ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [393] -- Paul Ryan, Democrat?

[ Posted Friday, May 27th, 2016 – 17:03 PDT ]

Has Paul Ryan become so disaffected with Donald Trump that he quietly changed political parties, when no one was looking? The Washington Post, in an unrelated story, ran a photo of Orrin Hatch standing next to Ryan with the caption (emphasis added):

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), (L), is flanked by House Speaker Ryan (D-WI), (R), while signing the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016, on Capitol Hill May 18, 2016 in Washington, DC

Note that "(D-WI)" in there [the "(R)" which follows it stands for "right," and not "Republican," we should add]. The truly odd thing is that this page hasn't been corrected yet (as of this writing), and it's been up for over a full day.

So when did Paul Ryan secretly become a Democrat? Heh. OK, we know it was just a typo, but still, it's fun to think about, right?

The actual article this amusing photo caption appeared in showed plainly how closed one Republican's mind truly is. A newspaper printed a statement from Hatch that said, in part, "I recently met with Chief Judge Merrick Garland," but that the meeting didn't change his mind on obstructing him in the Senate. The only problem? The meeting hadn't even taken place yet. Orrin Hatch can see the future! Or something. What's really going to be hilarious about the whole Supreme Court nomination fight is when every single Republican who is now blathering on about how the next president deserves to fill the vacancy has to completely flip-flop in a hasty rush to confirm Garland during the lame-duck period -- to deny Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court pick. See, we can predict the future too! We foresee a swamp of hypocrisy awaiting Senate Republicans, which they will fall smack into, the day after the election.

What else? Our introduction is going to be pretty short, since so much of this week's news belongs in the awards section, we should note. Ken Starr, nemesis to Bill Clinton, got a big demotion at his cushy university job this week -- which certainly will put a smile on the face of every Democrat who remembers the 1990s.

It seems even some Republicans are getting seriously annoyed with their fellow party members using the Bible as a political bludgeon, as the House GOP deals with a growing divide within them over the subject of LGBT rights. In a closed-door meeting called by Paul Ryan, freshman Rick Allen of Georgia "read Bible versus calling for the death of homosexuals to argue that a vote in favor of an anti-discrimination amendment was akin to a sin."

Ryan called the meeting in an attempt to deal with the growing number of defections on the issue. Last week a vote was held open on a LGBT amendment so that Republicans could be coaxed into changing their votes. Seven of them still wound up voting for the bill. This week, a similar bill got a whopping 43 Republican votes. The problem for Ryan is obviously getting worse fast. This was the atmosphere for Allen's remarks, which were not exactly welcomed by some Republicans:

Another Republican lawmaker was so upset by Allen's remarks that he stormed out of the room. "A lot of members were clearly uncomfortable and upset," one Republican aide told The Hill.

"It was f---ing ridiculous," an unnamed lawmaker remarked.

Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Charlie Dent went on record to criticize Allen's stunt.

"I thought the comments were wildly out of bounds and especially inappropriate given that this was supposed to be a prayer," Dent, who was among the 43 Republicans who voted in support of LGBT rights, told The Washington Post. "I believe it's imperative for the Republican Party to make an affirmative statement on nondiscrimination for the LGBT community and deal with religious liberty."

Now maybe they know what it feels like when a sanctimonious politician uses religion as an attack in the political arena. You could almost hear secularists saying "Welcome to the club!" in the background.

In marijuana news, Republican House member Dana Rohrabacher became the first sitting congressman in three decades to admit illegal (by the federal laws he helps legislate) marijuana usage. And, apparently, it worked wonders:

Two weeks ago, Rohrabacher said, he tried a topical wax-based marijuana treatment. That night, it was "the first time in a year and a half that I had a decent night's sleep because the arthritis pain was gone," Rohrabacher said.

To his credit, the very conservative Rohrabacher has been working across the aisle with some Democrats to -- piece by piece -- dismantle the federal War On Weed.

Speaking of the federal War On Weed, statistics show that federal trafficking convictions are way down -- starting (oddly enough) right when Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational use. Up to 2011, roughly six million people a year were sentenced under federal law, but this has now fallen to below four million. That's still far too many, but the trend is encouraging.

Recreational weed is also now legal within Washington D.C., which is the only explanation we can come up with for some grade-A idiocy in the Daily Caller this week. All Washington was abuzz with the rumor that Barack Obama had settled on a house to move into after he leaves office. The Daily Caller quickly took the opportunity to point out that the house was (gasp!) less than 1,100 feet from the Islamic Center of Washington. Somebody get the smelling salts, because conservatives are all a-swoon!

The Washington Post, helpfully, then turned the Daily Caller's logic on its head, by pointing out all the various (and nefarious) liberal bastions that were within 1,100 feet of the home office of the Daily Caller itself. The list is hilarious, including such gems as "Aljazeera (!!)" and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Why, the Daily Caller is in serious danger of being influenced by the NAACP, the NEA, the AFL-CIO, and the Human Rights Campaign! In fact, also in their neighborhood is (Are you sitting down, Daily Caller staffers? We wouldn't want any swooning injuries, of course...) none other than the American Islamic Congress.

Pass the smelling salts!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

While the group isn't technically a Democrat, we're bending the rules for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week, because it's such a great idea.

Billed as the successor to the Occupy Wall Street movement, a new organization was announced this week -- one that could wind up being a lot more effective than a bunch of people occupying a park ever was. The Washington Post had the full story:

Capitalizing on populist anger toward Wall Street, a coalition of more than 20 labor unions and activist groups on Tuesday launched a new campaign to reform the financial industry.

The group, Take On Wall Street, plans to combine the efforts of some of the Democratic Party's biggest traditional backers, from the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO to the Communications Workers of America. The group says it will aim to turn the public's lingering anger at the financial sector into policy initiatives that could change the way that Wall Street works.

Among its biggest targets will be doing away with a law that allows private equity managers to pay lower taxes through something known as the "carried interest loophole." These managers receive a share of profits for any gains they create for their clients, and this income is treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at a lower rate.

. . .

Unlike previous anti-Wall Street campaigns such as Occupy Wall Street, the new group hopes to organize a campaign that will span state houses and as well as the halls of Congress, potentially forecasting a big fight on financial reform in 2017.

"We are going to make this an issue in congressional races. No one will be able to run from this," said Richard L. Trumka, president of the labor union AFL-CIO. People are saying "that they are fed up with Wall Street writing the rules."

In addition to the issue of carried interest, the group expects to galvanize support for breaking up the big banks and reviving a version of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented the combination of commercial and investment banks. It is also expected to push for a transaction tax, which would force some Wall Street traders, particularly high-frequency traders, to pay a fee every time they buy or sell a stock or bond.

Their timing couldn't have been better, really. Because that sounds an awful lot like the platform Bernie Sanders is running on. Maybe Take On Wall Street can actually achieve some solid results that neither Occupy Wall Street nor Bernie Sanders has been able to. It certainly could be a great place for Sanders supporters to rally, once Clinton wraps up the nomination in a little over a week.

Sanders aside, though, this sounds like a serious effort to build a populist organization, and the Left has always been lacking in such support organizations to further their agenda. The Right has an infrastructure of think tanks and policy advocacy groups that reaches back decades, so it is indeed good to see someone trying to do the same thing for progressive causes. Take On Wall Street is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, and we wish them well and lots of future success.

[You can support Take On Wall Street by going to their new webpage and signing their petition.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We certainly had a lot of candidates this week for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. The State Department released their Inspector General's report on Hillary Clinton's private email server, which didn't have any wild new information that wasn't previously known, but was notable for its scathing language. Our guess is it won't help or hurt Clinton much with voters, who have probably already largely made up their minds on what to think about Clinton's emails. The F.B.I. report might do some real damage (whenever it comes out), but the I.G. report didn't seem to have any real bombshell qualities to it.

A Transportation Security Administration top official was forced out of the job, after $90,000 in unjustified bonuses was revealed. But it's not exactly a political job, so we don't think it qualifies for the MDDOTW award. Likewise non-partisan but also very disappointing was the news that the National Park Service is now considering selling off "naming rights" to the highest corporate bidders. This is just flat-out an obscenity, folks. Don't believe me? From the story:

Superintendents could "accept" gifts of $100,000 or up to $5 million with certification, training and other conditions, the policy states. They won't be able to solicit money directly -- that's prohibited for federal employees.

But Reinbold said that "we want superintendents to get more engaged" in the fundraising process, being in the room when outside fundraising groups meet with prospective donors, for example, and acting as experts.

The Park Service is commemorating its 100th year with a $350 million fundraising campaign that for the first time allowed large banners in the parks featuring donors' corporate logos.

Thankfully, some people are fighting back. Because the idea is, once again, an obscenity and an outrage.

"You could use Old Faithful to pitch Viagra," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group that's trying to rally the park community to fight the plan. "Or the Lincoln Memorial to plug hemorrhoid cream. Or Victoria's Secret to plug the Statue of Liberty."

Every park-loving citizen should immediately register their own outrage, since this is an idea which must be denounced from the mountaintops, obviously.

But back to politics. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was certainly the "Democratic Lighting Rod Of The Week" this week, as some are pushing for her ouster as Democratic Party chair, partly to smooth things over at the nominating convention. As "one unnamed pro-Clinton Democratic senator" put it: "I don't see how [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts." This same anonymous source also revealed: "There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz's head on."

Ouch. This is in the same week that Bernie Sanders endorsed her opponent (in her House re-election primary). Just to rub salt in the wound, Wasserman Schultz received the unwanted endorsement from Karl Rove's super PAC, as well as the Tea Party Express:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has played a critical role over the past several years in the massive Republican gains we have achieved at the state level, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate.

Yikes. All around, it's been a pretty brutal week for Wasserman Schultz.

But there are two better candidates for the MDDOTW award this week, sadly. The first isn't actually a Democratic organization, so reluctantly we've decided not to bend the rules. Even so, the US PIRG organization certainly deserves slamming this week. The group, founded by Ralph Nader to act in the public's best interest (the acronym stands for "Public Interest Research Group"), strongly came out against President Obama's new overtime rules last week. They want an exemption for non-profit groups to force their employees to work over 40 hours a week for low wages, it seems:

Organizations like ours rely on small donations from individuals to pay the bills. We can't expect those individuals to double the amount they donate. Rather, to cover higher staffing costs forced upon us under the rule, we will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work -- all while the well-funded special interests that we're up against will simply spend more.

This is nothing more than scaremongering. Public interest groups are always going to be outspent by corporations. It is a sad excuse for overworking the staff. Here's the thing: people are free to volunteer to work for a non-profit, if they so choose. Anyone who does not -- anyone who gets paid for the work -- actually needs that money to live on. Period. So limiting their time to 40 hours a week or else paying them overtime is actually the right thing to do -- especially for an organization that prides itself (from its own mission statement) that it: "stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being." The hypocrisy is pretty ugly on this one, folks.

But we've saved the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week for a man who made a monumentally stupid and insensitive comment this week. Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald -- a person who was brought in because the V.A. was in crisis over waiting times, mind you -- replied in an interview: "When you go to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what's important? What's important is: what's your satisfaction with the experience?"

This is beyond cringeworthy. Especially as the article also helpfully points out:

Disney, it turns out, does collect and analyze extensive waiting time data, which it considers core to its overall customer experience. The company has a system that manages the information.

Once again: the previous head of the V.A. had to step down because of the waiting time scandal. Dealing with the scandal was job one for the incoming chief. After failing to adequately do so, to be this dismissive of veterans waiting long periods to see a doctor is insulting (and that's the most polite word we could come up with).

Eric Shinseki had to step down for ignoring the wait times. But even he never insulted the people waiting in such a fashion. It's time for Robert McDonald to step down as well, because he obviously doesn't have his priorities straight.

[Contact Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 393 (5/27/16)

This week, we're devoting all out talking points to Donald Trump. This could, in fact, become a regular occurrence for the next few months. Trump is an absolute peripatetic gold mine of things to ridicule, flitting from one to the next with the greatest of ease. Since he provides so much fodder, at times the best thing to do is just devote all the talking points to him. Which we will now proceed to do.

 

1
   Bye-bye!

Going... going... gone!

"Weren't we all, right about now, supposed to be seeing conservatives boldly giving the voters another choice than Donald Trump? Remember that? It was just a few weeks ago that 'Never Trump!' was the rallying cry of establishment Republicans and conservative true-believers, who were (led by the intrepid Bill Kristol) supposed to mount a third-party bid so that conservative voters would have someone they could vote for (while also voting for all the Republicans down the ballot). A few weeks later, and Trump has wrapped up the delegates he needs for the nomination, Republican politicians are falling all over themselves to board the Trump train, and the 'Never Trump!' folks have quietly disappeared, after every single person they begged to run for president turned them down flat. These people obviously couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag -- no wonder Trump thought the Republican establishment was such a pushover!"

