTER ID...

    Your thoughts???

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    "[Kip] Brown ... used to work in the casinos, at the Showboat, bussing tables, and at Trump’s Castle, stripping and waxing floors. "When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor," he said. "It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back."

    So much for all that "Trump isn't a racist" nonsense.

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/08/trump-casinos-black-employees

    So much for all that "Trump loves the blacks" nonsense.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/51bbd7961aba40ca86926fb7a7e9b7af/sanders-delegates-brace-philadelphia-convention-fight

    And it looks like it's going to get worse people..

    It's funny... The Left Wingery was going on and on and on about how the GOP Convention was going to be hell and it turns out that it's likely the DEM convention that's going to raise the roof...

    Ain't Karma a biatch! :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    y concern (not panic) is not that we'll have chaos or anything like that. Unlike '08 Clinton supporters, many of Sanders supporters don't have a history of voting. They won't vote for Trump,

    Are you sure about that???

    Latest polls show that upwards of 40% of Democrats will vote Trump over Hillary...

    Complacency is killer...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Teacher1941 wrote:

    I was wont to remind my students of the following assertion from C. Vann Woodward: "History is lived forward, but written in retrospect. We know the end before we consider the beginning, and we can never wholly recapture what it was like to know the beginning only."

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: Michale repeated the canard that Team Hillary or the DNC in general or the Dem party in NV "rigged the system" or did something dirty to Team Bernie. There are several recounting a of the specific events that completely refute this.

    http://letstalknevada.com/convention-catastrophe-part-ii-election-2016-special-report/

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    First off, I never said a SINGLE word about rigging the system..

    I simply pointed out, factually, that Clan Clinton and her cronies on the Nevada State Dem Committee invoked Voter ID to prevent Sanders from winning Nevada..

    This is well documented...

    As to your LetsTalkNevada/Hillary Supporter article..

    Did you read the comments of that article??

    Bottom line, Bernie supporters were scroo'ed.. And you want them to toe the line in June and November??

    On what planet???

    Keep in mind that those voters you are denigrating and castigating..... Hillary will NEED those voters in November...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: If you mean the delegates had to be registered as Dems, yep. Thems the rules. And when everyone did or didn't show up in NV some of Bernie's people weren't registered and were denied and some of Hillary's people weren't registered and were denied.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: If you mean the delegates had to be registered as Dems, yep.

    OK... OK..... And you feel it's perfectly acceptable that the delegates must provide ID to *PROVE* that they are registered as Dems..

    Correct???

    So, tell me.. How is that ANY different than voters having to PROVE that they are Americans and have the right to vote??

    THAT is my point..

    Clan Clinton invoked VOTER ID... And those that did NOT have ID couldn't vote.. And they were disenfranchised...

    How is that ANY different than what ya'all accuse Republicans of...

    Using Voter ID to disqualify people who aren't voting "the right way"....

    and some of Hillary's people weren't registered and were denied.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last week there was a bit of a fracas at the Nevada Democratic state convention. Rules were bent or ignored, tempers ran high, and the outcome in question was over a grand total of two delegates to the national convention. Two. That's it. Obviously, the entire episode was way out of proportion from the start.

    TWO DELEGATES....

    Clan Hillary and Cronies couldn't let Bernie have TWO Delegates?? Had to act all REPUBLICAN to prevent it???

    Hillary knows she is going to NEED Bernie supporters in June and November...

    So, why would she pull such a dumb-assed stunt over TWO DELEGATES???

    No one wants to answer that...

    Which is an answer in itself..

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: "why would she pull a dumb stunt over 2 delegates?"

    She didn't pull anything.

    Furthermore, she doesn't have to give up delegates to be nice or to throw Bernie a bone or for any other reason. She doesn't have to apologize for being ahead; ("she" meaning Hillary herself, or her team/campaign).

    Bernie's campaign was always a long shot. That isn't Hillary's fault. Getting really tired of those who act like she somehow owes Bernie something because he's done better than expected. Good for him. Wonderful. Kudos. But how ever well he's done, she's done better. When 2 candidates are running, one is going to lose.

    I agree with Chris a lot of this heat will cool down over time and intelligent non-nihilistic Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary over Trump. Some will sulk and stay home or vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie. Much will depend on how Bernie handles things going forward. His legacy is on the line here.

    The fact that he has had to reach out to other Democrats tells me he's actually been weakened by all this. The theory has been he would run up to the convention and thereby have more clout to affect the platform, etc. His clout becomes diminished if the perception solidifies that he'll damage the party out of spite.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clan Clinton invoked VOTER ID... And those that did NOT have ID couldn't vote.. And they were disenfranchised...

    More accurately, their vote did not count..

    Which is the definition of disenfranchisement..

    So, this begs the question..

    Why is it OK for Clan Hillary to disenfranchise Bernie voters..

    But it's oh so horrid and evil for Republicans to disenfranchise Democrat voters???

    Let's face the facts..

    "Your {Republicans} and your {Democrats} use the same methods to achieve the same goals"
    -Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Furthermore, she doesn't have to give up delegates to be nice or to throw Bernie a bone or for any other reason. She doesn't have to apologize for being ahead; ("she" meaning Hillary herself, or her team/campaign).

    She does if she expects their votes in November...

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

    The Left Wingery is treating Bernie supporters like terrorists (with SOME justification, I concede) and yet, they expect those same "terrorists" to toe the line in November..

    Lemme know how that works out for ya'all... I'll be busy congratulating President Trump... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems ta me ya'all have 2 choices..

    You can damn Sandernistas to Crowley and wash yer hands of them AND THEIR VOTES right here and now...

    Or you can make nice and TRY to see their point of view which, speaking as a non-PARTY-affiliated free person, DOES have some legitimacy....

    Yer choice...

    "But... Choose wisely"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, the age old question rears it's ugly head..

