ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [395] -- GOP's "What Would Lincoln Do?" Moment

[ Posted Friday, June 10th, 2016 – 17:28 PDT ]

Whither the fabled "Party of Lincoln"? That was the question on the minds of many Republicans this week, at least based on how often they used the phrase. Now, we're used to scathing attacks on character being hurled in the frenzy of a presidential campaign. Indeed, it's woven into the fabric of American politics. It's just that in normal years, these attacks are flung across the aisle, at the other party's nominee. It is extraordinary that all of the vicious attacks we're going to feature in our talking points section this week came from Republicans, all aimed squarely at their own party's presidential nominee. Seriously, when in the past have you ever heard the term "unendorse" used? We haven't checked, but we believe it just got coined and added to the political lexicon. It hasn't existed before because the concept hasn't ever existed before (again, in our own memory, at the very least). But we're going to get to all this in great detail later, so let's just move along for now.

Oh, one technical side-note, before we begin: for those of you anxiously awaiting the results of our "what to call Donald Trump?" contest (which ran last week), compiling the list of anti-Trump statements today took so much time that we're going to have to judge the contest next week. Our apologies for the delay.

In non-presidential news, Paul Ryan definitely fell flat on his face this week. Actually, he fell flat on his face in presidential news as well (in answering press questions after his event), but this week was supposed to be the glorious time when Ryan began unveiling his much-touted Republican agenda -- those things his House would be passing as soon as possible. Ryan deluded himself into thinking he could come up with a legislative agenda acceptable to his House caucus, when he first took the job of leading them. He was going to pass a whole bunch of bills to prove to the country what a wonderful forward-thinking agenda Republicans were capable of. Months of work went into this effort, but in the end Ryan had to severely trim back his own expectations. None of this stuff would be written into actual bills, he explained (while backing down from his grandiose earlier promises), because that was just too hard to do, given all the Tea Party radicals he had to keep happy. Instead, he'd just be listing some vague suggestions, in some white papers nobody would ever read. This week was to mark the first one of these, on solving poverty (by spending less money on the poor, of course). Here is how Dana Milbank of the Washington Post snarkily began his coverage of the event:

Seven white men and a white woman, Republican members of Congress all, boarded vehicles on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning for a voyage deep into Anacostia, a largely black and poor section of Washington.

Their mission: to reassure nonwhite voters frightened by Donald Trump, their party's presumptive presidential nominee.

Their odds of success: exceedingly low.

The lawmakers must have perceived their mission to be risky, for they traveled with a veritable arsenal: a Capitol Police "mobile command center" truck, a canine unit, four or five squad cars and a half-dozen black police vans. Police closed the street to traffic, and security officials wearing plainclothes and earpieces kept a watchful eye in all directions as a white van disgorged the lawmakers at the residential addiction-treatment program they were visiting. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan zoomed up moments later in his two-Suburban motorcade.

The lawmakers, six of them in matching blue dress shirts, sat at a table in the shelter's basement, then invited the cameras in to capture a few seconds of their supportive nods and ingratiating smiles while African-American residents told their tales of recovery. Later, they reassembled outside, where the GOP officials gave a news conference while residents of the shelter, House of Help City of Hope, stood silently, human props in the background.

Ouch. Ryan should be happy he got even snarky coverage, though, because the story of the day became not his poverty white paper, but instead what he had to say about Donald Trump (which we'll get to, later).

Republicans running for office had better get used to what has happened over the past week or two, because it is going to be the "Groundhog Day" event of the entire campaign. The cycle will play out again and again, so the GOP better get used to it now: (1) Donald Trump says something incredibly bigoted, (2) Donald Trump then doubles down, refusing to apologize in any way, (3) every single Republican running for office anywhere is then asked: "So what do you think of what Trump just said?"

That's how it's going to go, so our guess is that Republicans will be thinking about that whole "Party of Lincoln" thing for months to come. "WWLD?" might just become the theme of the entire campaign, in fact.

Many inside-the-Beltway types (even a few Republicans) appear downright shocked that any racism might still exist out there in the hinterlands. Which is why we're ending this intro with the following news: Waco, Texas is finally getting around to desegregating a cemetery. Since it was created (back in 1875), there's been a fence down the middle of the graveyard, complete with separate entrances in the perimeter fence. Black people were buried on one side of the dividing line, white people on the other. And the fence still exists. A city councilman said in 2014: "That should have been taken out 75 years ago," but it took two more years for anything to be done about it. The city's been moving this slow for decades, apparently. From a story a newspaper ran in 1971, a cemetery association leader talked about how "the absurdity of the cemetery's segregating fence" had been discussed "for decades," and added the pithy quote: "I suppose they wanted that so the black ghosts wouldn't go over there and bother the white ghosts." But this absurdity continued for another 45 years and is only now being torn down. In this political season full of talk of building fences, it's good to see at least one racist fence come down, although you have to wonder what, exactly, took them so long?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

The obvious choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week would be Hillary Clinton, who clinched the party's nomination with impressive victories in four states this Tuesday, including winning California by double digits.

However, we gave her the award last week (kind of in anticipation), so we're going to just hand Hillary another Honorable Mention instead. Because we really feel that President Barack Obama deserves the MIDOTW award this week, instead.

Obama became relevant to the presidential race this week, as he endorsed Hillary Clinton and began laying out a campaign schedule to travel to the Midwest and other swing states in support of Clinton. Obama also acted as middleman this week, meeting personally with Bernie Sanders before he released his endorsement of Clinton. And then he followed it all up with a hilarious appearance last night on Jimmy Fallon's show.

Barack Obama's poll numbers have been inching steadily upwards since January. On the Real Clear Politics rolling daily average, his job approval is now over 49 percent. Obama has already broken through the 50 percent barrier in many individual polls, and he now seems poised to do so in the average, as well. This will be the first time he'll have managed this feat since the first two months of his second term, so it's no small accomplishment. His approval rating among Democrats is sky-high, and the New York Times points out an odd historic fact: Obama will be the first sitting (second-term) president to actively campaign for his own party's replacement since Ronald Reagan. Al Gore thought Bill Clinton was too toxic (there are many who blame his loss on his refusal to let Clinton campaign for him, in fact). George W. Bush was obviously too toxic -- he hasn't even been to a Republican National Convention since 2004, in fact, because he's still too toxic for the party. This means that Obama giving rousing speeches for Hillary will be the first time a sitting president has done so in a very long time.

Obama is at his best on the hustings, in case anyone's forgotten. Even his fiercest detractors grudgingly admit "the man knows how to give a speech." Which means this is the start of Obama being in the news in the most positive way possible for months to come -- which will likely push his approval rating even higher.

Obama won't just be campaigning for Hillary, he'll also be publicly making the case for his own presidential legacy. To see him broker a peace between Hillary and Bernie was just the kickoff to the general election season -- a season where Obama will be fully engaged with the voters once again. When we look back at the 2016 election later, this will be seen as the week when Obama got off the bench and started to mix it up again in the world of presidential politics. Which makes him our choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Personally, we're looking forward to hearing a few zingers from Obama out on Hillary's campaign trail. And we're definitely not alone in that.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, for fiercely defending his attack on free political expression.

Cuomo has essentially created a blacklist of people and companies which his state will no longer do business with. Anyone who joins or advocates for the "BDS" movement gets put on the blacklist. Once again: a political stance taken means the state government blacklists you. That should horrify anyone who believes in constitutional government. Whether you agree with the movement or not, such heavy-handed tactics are flatly un-American.