 

2
   Rubio gets on board

Surely there's room for Little Marco?

"I see Marco Rubio suppressed his own bile and is now openly supporting Trump -- after spending months warning America that Trump was a dangerous person to be anywhere near the nuclear launch button. Rubio could even run for re-election in the Senate, now that he's dropped out of the presidential race, but he shows no interest in doing so. Because of this, he would be perfectly positioned to continue to denounce Trump in the strongest terms, since he doesn't have to be worried about what the voters think. Instead, he just stuck his head so far up Trump's rear end that he bumped into Chris Christie. It's really kind of sad to see the death of all self-respect in so many Republicans, isn't it?"

 

3
   The holdouts feel the heat

Of course, not boarding the Trump train has its own blowback.

"So I guess New Mexico's governor is out of the running for Trump's veep shortlist, eh? Susana Martinez was seen by some as being the perfect demographic choice for any Republican presidential candidate, since she is a Latina woman -- precisely what the party would need to shore up their already dismal support in those two groups. But by not backing Trump (and refusing to show up at a Trump rally in her state), she got badmouthed in a big way. Trump not only said she's 'not doing the job' of governor, he half-jokingly threatened to run for New Mexico governor himself. That's got to be every Republican's nightmare, at this point."

 

4
   Seriously?

Art imitating life imitating art. Or something.

"I never thought Fox News could be too in the tank for any Republican, but apparently they just managed to do so. They aired a charming show called 'Meet The Trumps' (boy, you just can't make this stuff up, can you?) which was so sycophantic that conservatives were ridiculing it on Twitter. One even likened it to Pravda, which is about as insulting as it gets for anyone who lived through the Cold War. Looks like Fox is totally in the tank for Trump, although even they probably should dial it back a bit if they've reached Pravda-like levels."

 

5
   How can you tell Trump is lying?

Anyone with half a brain could see that this was never going to happen. That leaves a lot of the mainstream media out, obviously.

"Bernie Sanders trolled Donald Trump this week, challenging him to a one-on-one debate before California's primary. Trump immediately said he'd gladly debate Bernie. Of course, like so many off-the-cuff things Trump says, this turned out to be a big fat lie. First Trump tried to back away from his promise by holding the television networks hostage for $10 million in charity money (for "women's issues," hilariously enough), and then when a few networks actually took a bite of that apple, Trump decided he just wasn't interested in debating Bernie. It's gotten to the point where there are just too many 'Trump Tells Whopper Of A Lie' headlines -- it'd now be easier if the media instead ran the occasional 'Trump Actually Tells Truth!' stories instead."

 

6
   His lips are moving, that's how!

Add this one to the list of "Things that would have destroyed any normal politician's chances of being elected, but had no effect on Trump whatsoever." Way, way down there at the end (it's a long list!).

"The last time Trump skipped a debate, he also used the 'let's raise money for charity' dodge, when he was supposed to have raised (in his own words) 'six million dollars' for veterans. The Washington Post decided to look into his claims, months later. Turns out Trump didn't raise anywhere near what he said he had (big surprise -- Trump lies about money all the time), and that Trump had never actually donated the one million dollars out of his own pocket that he promised that night. So he used and exploited veterans as political props, and then stiffed them at the end of the night. Any other presidential candidate who did something this odious would be finished, it's worth pointing out. After Trump heard the Post was digging into the story, he called up a veterans group's head late at night and quickly arranged for the million-dollar donation. How low can Trump go, one wonders. Promising but not delivering money to veterans' groups is about as low and despicable an act as can be imagined -- but there's plenty of time left before the election, so he'll most likely manage to go even lower before it's all over."

 

7
   A hopeful sign

We saved this one for last, because if true it certainly could be a gigantic ray of hope for Democrats.

"There's a story making the rounds that hasn't gotten much attention outside the Beltway, but really deserves to. Donald Trump is apparently very disdainful of the 'ground troops' necessary in any presidential election. He's apparently planning on running his general election campaign much the same way he ran in the primaries -- lots of tweeting, lots of call-in interviews on cable news, but little-to-no actual 'get out the vote' efforts at all. Now, Democrats are already much, much better at this sort of thing than Republicans (see: Obama's two victories), but the news that Trump isn't even interested in attempting a get-out-the-vote ground-troops effort is delightful news indeed for Democrats everywhere. Not only should this provide a landslide for Hillary Clinton, it could mean taking control of the Senate or even -- say it softly -- the House in November, as well. So I'd like to publicly address Donald Trump, and point out to him that get-out-the-vote efforts are not manly and were dreamed up by some elitist liberal Democrat. Probably Rosie O'Donnell, in fact. Therefore, he should denounce the practice and announce he won't spend a thin dime on such wimpiness in his own campaign."

-- 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

 

219 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [393] -- Paul Ryan, Democrat?”

  1. [1] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    You're MDDOTW points about PIRG. Awesome!!! Thank you!

  2. [2] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hmmm. TP2: I suggested earlier that Rubio might still be eyeing his Senate seat. Could he be looking at a [specific] Cabinet post? Which one appeals to him?

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great talking points!

    Yes, the PIRG thing -- terrible.

    And seeing the various repubs jettison their pretences to principle in order to line up behind the big bully -- predictable but still pathetic to watch.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    So when did Paul Ryan secretly become a Democrat? Heh. OK, we know it was just a typo, but still, it's fun to think about, right?

    Just proves the Leftist bias of the media.. :D

    What's really going to be hilarious about the whole Supreme Court nomination fight is when every single Republican who is now blathering on about how the next president deserves to fill the vacancy has to completely flip-flop in a hasty rush to confirm Garland during the lame-duck period -- to deny Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court pick.

    Yea... It's called politics.. Maybe you have heard of it?? :D

    How do I KNOW it's politics???

    Easy...

    Democrats would be doing the EXACT same thing if the Party positions were reversed..

    The State Department released their Inspector General's report on Hillary Clinton's private email server, which didn't have any wild new information that wasn't previously known,

    Yer right.. Everyone already knew that Hillary blatantly, knowingly and CONSTANTLY lied about her email server..

    Funny how NO ONE wants to address her lies, eh??

    Oh, of course.. She has a '-D' after her name.. So lies don't matter.. Silly me...

    The F.B.I. report might do some real damage (whenever it comes out), but the I.G. report didn't seem to have any real bombshell qualities to it.

    Other than the afore mentioned blatant and PROVEN lies..

    But yer right...

    Everyone knows that the rhymes-with-witch blatantly lies, so no bombshell there..

    Every park-loving citizen should immediately register their own outrage, since this is an idea which must be denounced from the mountaintops, obviously.

    The ACME Cosmetic Surgery Clinin mountaintops.... Obviously... :D

    I'll get to the Talking Points later...

    As an aside to Liz...

    Everyone knows that the rhymes-with-witch blatantly lies, so no bombshell there..

    If you want to know where the hatred comes from, we just watched 13 HOURS: THE SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI last night..

    ANYONE who can vote for Hillary Clinton after watching that true story needs to have their head examined and/or do some VERY serious soul-searching...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    The State Department released their Inspector General's report on Hillary Clinton's private email server, which didn't have any wild new information that wasn't previously known,

    “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I have encouraged all of my assistants to be very forthcoming, and I hope that this is close to being wrapped up.”

    Of course, no one here wants to talk about the FACT that Hillary and her minions refused to co-operate or talk with the IG about their boneheaded move that threatens national security...

    Lies... Lies.. Lies....

    How do we know when Hillary Clinton lies???

    Her lips are moving..

    And I know ya'all feel the same way about these lies... Because ya'all were so adamantly hysterical when Bush lied, so you feel the same way when Hillary lies...

    Right???? :^/

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta admit, the role-reversal in the Party Conventions is dizzying..

    It was only recently that the Left Wingery was crowing about a contested GOP Convention, a floor fight that will hand the White House (and Senate!!) to the Democrats..

    Now, just a short time later, it's the GOP that's completely united and it's the Democrat Party convention that will likely devolve into a LITERAL floor fight!!

    WOW, eh?? :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to know where the hatred comes from, we just watched 13 HOURS: THE SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI last night..

    Speaking of movies..

    Liz, how are we on CA-CW?? :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    (from a previous commentary)

    It is a huge slam in Hillary's face that this is even being considered.

    EXACTLY...

    Hillary figured she would show Bernie who was boss.. Bernie turned right around and rhymes-with-witch-slapped her to the ground..

    I am really bummed that Trump didn't follow thru.. An even BETTER Machiavellian machination would be to have Trump tank the debate and hand a decisive win to Bernie...

    That would have handed California to Bernie and deepen the Democrat Party rift...

    I can only assume that someone bent Trump's ear about a downside that would... er.. trump (yuk yuk yuk) the massive upside of joining Bernie and tag-teaming Hillary and chair-slamming her to the mat...

    Ahhh perchance to dream.. :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Not stooping to Trump's level does not mean ignoring him or ceding the battlefield.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what Hillary has done.. Ceded to Trump the battlefield..

    The Hillary/Trump first exchange epitomized this concept..

    Hillary labeled Trump as sexist and Trump came back with his zingers and knocked Hillary on her ass.. Shut her up for QUITE a while...

    If the fights in the gutter and Hillary refuses to go there, it's not principle... It's cowardice...

    Because, as we ALL know, Hillary and "principle" aren't even in the same galaxy... Hillary is on earth and "Principle" is in the Ori Galaxy...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Something like that. Heh. In any event it's a moot point as the big debate is a definite no-go.

    If there is ANYTHING we have learned about Trump it's that there is NOTHING that is ever "definite"... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    A few weeks later, and Trump has wrapped up the delegates he needs for the nomination, Republican politicians are falling all over themselves to board the Trump train, and the 'Never Trump!' folks have quietly disappeared, after every single person they begged to run for president turned them down flat. These people obviously couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag -- no wonder Trump thought the Republican establishment was such a pushover!"

    Uh....

    Isn't that what ya'all are saying is the EXACT same thing that's going to happen with the Bernie Or Bust crowd???

    So, let me see if I understand this..

    Ya'all denigrate and ridicule the GOP for being "pushovers" for capitulating to Trump, yet you state that that is EXACTLY what ya'all want to happen with the BOB crowd...

    Non-sequitor....

    It's really kind of sad to see the death of all self-respect in so many Republicans, isn't it?"

    Not as sad as it's going to be to see all of Bernie's self-respect leave him when he kow-tows to Liar Hillary...

    Am I wrong???

    "You're not wrong"
    -God AKA Chuck

    :D

    How can you tell Trump is lying?

    Really??? Do you SERIOUSLY want to use the 'L' word for Trump???

    Considering how many Hillary lies have been exposed by the State Department IG (ALL DEMOCRATS, I might add) one would think NO ONE on the Left would want to DARE utter "LIAR"...

    I mean.. Com'on!! :D

    Not only should this provide a landslide for Hillary Clinton, it could mean taking control of the Senate or even -- say it softly -- the House in November, as well.

    Yea?? By all means. Be complacent..

    It will just make PRESIDENT TRUMP all the more sweet.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering how many Hillary lies have been exposed by the State Department IG (ALL DEMOCRATS, I might add) one would think NO ONE on the Left would want to DARE utter "LIAR"...

    People died and Hillary lied..

    Benghazi PROVED that beyond ANY doubt...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering how many Hillary lies have been exposed by the State Department IG (ALL DEMOCRATS, I might add)

    Funny how NO ONE wants to discuss this, eh??

    In this case (with a nod to RD) silence truly does give assent..

    Or, in this case, agreement and concession..

    I'll take it!!! :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    In a closed-door meeting called by Paul Ryan, freshman Rick Allen of Georgia "read Bible versus calling for the death of homosexuals to argue that a vote in favor of an anti-discrimination amendment was akin to a sin."

    Republicans are principled creatures, so they can't back down from their disastrously hateful Bathroom Panic 2016 Strategy. The problem for Ryan is obviously getting worse fast because he is reluctant to offer the kind of Big Government solution that the Genital Police are looking for. The Jesus thugs don't want suggestions. We need one of those TSA porno-screeners at the entrance to every one of America's public restrooms. They could be modified to tase bros in dresses.

    An additional upside to the screeners is that Trump would be barred from the men's room. Such tiny hands.

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Does anybody know the bathroom policy at Trump's hotels, casinos, golf courses, etc.?

    If he actually owns these places, doesn't the policy he imposes show his real colors?

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is the bathroom policy at Trump's hotels, casinos, etc.?