    Am I wrong??? :D

    "Revolution?? Supernatural?? Maybe titles aren't your thing."
    "You're not wrong."

    -SUPERNATURAL, Don't Call Me Shurley

    :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Last week, I barely had enough time to read, let alone comment upon, the goings on at CW.com. Now that I'm (somewhat) caught up, I would like to thank Paula for her excellent field reporting.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would like to thank Paula for her excellent field reporting.

    Second..... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON — HILLARY CLINTON is the Democratic nominee.

    Really.

    Just ask her.

    She should have been able to finally savor shattering that “highest, hardest glass ceiling” — the one she gloried in putting 18 million cracks in last time around — when she attends her convention in Philadelphia in July.

    Instead, she is reduced to stomping her feet on CNN, asserting her dominance in a contest that has left her looking anything but dominant. Once more attempting to shake off the old socialist dude hammering her with a sickle, Clinton insisted to Chris Cuomo on Thursday: “I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/weakend-at-bernies.html?_r=0

    Like I said.. Hillary can AFFORD to be gracious..

    Instead she is immature, petulant and whiney...

    And THIS is your Democrat Nominee for POTUS!???

    How sad.....

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: you have an unparalleled ability to pick the worst sources. Maureen Dowd has been in the Hate-Hillary club for years. She also hates Obama. Why not quote Ann Coulter and be done with it?

    [33] and [34] Thanks!

    Clan Clinton invoked VOTER ID... And those that did NOT have ID couldn't vote.. And they were disenfranchised…

    Wrong. The Nevada Democratic Party set rules for people who wanted to be delegates. They applied to everyone. Hillary lost delegates who didn't comply just as Bernie did. Not going to bother arguing this further.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    His clout becomes diminished if the perception solidifies that he'll damage the party out of spite.

    Yup, he is going from "pushing the dialog to the left for the good of the party" to "being a cantankerous old git".

    The best thing he can do is focus on one issue and own it. Maybe he teams up with Elizabeth Warren and shines a light on Wall Street, maybe it is free college, or single payer healthcare. Right now he could drop out and create a movement focused on the issue he cares about the most. Otherwise he risks becoming irrelevant in three months and a pariah in the Clinton White House.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, Biden is now outpacing Bernie on PredictIt's Democratic nominee market.

    https://www.predictit.org/Market/1232/Who-will-win-the-2016-Democratic-presidential-nomination

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary lost delegates who didn't comply just as Bernie did.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    There is plenty of sources that prove Nevada State Dem Committee disenfranchised Bernie voters..

    There is NO substantiation that shows Hillary voters were disenfranchised...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even IF Hillary voters were disenfranchised as well..

    You seem to be indicating that IDing voters LEGITIMATELY takes precedence over disenfranchising voters..

    In other words, it's more important to insure that the RIGHT/LEGAL people get to vote, even if that means that some legitimate voters are disenfranchised...

    That's great...

    I think we've taken a big step here in that everyone seems to be on the same page that VOTER ID is a legitimate tool to insure the integrity of the vote and that making sure the RIGHT/LEGAL people vote takes precedence, even if it means some legit voters don't have their votes counted.....

    Come'on!! Group hug!!! :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Paula wrote:

    [39] You know dude, I could waste time providing sources and all that, but why should I? It won't make any impression on you and I don't need to convince you, I just needed to be satisfied myself about the basic facts. I am.

    [37] neilm: yep. Bernie's running low on funds too which further weakens him, but also gives him motivation to keep running as he can keep fundraising. I have had no desire to see his campaign end on any kind of a sour note and it was only recently that I became convinced he can't pull it out. But the end is in sight and him looking like a sore loser makes me both sad and mad.

    Oh well. We will soon see what he's made of.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, Biden is now outpacing Bernie on PredictIt's Democratic nominee market.

    https://www.predictit.org/Market/1232/Who-will-win-the-2016-Democratic-presidential-nomination

    A "Candidate" who is not even a candidate..

    You Democrats are funny..... :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    [40] Nope. False equivalency.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    [39] You know dude, I could waste time providing sources and all that, but why should I? It won't make any impression on you and I don't need to convince you, I just needed to be satisfied myself about the basic facts. I am.

    Yer absolutely right..

    It DOESN'T matter if Hillary voters were disenfranchised or not..

    ALL that matters is that everyone here has confirmed the legitimacy of the GOP's VOTER ID program by admitting that the priority is to insure the integrity of the vote by making sure ONLY legitimate voters vote...

    So, we're good.... :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie's running low on funds too which further weakens him,

    Yet Bernie is still out-fund-raising Hillary... And ALL Hillary has for funding is corporate Super PACs..

    I bet ya'all are NOT thanking the gods (AND THE REPUBLICANS) for CITIZENS UNITED, eh?? :D

    hehehehehehehe

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I tell ya, this DEMOCRAT PARTY-CIVIL WAR is *almost* (not quite but almost) as fun as CAPTAIN AMERICA-CIVIL WAR... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    [40] Nope. False equivalency.

    If you mean the delegates had to be registered as Dems, yep. Thems the rules.

    {claaap}"Identical....."
    -Lane Smith, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    It's rare that I get such a blatant and obvious win... :D I am going to have to enjoy this for a LEAST the rest of the weekend.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    [40] Nope. False equivalency.

    If you mean the delegates had to be registered as Dems, yep. Thems the rules.

    {claaap}"Identical....."
    -Lane Smith, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    It's rare that I get such a blatant and obvious win... :D I am going to have to enjoy this for a LEAST the rest of the weekend.. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a win? what kind of win? i don't get it. a presidential primary is not now and never was a public election. the delegates could vote tomorrow to change the party rules and nominate only homeless pastry chefs named ellen.

    What is this, a game show? What did I win, a Pinto?
    ~mel brooks, high anxiety

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said,

    There is plenty of sources that prove Nevada State Dem Committee disenfranchised Bernie voters..