For those unfamiliar with the term, BDS refers to "boycott, divestment, and sanctions" -- political tactics that were used very successfully against the apartheid government of South Africa in the 1980s. Without endorsing the movement itself (plenty of other people are out there to explain the movement or try to convince you to join it, for those disappointed that we're not fully endorsing the movement), we have to point out that these are entirely peaceful measures being urged against the governmental policies of Israel towards the Palestinians. These are not some militant radicals trying to forcibly oust Israel's government. And protesting the policies of the current government of Israel doesn't automatically make you an anti-Semite (if it did, a large portion of Israel's own population would be guilty of the sin).

But to the foes of BDS, the movement is somehow a lot more sinister. The word most often used is "delegitimize" -- that's what BDS is trying to do to the state of Israel itself. The second-most often word used is "anti-Semitic," but that one always gets tossed around in this debate. The pro-Israel people accuse the BDS movement of not being legitimate, and of trying to delegitimize Israel. Here's how Andrew Cuomo explained it in the Washington Post this week:

If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

Indeed, a new front has opened in the fight against Israel's existence. Just as the U.S.-Israel relationship has developed a robust and burgeoning commercial dimension, the threats against Israel have acquired one. There are those who seek to weaken and undermine Israel through the politics of discrimination, hatred and fear.

New York will not tolerate this new brand of warfare. New York stands with Israel because we are Israel and Israel is us.

Um, no. Israel is not America's 51st state. It just isn't. We may "stand with" Israel" (or other such soaring platitudes) but to say that we are them and they are us is just flat-out wrong. And to call a peaceful movement a "new brand of warfare" is nothing short of propaganda.

Again -- all of this seems obvious even if you don't agree or support the BDS movement. Why were the tactics fine to use against South Africa but somehow "the politics of discrimination, hatred and fear" when used against Israel? That makes no sense.

Cuomo is free -- either as a private citizen or as leader of his state -- to denounce the BDS movement until he is blue in the face. That's called free speech. He is free to argue against it, cajole people to denounce it, or any other action designed to fight against it short of abusing his governmental power.

But for a government itself to blacklist people and companies under its power -- purely over their political beliefs -- is nothing short of totalitarianism. Constitutionally, there are only two choices for any governmental agency to make: either allow all political speech, or none. There simply is no in-between where governments get to pick and choose which political beliefs they will reward. When the KKK wanted to join the "adopt a road" cleanup program in many states, the state could not specifically ban them for their beliefs. They had to either accept them into the program, put up the same sign as they do for everyone else ("this stretch of highway cleaned by...") or they could just end the adopt-a-road program altogether. Schools are faced with the same choice for organizations (many schools tried to ban gay-rights groups like PFLAG, and were told to either allow the group to form or ban all such groups altogether).

Governmental action and speech must be politically neutral. The power of government is so great that it cannot be abused to settle political scores. This is a basic tenet of America, in fact. But apparently it's one that Andrew Cuomo hasn't heard about. Oh, and also that thing about there only being 50 states, too. For his lack of understanding, we hereby award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Andrew Cuomo. Maybe he ought to read up on New York history, specifically how Tammany Hall held so much power through patronage -- or the doling out of plum jobs to those who toed the political line. Such tactics belong on the ash-heap of history, not in new blacklists from the governor's office.

[Contact New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 395 (6/10/16)

If there's one thing Democrats are truly united about this election season, it is the unacceptability of Donald Trump to lead our nation. So it's pretty easy to put together talking points for Democrats to use to express their revulsion of Trump and all he stands for, because all Democrats largely agree on the subject.

This week, however, we're turning the talking points over to Republicans. Because the scathing things members of his own party are saying about him are even more instructive, since there is no question of them being mere partisan attacks. Now, it's a little puzzling why Trump's comments about a judge have lit this fire, since Trump hasn't been shy about expressing very similar sentiments from the day he announced his campaign ("they're rapists"). But for whatever reason, the Republican Party seems to have woken up to the fact that they're about to nominate a racist for president, and some of them are starting to speak out -- very loudly, at times.

Good for them. Better late than never, and all of that. Squaring the circle of "I condemn Donald Trump's racism" and "I'm going to vote for him, and I urge everyone to do the same" has become increasingly difficult. Paul Ryan really set off this stampede (in answer to a question asked at his poverty dog-and-pony show), weakly arguing that Trump would be better than Hillary Clinton:

I disavow those comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable.

But Ryan's still going to vote for the man he's disavowing as absolutely unacceptable: "Do I believe Hillary Clinton is the answer? No I do not."

The New York Post responded with a scathing cover ("I'm with racist"), but comedian D.L. Hughley probably summed it up best: "What [Ryan is] saying is that a racist is better than a liberal." Hughley later added: "I think you can't be a little bit pregnant or a little bit racist."

Michael B. Keegan also raises an interesting connect-the-dots point over at the Huffington Post about the whole fracas, with the beautifully self-explanatory title: "While Trump Makes Racist Attacks On Judge, GOP Holds a Supreme Court Seat for Him to Fill?"

Since it's been such an interesting week, instead of our usual Democratic talking points ripping into Republican positions we're going to present a list of Republican talking points -- because they're doing such a great job ripping into their own party's nominee. Most of these people are still going to vote for and support Donald Trump, although a few are indeed already walking away from him. The first group of these comments all come from a Salon article which helpfully put them all in one place (and these are just the best ones, there are plenty of others listed):

Senator Ben Sasse [R-NE]:

Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism.

Senator Marco Rubio [R-FL]:

[Judge Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don't think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don't think it reflects well on us as a nation.

Ohio Governor John Kasich:

Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.

Newt Gingrich:

I don't know what Trump's reasoning was, and I don't care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable.

Senator Rob Portman [R-OH]:

The fact that the judge has a Mexican-American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He's as American as I am.

Representative Jackie Walorski [R-IN]:

Questioning a judge's impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society.

Senator Jeff Flake [R-AZ]:

His statements this week on the judge -- that's a new level... Because it's not just... ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he's president, you know, after November, that... perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That's a whole new level. So that's -- it's very disturbing.

Alberto Gonzales:

The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.

Senator Mark Kirk [R-IL] faces a tough re-election battle this year in a blue state, and he's the first one to "unendorse" Trump. Kirk says he'll be writing in David Petraeus for president when he votes. From what he had to say:

I cannot and will not support my party's nominee for President... I have spent my life building bridges and tearing down barriers -- not building walls. That's why I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American.... I think we should send a strong message that racism and bigotry are not going to be tolerated in the party of Lincoln.

From the same article, Senator Jeff Flake had more to say on why he hasn't supported Trump and still won't be:

Let's face it: meet the old Trump, just like the new Trump. We've got what we've got. That's not somebody who can win the White House. "We're going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is not a serious proposal. [Voters] want serious proposals on how to deal with this war on terrorism. Saying that you're going to ban Muslims from entering the country is not a serious proposal.

Susan Collins [R-ME] is still on the fence, however:

[Trump's comments] make it very difficult for me. It makes the decision [to endorse him or not] a hard one.

So is Senator Bob Corker [R-TN], who is still holding out for the "presidential" Trump to emerge:

He's got this defining period that's over the next two or three weeks where he could pivot, can pivot, hopefully will pivot to a place where he becomes a true general election candidate.

Good luck with that line of wishful thinking, Senator Corker!

Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC] urged other Republicans to unendorse their party's presidential nominee:

If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. [Trump's comments are] the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy. [I urge] Republicans who have backed Mr. Trump to rescind their endorsements. There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.

From a different interview with Graham:

There are a lot of people who want to be loyal to the Republican Party, including me. There'll come a point in time where we're gonna have to understand that it's not just about the 2016 race, it's about the future of the party, and I would like to support our nominee: I just can't.

Wow -- tell us how you really feel, Lindsey!

A state senator from Iowa, David Johnson, publicly announced he was going one step further, and exiting the Republican Party altogether.