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is the LGBT policy for restrooms in Trump's hotels, casinos, etc.?

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I have to disagree with MIDOTW. Another organization that will spend most of it's time sending people emails about the latest "threat" and asking for contributions. Big deal.
    You should be the MIDOTW because this article is a perfect example of what's wrong with the media coverage of our political process (though I'm sure that was not your intention).
    The media continues to peddle that same old people repackaging the same old ideas as something new. They complain about Trump, but keep writing about him. Sometimes they even write about all the free media coverage he gets when other more important issues are being ignored- then continue to write articles about Trump and ignore other issues.
    They write articles about what will Bernie supporters do and how can the revolution continue when Hillary wins the nomination and Bernie endorses her. They say we need a grassroots movement that will change Congress. They write about how average citizens need to get involved. Then they ignore or dismiss an average citizen that is trying to get involved and the very movement they pine for and write about useless crap like your MIDOTW organization.
    Please note that the "they" is the media in general and not necessarily you, CW.
    Isn't it time for citizens to learn about the only organization that will not be spending it's time spreading fear to collect contributions? Why shouldn't citizens be informed about an organization that is designed to be controlled by the participants because the participants will send their contributions directly to the candidates instead of the organization? Isn't that what a real grassroots movement should be, an organization designed to be controlled by the participants instead of an organization designed to control and exploit the participants?
    Isn't informing citizens about such an opportunity what the media is supposed to be doing?
    Wouldn't it be better to qualify as MIDOTW for providing an example of what the media should be by informing citizens about the opportunity provided by Voucher Vendetta than your current example of how the media continues to fall far short of it's obligation to inform citizens?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Dogs barking, can't fly home without umbrella"
    -Jumpin' Jack Flash

    :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    still a great idea, still an awful name. it's a brilliant idea for reforming campaign finance, but sounds like a coupon for 50% off guy fawkes masks.

    @michale,

    the right has cried wolf so many times on the clintons, even if the scandal du jour really were a bombshell revelation, nobody outside the conservative echo chamber would believe it.

    @JFC,

    i think the only sensible thing to do is make all public bathrooms unisex.

    @CW [points #5 and #6],

    what makes hillary less believed is not that she lies more, because she doesn't. objective analysis has found that she has been more truthful than any other candidate this cycle. meanwhile, donald made fewer true statements on average than anybody except ben carson.

    however, the truth is often messy and complicated, so it's tough to be truthful without making oneself politically vulnerable, leading to a lot of tortured, lawyerly statements. thus, a true statement often seems less trustworthy than a false one. thus, when someone has no interest in maintaining even a remote connection with the objective truth, it removes a natural impediment to saying what people want to believe.

    "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
    ~adolf hitler

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no wait, that was goebbels. hitler's was this one:

    “In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick."

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    the right has cried wolf so many times on the clintons, even if the scandal du jour really were a bombshell revelation, nobody outside the conservative echo chamber would believe it.

    So, you don't believe Clinton lied???

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary??

    Let's face it.. The wolf-crying from the Right just gives you a convenient excuse to ignore the facts...

    i think the only sensible thing to do is make all public bathrooms unisex.

    Yea, great idea.. 40 year old men in the same bathroom with 13-14 year old girls..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong??? :^/

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    what makes hillary less believed is not that she lies more, because she doesn't.

    "{{cough}} bullshit {{cough}}"
    -Iceman, TOP GUN

    objective analysis has found that she has been more truthful than any other candidate this cycle.

    "Objective" analysis from a known Left Wingery source...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Objective" analysis from a known Left Wingery source...

    ...which rated as second most truthful that bastion of liberalism, jeb bush, and which refused to let president obama off the hook for his lies about health insurance. i know it's not what you'd like to hear, but politifact's nonpartisan bona fides are pretty airtight. or are you going to claim die-hard interest in facts one moment and then ignore them when they aren't convenient to your point of view?

    JL

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    , but politifact's nonpartisan bona fides are pretty airtight.

    Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
    A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

    Or... NOT..

    which refused to let president obama off the hook for his lies about health insurance.

    Yea, like ANYONE would not call obama on that TOTALLY BLATANT BS fest...

    Calling out one blatant and obvious lie while ignoring the hundreds of others..????

    Color me not impressed...

    How did Politifact rate Obama's "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance" BS statement??

    Don't tell me, let me guess.. They didn't rate it at all...

    Unbiased my Left arse cheek...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

    a flawed analysis from george mason university, an institution that actually does have a record of partisan bias.

    JL

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    a flawed analysis from george mason university,

    Of course it is.. :D

    "Mr Murphy, you have AIDS.."
    "AIDS??? But I'm not a homosexual!!!"
    "....Sure you're not a homosexual..."

    -Eddie Murphy, DELIRIOUS

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want to talk about Hillary's actual lies????

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance"

    how could anyone possibly prove that factually false? it's a statement of preference, i.e. opinion. opinions, unlike facts, can't be proven true or false. would you like politifact to redefine the statement from opinion to fact so that it can be rated? as to whether or not he flip-flopped on the issue, the answer is yes, but that's old news.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/

    JL

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    a flawed analysis from george mason university, an institution that actually does have a record of partisan bias.

    There are dozens of analysis from dozens of different sources..

    But it doesn't really matter..

    Any study/analysis that doesn't reach the appropriate conclusion MUST be "flawed"...

    Conclusion-based facts..

    Not fact-based conclusions...

    It's the Democrat way....

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Do you want to talk about Hillary's actual lies????

    sure, what specific statements were untrue, and how can you establish that they were known by her to be untrue at the time?

    JL

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Any study/analysis that doesn't reach the appropriate conclusion MUST be "flawed"...

    no, i gave it an honest read. the analysis alleges selection bias, but doesn't provide adequate data to substantiate that conclusion.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i didn't read the whole thing just now, mind you. i pored over it last time you impeached politifact's non-partisanship, and it just didn't stand scrutiny.

    http://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, what specific statements were untrue, and how can you establish that they were known by her to be untrue at the time?

    I am GLAD you asked that.. :D

    Let's start with an easy one..

    “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I have encouraged all of my assistants to be very forthcoming, and I hope that this is close to being wrapped up.”
    -Hillary Clinton

    It's been well documented that Hillary and aides DID NOT cooperate with the IG's report and refused to talk to them at all..

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another lie..

    Hillary has stated ad nasuem that she had permission to operate her unauthorized, insecure, home brew, bathroom closet server....

    From the IG report..

    Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I have encouraged all of my assistants to be very forthcoming, and I hope that this is close to being wrapped up.”

    wow that's a convoluted statement. there's a ton of hedge room and plausible deniability. sounds far from honest, but i don't know how that could possibly be proven to be a lie.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is also documentation that proves Hillary lied when she said she set up her unauthorized, insecure, home brew, bathroom closet server for convenience...

    It was actually to avoid FOI disclosure of her emails. The emails between Hillary and staff prove that....

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    wow that's a convoluted statement. there's a ton of hedge room and plausible deniability. sounds far from honest, but i don't know how that could possibly be proven to be a lie.

    Of course you don't..

    She said she was "willing to talk to anybody, anytime"...

    She refused to talk to the IG.. She didn't allow her staff to talk to the IG..

    How is that not a lie??

    Where is this "wriggle room" you speak of???

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    far from honest,

    We are in complete agreement on that..

    Hillary is far from honest...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hillary has stated ad nasuem that she had permission to operate her unauthorized, insecure, home brew, bathroom closet server....

    could you provide a quote?

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How is that not a lie??
    Where is this "wriggle room" you speak of???

    1. starts with "i think last august i made it clear" - leaving doubt about whether she is certain, whether she made it clear, or even what prior discussion she's referring to.
    2. being willing to talk to anybody does not necessarily mean on any terms, under oath, whenever summoned.
    3. no aides have said hillary didn't encourage them to be forthcoming. even if they weren't, that could have been their own decision, and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise, especially if she said it and didn't mean it.

    Sir, he said santiago wasn't to be touched
    ~cpl hammacker, a few good men

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. starts with "i think last august i made it clear" - leaving doubt about whether she is certain, whether she made it clear, or even what prior discussion she's referring to.

    The "I think" is referenced to the time frame, NOT to the fact that she made it clear..

    2. being willing to talk to anybody does not necessarily mean on any terms, under oath, whenever summoned.

    ANYBODY, ANYTIME.... No wiggle room..

    3. no aides have said hillary didn't encourage them to be forthcoming. even if they weren't, that could have been their own decision, and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise, especially if she said it and didn't mean it.

    Saying it and not meaning it is a lie...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saying it and not meaning it is a lie...

    At least, it was when Bush did it...

    I know, I know...

    "That's different"....

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Saying it and not meaning it is a lie...

    but knowing that it was a lie and proving that it was a lie are two very different things.

    You and Dawson both live in the same dreamland. It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.”
    — Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview with CNN, July 7, 2015

    Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server
    -IG Report

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    but knowing that it was a lie and proving that it was a lie are two very different things.

    The IG report proved it to be a lie.. Hillary did not talk to the IG despite claiming the would talk to "anybody, anytime"....

    If this is going to be the same sort of argument as Racist/Trump, IE "Oh I know he's a racist, I just can't prove it" then what's the point???

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    You and Dawson both live in the same dreamland. It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

    If we were in a court of law, you would have a point...

    But, as you yourself stated with the Trump/Racist argument..

    We're not in a court of law, so you don't have a point..

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    for the record, i may believe that bush lied, but there's no way on the planet i could prove it in a court of law. if he says he really did believe that saddam had WMD's how can i prove that he didn't?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:
  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    for the record, i may believe that bush lied, but there's no way on the planet i could prove it in a court of law. if he says he really did believe that saddam had WMD's how can i prove that he didn't?

    Exactly...

    Yet that doesn't stop the Left Wingery from saying that BS and no one here defends Bush...

    Yet, everyone is ga-ga over defending Hillary..

    Why is that???

    Ahhhhhhh Because Hillary has a '-D' after her name...

    I am glad we finally have consensus on this point.. Maybe I can quit bringing it up... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:
  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://i.sli.mg/6Jn2NC.gif

    As does that.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281554-clinton-email-headache-is-about-to-get-worse

    Does ANYONE here think that Hillary is going to emerge unscathed???

    Anyone??? Anyone??? Buehler???

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Until Hillary herself addresses the inconsistencies, she is a liar...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hillary tells the truth a higher percentage of the time than any other candidate this cycle. if you're going to call her a liar then fine, but she has a lot of company who are much more distinguished in that area than she is.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think we have a winner in the name Trump contest!

    When is the Name Hillary contest???

    There isn't one??

    Ahh.. I see....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    hillary tells the truth a higher percentage of the time than any other candidate this cycle.

    Yea, that's what Politifact says..

    That alone makes their proclamations VERY suspect..

    Especially when one considers that over 70% of Americans think LIAR is what describes Hillary best...

    . if you're going to call her a liar then fine, but she has a lot of company who are much more distinguished in that area than she is.

    I don't care what Hillary has for company..

    *MY* only point is that, around here, all the "liars" seem to ALWAYS have a '-R' after their name and that the nuance/equivocation/mitigation is ALWAYS on the side of those who have a '-D' after their name..

    That's been my point ad nauseum since the dawn of time.. :D

    If the point is conceded, I'll be happy to drop it... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    You and Dawson both live in the same dreamland. It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

    If we were in a court of law, you would have a point...

    But, as you yourself stated with the Trump/Racist argument..

    We're not in a court of law, so you don't have a point..

    In other words, ya'all want COURT LEVEL BONA FIDE BEYOND ANY DOUBT FACT/PROOF when we're talking about someone with a '-D' after their names..

    But when we're talking about someone with a '-R' after their name, then friend's cousin's half sister's aunt's friend's hearsay is BEYOND ANY DOUBT fact/proof....

    You could see where someone could get confused exactly where ya'all stand... eh?? :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't we settle on a standard of proof and apply that standard EQUALLY, whether we are talking about someone with a '-R' after their name or a '-D' after their name....

    For example, if you want to have COURT LEVEL FACT as the standard, then you have to concede that Donald Trump is NOT a racist...

    If OUTSIDE OF TRIAL facts are sufficient for conviction, then you have to concede that Hillary is a liar...

    Ya'all can't have it both ways.... It's not allowed.. :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's been well documented that Hillary and aides DID NOT cooperate with the IG's report and refused to talk to them at all..

    Any reason you refuse to source that quote? Could it be because if we see context it will show that was specifically about the FBI investigation?

    *MY* only point is that, around here, all the "liars" seem to ALWAYS have a '-R' after their name and that the nuance/equivocation/mitigation is ALWAYS on the side of those who have a '-D' after their name..