    The rules were laid out well ahead of time. But glad you posted who it was that prevented those people from voting; which makes your comment that

    Why is it OK for Clan Hillary to disenfranchise Bernie voters..

    to be

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    a win? what kind of win? i don't get it. a presidential primary is not now and never was a public election. the delegates could vote tomorrow to change the party rules and nominate only homeless pastry chefs named ellen.

    OK, so if the Party decides to change the rules to disenfranchise ALL Bernie Supporters....

    Yer telling me that ya'all would be perfectly OK with that???

    On what planet?? :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    The rules were laid out well ahead of time. But glad you posted who it was that prevented those people from voting; which makes your comment that

    And the rules on Voter ID are ALSO "laid out well ahead of time"...

    Why is it you don't have a problem with VOTER ID and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT when Democrats do it??

    THAT's the question..

    Why is it OK for Clan Hillary to disenfranchise Bernie voters..

    to be

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    There is PLENTY of facts in evidence that show Clan Hillary disenfranchised Bernie supporters..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    a win? what kind of win?

    The kind of win where we are all in agreement that the integrity of the vote is of a higher priority than an individual's right to vote...

    :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is this, a game show? What did I win, a Pinto?
    ~mel brooks, high anxiety

    I must confess.. Another classic I have never seen...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what I don't get...

    Hillary is LOSING in polls that match her with Trump..

    Sanders is WINNING in polls that match him with Trump...

    Yet, ya'all are going with Hillary??

    Does not compute...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    At a rally in Vado, N.M., {Sanders} offered a series of familiar attacks against Mrs. Clinton, criticizing her use of “super PACs,” her stances on trade agreements and her support of fracking. He also talked about the need to improve the poverty and high school graduation rates in the state.

    Sanders is FOR everything ya'all claim to be for..

    AND

    And he is beating Trump in polls..

    I honestly don't get how ANYONE here can support Hillary???

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hillary is LOSING in polls that match her with Trump..

    Sanders is WINNING in polls that match him with Trump...

    I'd love for Bernie to win the nomination, but it just does not seem possible at this point. And since when does anyone base their decision on who to support on how the person is polling or trending? Are you saying that the Democrats as a party should disenfranchise voters who voted for HRC just because Bernie polls better?

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hillary is LOSING in polls that match her with Trump..

    Sanders is WINNING in polls that match him with Trump...

    I'd love for Bernie to win the nomination, but it just does not seem possible at this point. And since when does anyone base their decision on who to support on how the person is polling or trending? Are you saying that the Democrats as a party should disenfranchise voters who voted for HRC just because Bernie polls better?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you saying that the Democrats as a party should disenfranchise voters who voted for HRC just because Bernie polls better?

    Well, according to JL, if the Democrat Party changed the rules to disenfranchise Hillary supporters because Bernie is the stronger candidate (which he is), it would be perfectly acceptable.. :D

    But, seriously.. :D I am just curious why everyone here supports Hillary when she is everything ya'all claim you are against???

    She's beholden to corporate lobbyists. Bernie isn't..

    She supports fraking... Bernie doesn't...

    She supports free trade agreements.. Bernie doesn't..

    She has attacked MANY sexual assault victims. Bernie hasn't..

    She has a MAJOR FBI criminal investigation hanging over her head like the Sword of Damocles... Bernie doesn't...

    You can see why I would be confused, eh??

    And since when does anyone base their decision on who to support on how the person is polling or trending?

    OK, so we're in agreement..

    Polls don't mean dick.. :D

    "OK, Ace. What ever you say. But lemme tell ya about those skills. As of right now, they mean precisely dick."
    -Agent K, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    a presidential primary is not now and never was a public election. the delegates could vote tomorrow to change the party rules and nominate only homeless pastry chefs named ellen.

    We're not talking about what a Party can or can't do..

    We're talking about whether they SHOULD do it..

    And the question before us is SHOULD the Democrat Party use VOTER ID as a pretext to disenfranchise Democrats who don't vote for the right candidate??

    THAT's the question... Anything else is just a smokescreen..

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the question before us is SHOULD the Democrat Party use VOTER ID as a pretext to disenfranchise Democrats who don't vote for the right candidate??

    Giving the Democrat Party the benefit of the doubt, I'll re-phrase..

    And the question before us is SHOULD the Democrat Party use VOTER ID to insure the integrity of the vote, even if that action has a secondary result of disenfranchising Democrats who vote for a certain candidate

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:
  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, according to JL, if the Democrat Party changed the rules to disenfranchise Hillary supporters because Bernie is the stronger candidate (which he is), it would be perfectly acceptable.. :D

    that's not what i said - i wasn't discussing what should be, just what is. in order to disenfranchise someone, they have to have the franchise to begin with.

    half the states don't have the franchise at all, they have caucuses. of those that do allow primary voting at the polls, many have primaries that are closed to anyone who isn't a member of the party. political parties are like private clubs, and have a first amendment argument against allowing non-members to join the process. whether they feel like checking voter id, party membership card or secret decoder ring is up to them, unless the state has specified otherwise.

    no, it's not fair, it's anti-democratic, and you're incorrect to insinuate that i support it. however, it's the way US party politics has been since the election of john adams in 1796. nothing new under the sun.

    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=2976

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Would you clarify your position on abortion," a reporter asked?
    "I have no position on abortion," said the second coming.
    "But it was reported that you said..."
    "That was incorrect. My agent will supply you with a transcript."
    ~ken siegmann

    http://www2.cruzio.com/~zerocity/siegman.htm

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, it's not fair, it's anti-democratic, and you're incorrect to insinuate that i support it.

    My apologies...

    What's your opinion insofar as Bernie supporters being upset about being disenfranchised??

    Do you feel they have a legitimate complaint??

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's your opinion insofar as Bernie supporters being upset about being disenfranchised??

    Do you feel they have a legitimate complaint??