I will not stand silent if the party of Lincoln and the end of slavery buckles under the racial bias of a bigot. [Trump's] campaign to reality TV and large crowds and divisive language and all the trappings of a good show for those who like that kind of approach, and that's what happened in the 1930s in Germany. I think that's all I need to say, but certainly the fascists took control of Germany under the same types of strategies. Mark me down as Never Trump.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thinks he has the answer: Trump just needs to read prepared speeches from now on. Problem solved! No, really:

I object to a whole series of things that he's said -- vehemently object to them. I think all of that needs to stop. Both the shots at people he defeated in the primary and these attacks on various ethnic groups in the country.... I think he'd have a much better chance of winning if he would quit making so many unfortunate public utterances and stick to the script.

The Washington Post helpfully explained what McConnell was trying to achieve, in the snarkiest of ways:

This is fascinating stuff on many levels. Note that McConnell "vehemently objects" to Trump's attacks on various ethnic groups, but will continue to support him provided he reads from a prepared script that no longer includes such attacks — in other words, provided Trump stops saying these things aloud.

That's really the root of the Republicans' problem with Trump, isn't it? "Don, you're not supposed to say this stuff in public," is really what it boils down to. Perhaps Trump himself needs a course from Republican Talking Points University -- are there any openings left for the summer session of "Dog Whistling 101"?

But that's really too much to hope for, for some clear-eyed Republicans. GOP strategist Mike Murphy has a very realistic view of Trump's chances in November:

To win what Trump would have to do is change the perception women have of him. Because white men are only a third of the electorate. So you can win them by 40 percent and it's still not enough.... He would need to dramatically change the perception people have of him now. And since Trump can't change, I think his answer is less in political strategy and more in a team of shrinks to get him back into some sort of mentality where he understands he has to change. This would require Trump to entertain the possibility that his antics and depravity are alienating a lot of people, and it's not clear he's capable of doing that.

Gotta love that "team of shrinks" jab, Mike! Which brings us to our final Republican angst of the week, from Michael Gerson, who still clings to the notion that his party is somehow better than all those millions of Trump voters are proving it to be:

So what were senior Republicans thinking when they endorsed Trump? I don't want to underestimate the difficulties involved in opposing one's own presumptive nominee. There is tremendous political pressure to be loyal to the team. The arguments against doing anything that might help Hillary Clinton are strong. "This is about moving our agenda forward," said Ryan in justifying his Trump endorsement.

Republican leaders, in other words, thought they were in a normal political moment -- a time for pragmatism, give-and-take, holding your nose and eventually getting past an unpleasant chore.

But it is not a normal political moment. It is one of those rare times -- like the repudiation of Joe McCarthy, or consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Watergate crisis -- when the spotlight of history stops on a single decision, and a whole political career is remembered in a single pose. The test here: Can you support, for pragmatic reasons, a presidential candidate who purposely and consistently appeals to racism?

When the choice came, only a handful of Republicans at the national level answered with a firm "no." A handful. It was not shocking to me that the plurality of an angry Republican primary electorate -- grown distrustful of establishment leaders -- might choose a populist who appeals to racial prejudice. It is shocking to me -- and depressing and infuriating -- that almost no elected Republicans of national standing would stand up to it.

By this standard, Sen. Ben Sasse is the moral leader of the GOP. But given the thinness of his company, many of us will never be able to think about the Republican Party in quite the same way again. It still carries many of the ideological convictions I share. Collectively, however, it has failed one of the most basic tests of public justice: Don't support racists -- or candidates who appeal to racism -- for public office. If this commitment is not a primary, non-negotiable element of Republican identity, then the party of Lincoln is dead.

Of course, some Democrats have been pointing out for decades now that Lincoln would be horrified at the modern Republican Party (say, from Nixon onwards...). But it's good to see that some Republicans are finally coming around to the same realization. Maybe there's hope, for some of them at least.

-- 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

 

141 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [395] -- GOP's "What Would Lincoln Do?" Moment”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    It really has been an amazing week. I must say, getting the primaries wrapped up and raapprochment underway with Bernie is such a relief. It is SO much more fun to be on the offensive and it is delightful to see top Dems both going aggressively on the offensive and appearing to relish it. It's been a long time coming.

    When Trump was knocking one repub off after another it was worrisome -- but I think we've got his measure now. One of the funnier things I read this week was by Ed Kilgore, talking about how Trumps biggest problem may turn out to be his inability to get past making everything about him. He wrote that instead of avoiding the "ticking time bomb that is Trump University" Trump can't shut-up about it! Instead of focusing on weakening Hillary and the Dems he's busy blustering about himself and/or getting into petty slanging matches and/or insulting some new block of potential voters.

    The repubs could barely fight him on content because they actually agree or at least tolerate much of his content. Dems don't have to hold back. Trump is the gift that keeps on giving!

    Also of interest is watching as Repubs struggle with their decisions about backing/not backing Trump. The smart ones won't. Joe Biden said in his speech yesterday that his Repub buddies in the Senate know Trump is unacceptable but can't bring themselves -- yet -- to step up. Evidently those you quoted today Chris, aren't sufficiently motivating.

    Interesting times.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many Republicans said the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he ran..

    We know how THAT turned out.. :D

    I ain't worried..

    But I DO have a great slogan for the GOP...

    "Bill never chooses Hillary. Why should you??"

    :D

    But seriously....

    I could pull out a bunch of snippets and quotes from Democrats that "prove" how evil and bad Hillary is..

    But, at the end of the day, it would be nothing more than a handful of people feasting on crow and sour grapes..

    I have always wondered why there was so much negative talk about Trump and not a single positive word about Hillary..

    Then it hit me.. Hillary doesn't HAVE any positives to talk up.. She HAS no accomplishments that the Democrats can be proud of...

    So, it's going to be nothing but bad Trump, bad Trump, bad Trump from now til November...

    The funny thing is, what ya'all consider "bad" is what makes Trump so popular with the vast majority of Americans... Republicans, NPAs AND Democrats...

    The choice in this election could NOT be starker...

    Establishment, Status Quo, same ol same ol..

    VS

    Anti-Establishment, Populous, Power To The People...

    And the Establishment candidate will lose.. And lose in a landslide..

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Holy cow! Mark Kirk wants to trade Trump's malignant trickle-down racism for Petraeus's sexy trickle-down document releases?

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    One problem with the Orange Blob is that it blocks out the sun. It's so cretinous that lesser GOP cretins are barely noticed. Like church lady Sen David Perdue of Georgia saying the preferred Republican voodoo curse (Psalms 109:8) against the president (and his children and grandchildren) at that Road To Majority gathering of cretinous bloodthirsty Republican zombie messiah freaks. Asking his invisible sky daddy to kill the president - I'm so relieved he didn't call Obama his enemy.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/06/tales-of-trump-my-father-turned-him.html

    Anecdote about a banker who turned Trump down for a loan -

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anecdote about a banker who turned Trump down for a loan -

    Anecdote about a brave American who was brutally murdered in Libya

    Mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith: I hope Hillary Clinton enjoys hell
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/11/patricia-smith-mother-of-benghazi-victim-i-hope-hi/

    Of course, Trump being turned down for a loan is MUCH MORE important.. :^/

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    Washington Times: rightwing rag. If this woman blames Hillary for Benghazi she is either entirely misinformed or a fool.

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    But Michale, certainly, continue to beat the drum of BENGHAZI!!! as long as you can to stave off the coming pain.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington Times: rightwing rag. If this woman blames Hillary for Benghazi she is either entirely misinformed or a fool.

    Oh, that's a given..

    ANYONE who speaks ill of the Queen rhymes-with-witch is entirely mis-informed or a fool...

    There has NEVER been ANY legitimate complaints against the queen..

    Duh....