    And yet I don't see you calling out lies of anyone with an "R" after their name. So much for being a political agnostic...

    That's been my point ad nauseum since the dawn of time.. :D

    And your own personal hypocrisy since the dawn of time...

    If the point is conceded, I'll be happy to drop it... :D

    And if you prove to be an actual political agnostic, so will I...

    In other words, ya'all want COURT LEVEL BONA FIDE BEYOND ANY DOUBT FACT/PROOF when we're talking about someone with a '-D' after their names..

    Kind of like what you insist on when a cop is accused of something?

    But when we're talking about someone with a '-R' after their name, then friend's cousin's half sister's aunt's friend's hearsay is BEYOND ANY DOUBT fact/proof....

    You mean like you do when someone of color is involved in an officer related death?

    You could see where someone could get confused exactly where ya'all stand... eh?? :D

    Indeed...

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Another organization that will spend most of it's time sending people emails about the latest "threat" and asking for contributions. Big deal.

    Is that any different than Voucher Vendetta?

  62. [62] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    no wait, that was goebbels. hitler's was this one:

    The big difference is Hitler and Goebbels thought about what the big lie should be. Trump seems to have absolutely no forethought on the matter what so ever. He just spews bullshit, reverses himself, spews more bullshit, reverses course again further bullshit. He changes course so often, flip flopper does even begin to describe it. He more of a pinwheel, spinning whichever way the wind is blowing at the moment.

    An recent example from the Washington post:

    Here are Donald Trump's teleprompter positions over the past month, from April 27 through May 27:

    —April 27: Pro. Uses a teleprompter while delivering a foreign policy speech.

    —May 2: Con. "I don't have any teleprompters...I'm up here all by myself."

    —May 20: Pro. "I've started to use [teleprompters] a little bit. They're not bad. You never get yourself in trouble when you use a teleprompter."

    —May 22: Con. Attacks Clinton because she "reads off a teleprompter, you notice. She's reading off a teleprompter, she always does."

    —May 24: Con. "We should have a law that when you run for president, you shouldn't be allowed to use a teleprompter."

    —May 26: Pro. Uses a teleprompter while delivering an energy policy speech in North Dakota.

    —May 27: Con. "Isn't it great when you don't use teleprompters? ...we oughta have a law that if you're running for president, you can't use teleprompters."

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any reason you refuse to source that quote? Could it be because if we see context it will show that was specifically about the FBI investigation?

    I linked the IG report.. DYOFR :D

    And yet I don't see you calling out lies of anyone with an "R" after their name. So much for being a political agnostic...

    I have, on several occasions.. Granted I don't do it EVERY time because, with ya'all around it would be very redundant.. :D

    And your own personal hypocrisy since the dawn of time..

    Yea, that's yer claim.. :D

    And if you prove to be an actual political agnostic, so will I...

    Really???

    OK, that photo of the guy I like to refer to as "RNC PR BS" (without the vowels, in other words) is freakin' hilarious!

    I don't say this to you often, but this proves you have a true independent heart (and not, as most assume, the dark heart of an uber-Republican). If you were just a GOP stooge, you never would have posted that link...
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/28/program-note-53/#comment-65775

    I await your concession... I'll be waiting forever, I am sure.. :D

    Kind of like what you insist on when a cop is accused of something?

    For example...?????

    You could see where someone could get confused exactly where ya'all stand... eh?? :D

    Indeed...

    I am glad we agree.... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another organization that will spend most of it's time sending people emails about the latest "threat" and asking for contributions. Big deal.

    Is that any different than Voucher Vendetta?

    OUCH...

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

    "Now yer just bein' nasty"
    -Indiana Jones, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

    A two-fer!!!! :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rut Roh...

    Bernie is testing his muscle.. :D

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-dnc-chairs-platform/index.html

    I can't see Clinton giving in..

    This is gonna be awesome!!! Pass the popcorn!!!! :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    -BashiBazouk (58)
    Good job.You are asking the right questions.
    Yes, it is different. Voucher Vendetta will not need to solicit contributions for much more than operating the website. The participants will send their contributions directly to the candidates of their choice, not to Voucher Vendetta.
    This will give the participants the ability to set their own agenda. It is specifically designed to be controlled from the bottom up, not the top down. If the participants decide that Voucher Vendetta as an organization should also spend some money on advertising it will be their decision so it won't require constant manufactured "threats" to encourage contributions.
    There is no need for Voucher Vendetta to be an unnecessary middleman siphoning off a percentage.
    Maybe that's why so many of the other organizations and people that claim to have the same goals are not interested in this approach.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When is the Name Hillary contest???

    You'll have to take that up with the proprietor, I suppose. :)

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I still haven't seen CA: CW but will in fairly short order, I hope ...

    Meanwhile, here's a great related piece that you may like ... I often wait for these excellent analyses before seeing the thing being analyzed. :)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/phasing-forward-captain-a_b_10158790.html

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I agree with Joshua ... your movement has a lot of potential but I really do think a name change is in order before it can take off ...

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The full, non-brief title of the Captain America piece is ... Phasing Forward: 'Captain America: Civil War' Proves A Smashing Departure in Marvel’s Big Novel for the Big Screen

    It's a real humdinger, as per usual.

  71. [71] 
    dsws wrote:

    What's really going to be hilarious about the whole Supreme Court nomination fight is when every single Republican who is now blathering on about how the next president deserves to fill the vacancy has to completely flip-flop in a hasty rush to confirm Garland during the lame-duck period -- to deny Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court pick.

    You really think they think the Democrats will get a majority (i.e. 60 seats, by Senate arithmetic) before there's a Republican president? It sounded to me as though they've made a firm commitment never to hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee as long as there's a Democrat doing the nominating, even if it means that SCOTUS runs out of living justices.

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz and Joshua-
    Thanks for the encouraging words. It does seem unanimous that the name needs to be changed.
    But for now- You don't go to war with the name you want, you go to war with the name you have.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But for now- You don't go to war with the name you want, you go to war with the name you have.

    Well, don't wait too long or a lot of your efforts may not be salvageable. I think Joshua and I, and others here in Weigantia really do wish you success with your efforts and we believe strongly that you must start with the right name!

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    On an unrelated note, is there someone around here who has been impersonating you?? ... just something that came up a while ago and I think never got answered ...

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I find it frustrating as all get out's that you claim that you are politically agnostic while defending the Far Right's actions by constantly deflecting from the current issue by arguing that a Democrat lied about something at some point in their life and questioning why we aren't still holding them accountable for their past actions. It doesn't matter that you have no evidence to show that we didn't hold that Democrat accountable at the time it occurred, you seem outraged that while discussing a current occurrence of dishonesty by a Republican that we failed to also mention how we are still equally upset that a Democrat lied about a completely unrelated topic 5 years ago! You seem astonished that we failed to mention these unrelated acts of dishonesty committed by individuals that have no direct correlation to the topic that we are currently discussing. Yet you aren't you as upset about the Republican's current lie as you seem to be that you are the only one who equates the two separate events as being somehow comparable and currently relevant. In fact, most of the time you won't comment on their dishonesty at all. It is clear that you recognize how wrong the Republicans actions were as it seems to be in direct correlation to the number of articles you offer up in deflection of the subject. You fault liberals for having double standards, which would make you one of the most liberal voices on here!

  76. [76] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Yea, great idea.. 40 year old men in the same bathroom with 13-14 year old girls..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong???"

    I would say it would be about the same as when you force some 40 year old men into the same bathroom with 13-14 year old boys as well...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    I find it frustrating as all get out's that you claim that you are politically agnostic while defending the Far Right's actions

    It's not a claim, it's a fact...

    As I mentioned to Bashi above, I DO bash the GOP on many occasions.. It's just that I don't do it as often as I do Democrats because, around here, it would be incredibly redundant..

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant', it says 'see redundant'.."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    by constantly deflecting from the current issue by

    What "current issue" are you referring to??

    arguing that a Democrat lied about something at some point in their life and questioning why we aren't still holding them accountable for their past actions.

    It's not that a Democrat lied.. Politicians ALWAYS lie...

    My point is that the Hysterical Left Wingery in general (and the majority of Weigantians specifically) are constantly harping on the lies of the GOP, but they give the Democrats a pass for the EXACT same actions..

    And it's not just the lying. It's EVERYTHING...

    Obama has killed thousands of more innocent civilians with his drone program than Bush EVER could... Obama's domestic surveillance programs are a Dick Cheney wet dream...

    Yet, there is absolutely ZERO (relatively speaking) blowback from the Left Wingery...

    It's not the lying that I constantly castigate...

    It's the hypocrisy...

    It doesn't matter that you have no evidence to show that we didn't hold that Democrat accountable at the time it occurred,

    No evidence??? Shurley, you jest... :D

    you seem outraged that while discussing a current occurrence of dishonesty by a Republican that we failed to also mention how we are still equally upset that a Democrat lied about a completely unrelated topic 5 years ago!

    Outraged is much too strong a word..

    Disappointed is probably more accurate...

    Yet you aren't you as upset about the Republican's current lie as you seem to be that you are the only one who equates the two separate events as being somehow comparable and currently relevant.

    Again, I have to ask.. What current Republican lie are you referring to??

    In fact, most of the time you won't comment on their dishonesty at all.

    As I said, I do often comment on the GOP dishonesty.. I just don't do it often because it would be redundant..

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant', it says 'see redundant'.."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    Get it?? "Redundant"?? I just quoted Robin Williams again... Get it??

    Wow... tough room.. :D

    It is clear that you recognize how wrong the Republicans actions were as it seems to be in direct correlation to the number of articles you offer up in deflection of the subject.

    It's not a deflection so much as it is a quest for fairness and no hypocrisy...

    You fault liberals for having double standards, which would make you one of the most liberal voices on here!

    I have always maintained that I *AM* one of the most liberal people in Weigantia because I respect ALL people's opinions and beliefs...

    I think a person has as much right to hate homosexuals as a person has a right to hate Republicans..

    Ya'all seem to feel that ONLY opinions and beliefs that match your own have any value..

    So yea.. Yer right. I *AM* the most liberal voice on here.. :D

    On another note...

    What did ya think of the Season Finale of SUPERNATURAL???

    :D

    Warning to others.. There MAY be spoilers...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would say it would be about the same as when you force some 40 year old men into the same bathroom with 13-14 year old boys as well...

    "You would!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

    Seriously, how can you equate the two???

    You see NO DIFFERENCE???

    Uhhh... Did you not have "the talk"???

    OK, so much for "seriously"... :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The full, non-brief title of the Captain America piece is ... Phasing Forward: 'Captain America: Civil War' Proves A Smashing Departure in Marvel’s Big Novel for the Big Screen

    It's a real humdinger, as per usual.

    Sounds like something I really will need to digest.. have to pursue it tomorrow..

    I'll let ya know when I read it.. :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all seem to feel that ONLY opinions and beliefs that match your own have any value..

    Notable exceptions noted... :D

    You see, that's exactly what I am talking about..

    I have annoyed many Weigantians with my blanket statements about "Ya'all" when I know for a fact that there ARE exceptions.. So, I have made an effort to note these exceptions when I break out my broad brushes..

    It's the exact same annoyance I have when Weigantians break out the broad brushes against the GOP, knowing damn good and well that Democrats are as guilty as Republicans and whatever current rant is under discussion..

    It doesn't take much...

    "I know, I know.. Democrats are as bad as Republicans when it comes to lying, but Republicans blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa"

    Ya'all do that and I won't have a THING to say regarding hypocrisy...

    It weakens the argument, sure... But it's factually accurate and it eliminates my biggest pet peeve...

    Hypocrisy...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's the exact same annoyance I have when Weigantians break out the broad brushes against the GOP, knowing damn good and well that Democrats are as guilty as Republicans and whatever current rant is under discussion..

    It's the exact same annoyance I have when Weigantians break out the broad brushes against the GOP, knowing damn good and well that Democrats are as guilty as Republicans AT whatever current rant is under discussion..

    My bust....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-27/why-recent-national-polls-should-worry-hillary-clinton

    As I said, it's not what the polls say that should keep Clinton up at night.

    It's what ALL the polls indicate..

    It's the momentum that Clan Clinton should worry about...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    arguing that a Democrat lied about something at some point in their life and questioning why we aren't still holding them accountable for their past actions.

    Why is the Left Wingery (and majority of Weigantians) still holding Bush and Cheney et al accountable for THEIR past actions??

    You get my point now?? :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Months after telling Hillary Clinton that Americans were “sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” Bernie Sanders may be changing his mind.

    Interviewed Friday on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, Sanders was asked if the furor over Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state had become large enough for the Vermont senator to reconsider his refusal to engage Clinton on the issue.