    Please note I am not asking you about HOW Bernie supporters expressed their anger.. We all agree it's inappropriate..

    My question is, do you think they have a legitimate complaint..

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's not what i said - i wasn't discussing what should be, just what is. in order to disenfranchise someone, they have to have the franchise to begin with.

    They WERE franchised to begin with..

    Bernie had won the Nevada Delegate vote.. But 60 Bernie delegates were disqualified because they did not have proper ID...

    I am just curious how ya'all can condemn Republicans for Voter Disenfranchisement but then turn around, shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that's the rules" when Democrats do the EXACT same thing...

    Either the integrity of the vote is the overriding factor or it isn't..

    You can't have it one way for Democrats and another way for Republicans...

    It's against the rules.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    They WERE franchised to begin with..

    not in nevada they weren't. that's a closed caucus system, not a primary. again, not what should be, just what is.

    You can't have it one way for Democrats and another way for Republicans...

    true, the republican caucus system is just as unfair as the democratic one.

    however, it can be two different ways for a general election vote and a political party nomination. the former is legally mandated to be fair and open, the latter is a ridiculous patchwork of private and public pseudo-elections by parties that sometimes pretend to be in the public service.

    JL

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:
  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    -throwing is violence, whether it hits anyone or not. Death threats are violence. There is a bright line which has been crossed, to state the obvious.

    Sanders’ supporters who felt disenfranchised responded aggressively. One man held a chair over his head menacingly. (Contrary to news reports, the man did not throw the chair; he placed it back on the floor.)

    Can't believe anything the media says... :^/

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    not in nevada they weren't. that's a closed caucus system, not a primary.

    Yes.. And these Bernie delegates were part of the closed caucus system.. But their delegate-status was revoked because they didn't have the proper ID.. And, in doing so, Clinton's Cronies switched the WIN from Bernie to Clinton...

    Now you can invoke semantics and argue the definitions of 'delegate' and 'is' is...

    But that's just splitting hairs...

    Such dishonesty is routinely condemned when it happens on the GOP side of the equation..

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ideologically speaking, a Bernie supporter has MUCH more in common with Trump than with Clinton..

    The majority of Bernie supporters will likely go Trump before they would go Clinton...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ideologically speaking, a Bernie supporter has MUCH more in common with Trump than with Clinton..

    now that's just flat untrue. here's a nice little graphic of clinton vs. sanders vs. trump on the issues:

    http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40-70/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

    The majority of Bernie supporters will likely go Trump before they would go Clinton...

    more wishful thinking on your part. current polls have it at 10-15%. 30% could potentially tip the general election. but a majority? extremely unlikely.

    JL

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    more wishful thinking on your part. current polls have it at 10-15%. 30% could potentially tip the general election. but a majority? extremely unlikely.

    Time will tell...

    Polls I have seen have Democrats approaching 40% in swinging Trumps way...

    The more Clinton is slapped around by Trump, Bernie and the FBI...

    Well that percentage can only get bigger...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I call BIAS...

    BERNIE
    Professional Experience
    Author
    Documentary Filmmaker
    Lecturer, Hamilton College, 1989-1990
    Lecturer, Harvard University, 1989

    CLINTON
    Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas Law School, 1975
    Attorney, Rose Law Firm, 1976-1992
    Author
    Former Board Member, Wal-Mart

    TRUMP
    Chairman, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, Incorporated
    Founder/Chairman/President/Chief Executive Officer, The Trump Organization, 1975-present

    Trump's an author as well...

    Can't believe everything you read.. :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40-70/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

    I call BIAS...

    Trump's an author as well...

    Can't believe everything you read.. :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    And there are worries about Bernie and Democratic Party unity :)

    40 of the 41 delegates from Washington State are Cruz supporters. Even Trump's top guy in Washington State, state Sen. Don Benton, won't be going to Cleveland as a delegate. What a farce of an operation.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-state-gop-convention-backs-cruz-over-trump/

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there are worries about Bernie and Democratic Party unity :)

    Yes there are... And whatever is happening on the GOP side doesn't change that... :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "OK... OK..... And you feel it's perfectly acceptable that the delegates must provide ID to *PROVE* that they are registered as Dems..
    Correct???
    So, tell me.. How is that ANY different than voters having to PROVE that they are Americans and have the right to vote??
    THAT is my point..
    Clan Clinton invoked VOTER ID... And those that did NOT have ID couldn't vote.. And they were disenfranchised...
    How is that ANY different than what ya'all accuse Republicans of..."

    You are confusing two entirely different situations here Michale that are entire orders of magnitude apart from each other. They may seem like that have some kind of equivalency to you, but they in fact do not at all. Any similarity between the two is only superficial at best.

    The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a PRIVATE organization. Like a Fraternity, or a Private Club, or the Shriners, it gets to set up its own rules on membership and how it governs itself, including electing its own officers, of which its Party nominee is one. Unless there is a specific state or Federal law passed governing its regulation, the Democratic or Republican Party as a PRIVATE entity, is under no such obligation to follow any outside notions of what constitutes legal enfranchisement such as that provided by the U.S. Constitution. It only has to follow what is proscribed by its own bylaws. The U.S. Constitution only applies to the various levels of government, not to private Corporations for example. The Government cannot abridge your right to free speech, but the company you work for has every right to fire you if they don't like what you post on Facebook, for example, without violating your free speech rights.

    On the other hand, what Republicans are doing, by passing voter ID laws and other measures making it harder for citizens to vote in elections for government institutions, is in direct violation of guaranteed Constitutional voting rights. That's the KEY difference. What Republicans are doing is different because it concerns government institutions, not private ones, governed by the rules of the Constitution itself. The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, for example, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. Republicans passing a voter ID law, for example, could be interpreted as a violation of this amendment, as a sort of end run around it, by requiring citizens to obtain documentation by PAYING for it FIRST, BEFORE being allowed to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That's only one such example of a problem with legislation like this. Do you see my point now?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Sounds like semantics to me...