    But Michale, certainly, continue to beat the drum of BENGHAZI!!! as long as you can to stave off the coming pain.

    Two words..

    INDICT MENT

    It ain't me who is going to be in pain.. :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I had hoped to stay out of the mud this weekend..

    Apparently, other Weigantians have other plans.. :^/

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are really beginning to spew pure, unadulterated hate and it is very unbecoming, not to mention very bad news for this site.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Michale, it was Sean Smith's mother who was spewing the hate.

    My apologies.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are really beginning to spew pure, unadulterated hate and it is very unbecoming, not to mention very bad news for this site.

    I completely agree....

    Which is why I am trying to stay out of the mud in this commentary...

    Try a change of pace.. :D

    We'll see how it goes...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good idea!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It takes a village... :D hehehehehehehehehehe

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I am torn about which subject to tackle first... both are significant and both are important to me personally, so I feel the need to point out that I am not addressing them in order of importance.

    Your condemnation of Cuomo's anti-BDS blacklist was well written and accurate... but you left out exceedingly relevant details.

    Cuomo used an executive order to create this disgusting and unconstitutional black list because the NY legislature has repeatedly tried and failed to agree on legislation due to the many valid concerns about it.

    However, eight states have adopted anti-BDS legislation with bi-partisan support already, and numerous institutions like the University of California have as well due to pressure from supposedly pro-Israel groups and major donors... personally, I think they're causing harm to Israel... hence the "supposedly".

    NY Dem Senator Chuck Schumer immediately called for comparable federal legislation after Cuomo's order.

    Perhaps most significantly, Hillary Clinton is a full-throated supporter of these anti-BDS efforts. She put it in writing.

    So, I don't know if the party unity blinders are in place or what, but condemning Cuomo while remaining silent about Hillary and the rest of the Constitution violating Democrats seems like selective outrage.

    Cuomo is wrong, Hillary is wrong... they're all wrong. And all of them deserve to be publicly condemned.

    The anti-BDS crowd is freaking out due to the success of BDS, and the enablers of that freak out who are using the exact same language and false justifications as Cuomo are firmly entrenched in both parties.

    People supporting and voting for Hillary should know they are endorsing and condoning violations of constitutionally protected rights.

    But Hillary supporters looking the other way are no better than the Republicans remaining silent about Trump's racism.

    -
    -

    Speaking of racism, Trump's racism left the arena of dog whistles the day he announced he was running. Stereotyping based on race is blatant racism, not in the dog whistle category... so once again I will ask you to do a little soul searching in regards to the comment policy here. Since you question why it took Republicans so long to condemn his disgusting behavior, I must raise the mirror for reflection.

    -
    -

    That said, the institutional racism in this country has likewise been well documented, and Hillary Clinton's policies and major donors shouldn't be ignored just because Trump is such a blatant and ignorant sack.

    The war on drugs, sentencing guidelines, private prisons, predatory lending, payday lending, loan rates, redlining, pollution, trade deals... establishment economic policies and foreign policies in general... all share a disproportionate negative impact on minorities here and brown people abroad.

    Hillary Clinton's support for these policies and acceptance of donations from those actively engaged in them is just another form of "knowing not to say it publicly".

    Hillary's support doesn't hinge on reforming or eliminating the inherent racism... she accepts it.

    She takes money from the bankers who called the minorities targeted for their predatory lending "mud people"... and from the bankers who redlined black people out of certain neighborhoods in NY... and the bankers whose fraud caused millions of minorities to lose their homes.
    She takes money from the polluters who set up shop in minority neighborhoods.
    She takes money from the prison companies who fill their cells through selective enforcement in minority neighborhoods.
    She takes money from "defense" contractors who push unnecessary wars of choice where millions of brown people are killed.
    And, unfortunately, that list could go on and on.
    (of course, too many corporatist Dems and most Republicans including all those condemning Trump are also guilty)

    So, we are talking about degrees of racism.
    Trump is blatant, the rest are quiet and subtle.
    But it's racism.

    And it is truly debatable which is causing more harm.

    -
    -

    So, when pundits question how Trump is doing better among minorities that Romney... and polling nearly as well as Hillary... it might be a good time to admit and discuss how there are various forms of racism in this country, and neither candidate is pure and good.

    The lessor of two evils argument exists for a reason.

    A

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Running Mate that would guarantee a Trump victory even more than it already is......

    Condoleezza Rice......

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps most significantly, Hillary Clinton is a full-throated supporter of these anti-BDS efforts. She put it in writing.

    Oh snap!!!

    :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    [16] Altohone: In common with many of Hillary's detractors, you lump together policies enacted by Bill Clinton -- with widespread support at the time -- with things she said years ago, votes that are being viewed out of context, trends pushed by Republicans/Ayn Rand libertarian idiots (like privatization of everything) and assumptions: she gave speeches to Goldman Sachs therefore she will give them everything they want.

    At the same time you don't consider the idea that times have changed, people have figured a lot of things out, Hillary (along with lots of other Dems) has come to recognize a variety of problems and is attempting to do something about them. The presumption is she says she'll do something but of course that's a lie. Furthermore these kinds of attacks imply it all rests on her shoulders -- she's to blame for policies enacted by other Democrats and, way more, Republicans. You also discount the affect of years of Republican funded propaganda and obstructionism which affected the country across the board -- they pushed Democrats into a defensive crouch; they took over state governments and pushed the rightwing agenda in every way possible.

    Democrats responded poorly for a long time, no question about it. But, unlike Republicans, eventually they learn. Hillary has made bad calls at times. But not all the time. And if you actually research her past you will find she has spent years crusading and working for a host of very positive things.

    Meanwhile if want to play tit for tat we can talk about Bernie voting YES on 3-strikes to mandatory life in 1994 or sponsoring a bill in 1998 to dump Vermont's nuclear waste in Texas town with a high population of poor Latinos. Or the fact that Bernie actually voted YES on the 1994 Crime Bill for which you now blame Hillary. Or the fact that Bernie voted YES on making Hillary SOS. And on and on.

    Spend some time at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ to at least see what she's proposing.

    You can try to help or you can sit on the sidelines and snipe and conflate and carry water for Republicans. Or you can pick issues you want to address and get to work addressing them.

    And, btw, no candidate is "pure and good". Are you? Coz I'm not. And certainly no politician is -- human beings are flawed. But the good ones at least try. And they have thorny problems to deal with and generally imperfect solutions to offer. And we don't help anyone, them or ourselves, by believing, spreading or promoting inaccuracies.

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Too busy to answer comments right now, been reading them from today and yesterday...

    Oh, comments have now been restored that were caught in the filter, sorry 'bout that...

    But did just have to point out one thing, since it's a bugaboo of mine. Someone at the WashPost knows how to correctly capitalize TelePrompTer! Woo hoo! There is hope for humanity! Heh...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/11/donald-trumps-worst-week-in-washington/

    :-)

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    19

    Uh, no, that is not what I'm doing.
    Very dishonest of you to claim it.
    Please don't lie about me, thank you very much.

    Hillary vigorously supports anti-BDS efforts.
    Hillary still supports the war on drugs.
    Hillary's current domestic, economic and foreign policies do harm minorities and kill millions of brown people... and are "right wing".
    Hillary currently takes money from all the interests with racist effects I mentioned and then some.

    And it absolutely does rest on her shoulders, because they are her current decisions.

    I do consider that times have changed, but I'm not blind and can see that Hillary hasn't.

    And none of these things are criticized by Republicans... except for the military interventionism by the hypocrite Trump who also talks about bombing everyone.

    You Hillary defenders making false assertions does not help her.