    “It has,” he said. “But this is what I also think: There is an enormous frustration on the part of the American people.”

    The State Department’s inspector general found in a report released this past week that the email setup violated department rules, that Clinton never sought permission for it, and that the proposal would have been rejected if she had. The report handed Clinton’s Republican opponents a fresh line of attack — and Sanders, too, if he chose to take it. Clinton’s competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination won praise at a candidates’ debate on October when he said, “Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.” At the time, his campaign used the comments in a fund-raising email.
    http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/may/28/sanders-says-clintons-email-situation-has-changed/

    Even Bernie realizes how damaging Clinton's private, insecure, home-brewed, hacked, bathroom closet email server was to the safety and security of this country...

    I have always wondered how Putin could so decimate the standing of Obama and the United States...

    Now we know... Putin had a direct pipeline into the SecState's office...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    liz (70,71)-
    I guess I am being a bit hypocritical in a way by saying it's not too late to start Voucher Vendetta now and then saying I don't want to change horses in midstream by changing the name now instead of after the election. In my defense, there is lot stuff out there with Voucher Vendetta on it, from emails to people like Ralph Nader and posts on places like Gary Hart's Matters of Principles Blog (if I remember correctly, that was your good suggestion) and the Revolt Against Plutocracy website.
    I must also confess that I was the impersonator. I wanted some other voice to second your excellent suggestion that CW give me a guest column, but did not want to appear to be tooting my own horn for that purpose. While that idea is completely at the discretion of CW, I would be happy with and appreciative of any mention in one of his columns that might help inform citizens that read and comment on his column at the Huffpost.
    It must be something with the name Donald that makes people pretend to be someone else to toot their horn.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Here's one more "reason" the Democrats should nominate Bernie over Hillary.
    If Hillary is elected in November, then the eight years of Obama will be the only time since 1992 that there was no bush in the oval office.

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OMG- it happened again!

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops. That should have been 1989- not 1992.
    Thank goodness that was someone else and not me making that mistake.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    "...'You'll have a great time, Bones. You'll enjoy your shore leave. You'll relax.' You call this relaxing? I'm a nervous wreck. I'm not careful, I'll end up talking to myself."
    -Dr Leonard "Bones" McCoy, STAR TREK V, THE FINAL FRONTIER

    :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if you want to have COURT LEVEL FACT as the standard, then you have to concede that Donald Trump is NOT a racist...

    If OUTSIDE OF TRIAL facts are sufficient for conviction, then you have to concede that Hillary is a liar...

    both arguments can legitimately be made.

    the converse is also true; if you want to have court level fact be the standard, hillary is not nearly as dishonest she's believed to be. if you want to allow claims that aren't substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt, then donald is a racist. both standards are acceptable, and it cuts both ways in both cases.

    regarding political fact-checking, here is a recent body of research on its political impact, collected on ballotpedia:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Academic_studies_of_political_fact-checking#2015

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    the converse is also true; if you want to have court level fact be the standard, hillary is not nearly as dishonest she's believed to be. if you want to allow claims that aren't substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt, then donald is a racist. both standards are acceptable, and it cuts both ways in both cases.

    Works for me..

    I am more than willing to admit that Trump COULD be a racist if you are willing to admit that Hillary COULD be a crook and a murderer...

    You game?? :D

    regarding political fact-checking, here is a recent body of research on its political impact, collected on ballotpedia:

    We're not talking about political fact-checking... We're talking about Politifact... :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    After latest email revelations and endless dishonesty, time for Hillary Clinton to head for the hills
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-latest-email-disaster-time-clinton-drop-article-1.2653391

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Keep in mind that the State Dept IG report is a DEMOCRAT report thru and thru..

    Not even a WHIFF of ANY "VRWC".....

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We're not talking about political fact-checking... We're talking about Politifact... :D

    ok, politifact is ballotpedia's first listing of the three major journalistic fact-checking organizations, winner of a pulitzer for journalism. their processes for selection of statements to rate and how ratings are reached are all published.

    https://ballotpedia.org/The_methodologies_of_fact-checking

    the only evidence provided by george mason is that a small selection of statements of democrats happen to be rated more true than a small selection of statements of republicans. those data contain no rationale or support for concluding any form of systemic bias.

    if you want to claim evidence of selection bias, you need to perform your own objective analysis of both the selection process and the content pool for selection. george mason did neither; they analyzed only the results, and only a small sample of those, then drew a conclusion, which is bad research irrespective of the politics.

    JL

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    if you want to claim evidence of selection bias, you need to perform your own objective analysis of both the selection process and the content pool for selection. george mason did neither; they analyzed only the results, and only a small sample of those, then drew a conclusion, which is bad research irrespective of the politics.

    Politifact rated as LIE a *JOKE* told by Ted Cruz...

    That tells me all I need to know about Politifact's Left Wing bias...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it was just George Mason, you would have a point..

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Politifact+Left+Wing+Bias

    But it's not, so... Well you know the rest.. :D

    And yes, Bashi... This is another instance of me using a Google Search as reference..

    So, that's twice...

    "Ya got me.. Ya got The Tater..."
    -Ron White

    :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    one statement is a VERY small sample size on which to base a claim of bias.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    one statement is a VERY small sample size on which to base a claim of bias.

    Probably..

    :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so... what was the joke?

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    one statement is a VERY small sample size on which to base a claim of bias.

    But if you can explain how that ONE statement is NOT a blatant example of bias...

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

    :D

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    so... what was the joke?

    "Here, we have Thanksgiving, we have Christmas, we have the 4th of July. Every year in Iran, they celebrate Death To America Day."

    Fairly funny, but obviously a joke...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that doesn't read like a joke to me. if so, it's in incredibly poor taste.

    If it was just George Mason, you would have a point..

    it doesn't matter how many examples you can find, unless the research methods are better. find someone who analyzed the selection process or the content pool and found objective bias. otherwise it's bad research no matter who does it.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    that doesn't read like a joke to me. if so, it's in incredibly poor taste.

    Regardless, it's OBVIOUSLY not a serious statement...

    At least, it's obvious to someone not out to serve a partisan biased agenda...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    joke or not, the statement has some truth in it. iran actually does have an annual traditional anti-american celebration. whether or not it was in jest, cruz's statement was an exaggeration of a real, verifiable annual event.

    JL

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    furthermore, politifact contacted the cruz campaign before publishing anything, as is their global policy. the campaign defended the statement as factual and did not claim that it was said in jest.

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    politifact's very first criterion for selection of statements is, "Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable?" the answer to that question is YES.

    But if you can explain how that ONE statement is NOT a blatant example of bias...

    the statement's selection was not biased because it was based on a claim that (crazy as it may seem) was verifiably true. the statement's rating was not biased because the campaign itself made the mistake of telling politifact to take it seriously.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    joke or not, the statement has some truth in it. iran actually does have an annual traditional anti-american celebration. whether or not it was in jest, cruz's statement was an exaggeration of a real, verifiable annual event.

    It was a joke..

    But you prove my point for me..

    Like Politicfact, you search for ANY string, no matter how tenuous, that allows the GOP to be slammed down..

    If you (and Politifact) would be equally meticulously nit-picky to try and nail the Left Wingery with equal fervor, then there wouldn't be any charges of bias..

    But they (and you) don't.....

    In short, Politifact has one set of standards of proof for the Right Wingery and a different set of standards of proof for the Left Wingery..

    For the Right ANY tenuous connection is sufficient..

    For the Left, it MUST be ironclad, court-room PROOF....

    And here we come back full circle.. :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    the statement's selection was not biased because it was based on a claim that (crazy as it may seem) was verifiably true.

    And yet, Politifact rated it as a "MOSTLY UNTRUE"....

    So, which is it??

    Either Politifact took a joke and rated it as "MOSTLY UNTRUE"....

    Or Politifact took something that a GOP'er said that was "verifiably true" and rated it as MOSTLY UNTRUE...

    Either way, it PROVES the bias that Politifact has against the Right...

    Politifact is NOT a good source for political fact checking... It's Left Wing bias is obvious and well documented...

    One might as well point to DailyKOS or HuffPoo as verification...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Like Politicfact, you search for ANY string, no matter how tenuous, that allows the GOP to be slammed down..

    what? WHAT??? the fact underlying the statement was true, but the statement itself was untrue. how difficult a concept is that to grasp? your attempt to impeach politifact as biased is mystifying in its complete lack of logic or rationale.

    JL

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    the fact underlying the statement was true, but the statement itself was untrue.

    So, it was true, but not PERFECTLY true... :D

    That's my point...

    Would Politifact equivocate and nit-pick so much for a Left Winger???

    No... It must be IRON-CLAD COURT ROOM proof, if it's a Left Winger..

    Right Winger??? "Well, it's true, but not COMPLETELY true..."

    :D

    Michale...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Hillary does it, it's called "lawyerly evasions"...

    When a GOP'er does it, it's called "LYING"....

    You see the point???

    Need an example??

    Look at the above comments...

    Hillary blatantly lies and you equivocate and mitigate up the arse...

    Would you put so much effort into explaining away GOP lies???

    Of course not... Because those are "real" lies, right??? :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just ask yourself one question..

    Has anyone every, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended Bush when he was accused of lying about WMDS..

    NO...

    Has anyone every, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended ANY Republican when they are accused of lying...

    NO....

    Given these FACTS, how can ANYONE here claim NOT to be biased???

    OK, that's two questions..

    "You know, Harry, there are only, uh, five words, I want to hear from you right now and those words are: 'you know A.J., I really look up to you, you been a hero of mine for sometime, and I'm really impressed with your work and I'm emotionally closed off'... OK, that's like - I dunno, that's like eleven words or something. You know what how bout just, 'A.J., I'm sorry and I love you?' "
    Ben Affleck, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone every, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended Bush when he was accused of lying about WMDS..

    NO...

    Has anyone every, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended ANY Republican when they are accused of lying...

    NO....

    Allow me to rephrase...

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended Bush when he was accused of lying about WMDS..

    NO...

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended ANY Republican when they are accused of lying...

    NO....

    That's what I get for typing without the required # of beers... :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would Politifact equivocate and nit-pick so much for a Left Winger???

    YES.

    politifact explicitly doesn't look at who made a factual statement when considering its degree truth, and probably read it rather than hearing it. if a statement is nitpicked, that's a function of the statement itself, not who said it. everybody's statements are nitpicked, that's what fact checkers do.

    ted cruz's "death to america day" comment, although based on a true fact (which is the reason why it was rated at all), was generally inaccurate in every other respect, and his campaign when prompted did not suggest any mitigating factors such as a joking tone. the statement was thus rated "mostly false." claims of bias smell a lot like sour grapes.

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended Bush when he was accused of lying about WMDS..

    yes, me.

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended ANY Republican when they are accused of lying...

    yes, me.

    When Hillary does it, it's called "lawyerly evasions"...
    When a GOP'er does it, it's called "LYING"....

    that's because she's better than they are at misleading without lying (i.e. being a politician).

    JL

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    "The presidential campaign of Donald Trump has largely been a policy-free, fact-free, detail-free event, based on emotion (especially fear), pandering to shallow slogans (“Make America Great”), and the aggressive personal and ad hominem abuse of his Republican and Democratic opponents."

    Sums it up. So, are we going to be led by a clown voted for by the "feelies"?

    Sanders needs to understand "math" and dump his personality cult for reality.

    Time for the grown ups.

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fantasy world of the Republicans has been easily exposed by Politifact and other fact checking organizations.

    That isn't the problem, the problem is that Republicans don't care about the truth. As evidence I put into the record their Presidential nominee - whose relationship with the truth is hilariously sad.

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re: Point 7

    Trump probably thinks that everybody follows him on Twitter. Sadly a lot of his 8.2M followers probably fall into one of the following (sorry) groups:

    1. Reality star fans whose interest in politics is probably distributed in a similar fashion to the general public at best. Probably more like the interest in politics displayed by a similar group who follow "The Situation" (my pick for Trump's VP candidate BTW - "Trump-The Situation 2016!")

    2. Trumpistas who just want to laugh at his latest cheap shot put down

    3. Media who need easy material

    4. Trump haters who need easy material

    5. Serious voters who want to be informed by his 140 character important policy positions.

    I'll let you decide what percentage are 1-4 vs. 5

    My guess 99.9%-0.1% - which, oddly enough (it is close to Towel Day so I'm allowed one HHGTTG vague allusion) is the same percentage who will suffer from his "policies".

    #VogonsForTrump

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SIGN A WHITE HOUSE PETITION FOR MEMORIAL DAY!

    ... to create a national day of celebration of America's living symbol of freedom, the bald eagle!