    What it all boils down to is that Bernie delegates were denied their status SOLELY based on ID...

    Now, you may say "that's different" and it very well may be different..

    But from the viewpoint of Joe Sixpack, it's not different at all...

    As Paula herself indicated... Voter ID is designed to preserve the integrity of the vote.....

    ANY vote..

    Given the current circumstances, it seems that we are ALL in agreement on that point..

    Voting Integrity (whether caucus or whatever) is Priority Uno..

    Republicans passing a voter ID law, for example, could be interpreted as a violation of this amendment, as a sort of end run around it, by requiring citizens to obtain documentation by PAYING for it FIRST, BEFORE being allowed to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE.

    It COULD be construed as that..

    Or it COULD be construed, as was the case in Nevada, to insure the integrity of the vote...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    It COULD be construed as that..

    Or it COULD be construed, as was the case in Nevada, to insure the integrity of the vote...

    That's kinda my point...

    If Democrats use Voter ID to insure the integrity of the vote, as Paula indicates...

    Then is it SUCH a stretch to consider that Republicans have the SAME agenda???

    Insuring the integrity of the vote??

    Is that really so inconceivable??

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Insuring the integrity of the vote??
    Is that really so inconceivable??

    you really must see that film.

    no, it's a legit motivation, just statistically unsupported and likely to prevent FAR more real votes than fake ones.

    that hillary's people did it to bernie's people was dirty and underhanded, definitely full-contact party politics, and i don't support it at all. however, as JM said, intra-party selection processes do not include a constitutionally mandated right to vote, while general elections do.

    Sounds like semantics to me...

    "We the people" is also semantics, but the document it headlines is still kind-of important.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    Paula wrote:

    [81] JL: "What Hillary did to Bernie's people was dirty..."

    What did Hillary's people do that was dirty...you don't support?

    I've read several accounts of events now and the accusations don't hold up. What is it you think Hillary's people did?

    http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

    Michale: NOT semantics.

  89. [89] 
    Paula wrote:
  90. [90] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    ....or to put it into terms of simplicity.

    If primary elections were general elections you would have a point (maybe), but they aren't so you don't.

    Or....

    If voter id laws were written to be inclusive and not cost or exclude any citizen, you might have a point, but, they aren't so you don't.

  91. [91] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Now on to things that make you go hmmmmmm....

    Since Butwiper....,err Budwiser, is renaming itself "AMERICA", or for those of us with humor, 'merica.

    I have to ask myself what the re-brand of "Bud Light" will be?

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula [82],

    from tom cahill at u.s. uncut:

    According to the latest on-the-ground reports from Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada, the entire process is being described as a “fiasco” where confusion and deception is rampant.

    it seems highly likely based on the reports and video clips in the article that there were some dirty tricks being played on hillary's behalf.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada-caucus-is-a-complete-fiasco/

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @gt,

    it's just temporary.

    I have to ask myself what the re-brand of "Bud Light" will be?

    make america lite again

    JL

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    ince Butwiper....,err Budwiser, is renaming itself "AMERICA", or for those of us with humor, 'merica.

    I have to ask myself what the re-brand of "Bud Light" will be?

    Canada?

    Sorry, no really, sorry. I mean it, Canada is a great place. I lived there once. Montreal. I promise, I'll never compare Bud Light to Canada again. Really.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to ask myself what the re-brand of "Bud Light" will be?

    Canada?

    Oh snap...

    "And the ref takes a point away!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    you really must see that film.

    Did I miss something?? Film???

    no, it's a legit motivation, just statistically unsupported and likely to prevent FAR more real votes than fake ones.

    "There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics"
    -Mark Twain

    :D

    What "statistics" are you referring to?? Because I would be VERY wary of ANY statistics that show what's in a person's heart...

    that hillary's people did it to bernie's people was dirty and underhanded, definitely full-contact party politics, and i don't support it at all. however, as JM said, intra-party selection processes do not include a constitutionally mandated right to vote, while general elections do.

    That's semantics.. It's dirty and underhanded and that's that...

    Having said that, let me say this..

    "I'm glad you approve."
    "I said I understand. I did not say I approve."

    STAR TREK, A Taste Of Armageddon

    If that's where you and JM are coming from, then I accept that...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    ....or to put it into terms of simplicity.

    If primary elections were general elections you would have a point (maybe), but they aren't so you don't.

    HOISTED BY MY OWN PICARD!!

    Well played... :D

    If voter id laws were written to be inclusive and not cost or exclude any citizen, you might have a point, but, they aren't so you don't.

    Actually, many, if not all, ARE at no cost... and NONE of the Voter ID laws are written to exclude ANY citizen...

    So, in this instance, it's you who has no point. :D

    As for the cost... Cost does not equal disenfranchise... It costs you gas to drive to the polls to vote.. Does that mean there is an illegal cost to vote??

    Of course not... It's an incidental cost only tangentially connected to voting..

    So is obtaining an ID...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said all of the afore, let me say this..

    What the Nevada Democrat Party did when they disenfranchised Bernie supporters was to protect the integrity of the vote..

    If they had nefarious motivations in mind, then that's on them..

    But the concept of protecting the integrity of the vote by way of Voter ID is a valid concept...

    And it's a valid concept no matter WHAT the vote is for..

    Primary, Secondary, General, Class President, VFW Secretary..

    Protecting the integrity of the vote is the primary (no pun intended) consideration and is the number one priority...

    Because if it's not, voting makes no sense and is useless...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, many, if not all, ARE at no cost... and NONE of the Voter ID laws are written to exclude ANY citizen...

    Key word there being CITIZEN

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another topic...

    How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M
    http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/

    This is who ya'all want for POTUS???