    I am addressing the issues I care about and will continue to criticize Hillary, because I know her past and I know her present... and she is part of the problem.
    I can also see that you aren't even attempting to defend the issues I raised about what Hillary is doing right now, and are simply ignoring them or changing the subject.
    I am carrying water for the left, not Republicans... another false assertion... not unlike your claim that what I wrote is inaccurate.

    You can stick your head in the sand if you want, and make excuses for Hillary and the other corporatist warmongers, but don't expect me to join you.

    Ain't
    Gonna
    Happen

    I didn't mention the far less imperfect Bernie, because he's effectively out of the race.

    Go Jill Stein!

    A

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who's Jill Stein?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden practically wrote the 1994 crime bill, don'tcha know ...

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The problem, I think, is that the gridlock in DC has exacerbated the natural tendency of the extremes of both parties to rail against incrementalism. Both the far left and the far right are now arguing that nothing short of wholesale transformation will satisfy their needs. Of course, neither the far left nor the far right are exactly strangers to these points of view, but I think the sheer number of folks who now subscribe to these points of view has surprised a lot of folks at the top. Certainly the entire establishment of the GOP is reeling, and I'm sure topic #1 at the Romney shindig this weekend is the apparently absurdly small number of Republican voters who actually support them.

    For his part, Trump might be the most radically UN-ideological candidate in US history, unless you count the ravings of Hannity and Limbaugh as an identifiable ideology: Hyperpublicanism? Mysopublicanism? But Trump's slash&burn radicalism has actually picked up some support from the left, which is just as frustrated by the Status Quo as the right is. Michale is right about that.

    But as the GOP electorate (and the media) were apparently hoping, Hillary stands in direct opposition to radical change, stressing the advantages of substantive, albeit incremental change to insistence on an agenda that's DOA. This has predictably drawn fire from both extremes.

    That's a good thing for centrists, who have their own radical agenda that the extremists have ignored: over 58% support now for marijuana legalization, similar numbers for abortion rights and gun control. Overwhelming majorities for infrastructure improvement and criminal justice reform. Hillary's position on pot (cautious) is currently no different from that of Obama, so these leaders both have to be brought to the table, and centrists should attend to that. It's possible: happened on Gay rights.

    I'm glad to see that, in the wake of the Bernie movement, the left has been talking about turning their attention now to local races, where their track record is, frankly, abysmal. It would be a good thing if radical righties, even in red states, were challenged down-ticket by radical lefties. It might help balance things out, and if the Trump phenomenon is real, lead to some surprising results.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Joe Biden practically wrote the 1994 crime bill, don'tcha know ...

    ..... at the behest of black Americans and the Congressional Black Caucus, I might add...

    What do you think of the current criticisms of the crime bill??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    For his part, Trump might be the most radically UN-ideological candidate in US history, unless you count the ravings of Hannity and Limbaugh as an identifiable ideology: Hyperpublicanism? Mysopublicanism? But Trump's slash&burn radicalism has actually picked up some support from the left, which is just as frustrated by the Status Quo as the right is. Michale is right about that.

    Thank you. The acknowledgement is appreciated..

    But as the GOP electorate (and the media) were apparently hoping, Hillary stands in direct opposition to radical change, stressing the advantages of substantive, albeit incremental change to insistence on an agenda that's DOA. This has predictably drawn fire from both extremes.

    But Hillary hasn't stood for ANY change..

    Her platform is another 4 years of Obama...

    And the American people, by almost 70% don't WANT 4 more years of Obama...

    Is Trump the BEST choice to lead??

    No, of course not..

    But he is way WAY better than Hillary because all Hillary promises is more of the same..

    And Americans don't like "same"...

    Very good comment, Balthasar..

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you think of the current criticisms of the crime bill??

    Well, Michale, not being completely familiar with all of the criticisms, I think some are valid and some ignore context.

    Have there been some distressing and unintended consequences? Absolutely! And, I'm guessing the bill's drafters and supporters would admit that without hesitation. The question should be about how best to address those consequences ...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Trump the BEST choice to lead??

    No, of course not..

    It's a testament to the level of frustration that Americans feel that they WOULD so passionately support a candidate as flawed and "radical" as Trump...

    If things were good or even "eehh"....

    "Look, Mom, I drew a picture of me landing on the moon."
    "eehh."
    "Look, Mom, I made a prototype of a rocket out of macaroni."
    "eehh."
    "Look, Mom, I built a real rocket based on the macaroni prototype.
    "eehh."

    -DESPICABLE ME

    :D

    ..... Trump couldn't get elected dog-catcher..

    NO sane person would DARE take such a huge risk with Trump if things were good or even half-way decent..

    But things AREN'T good or even half-way decent..

    Things are crap.. Crap piled on top of crap.. I can personally attest to that..

    So, a flawed and "radical" nationalistic candidate like Trump is the white knight...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, not being completely familiar with all of the criticisms, I think some are valid and some ignore context.

    Give me an example of a "valid" criticism...

    I am not trying to put you on the spot.. I want to make a point, but I want to make sure first that the point is a valid point...

    By "valid" I mean, valid within the context of our discussion..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think the most valid criticism of the 1994 crime bill was that they didn't get the balance right between prisons and prevention, especially in view of studies that have found tenuous links between incarceration rates and lower crime rates.

    I also think that the bill led the way for states to enact some minimum sentencing rules that made it tougher for judges to take a more reasonable approach toward a better outcome.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What do you think of Biden's defense of the 1994 crime bill while also acknowledging the valid concerns about the application of the criminal justice system as it relates to minorities and institutional racism in the United States?

    Are some of the recent criticisms of the 1994 crime bill misguided and are the real issues here more to do with unequal justice?

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthasar
    24

    Wall Street coddling despite their massive fraud is not "centrism", and those railing against it aren't "radical".

    Military interventionism that creates more problems than it solves isn't "centrism", and those railing against it aren't "radical".

    Right wing neoliberal economics that increases inequality while killing the mi9ddle class isn't "centrism", and those railing against it aren't "radical".

    This paradigm you are approaching reality from where you also think "centrists" deserve credit for gay rights and marijuana legalization is likewise utter and complete fiction.
    It was the "radical" left that fought for decades to convince the majority on those issues.

    Likewise it has been the "radical" left fighting for criminal justice reform and infrastructure spending.

    Abortion rights and gun control have been going backwards with the "centrists" remaining silent or doing absolutely nothing effective.

    I don't know if you're ignorant or if you think you're being clever, but you are just plain factually challenged.

    But I am not the least bit surprised you are a Hillary supporter.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Terrorism comes to Florida..


    'We consider this an act of terrorism': Suspected Islamic extremist shoots dead at least 20 dead at Florida gay club after bursting in 'wearing a suicide vest' and taking hostages - injuring a further 42

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637414/Everyone-running-Gunman-bursts-gay-nightclub-Florida-shoots-20-people-taking-hostages.html#ixzz4BMmUiSHQ

    The more we see of this, the more Americans will reject Hillary Clinton..

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    As usual, your comments requires a lot of thought.. Which I don't really have time to do at this moment..

    I promise I will follow up when my duties permit...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re #32...

    I think someone has been hanging around me too long.. :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    50+ confirmed dead at Orlando nightclub..

    Shooter identified as radical Afghani..

    ISIS threatened attack in FL 3 days ago...

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, he was born in the United States, wasn't he?

  38. [38] 
    dsws wrote:

    Trump's candidacy is not evidence of how dissatisfied people are with the status quo. On the contrary, it's evidence that they're not worried enough about politics to take it seriously. They're choosing entertainment value over competence. They wouldn't do that if they thought the next president was going to have to deal with huge challenges.