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/american-eagle-dayan-official-national-day-celebrate-our-living-symbol-freedomthe-bald-eagle

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, don't forget to check out the eaglets, Freedom and Liberty, in their idyllic DC nest, near the White House, as they get set to fledge, otherwise known as 'flyin' the coop'. Heh.

    http://dceaglecam.eagles.org/

  120. [120] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Fairly funny, but obviously a joke...

    I'm going to call complete and utter bullshit on this one. You are parroting pure right wing bias and spin.

    Here is the full quote for context:

    That was not the most notable part of that article. It got the most attention, but it wasn’t the most notable part. The most notable part of that article was it quoted the same senior White House advisor as gleefully stating that he believed that the White House had successfully delayed Israel from acting for so long that there was now nothing Israel could do to prevent Iran “from acquiring a nuclear weapons arsenal.” I believe fundamentally President Obama and his senior team does not understand the nature of the regime. I believe they think it is perfectly acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons and engage in containment. And they don’t appreciate the radical religious zealotry. Here are a couple of just simple facts about the Iranian regime. Number one, the man who’s considered the father of the Iranian nuclear program, a man who’s no longer with us because he has since met his maker, and involuntarily, I might note, had written into his last will and testament that he wanted the following words printed on his gravestone. Here lies a man who sought to annihilate Israel. Think for a second about the hatred, the animosity that is seething through someone who writes a statement like that. Last year, Khamenei, in 2014, speaking to a large crowd in Tehran, said falsely, America is the greatest human rights abuser on the face of the planet. The crowd responded by chanting in unison death to America. And indeed, every day, or every year, rather, Iran celebrates as a holiday what they call death to America day. That’s an actual holiday in Iran. Here, we have Thanksgiving, we have Christmas, we have the 4th of July. Every year in Iran, they celebrate death to America day, which is the anniversary of Iran in the 1970s taking Americans hostage. There is a reason Iran calls Israel the little Satan and America the great Satan. And I believe neither President Obama nor his team understand that these are theocratic zealots whose religious extremism and radical Islamic theology makes the risk of their using a nuclear weapon to murder millions unacceptably high.

    And for some real shits and giggles here is the full transcript, with audio.

    Not even the slightest hint of humor unless you count mispronouncing Khamenei funny...

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the scariest thing about that quote to me is the kernel of truth behind it. iran's government really does celebrate the anniversary of the 1979 hostage taking, and really does stage rallies at which "death to america" is still recited by hard-liners as a traditional chant.

    the claim was rated mostly false because it's not a national calendar holiday like thanksgiving or christmas, and because it's not actually called "death to america day." but the fact that the hostage-taking and "death to america" chanting is still officially celebrated at all is a serious concern.

    cruz was wrong on the details, but the general sentiment is accurate, and it's a valid concern.

    JL

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended Bush when he was accused of lying about WMDS..

    yes, me.

    Has anyone here ever, with great equivocation and mitigation, defended ANY Republican when they are accused of lying...

    yes, me.

    Has anyone else???

    NO...

    that's because she's better than they are at misleading without lying (i.e. being a politician).

    Misleading without lying?? :D

    Do you comprehend how utterly ridiculous that sounds?? :D

    So, what you are saying is that her INTENT is to lie, but she does it in such a way as to be able to SPIN it that it's not really a lie.

    And you think this is a GOOD quality in a person??

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    cruz was wrong on the details, but the general sentiment is accurate, and it's a valid concern.

    And if a DEM would have said it, Politifact would have rated it "MOSTLY TRUE"...

    :D

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fantasy world of the Republicans has been easily exposed by Politifact and other fact checking organizations.

    Exactly!!

    Politifact goes after Republicans and supports the Democrat agenda...

    Which is what I have been saying...

    Thank you, Neil... :D

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm going to call complete and utter bullshit on this one. You are parroting pure right wing bias and spin.

    Yea, just as you called BS on my political agnosticity... And I proved you wrong there...

    So...... :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump probably thinks that everybody follows him on Twitter. Sadly a lot of his 8.2M followers probably fall into one of the following (sorry) groups:

    WOW... To paraphrase Darth Vader...

    "The penis-envy is strong with this one.."

    :D

    Can't wait ta see how ya'all react when Trump wins the election... :D

    I am actually kind of hoping that Director Comey DOESN'T recommend that Hillary be indicted...

    Because she will likely be forced from the race and Biden will replace her...

    Biden actually has a better than even chance of beating Trump..

    Hillary?? She is a guaranteed loser... :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's time for Michale's Monday Morning Media Roundup.... :D

    Nancy Regg, a spokeswoman for Rolling Thunder, said the group had invited Mr. Trump to appear. The group did not extend an invitation to Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders, she said.

    Richard McFadden, 58, an annual Rolling Thunder attendee from North Carolina, said Mrs. Clinton would not have been welcome.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/politics/donald-trump-and-bikers-share-affection-at-rolling-thunder-rally.html?_r=0

    Ya'all just don't get it.. Patriotic Americans just don't like Hillary Clinton...

    :D

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the Moronic Liberals department:

    Cincinnati Zoo's killing of gorilla to rescue 4-year-old boy sparks outrage
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/30/cincinnati-zoos-killing-gorilla-to-rescue-4-year-old-boy-sparks-outrage.html?intcmp=hphz10

    Yea, let's let the big monkey kill a 4yr old kid... :^/

    One especially moronic moron said that the gorilla was "murdered"...

    Jeeze, where does the Democrat Party FIND these imbeciles??? :^/

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:
  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:
  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:
  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton Struggles to Find Footing in Unusual Race

    For now, her aides appear to be throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks, including trying out different monikers after the Democratic National Committee’s “Dangerous Donald” flopped. An internal favorite is “Poor Donald,” with its implication that Mr. Trump, famously defensive about his net worth, is not nearly as wealthy as he lets on.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    Hmmmmm So Klan Clinton is going with the derisive nickname idea..

    Wherever could she have gotten such an idea!???

    Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery... :D

    Klan Clinton can't come up with their own plans, so they adopt Trump's..

    No wonder Klan Hillary is foundering... :D

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton does have a clear path to win the election, I grant you that...

    How Hillary Loses
    Donald Trump can actually win if Clinton makes these four mistakes. Spoiler alert: She’s already making all of them.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924#ixzz4A8bkN6Z2

    But she ALSO has a clear path to lose as well..

    Free Trade is killing Hillary.. It's turning every Union voter into a Trump voter...

    Hillary can't win without Independents and she can't win without the Unions..

    Hillary's path to LUSER is a LOT clearer and a LOT easier than her path to a win..

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poor polls, scandal, a cussed rival … how it’s all going wrong for Hillary Clinton
    She was expected to be the clear frontrunner for the presidency. But after a terrible week, Hillary Clinton is still trading blows with Bernie Sanders as the Donald Trump menace grows.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/28/hillary-clinton-us-presidential-electiond-democrats

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    hen came a damning report by an independent inspector at the Department of State, who contradicted her claims that she had been allowed to use a private email server for official business while serving as the nation’s chief diplomat.

    JL, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you ever addressed Clinton's lie about having permission and authorization to run her insecure, hackable, home-brewed, bathroom closet email server...

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another surprise blow to team Clinton last week was new opinion polling in California, where the penultimate and largest Democratic primary takes place on 7 June. It shows Sanders virtually neck and neck among voters and has forced Clinton to schedule extra appearances to try to avoid the humiliating prospect of winning the national nomination race on the same day as she loses the largest state.

    To make matters worse, Sanders responded to Clinton’s decision to pull out of a scheduled televised debate by taking up a (since also rescinded) offer to face Donald Trump instead. Though establishment Democrats fume at the disloyalty of such a stunt, few doubt it would draw giant audiences.

    I really think Trump made a mistake in wimping out of that debate... He REALLY could have made some huge splinters in the Democrat side of the race.. Especially if he tanked the debate and made Sanders the clear winner...

    That would have REALLY fouled up the Democrat Party... :D

    As I see it, there are only 2 possibilities..

    1. By doing the debate, something much much worse could have happened that negated any benefit..

    or

    B. Trump IS going to debate and is just waiting til it's closer to 7 Jun..

    The following takes place on the day of the California Presidential Primary

    :D

    I am betting on number B.... :D

    Somewhat less attention was drawn to the final shock news last week: a federal investigation into campaign contributions to long-time Clinton confidant and the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe. With the FBI now investigating both the candidate and an elected official with perhaps the closest ties to her family, Trump may yet have more ammunition for his “crooked Clinton” taunts than even he expected.

    Clinton Corrupts And Absolute Clinton Corrupts Absolutely...

    Yea, it fits....

    :D

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Jamieson, who founded FactCheck.org to help hold politicians to account, is scathing of the tactics adopted by team Clinton over the emails, which she believes distorts the degree to which the rules have changed since previous secretaries of state were in office. “[Clinton] is making the best she can of it, but she is doing it by misrepresenting the facts. It would be smarter not to offer misleading inferences,” she says.

    Ya see???

    When a GOP'er does it, it's "LYING"...

    When a Democrat does it, it's "misleading inferences"...

    Again, to paraphrase Darth Vader..

    "The hysterical partisan bias is strong with this one"

    :D

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus endith this edition of MMMMR... :D

    We'll be back next week..

    Same bat time Same bat channel...

    "And I'm spent.."
    -Austin Powers

    :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Again, technically not a lie. More like a loophole. And yes, the ability to mislead without technically lying is very important in politics, doubly so in diplomacy. One of many reasons why a good politician who is also a good person is rare as unicorns. Gandhi and Mandela are the only two i can think of for sure. For the u.s. i think Lincoln and MAYBE Ike.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    What ya'all don't seem to understand is that Trump is running an INDEPENDENT campaign with a stolen GOP Banner...

    And THAT is why ya'all should be quaking in yer boots in fear...

    A General Election is a three part election..

    REPUBLICANS... 30%

    DEMOCRATS.... 30%

    INDEPENDENTS... 40%

    Trump has locked up the Republicans AND the Independents....

    He can't lose....

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm on a school trip today, so expect long delays between replies. Happy Memorial day.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, technically not a lie. More like a loophole.

    How do you figure??

    Hillary claimed she had authorization and permission to run her insecure, hackable, home-brewed, bathroom closet email server...

    The State IG report stated she DIDN'T have permission or authorization.. The FAM forbade it..

    So, how is that technically the truth???

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm on a school trip today,

    Lucky you... Schools out here in these parts...

    so expect long delays between replies. Happy Memorial day.

    No worries.. I'll be here all day.. :D

    I have no life.. :D

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Happy Memorial Day to you as well... :D

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Read the statement more carefully. It IMPLIES things that are untrue, but doesn't explicitly lie. It's sort of the opposite of Cruz's statement; he was wrong on all the details but at the heart of it was a true fact. Clinton's statement on her emails was technically accurate but left a misleading impression.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    The aggressive driving unit of the Palm Beach County police department in Florida ticketed a woman for going 51 mph in a 20 mph school zone. But when the officer pulled her over for allegedly speeding she tried to get out of the ticket and shockingly told the cops, "This is why you people get shot."

    Must be a Hillary voter... :^/

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read the statement more carefully. It IMPLIES things that are untrue, but doesn't explicitly lie.

    How does it imply???

    Let's see if we can agree on what was actually said..

    Hillary has stated over and over again that she had permission and authorization to use her insecure, hackable, home-brewed, bathroom closet email server...

    Do we agree on this??

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    When a GOP'er does it, it's "LYING"...

    When a Democrat does it, it's "misleading inferences"...

    And this is why Trump is so popular and will win the election..

    The vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of political correctness..

    Trump calls a spade a spade...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm (112)-
    The "math" you want Bernie supporters to acknowledge is fuzzy math. Neither Bernie or Hillary will get enough elected delegates secure the nomination in the primaries. The superdelegates will decide the nomination.
    That is the system that is in place now, right or wrong. It is equally hypocritical for both sides to complain about the other side getting the nomination through superdelegates just as both sides have chosen to ignore or refer to polls depending on whether or not it would "prove" their point.
    As for the "It's time for the grown ups" comment, you are correct.
    It's time for citizens to stop acting like scared little children cowering under the covers every time somebody frightens them with the boogeyman.
    It's time for citizens to grow a pair, act like an adult and stand up to the bullies.
    It's time to stop eating the soylent green while waiting in your pen to be slaughtered.
    We survived 8 years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. 4-8 years of Trump or Hillary will not be productive, but it will not be the end of the world.
    But those of us that have grown up understand that sometimes it is necessary to endure some short term pain in order to achieve long term gain. We understand that if we succumb to fear and vote for Hillary or Trump to prevent the other that we will only ensure that the choice in the next election will be even worse.
    So if you support Hillary because you really support Hillary, by all means support her. But if you support Hillary because you are afraid of Trump, don't try to pass yourself off as the grown up.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "math" you want Bernie supporters to acknowledge is fuzzy math. Neither Bernie or Hillary will get enough elected delegates secure the nomination in the primaries. The superdelegates will decide the nomination.