    Between Hillary, her book deal and Bubba, the Clintons have raked in over 50 MILLION dollars in just TWO YEARS from corporate America...

    CW has often advocated that politicians should NASCAR their attire with the names of their corporate sponsors...

    Hillary would likely need to gain a TON of weight to be able to display all the corporations who have bought and paid for her...

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Hillary Clinton joylessly stumbles her way to the Democratic nomination, calls have increased for Bernie Sanders to either drop out of the race altogether or, at least, to stop fighting so darn hard. We’re told that Bernie should drop out for the good of the party. Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can make her general election “pivot” (which presumably means she can be free of the burden of pretending to be a liberal). Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can focus on Trump. According to this logic, Bernie and his band of loyalists need to get pragmatic, face the music, have a reality check. Hogwash. Doesn’t anyone see what I see? Bernie Sanders is our best chance to beat Donald Trump and to prove to the young voters backing him that the Democratic party actually stands for something.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html?

    Can't argue with the logic...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Hillary Clinton joylessly stumbles her way to the Democratic nomination, calls have increased for Bernie Sanders to either drop out of the race altogether or, at least, to stop fighting so darn hard. We’re told that Bernie should drop out for the good of the party. Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can make her general election “pivot” (which presumably means she can be free of the burden of pretending to be a liberal). Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can focus on Trump. According to this logic, Bernie and his band of loyalists need to get pragmatic, face the music, have a reality check. Hogwash. Doesn’t anyone see what I see? Bernie Sanders is our best chance to beat Donald Trump and to prove to the young voters backing him that the Democratic party actually stands for something.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html?

    Can't argue with the logic...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I should start calling this my MONDAY MEDIA ROUNDUP :D

    A Hit Job as Transparent as a Bikini
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/22/a_hit_job_as_transparent_as_a_bikini_130638.html

    OHMYGODS!!!!

    Trump likes women!!!

    Oh the horror!!! Oh the infamy!!!! OH MY GODS, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

    How Trump is allowed to continue to live is beyond me!!!

    {/sarcasm}

    :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    May 21

    Donald Trump is asked about Egypt Air's flight MS804 and its fatal crash into the Mediterranean.

    Trump: "I know it was a bomb. I have my own airplane which is why I know it was a bomb."

    Not only do Trump's thought processes defy all logic, the real experts consider the chance of it being a bomb to be miniscule.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Say what ya'all want about Trump..

    5 very smart things Donald Trump has done since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/five-very-smart-things-donald-trump-has-done-since-become-the-presumptive-republican-presidential-nominee/

    But he is making it clear that he can win a General Election...

    Trump with a united GOP at his back and Independents at his side???

    How can he lose??

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump with a united GOP at his back and Independents at his side???

    How can he lose??

    Conversely..... And more importantly...

    And everybody remembers the 1990s, during her husband’s presidency, as the relative good old days, when Mr. Clinton was groping and molesting young women in the White House and Mrs. Clinton was scheming to destroy any of them who complained about it. Oh, and meanwhile, Osama bin Laden was undisturbed, plotting the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/charles-hurt-shenanigans-of-clintons-husband-will-/?page=all#pagebreak

    .... with Bill Clinton at Hillary's side....

    How can she win???

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    MS,

    Glad ta see ya!!! :D

    Trump: "I know it was a bomb. I have my own airplane which is why I know it was a bomb."

    That was pretty lame, I grant you. Eye-rolling lame...

    Not only do Trump's thought processes defy all logic, the real experts consider the chance of it being a bomb to be miniscule.

    Actually, only the politically-correct experts think the chances are small of it being a bomb.

    The REAL experts are looking at the evidence and it's likely that some sort of incendiary device was the cause of the crash...

    Wreckage and passenger bodies, etc etc show an inundation of smoke immediately prior to the crash...

    So, while it might not be a bomb, in the conventional sense, it was definitely an incendiary device of some sort that brought down the plane...

    What I find interesting is that ISIS hasn't taken credit for it...

    So, something IS afoot....

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ta round out my Round Up...

    Donald Trump is the clear choice for pro-Israel voters
    http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/donald-trump-is-the-clear-choice-for-pro-israel-voters/

    I agree with all of the reasons, except #5.....

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to ask myself what the re-brand of "Bud Light" will be?

    make america lite again

    "Together, we can make Hell great again."
    -Crowley

    :D heh

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Freddie Gray Arresting Officer Edward Nero Found Not Guilty On All Charges
    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/freddie-gray-arresting-officer-edward-nero-found-not-guilty-on-all-charges/

    And justice is served once again...

    More and more, racist city officials are LOSING the battle to sacrifice cops on their racist altar of political correctness...

    A welcome development...

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    [86] it seems highly likely based on the reports and video clips in the article that there were some dirty tricks being played on hillary's behalf.

    No. Now you are doing the "no smoke without a fire". C'mon. This is exactly what I object to re: Bernie harvesting years of rightwing slurs.

  112. [112] 
    Paula wrote:

    In point of fact, it looks like Bernie's folks went into the convention planning to hijack it. All this was over 2 delegates -- but whoever got the 2 delegates get's to say they "won" Nevada in a close contest versus "lost". I think Bernie's team wanted the win to bolster their narrative of having the momentum. I don't say Bernie was personally involved in that -- have no idea. But his team set this up and went a little nuts when they didn't prevail.

    The situation parallels what Ted Cruz was doing in caucus states -- it all came down to how many people you had on the spot to twist arms. Bernie's campaign had more people in the first meeting and "won". Clinton's team learned from that and made sure their people showed up at this event. As it turned out, more Clinton people turned out this time than Bernie people. This 64 delegate "robbery" getting thrown around was about 14 people who actually showed up, and 50 names on a list of Bernie delegates who didn't bother to show up. Out of the remaining 14, 8 were rejected by a committee composed of 5 Hillary people and 5 Bernie people. 6 of Clinton's people were similarly rejected.