  39. [39] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Gay bar at 2AM. American citizen. There is something more going on here than just a terrorist attack. As with San Bernardino, I wonder if we have moved to a strange hybrid of targeted mass shooting mixed with radical Islam influence...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's candidacy is not evidence of how dissatisfied people are with the status quo. On the contrary, it's evidence that they're not worried enough about politics to take it seriously. They're choosing entertainment value over competence.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    There is absolutely NO facts to even HINT that that the American people are going for the entertainment value..

    There is OODLES (it's a technical term) of facts to PROVE how frustrated people are with the Establishment and the Status Quo...

    Almost 70% of Americans say this country is heading in the wrong direction..

    That's supportive evidence that people are frustrated..

    NOT looking for a laugh....

    They wouldn't do that if they thought the next president was going to have to deal with huge challenges.

    Ooohhh, Americans know that the next POTUS is going to face a great many challenges..

    They just know that TRUMP is better equipped to meet those challenges than Hillary is..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They just know that TRUMP is better equipped to meet those challenges than Hillary is..

    I think they may be wrong about that.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gay bar at 2AM. American citizen. There is something more going on here than just a terrorist attack. As with San Bernardino, I wonder if we have moved to a strange hybrid of targeted mass shooting mixed with radical Islam influence...

    Gotta push that partisan agenda, eh?? :D

    It's all about Right Wingers hating gay people.. :^/

    There was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that San Bernardino was ANYTHING but a run-o-the-mill radical Islamic terrorist attack..

    There is NO EVIDENCE to support that Orlando was anything but a run-o-the-mill radical Islamic terrorist attack..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think they may be wrong about that.

    They may be...

    Then again, they may NOT be...

    We'll find out...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Michale, he was born in the United States, wasn't he?

    Yes...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    My mistake.. He was born from Afghani parents..

    Thanx for the correction....

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Trump's candidacy is not evidence of how dissatisfied people are with the status quo. On the contrary, it's evidence that they're not worried enough about politics to take it seriously. They're choosing entertainment value over competence.

    But it's this kind of condescending politically correct attitude that makes Americans support Trump by the millions..

    The idea that, if you support Trump you're just a Reality TV junkie... Only those that support are Serious well informed voters... :^/

    Note.. It doesn't bother me... I am very mellow about things... :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I hope this horrible tragedy will bring everyone from all communities together in an unprecedented show of unity against this violence regardless of who or what inspired or directed it.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Note.. It doesn't bother me... I am very mellow about things... :D

    I have noticed that. And, I like it! :)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope this horrible tragedy will bring everyone from all communities together in an unprecedented show of unity against this violence regardless of who or what inspired or directed it.

    I hope so as well...

    I have noticed that. And, I like it! :)

    :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Gotta push that partisan agenda, eh?? :D

    Uh...what?

    The more we see of this, the more Americans will reject Hillary Clinton..

    No, that is a partisan agenda...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    One officer suffered an eye injury when a bullet struck his Kevlar helmet, said Danny Banks, special agent in charge of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Orlando bureau.

    You know THAT cop will be taking every day as a gift for the rest of his life.....

    Heroes... That's the only way to describe cops...

    Heroes...

    MIchale

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Dr. Jill Stein is the likely presidential candidate for the Green Party.

    Never fear!
    CW has said he is "looking at" doing a column about her in order to inform his loyal readers who the corporate media are trying to keep ignorant.

    Clearly, the need is great.

    Hopefully, that isn't like Hillary "looking into" releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches to criminal bankers.

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Hillary's support for the anti-BDS efforts that CW lambasted in his bit about Cuomo's executive order?

    I never tire of your unique take on things.
    A

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gotta push that partisan agenda, eh?? :D

    Uh...what?

    Gay bar at 2AM.

    What does a gay bar have to do with anything other than to set the stage for a partisan agenda??

    The more we see of this, the more Americans will reject Hillary Clinton..

    No, that is a partisan agenda...

    Nope.. Just a statement of fact...

    You or Paula or Liz could have made the exact same comment...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    “Be with a leader when he is right, stay with him when he is still right, but, leave him when he is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln

    If we are to believe all the verbal repudiation directed at Trump from the lips of Republican Leadership they appear to be having a collective and public "Brokeback Mountain Moment" concerning their relationship with him -

    "I wish I knew how to quit you."

  55. [55] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What does a gay bar have to do with anything other than to set the stage for a partisan agenda??

    Your first post on the subject also mentioned a gay bar. Guess it had even more of a partisan agenda...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your first post on the subject also mentioned a gay bar. Guess it had even more of a partisan agenda...

    That was the MSM headline, not mine.

    So yes.. DEFINITELY a partisan agenda...

    We agree...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    If we are to believe all the verbal repudiation directed at Trump from the lips of Republican Leadership they appear to be having a collective and public "Brokeback Mountain Moment" concerning their relationship with him -

    Apparently the Republican leadership had the same relationship with Reagan.... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    The more the Republican leadership castigates and denigrates Donald Trump, the more and more popular Trump becomes with Joe and Jane Sixpack... :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hi Al and, thanks for the put down. You always find a way ... :)

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I never tire of your unique take on things.

    And, by 'unique', you mean what, exactly?

    I didn't read that piece yet - I'll have to get back to you on the anti-BDS actions and reactions ...

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So yes.. DEFINITELY a partisan agenda...

    Yes, we agree, you opened up with a partisan agenda...

    I'm curious as to why a gay bar at 2AM. Not something I would expect ISIS to arrange. I think there is something more to it. If that is a "partisan agenda" in your book, then that is an issue you will have to deal with yourself. I can guarantee all those hero cops are asking the same question. Are they merely pursuing a "partisan agenda"?

  62. [62] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Back to what Lincoln would do. I think he would change parties. Just like he dumped the Whigs.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, we agree, you opened up with a partisan agenda...

    No... We agree that Daily Mail UK opened up with a partisan agenda..

    But, if it will make you feel warm and fuzzy to blame me??

    Knock yerself out.. :D

    Not something I would expect ISIS to arrange.

    And your VAST experience in Counter Terrorism tells you this?? :D

    I think there is something more to it.

    Of course you do... I have no doubt..

    I can guarantee all those hero cops are asking the same question.

    Again, your VAST LEO experience tells you what questions those cops are asking???

    Does a gay bar have any relevance??

    Possibly.. Islamic terrorists are notoriously anti-gay...

    Is the fact that it's a gay bar give the Left Wingery some reason to legitimately blame the Right Wingery??

    Not even on a cold day in hell..

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Back to what Lincoln would do. I think he would change parties.

    HONEST Abe sure wouldn't change to the Party of Crooked Hillary Clinton, if that's the point you are trying to make...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And your VAST experience in Counter Terrorism tells you this?? :D

    Cut and paste appeal to authority....

    Again, your VAST LEO experience tells you what questions those cops are asking???

    Cut and paste appeal to authority....

    Does a gay bar have any relevance??

    Enough to ask the question...

    Is the fact that it's a gay bar give the Left Wingery some reason to legitimately blame the Right Wingery??

    I have no idea. As you are the first to bring it up, why don't you answer. Anything would be better than boiler plate fallacies...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cut and paste appeal to authority....

    Yes...

    I have authority and experience, training and expertise to appeal to..

    That's kind my point..

    Enough to ask the question...

    What does your vast non-partisan experience, training and expertise tell you?? :D

    I have no idea.

    Then quit pretending you do...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I have authority and experience, training and expertise to appeal to..

    Really? As an LEO you would not question why a gay bar at 2AM? Are you sure you have LEO experience?

    Then quit pretending you do...

    You first.

  68. [68] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    I'm assuming you didn't feel stupid asking who Jill Stein is, so why would you consider ignorance a "put down"?
    And the corporate media blackout on Jill Stein and all things Green Party wasn't your decision.

    As for "unique", being original is a compliment in my book.

    There's nothing worse than parrots and plagiarists.