    In other words, it's the DEMOCRATS who are going to have a contested convention.. :D

    Ya just GOTS to love the irony, eh?? :D

    So if you support Hillary because you really support Hillary, by all means support her. But if you support Hillary because you are afraid of Trump, don't try to pass yourself off as the grown up

    Ouch...

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

    :D

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yea, just as you called BS on my political agnosticity... And I proved you wrong there...

    Did you? Who is the more independent thinker, the one who takes any old quote and allegation about it as gospel if it fits there political bias or one who tracts down the original source to see if the allegations are true?

    Jeeze, where does the Democrat Party FIND these imbeciles??? :^/

    Takes one to know one if you are going to try and pin PETA on the democratic party...

  152. [152] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Trump calls a spade a spade...

    Then he backs it up a bit in the evening and calls a spade some sort of shovel. By morning he has tweeted that a spade is really a rake...

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... and, to continue your thought, Bashi ... it doesn't seem to matter with the people who are inclined to support him.

    So, why bother wasting any breath over it anymore. I say focus on the issues and let the chips fall where they may.

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[146]

    Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading that!

    A breath of fresh air, as they say ...

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ouch...

    Really, Michale? Does the truth hurt that much or are you just becoming a tad hypersensitive? Say it ain't so!

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    The "math" you want Bernie supporters to acknowledge is fuzzy math. Neither Bernie or Hillary will get enough elected delegates secure the nomination in the primaries. The superdelegates will decide the nomination.

    It isn't anything like as simple as that, so the math does work.

    Let's say that there are no superdelegates:

    Hillary: 1769
    Bernie: 1499
    Outstanding: 783

    Total: 4051
    Needed to win: 2026

    % Hillary needs to win: 33%
    % Bernie needs to win: 67% <--- Math

    With superdelegates:

    Hillary: 2310
    Bernie: 1542
    Outstanding: 913

    Total: 4765
    Needed to win: 2383

    % Hillary needs to win: 8%
    % Bernie needs to win: 92% <--- Even worse Math (for Bernie)

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really, Michale? Does the truth hurt that much or are you just becoming a tad hypersensitive? Say it ain't so!

    *I* am not hurt by it at all..

    But Neil sure took a shot.. :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... and, to continue your thought, Bashi ... it doesn't seem to matter with the people who are inclined to support him.

    As it was with Obama..

    What's the point???

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, just as you called BS on my political agnosticity... And I proved you wrong there...

    Did you?

    Yes, I did.. :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    neilm wrote:

    So if you support Hillary because you really support Hillary, by all means support her. But if you support Hillary because you are afraid of Trump, don't try to pass yourself off as the grown up.

    I support Hillary because she is the only one with viable policies. Bernie's read like a happy list of things a kid would buy if he got a hold of daddy's credit card but didn't understand that there is a monthly bill attached to it.

    Trump is a moron whose only schtick is middle-school-level insults.

    Hillary is a pragmatic policy wonk - boring I know (she doesn't insult everybody like Trump or play Santa like Bernie), but boring and effective is what I want. Entertainment is for the Opera House or the Symphony Hall ... or TV if you are into that sort of thing ;)

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary is a pragmatic policy wonk - boring I know (she doesn't insult everybody like Trump or play Santa like Bernie), but boring and effective is what I want.

    Yea??

    Let's ask Tyrone Woods, Glen Dourhety, Sean Smith or Chris Stevens how "effective" Hillary is..

    Oh wait.. We can't.. Their all dead.. Killed by Hillary's "effective"ness...

    How are things in Libya???

    How are things in Syria???

    How are things with Russia???

    About the ONLY thing that Hillary is "effective" at is dodging sniper fire in Bosnia...

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump calls a spade a spade...

    Hillary would call it a "garden implement for inverting earth" ;)

    Bernie would want to know if it was a 1% Shovel so he could blame it for the demise of farmyard horses.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Takes one to know one if you are going to try and pin PETA on the democratic party...

    Is PETA predominantly Democratic or Republican?

    Best Answer: Democrat. Thinking that the well being of animals and the environment is more important than the well being of humans is a predominately Democratic viewpoint.

    They are not democratic at all. They are fascist.

    PETA is a far left socialist group. Their ideals of using violence to control the behavior of private citizens is unamerican and consistent with democrat far left activism.

    Ask most PETA members who they associate with as a party and they will say democrat, or green, or communist.

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209083911AAoIT3M

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong???

    Nit pick away... :D

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    Still fuzzy math. With or without superdelegates it takes 2383 to win, not 2026.
    With superdelegates Hillary still only has 1799 committed delegates. There is nothing that prevents any superdelegate from switching to Bernie if they decide he is the best opportunity to beat Trump and bring many of his supporters that will not vote for Hillary into the party rather than nominate Hillary and give them a reason to vote for Trump, Stein or writing in Bernie.
    It is true that Bernie will not accomplish everything he advocates, neither will Hillary. But I prefer to set goals that can improve the situation rather than settle from the start for minimizing the damage.
    Hillary is a sell out pretending to be pragmatic. Bernie took the pragmatic choice to run as Democrat, yet he is derided and treated as an interloper for not running as an independent.
    If boring and effective is what you want you are backing the wrong horse. Unless the effective you are looking for is more of the same shilling for the corporate interests that Hillary serves.
    The bill from Hillary will be paid by average citizens while the corporate interests collect the benefits. So go ahead and support her- if you're into that sort of thing.

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's the point???

    I thought I made it clear.

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless the effective you are looking for is more of the same shilling for the corporate interests that Hillary serves.
    The bill from Hillary will be paid by average citizens while the corporate interests collect the benefits. So go ahead and support her- if you're into that sort of thing.

    Exactly...

    Hillary epitomizes the status quo...

    That's what cracks me up about Hillary supporters..

    They complain about money in politics, they complain about the 1% getting richer, they complain about the middle class disappearing, they complain about war-mongering....

    They complain about ALL of that and so much more....

    Yet they are supporting the candidate who EPITOMIZES ALL of that and who guarantees not only that it will continue, but will actually GROW..

    That's the logic that escapes me...

    That people actually WANT Hillary even though she represents EVERYTHING they claim to hate...

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    And if you want some more Math:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

    #BoredWithBernie

  168. [168] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong???

    Do ever get tired of playing the imbecile? Ask yahoo, really? And I thought proof by google search page was bad. You have out done your self...

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    You can vote any way you want, but all states will fall into one of the following three categories:

    1. Already decided for Hillary (CA, WA, NY, etc.)
    2. Already decided for Trump (TX, MS, AL, etc.)
    3. In play for either Hillary or Trump (FL, OH, etc.)

    If you want to change the situation, you as an individual may be far more powerful than you think, but it doesn't involve voting for somebody who, in a first-past-the-post two horse race basically doesn't count (sad, but true).

    Read this: https://goplifer.com/2016/05/28/the-voter-participation-powerslide/

    You will see that the choices we have for president on the Republican side, with the exception a wildcard like Trump, are built from the bottom up.

    You can spend the time and effort and be one of the people who takes the Democratic Party to crazy land, just like the Republican party has been.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ever get tired of playing the imbecile? Ask yahoo, really? And I thought proof by google search page was bad. You have out done your self...

    Do you have ANY evidence that PETA is NOT primarily made up of Democrats??

    No??

    Didn't think so..

    The fact that PETA is predominantly a Democrat filled organization stands until you have ANY evidence to the contrary...

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the logic that escapes me...

    That people actually WANT Hillary even though she represents EVERYTHING they claim to hate...

    So, either those people actually LIKE those things...

    Or they feel that WINNING is more important than those things...

    Either way, it doesn't say much for the principles of those people...

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Our candidates, especially in the GOP, are utterly disconnected from the will of the voting public for one painfully simple reason – voters do not matter very much in our political system. They never have. That’s not how our system was designed."

    From: https://goplifer.com/2016/05/28/the-voter-participation-powerslide/

    The 1% who influence the choices that the voters have are not the 1% in wealth terms, but the 1% who paid attention to, and participated in, local politics on a Thursday evening in January of 2013. And again the next week. They are the people who decide who we get to vote for.

    The Democratic Party is basically a center-right party at the moment in Western democracy terms. This is because, using the same scale, the Republican Party is whack-a-doodle off the right of the scale.

    It only makes sense that the Democratic Party inhabits the center where most of the votes are, and isn't on the left wing fringes with Bernie (there is a reason Bernie is an independent, and it isn't because he is staking out center territory between the Democrats and the Republicans. Hillary's campaign is a clear indication (she is beating Bernie by over 3 million votes) that she is appealing to this center.

    If you want the Democratic Party to swerve to the left, read the article above and participate. You can do it.

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do ever get tired of playing the imbecile?

    He isn't playing, so he can't get tired.

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ironically for Chris Christie, it will probably be New Jersey that puts Hillary over the top in delegates in the Democratic Race:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-will-likely-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-in-new-jersey/

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    He isn't playing, so he can't get tired.

    THANK you.... :D

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's the point???

    I thought I made it clear.

    The point I THINK you were making is that Trump supporters ae bad because he can commit a murder on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still support him..

    If that IS your point, then I could make the same point about Obama supporters and be just as accurate...

    That's why I wondered if that was, indeed, your point..

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Already decided for Hillary (CA, WA, NY, etc.)

    And yet, Hillary is likely to lose California to Bernie... And, with BERNIE OR BUST......

    Don't count CA in Hillary's column just yet...

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can Democrats Avoid the Circular Firing Squad?

    A couple of months ago, it appeared that the Republican presidential field was a fragmented fratricidal mess, with party disarray and deadlock on display all the way to the Cleveland Convention. The Democrats, meanwhile, were on track to an early nomination and party unity.

    Things didn’t quite work out that way. Hillary Clinton could still lock up the nomination by the last primaries on June 14, but not without relying on super-delegates. Here are the numbers:

    Clinton has 1,769 pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries, out of 2,310 delegates required for nomination. There are 913 yet to be awarded in the last round of primaries. To go over the top before the convention, not counting super-delegates, Clinton needs to win 541 more delegates, or well over half. But with Sanders surging nearly everywhere, that seems extremely unlikely.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/can-democrats-avoid-the-circular-firing-squad_b_10200286.html?

    Hillary is toast... :D

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some of you say even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all.

    I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.

    Hmmmmmmm Who has articulated this concept before??? :D

    Why, I think it was me!!!! :D

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    Anyone who doesn't think that Trump has a good chance to win..... ????

    Well, just let me say that De Nile is NOT just a river in Egypt...

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The fact that PETA is predominantly a Democrat filled organization stands until you have ANY evidence to the contrary...

    I would point you to your own proof on the matter. According to what you posted, they are mostly left leaning but some right with members belonging to Democrats, Greens, communists but also Fascists. Looks like PETA does not belong to a particular party but is outside the party system. Now who here matches that description? And tried to hammer it home ad nauseam?

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would point you to your own proof on the matter. According to what you posted, they are mostly left leaning but some right with members belonging to Democrats, Greens, communists but also Fascists.

    Like I said.. ALL Democrats.. :D

    You can argue what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..

    But to argue that PETA is not predominantly a LEFT WING AKA DEMOCRAT organization.... Well, that's just fantasy...

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:
  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of morons, where were this boy's parents or guardians?

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of morons, where were this boy's parents or guardians?

    No doubt that the parents have more than their share of culpability...

    Moron status?? Maybe...

    But should the kid be allowed to be killed because their parents are morons???

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    WORRIED:Clinton adds more campaign stops to avert a Sanders upset in California.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/30/clinton-adds-more-campaign-stops-to-avert-a-sanders-upset-in-california/

    Clinton is worried..

    Ya'all should be too... :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But should the kid be allowed to be killed because their parents are morons???

    no

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    PETA is about as non-partisan as you are.

    JL

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    PETA is about as non-partisan as you are.

    Despite all the facts to the contrary... :D

    I get it.. When PETA does something stoopid (which is a LOT), the Left Wingery wants to disavow all relationship...

    But PETA is vastly predominantly Liberals and Liberals are vastly predominantly Democrats....

    Ergo, PETA is vastly predominantly a Democrat organization...

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    But should the kid be allowed to be killed because their parents are morons???

    no

    Exactly...

    The malfeasance of the parents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not the gorilla should have been taken down...