  113. [113] 
    Paula wrote:

    Actually, Clinton won the first round, Bernie won the second round, this was the third round. Sorry.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    In point of fact, it looks like Bernie's folks went into the convention planning to hijack it. All this was over 2 delegates -- but whoever got the 2 delegates get's to say they "won" Nevada in a close contest versus "lost". I think Bernie's team wanted the win to bolster their narrative of having the momentum. I don't say Bernie was personally involved in that -- have no idea. But his team set this up and went a little nuts when they didn't prevail.

    And Hillary could have been gracious and gave them that win, as it would not have made a SINGLE difference in the end result..

    THAT says a lot more about Hillary than it does about Bernie supporters..

    If Hillary want's Bernie support, then Hillary should have been gracious...

    The fact that she wasn't is simply going to make it that much harder to prevent Bernie supporters from going with Trump...

    Hillary has to do her part to unite the Party or else Bernie supporters are MORE than well within their rights to give Clan Clinton the big ol' FRAK YOU!! WE'RE VOTING TRUMP!!!

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trumps-new-attack-ad-896660

    It's only going to get worse and worse for Hillary...

    Hillary has NEVER campaigned against someone like Trump...

    She is bringing shiny beads and shallow flattery to a gun fight...

    It's gonna be a massacre...

    Can't wait for the debates... :D

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What "statistics" are you referring to?? Because I would be VERY wary of ANY statistics that show what's in a person's heart...

    nothing to do with a person's heart, just the fact that according to a texas study, 7.4% of registered voters don't have a photo ID that would be accepted under the recent wave of ID legislation. That's almost 11 million LEGAL voters who wouldn't be able to vote. and those individuals are mostly non-drivers, i.e. poor, elderly or disabled, people who might have a disproportionately tough time gathering the proper documentation to get a photo ID - which can be a challenge even for the young, mobile and financially secure.

    in comparison, there were a grand total of 2,068 cases of ALLEGED voter fraud in the last presidential election. so, what i mean specifically by statistics is that even if every single allegation of voter fraud proved true, photo ID laws would STILL prevent over 500 times more legal voters than illegal voters. even if you want to nitpick the methodology, the difference is dramatic enough that there's no way it would ever be close. strict photo ID laws for voting will always hurt many, many times more people who are legally entitled to vote.

    no matter which party is in charge or which party wins, those laws are just flat wrong - an end-run around the 24th amendment.

    the movie i meant was the princess bride.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/15/6b/64/156b643cdf9db787e140f9d045163e7f.jpg

    JL

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obama poll watch:

    Last time a party won three times in a row was 1988 - Obama's polls above Reagan's at the same point in the cycle.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/president-obamas-poll-support-raises-eyebrows

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    no, i'm not talking about there being fire where there's smoke, i'm talking about there being fire where there's fire. keep in mind that i'm planning to vote for clinton in the primary regardless, but there's no possible way this stuff was fabricated or sour grapes. it's old-school, full-contact politics. although i'm sure there's plausible deniability by anybody high up, there's no point denying that it happened.

    JL

  119. [119] 
    Paula wrote:

    [112] Denying WHAT happened? That's my point. Its perfectly possible to fabricate outrages -- repubs do it all day long. Benghazeeeeee!!!!

    By simply assuming something dirty went down you perpetuate this notion the Hillary campaign or Nevada Dem Party cheated.

    Oh well. If that's what you want to do, you will.

    Michale: the notion that Hillary needed to be "gracious" and surrender delegates is ludicrous. If positions were reversed I don't think for one second you'd expect Bernie to surrender delegates to be "gracious".

    And it would have mattered in the sense that a win would feed Bernie's narrative. Why should Hillary want to do that? Why should she be expected to do that? Why isn't she allowed to win without worrying about Bernie's delicate ego?

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: the notion that Hillary needed to be "gracious" and surrender delegates is ludicrous.

    It's NOT ludicrous...

    Kicking someone in the balls repeatedly when they're down and then asking them to vote for you??

    THAT'S ludicrous....

    Why isn't she allowed to win without worrying about Bernie's delicate ego?

    Because she wants that ego on HER side in a month or two...

    THAT's why....

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    By simply assuming something dirty went down you perpetuate this notion the Hillary campaign or Nevada Dem Party cheated.

    i sent you a link to the specifics. if you need me to spell it out then sure:

    1. on camera, allowed their own voters to caucus without registering.

    2. intentionally mis-counting votes, or "mistakenly" entering votes for clinton that were intended for sanders. too many reports in the same nevada precincts for it to have been an honest mistake.

    3. push polling

    4. printing inaccurate information about caucus times and locations, handing out accurate information to hillary delegates and inaccurate information to sanders delegates.

    5. sanders delegates said they were told not to come and threatened with arrest if they did come to a county convention, unless they changed their vote to clinton.

    that's just what i found on short notice. i may perhaps insinuate that those were not the only tricks played by the clinton campaign. why then would i vote for clinton anyway? because i think she'll do a better job as president than either of the other two remaining candidates. i want a president who will do a good job once elected. full stop.

    JL

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's NOT ludicrous...

    Kicking someone in the balls repeatedly when they're down and then asking them to vote for you??

    THAT'S ludicrous....

    Because she wants that ego on HER side in a month or two...

    THAT's why....

    Am I wrong???

    "You're not wrong"
    -God

    :D

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Tell ya what...

    Let's table this discussion for now...

    In a month or two, when ya'all are complaining that Bernie supporters are giving Hillary the finger and supporting Trump, we can revisit the discussion with a heartfelt....

    "If only Hillary was gracious back in Nevada..."

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Paula wrote:

    [115] What link are you talking about? This one? http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada-caucus-is-a-complete-fiasco/

    That was from February -- nothing to do with what just happened last week.

    I don't know anything about the allegations in that article and am not addressing them in any way.