    I look forward to your views when you get a chance to read CW's current column under which you are commenting.

    A

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: Michale [36] Looks more now like an anti-gay rampage - another using an AR-15. Suspect reported to be American born. Father says the suspect wasn't the jihad type, but was offended when his young son saw two gay men kissing while with him in Miami recently.

    Re: altohone [32] Methinks thou protests to much. I was very careful in my use of the terms 'left', 'far right' and 'far left' in my comment, and never mentioned Wall Street, neoliberal economics, or the Military, though I look forward to a rousing discussion of those issues with you some day, perhaps.

    Is it wrong in this day and age when so many elections are 50/50 and polls have us divided so closely on so many issues, that when certain issues 'break out' - which I define as polling at something close to 60% approval or better consistently, as the issue of marriage equality did in the last few years for instance - that the issue can be legitimately described as centrist, (or even 'radically centrist' since Congress will only mark them up with ten foot poles). No issue begins as a centrist, or majority-held issue: by definition every idea begins in a minority of one. That is also not to say that ideas that are not held by the majority are bad ideas: again, every idea, even the good ones, begin as minority-held ideas.
    But one of the central organizing principles of our republic is that there is such as thing as collective wisdom: that under our system, voters, like customers, are always right. We've been test-driving that idea for a little over two centuries.
    Now it's easy to throw lots of shade on that: a majority of people in this country believe in ghosts and angels, and that Cheetos is food. Still, that was the alternative to a crazy tyrant, so that's our system.

    Now we are facing a potential crazy tyrant who has used the old 'divide and conquer' tactic to get himself nominated by a major political party. Is this really the time for us to have another Ralph Nader moment? There is still only one way to stop a crazy tyrant, and that is a unified vote against him. There is no other safe way to do it.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? As an LEO you would not question why a gay bar at 2AM? Are you sure you have LEO experience?

    It wouldn't be my first question, as it was yours...

    Due to the obvious Islamic connections, the intel that ISIS would be striking in FL soon, I would surmise that a gay bar was just a fortunate (for the terrorist) happenstance...

    There is no evidence to even hint that a gay bar was targeted beyond the Islamic Terrorists' natural hatred of gay people..

    In other words, I would not be putting out an ALERT to all Gay Bars (ONLY) based on this one attack..

    You first.

    "Are you trying to piss me off?"
    -Kevin Bacon, FOOTLOOSE

    My LEO, security, military and CT experience is well-documented around these here parts.. :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    My LEO, security, military and CT experience is well-documented around these here parts.. :D

    Or at least alleged...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Re: Michale [36] Looks more now like an anti-gay rampage -

    And the partisan pieces are being placed.. :D

    another using an AR-15.

    Not sure what the choice of weapon has to do with gay/anti-gay... ???

    Suspect reported to be American born.

    So were the Paris terrorists...

    Father says the suspect wasn't the jihad type,

    All fathers say that...

    but was offended when his young son saw two gay men kissing while with him in Miami recently.

    That is information I did not have.. Kudos..

    If accurate, then that does elevate the possibility of a gay crime...

    Thank you for enlightening me.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or at least alleged...

    It's only questioned by you and only when you have no facts to go by...

    Which is often..

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, it's OK..

    I have nothing to prove here..

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: dsws [38] and The Stig [62]

    I agree completely.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: Michale [36] Looks more now like an anti-gay rampage -

    And the partisan pieces are being placed.. :D

    So, since we're going partisan....

    Scumbag was a registered Democrat... :D

    Senator Bill Nelson has been informed that the scumbag has connections to ISIS....

    This is a jihadist terrorist attack...

    Anything else is incidental to that central fact....

    Michale

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, since we're going partisan....

    Scumbag was a registered Democrat... :D

    ..so, even an anti-gay terrorist found the current GOP too radical to suit him.. ;D

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Scumbag was a registered Democrat... :D

    It also looks like he had a concealed carry license for the state of Florida.

    It's only questioned by you and only when you have no facts to go by...

    Missing a very basic investigative question and making assumptions while the investigation is on going. There are some facts that you only play an LEO on the internet...

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I look forward to your views when you get a chance to read CW's current column under which you are commenting.

    You just never miss an opportunity, do you, Al ... :)

    Okay, I just read the MDDOTW portion of the commentary I am commenting under and, unsurprisingly, I agree with everything Chris said.

    Lately, I haven't been reading the commentaries, just some of the comments ... call me lazy.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts are mounting up...

    Jihadist terrorist attack..

    Not a Gay Bar hate crime attack..

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ...another using an AR-15.

    Not sure what the choice of weapon has to do with gay/anti-gay... ???

    The choice of weapon has to do with what's available on the open market. The manufacturer should be made to sponsor the coverage: "Brought to you by the AR-15 - America's mass murder weapon of choice!"

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS before Florida massacre
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/suspected-gunman-in-florida-gay-club-mass-shooting-idd/

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not one to toot my own horn..

    But... beep beep

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    The choice of weapon has to do with what's available on the open market.

    So, we are in agreement..

    An AR-15 is not an anti-gay weapon...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Missing a very basic investigative question and making assumptions while the investigation is on going

    I didn't miss it at all..

    I just gave it it's due relevance...

    And, as per the usual in LEO/security issues, the facts have proven me correct..

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    An AR-15 is an anti-human weapon.

  87. [87] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] A: have you looked at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ to see what Hillary has to say, or not?

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    An AR-15 is an anti-human weapon.

    An AR-15 is a tool.. Nothing more...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, it's a tool alright!

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unbelievable.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tell me, Michale, how would you rate this tool with respect to its efficacy as a killing machine, in the right human hands, of course.

    And, then, you can enumerate the countless uses for this tool that have nothing to do with killing humans.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell me, Michale, how would you rate this tool with respect to its efficacy as a killing machine, in the right human hands, of course.

    On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best killing tool ever, I would rate the AR-15 about a 3... Maybe a 3.5

    And, then, you can enumerate the countless uses for this tool that have nothing to do with killing humans.

    Survival....

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make??

    Would it be a better world if we didn't need guns??

    Of course it would..

    Are we ever going to see a world where guns are not needed??

    Not in our lifetime.. Probably not in our grandchildren's lifetimes..

    As long as there are evil people who will impose their will by force or violence... Guns will always be necessary..

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is no valid reason for AR-15s and the like to be available to civilians.

    That's the point I'm trying to make.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no valid reason for AR-15s and the like to be available to civilians.

    "Valid" is an extremely subjective term...

    Your "not valid" is another person's VERY valid..

    And both are equally important to their respective speakers..

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Michale, you are simply wrong on this one.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale, you are simply wrong on this one.

    Nope... Just a difference of opinion...

    :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to the latest reports, ISIS is "waging war on gays"...

    Well, isn't this a pretty pickle for the Democrat Party...

    One segment of a constituency of the Democrat Party (muslims) is claiming a brutal and terroristic war against another constituency of the Democrat Party..

    Will the Democrat Party finally come to grips with radical muslim jihadists and islamic terrorists to protect the gay community??

    Will the Democrat Party be able to even SAY radical muslim jihadists and islamic terrorists??

    Stay tuned.... :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In any event, Michale, perhaps you could agree with this notion ... I don't care to discuss guns or gun control in the wake of this tragedy because that would miss the opportunity for all freedom-loving citizens of the world to come together in an unprecedented show of unity against the violently deranged Islamist extremists, regardless of what these barbarians are called or not called.

    I think President Obama's remarks were elegant and eloquent and I wish all political leaders in the US would publically stand with him and behind his words.

    Do you think you can do that, Michale?