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    how could anyone possibly prove that factually false? it's a statement of preference, i.e. opinion. opinions, unlike facts, can't be proven true or false.

    And yet, the statement, I WELCOME DEBATE ON THE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE ISSUE was CHRISWEIGANT.COM's LIE OF THE YEAR

    How do you explain that??? :D

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    but knowing that it was a lie and proving that it was a lie are two very different things.

    And here we are back to the different standards for GOP and DEM...

    We're NOT talking about COURT ROOM PROOF here...

    If we KNOW it was a lie (which you just implied we do) then THAT is all that is required...

    Please settle on a standard of proof and stick with it..

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    politifact explicitly doesn't look at who made a factual statement when considering its degree truth, and probably read it rather than hearing it. if a statement is nitpicked, that's a function of the statement itself, not who said it. everybody's statements are nitpicked, that's what fact checkers do.

    Prove it... :D

    Show me where Politifact nit-picked and equivocated with a DEM statement...

    You can't because it doesn't happen..

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    And MORE reason for Hillary (and ya'all) to be worried..

    Hillary's ObamaCare problem

    ObamaCare premiums are expected to rise more sharply than they have in previous years, and Republicans are seizing on the issue for electoral advantage.
    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/281579-hillarys-obamacare-problem

    Once again proving how Hillary is a completely flawed candidate..

    Only Bernie has a chance of actually winning the White House for the Democrat Party.

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton did not want her e-mails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress, and that’s why she set up a home-brew server. I think we all know that. People around her will tell you that in private if you really get them behind a closed door.
    I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials, and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall because of this distrust factor. And, indeed, Trump has a similar problem. But she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

    -Carl Bernstein

    Hillary lied about why she set up a private, insecure, home-brew, hackable, bathroom closet email server..

    Hillary's judgement is questionable at best..

    This disqualifies her for the office of POTUS...

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said above, Independents are going to decide this election. At 40% of the electorate, Independents/NPAs are going to have the final say...

    Overwhelmingly (almost 70%) NPAs say that Hillary is "untrustworthy"....

    It's also very telling that there was no official IG in the State Dept during Hillary's tenure there. Clinton had maneuvered a family friend into a caretaker position as State Dept IG... Someone that Clinton could control...

    No matter how ya'all want to spin it, Hillary is in real trouble..

    And that's WITHOUT the FBI recommendation that is due out any day now...

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, even DRUDGE is being a moron today..

    MURDERED GORILLA SEEN 'PROTECTING' CHILD

    "Murder" is a legal term that doesn't apply to animals..

    In other words, an animal cannot be "MURDERED"....

    THINK, PEOPLE!!!

    A perfect example of hysterical emotionalism instead of cold hard objective facts...

    Michale...

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as Krongard indicated, the May 25 IG report clearly stated that Rice did not use personal email for government business. It said Powell used personal email on a limited basis to connect with people outside the department, and he worked with the State Department to secure the system. The report found Clinton did neither.

    The report concluded Clinton’s use of a private server and account was not approved, and broke agency rules. The report said by the time she became secretary, the rules had repeatedly been updated, and were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/31/former-state-dept-watchdog-debunks-central-clinton-email-claim.html?intcmp=hpcmt

    Well, now we have heard from a GOP State Dept IG and a DEM State Dept IG...

    Both saying the same things...

    And ya'all maintain that THEY are BOTH wrong and Hillary is right..??? :D

    The partisan bias is strong here... :D

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the one point that ya'all try to equivocate and mitigate away...

    Every since Hillary's private, insecure, home-brew, hackable, bathroom closet email server became public knowledge.....

    EVERY STATEMENT HILLARY HAS GIVEN TO EXCUSE HER ACTIONS HAVE BEEN FALSE

    Now, ya'all can leap to your Democrat's defense with mitigation and excuses like "lawyerly evasions" and "misleading" and the like...

    But no one.... Let me repeat that for the cheap seats... NO ONE can deny that EVERY excuse that Hillary gave for her EXCLUSIVE use of a private, insecure, home-brew, hackable, bathroom closet email server... EVERY excuse... EVERY reason...

    .....Has been false...

    This is an undeniable and inarguable FACT.....

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, on another note..

    Predatory Peacekeepers – UN Soldiers Are Committing Widespread Child Rape
    http://heatst.com/uk/predatory-peacekeepers-un-soldiers-are-committing-widespread-child-rape/

    Yea... Let's put the UN in charge of everything...

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong??? :^/

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    And on the subject of the Brexit???

    https://youtu.be/j0pwXLtvt2w

    That clears it up for me....

    Why would ANY Brit want to stay in the EU is beyond me...

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every since Hillary's private, insecure, home-brew, hackable, bathroom closet email server became public knowledge.....

    EVERY STATEMENT HILLARY HAS GIVEN TO EXCUSE HER ACTIONS HAVE BEEN FALSE

    Well, we have a NEW explanation from Klan Clinton...

    “Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them. She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials.”

    OK, so the SECRETARY OF STATE didn't know the FAM????

    And this rhymes-with-witch wants to be PRESIDENT!!!????

    "Oh, jeeze.. I'm sorry.. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to give our battle plans and nuclear launch codes to Russia, China, North Korea and ISIS...

    My bad..."
    -President Hillary Clinton

    And there are people who actually think Hillary is COMPETENT!!!

    "Fascinating"
    -Spock

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Pay no attention to that private, insecure, hacked, bathroom closet email server behind the curtain.. A poor gorilla was needlessly murdered.. THAT's the only story ya'all need to worry about.."
    -Klan Clinton

    :^/

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all think things are bad now... Wait til Director Comey issues his recommendation to indict!!! :D

    Ya'all might want to run away to Tahiti... :D

    Michale

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them. She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials.”

    And yet HILLARY CLINTON is the **ONLY** former SecState who REFUSED to speak to the IG about this issue...

    So Hillary LIED when she said she would be willing to talk to "ANYBODY" at "ANYTIME".....

    Hillary = Liar

    NO other explanation fits the facts...

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow, that's seventeen straight fallacies. if i had the time and energy i'd respond to one or two, but why not add ex-silentio to the growing list.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, you can PROVE those are fallacies, right??

    Nope.. Ya can't...

    Because they are all dead on ballz accurate with facts to prove it...

    Of course, if one indulges in "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" type arguments, one can obfuscate the facts...

    But the facts ARE the facts..

    Hillary lied.. The State Dept IG Report **PROVES** that beyond ANY doubt..

    But, by all means.. Give it a shot.. It amuses me.. :D

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    The idea that the State Dept IG report is meaningless or actually helps Clinton, which is the argument ya'all appear to be supporting is ludicrous...

    Clinton's integrity (such as it is) was DEVASTATED by the IG report.. There is NOTHING in that report that helped Klan Clinton...

    About the ONLY good thing a Clinton fanatic can say is that it didn't show any criminal activity..

    Which is a pretty damning critique of Hillary Clinton that her ONLY bright spot is that she didn't commit a crime...

    But the IG Report was NOT for detailing criminal activity..

    That's what the FBI investigation is all about...

    "But it's just a security review"

    Note to Klan Clinton...

    FBI don't do "security reviews"... What part of Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION does Klan Clinton not understand??

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/top-hillary-aide-suffers-memory-loss-in-deposition/

    WOW...

    Talk about being evasive.....

    Ya know another word for being evasive??

    LYING....

    At least that's the word when it's a person who has a '-R' after their name....

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Nope.. Ya can't...
    Because they are all dead on ballz accurate with facts to prove it...

    yes i can and no they aren't, but i won't, because as much as i like ya, i'm not willing nor able to spend that much time. pick the one or two you're most sure of and maybe i'll bite, but otherwise a photo of you wearing a hillary is my hero t-shirt is all the satisfaction i need ;)

    JL

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    pick the one or two

    Hillary claimed over and over that she had authorization to run her insecure, hackable, hacked home-brewed, bathroom closet email server...

    The State Dept IG clearly states that there is no evidence that this is true..

    Ergo, Hillary lied..

    but otherwise a photo of you wearing a hillary is my hero t-shirt is all the satisfaction i need ;)

    That's funny. Because I was thinking the EXACT same thing when you wear your HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016 T-shirt.. :D

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    The State Dept IG clearly states that there is no evidence that this is true..

    Ergo, Hillary lied..

    And if you use the old EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE IS NOT ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE response, I'll be very disappointed.. :D

    If someone had authorized Hillary to use her insecure, hackable, hacked home-brewed, bathroom closet email server and she can't name the name and the State Dept IG found NO EVIDENCE that anyone had authorized then it's stone cold clear that there was no such authorization...

    Such authorization would have to be in writing anyways... Because if Hillary HAD gotten authorization for violating the FAM, you would HAVE to know that she would demand it in writing to cover her ass...

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s zombie time at campaign Hillary. Behold the dead men walking! It was with strangely slow, narcotized numbness that the candidate and her phalanx of minions and mouthpieces responded to last week’s punishing report by the State Department’s Inspector General about her email security lapses. Do they truly believe, in the rosy alternate universe of Hillaryland, that they can lie their way out of this? Of course, they’re relying as usual on the increasingly restive mainstream media to do their dirty work for them. If it were a Republican in the crosshairs, Hillary’s shocking refusal to meet with the Inspector General (who interviewed all four of the other living Secretaries of State of the past two decades) would have been the lead item flagged in screaming headlines from coast to coast. Let’s face it—the genuinely innocent do not do pretzel twists like this to cover their asses.
    http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/zombie_time_at_campaign_hillary_camille_paglia_on_trumps_real_strength_and_clintons_fatal_sleepwalking/

    It's past time to admit what is glaringly obvious....

    It's MUCH less important to have a candidate of integrity and honesty than it is having a Democrat in the White House.....

    In other words, as long as he has a '-D' after his name, the Left Wingery would vote en masse for Adolf Hitler or Attila the Hun or Good Dog Carl...

    Michale

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's past time to admit what is glaringly obvious....

    It's MUCH less important to have a candidate of integrity and honesty than it is having a Democrat in the White House.....

    In other words, as long as he has a '-D' after his name, the Left Wingery would vote en masse for Adolf Hitler or Attila the Hun or Good Dog Carl...

    To be completely fair, it's the same exact thing for the Right Wingery...

    To paraphrase Michael Goodwin....

    In a world with honor and integrity are valued, neither Clinton NOR Trump could be elected dog catcher...

    So, don't think I am singling out JUST the Left Wingery...

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The State Dept IG clearly states that there is no evidence that this is true..

    Ergo, Hillary lied..

    likely, but not provable unless one is predisposed to believe that to be so. clinton has said she believed it was allowed, and was mistaken. to prove a lie you need to prove she KNEW it wasn't allowed before the IG ruled that it wasn't. which you haven't.

    i concede that this meets the civil standard of "more likely than not," but the evidence is insufficient to establish criminality. in any case, good choice, that is the strongest argument you've made.

    In other words, as long as he has a '-D' after his name, the Left Wingery would vote en masse for Adolf Hitler or Attila the Hun or Good Dog Carl...

    To paraphrase Michael Goodwin...

    to paraphrase mike GODWIN:

    in some ways trump IS like hitler.

    See, I can paraphrase too!

    ;)
    JL

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    likely, but not provable unless one is predisposed to believe that to be so.

    But we're not in a court of law.

    We're just 2 schmoes shootin' the stuff over beers...

    clinton has said she believed it was allowed, and was mistaken.

    She was the SECRETARY OF STATE! She RAN the Department..

    So, instead of a liar, she is incompetent...

    to prove a lie you need to prove she KNEW it wasn't allowed before the IG ruled that it wasn't.

    She signed agreements when she accepted the position that she knew the rules.. The FAM is *THE* operators manual for the State Dept.. Hillary signed papers saying she has read and understood the rules..

    i concede that this meets the civil standard of "more likely than not," but the evidence is insufficient to establish criminality.

    We're not trying to establish criminality. We're trying to agree that Hillary lied..

    . in any case, good choice, that is the strongest argument you've made.

    Danke.. :D

    in some ways trump IS like hitler.

    Godwin's a geek and has the hots for Hillary..

    Whatcha gonna do? :D

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    to paraphrase mike GODWIN:

    in some ways trump IS like hitler.

    Just like a Liberal to break his own rules for the purposes of pushing a partisan agenda...

    He's almost as bad as a Republican... :D

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, the GODWIN Rule is now nothing more than a politically expedient guideline..

    No one can EVER use the GODWIN as it was intended to be used..

    Good job, Mike!! :^/ You just frak'ed up your own legacy...

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    If anyone can actually contact Mike Godwin, please pass on my congratulations for neutering and demolishing a heretofore enduring 'Net meme all for the sake of pushing an unpopular political partisan agenda.. :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.