  125. [125] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: "Kicking someone in the balls repeatedly when they're down and then asking them to vote for you??"

    You mean, beating him in a contest?

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean, beating him in a contest?

    Does Hillary want Bernie supporters to vote for her in Nov???

    That's the question you have to ask yourself..

    If she doesn't give a rat's ass about that, then she is free to beat Bernie unmercifully and rub ALL the Bernie supporters noses in it... Add insult to injury with abandon...

    But, if she WANTS Bernie's support and if the WANTS Bernie's supporter's support...

    Then GRACIOUS is the name of the game...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Paula wrote:

    [120] Thank for your concern for the well-being of Hillary's campaign.

    On that front it appears the DNC has come to agreement about Sanders' representation on the platform committee. From Washington Monthly they quote: Here is the statement from the Sanders campaign:

    We believe that we will have the representation on the platform drafting committee to create a Democratic platform that reflects the views of millions of our supporters who want the party to address the needs of working families in this country and not just Wall Street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and other powerful special interests.

    So things are moving along.

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That was from February -- nothing to do with what just happened last week.

    february 20 was the date of the nevada caucuses. i consider that relevant.

    here's the result from last week:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html

  129. [129] 
    Paula wrote:

    [122] I am taking about specific events that occurred on a specific day, period.

    Your second link is just the kind of stuff that ended up everywhere because Sanders delegates were complaining all over social media that they were being screwed, when in point of fact they were misunderstanding what was happening. It includes references to the 64 delegates they demanded be seated, 50 of whom weren't even there.

    Don't bother posting more. I read bunches of them, then read various explanations and refutations before coming to a conclusion.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    [120] Thank for your concern for the well-being of Hillary's campaign.

    Why, yer quite welcome.. :D

    So things are moving along.

    What's Hillary doing to help "move things along"??

    She has a buttload of culpability in this as well..

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Don't bother posting more. I read bunches of them, then read various explanations and refutations before coming to a conclusion.

    i read numerous refutations, and found them wanting. if you didn't want me to add details, you shouldn't have requested them. at least for the five tactics i mentioned, there is ample evidence that they occurred and inadequate evidence to refute the claims.

    it's a nasty game; the republican machine does all this as a matter of course. although i don't support it on principle, i do understand that playing by marquess of queensberry rules is a good way to lose elections.

    JL

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's a nasty game; the republican machine does all this as a matter of course.

    And they say that the Democrat machine does all of this as a matter of course... :D

    The facts are somewhere in the middle...

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    And they say that the Democrat machine does all of this as a matter of course... :D

    But who can believe what THEY say!?? The are Republicans, after all, eh? :D

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    VINCE FOSTER LIVES!
    TRUMP LAUNCHES NEW LINE OF ATTACK

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-attack-on-bill-clinton/2016/05/23/ed109acc-2100-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

    I tell ya, it's going to be a massacre... Clinton doesn't stand a chance....

    And the great thing is, Trump is only getting started... Imagine what he is going to do to Clinton when Comey's indictment recommendation comes out...

    "Twenty years of crawling.. Was bottled up inside him..
    He wuddn't holding nothing back, he let 'em have it all...
    When Tommy left the barroom, not a Gatlin boy was standing..
    He said this one's for Juanita as he watched the last one fall.."

    -Kenny Rogers, THE COWARD OF THE COUNTY

    :D

    Michale

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And they say that the Democrat machine does all of this as a matter of course... :D

    it used to. then somewhere along the line, many democrats started to think they were holier than thou and above old-school dirty politics, at which point they all promptly started to lose. the clintons are the exception.

    JL

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    it used to. then somewhere along the line, many democrats started to think they were holier than thou and above old-school dirty politics, at which point they all promptly started to lose.

    So, you would agree:

    "Your {Democrats} and your {Republicans} use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
    -Yarnek/General George Washington , STAR TREK

    :D

    Speaking of Clinton...

    I see that Cosby is going to stand trial for sexual assault..

    Think we'll ever see Clinton stand trial for HIS sexual crimes??

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's that time of the year again...

    Hurricane Season starts on 1 June and Michale starts his 6-month vigil searching for the end of the world... :D

    "It would be if you didn't harbor this morbid desire to face the end of the world"
    -Morgan Freeman, OUTBREAK

    Interesting factoid.. There hasn't been a strike of a major hurricane on US soil in over a decade....

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [101] -

    Glad ta see ya!!! :D

    Thank you :-) I'm just a week out of hospital and still feeling very delicate but glad to be here. :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you :-) I'm just a week out of hospital and still feeling very delicate but glad to be here. :D

    Take care of yourself..

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Your {Democrats} and your {Republicans} use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
    -Yarnek/General George Washington , STAR TREK

    You forgot the rest of that scene Michale:

    Kirk points out that "evil" {Republicans} fought for personal gain, while "good" {Democrats} fought when it became necessary to save others.

    Just to clear things up. :-D

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @JM,

    wow, that's twice this week michale has been hoisted by his own picard

    :)
    JL

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kirk points out that "evil" {Republicans} fought for personal gain, while "good" {Democrats} fought when it became necessary to save others.

    If we were talking motivations, then you would have a point... But we're not, so you don't.. :D

    However, since you bring it up, let's explore it..

    What you seem to be saying here is that the Ends Justifies The Means... That the exact same evil that Evil uses is perfectly acceptable in the pursuit of good..

    Do you agree with that meme??? Because, if you do, we should probably move this conversation forward because I have DOOZIES of comments.. :D

    wow, that's twice this week michale has been hoisted by his own picard

    :)

    Oh bite me! :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kirk points out that "evil" {Republicans} fought for personal gain, while "good" {Democrats} fought when it became necessary to save others.

    And, if I may be a bit nit-picky, in that episode EVIL fought for POWER...

    As such, there is really no difference in the motivations of Democrats and Republicans.

    Both fight for POWER...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.