  99. [99] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthasar
    69

    "That's a good thing for centrists, who have their own radical agenda that the extremists have ignored"

    The "centrists" recognizing that public opinion has shifted and that majorities support various issues does not make it "their own radical agenda" nor does it in any way, shape or form mean that the "extremists" on the left are now ignoring the agenda they spent decades convincing the majority to support.
    You're late to our party, but we're glad you came.

    "Is it wrong in this day and age when so many elections are 50/50 and polls have us divided so closely on so many issues, that when certain issues 'break out'... that the issue can be legitimately described as centrist"

    Of course not.
    But you were claiming ownership of our agenda and pretending that we ignore it.
    Do I need to cut and paste your own words again?

    Furthermore, by your definition of centrist, the policies that Bernie Sanders ran his campaign on all qualify except one... breaking up the banks only polls at 52%.
    How did the "centrists" describe Bernie's policies?
    I don't think they used the word centrist.
    Funny... don't ya think?

    Since you apparently missed the point I was making about Wall Street, middle class killing neoliberal economics, and never ending military interventionism, I consider the policies of the status quo "centrists" to be extremist.
    Specifically, the policies that Hillary and her corporatist buddies support... policies that by your own definition do not qualify as centrist.
    The results speak for themselves... failure at home and abroad.

    Many on the left, myself included, will not vote for a candidate that opposes what we support, and supports what we oppose. Voting for your neoliberal corporatist tyrant Hillary would be condoning her disgusting, extremist policies.

    You can repeat the Nader myth til the cows come home, but registered Dems voting for Bush in Florida cost Gore the election.
    I would think that "centrists" would abide by the personal responsibility bit they expect of the masses.
    You talk of "unity"... maybe instead of blaming the left, you should unite your own party members this election.

    If you want unity with the left, nominate a candidate the left can vote FOR.
    It's a simple concept.

  100. [100] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz
    79

    You leave the opening, I'll take it.
    I wouldn't laugh at you if I didn't care.

    Anyway, glad you agree with CW, but I was asking about Hillary's support for the anti-BDS agenda... and CW completely ignored it... too.

    A

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There you go again, Al. :)

    I can see both sides of the BDS movement and, I suspect that not everyone on either side of it has benign intentions.

    I disagree with many of the policies of Israel's current government because I think they are counterproductive AND I understand the dynamics of the neighbourhood that Israeli's must live in.

    These are very complicated issues with no easy answers.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al, how would you describe the anti-BDS agenda?

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @alto,

    once again we come upon the question of whether or not the exercise of economic power constitutes protected speech. citizens united says that it does. most folks on the left say that it doesn't, unless they happen to be conducting economic "speech" against israel. BDS is aggressive economic action against a country that is allied with the United States. calling state economic action against practitioners of economic aggression a "blacklist" is miscasting the struggle as government censorship. in my view it's an equal counterbalance to economic aggression against our political ally.

    JL

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    In any event, Michale, perhaps you could agree with this notion ... I don't care to discuss guns or gun control in the wake of this tragedy

    I am betting you are going to be alone in that position...

    I think President Obama's remarks were elegant and eloquent and I wish all political leaders in the US would publically stand with him and behind his words.

    I'll read his words and get back to you on it..

    Do you have a link??

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I disagree with many of the policies of Israel's current government because I think they are counterproductive AND I understand the dynamics of the neighbourhood that Israeli's must live in.

    These are very complicated issues with no easy answers.

    Actually, there is a VERY easy answer with regards to the Israel/Palestinian/Iranian situation.

    Palestinians and Iranians must STOP the terrorism before Israel does ANYTHING..

    What could be simpler??

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think President Obama's remarks were elegant and eloquent and I wish all political leaders in the US would publically stand with him and behind his words.

    But I WILL say that, if Obama didn't use the correct term to describe the incident (Islamic Terrorism or words to that effect) then his words are hollow, political and without meaning...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    While Obama refrained from speculating about whether Mateen’s religious beliefs might have been a factor in the rampage — or even saying the word “Islam” — he did make an appeal for tighter gun control.

    “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle,” the president said. “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”

    Nope.. Obama's words were nothing but partisan, selfish and IGNORANT...

    In other words, using a tragedy to push an unpopular and unnecessary agenda before the bodies are even cold..

    Until such time as a gun, in and of it's own volition, walks into a crowd of people and makes a conscious and sentient decision to shoot people, then.... and ONLY then... with the anti-gun fanatics have a logical and rational point..

    However......

    If Obama wants to lead by example and have guns banned from his house and his security detail and the security details of EVERY single person in his administration???

    I would definitely encourage him to lead by example in that manner...

    THEN he might have some words to say that AREN'T blatantly hypocritical...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, as someone who has just heard of this BDS debate, I have to say that my first impression is that it is well-meaning but misguided. For one thing, in the last Israeli elections, despite Likud's victory, the left actually picked up seats. The Knesset elected in 2015 has fewer settlers (and supporters of settlements outside the major blocs), fewer Orthodox lawmakers, a record number of women, more supporters of progressive streams of Judaism, and more Arabs than its predecessor.

    So is this the right time to put economic pressure on this country, in which so many on both left and right already feel that they're under siege? What if the result is to strengthen the right rather than weaken it, as Israelis 'rally round the flag' and try to protect their own families from economic hardship? You're already seeing Jews from the left and right in this country uniting against this idea; what makes anyone think the same won't happen there? Wouldn't that actually achieve the opposite of the results that BDS organizers desire?

    So Cuomo might just be protecting both left-leaning Israeli interests and long-term American interests, as well as the actual interests of the BDS organizers themselves by pushing back on this notion with such awful blow-back potential. Imagine that.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    So is this the right time to put economic pressure on this country, in which so many on both left and right already feel that they're under siege? What if the result is to strengthen the right rather than weaken it, as Israelis 'rally round the flag' and try to protect their own families from economic hardship? You're already seeing Jews from the left and right in this country uniting against this idea; what makes anyone think the same won't happen there? Wouldn't that actually achieve the opposite of the results that BDS organizers desire?

    It's funny you should say that because it's the EXACT point I always make when this BDS (AKA economic terrorism) idea comes up..

    BDS invariably hurts the VERY people that the BDS organizers claim to be fighting for.. In other words, it has the opposite effect..

    By and large, boycotts are nothing more than haters saying, "I hate you and I am going to make sure you are hurt."

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Until such time as a gun, in and of it's own volition, walks into a crowd of people and makes a conscious and sentient decision to shoot people, then.... and ONLY then... with the anti-gun fanatics have a logical and rational point..

    To see the fallacy in that argument, just replace the word 'gun' with the word 'penis'.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    To see the fallacy in that argument, just replace the word 'gun' with the word 'penis'.

    I don't get it...??

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But for a government itself to blacklist people and companies under its power -- purely over their political beliefs -- is nothing short of totalitarianism.

    @CW,

    you've really stepped in it with this award. i agree with the governor on this point - BDS is economic warfare, not political beliefs, and israel is not apartheid south africa, it's our ally for seventy years.

    if our government is allowed to protect its allies from military attacks with military force, why is it not allowed to protect its allies from economic attacks with economic force? your blacklist analogy is completely wrong.

    JL

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is the Left talking about banning penises (penisii?? penisium???) now?? :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't planning on an MMMMR today, but this fact-filled article was just too good not to share...

    As a proud third generation Mexican American, a father and husband to a Mexican-born wife, Trump’s hurtful words about Mexicans made me recoil.

    Far from wanting to climb aboard the “Trump Train,” the candidate’s nativist words and simplistic approaches had me looking to derail it.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/07/a-latinos-case-for-trump/

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW (con't),

    i mean, if you were sheldon adelson or the koch brothers, i'd understand you taking the point of view that economic activity is protected first amendment speech. my understanding was that you opposed that conceptual framework for the exercise of economic power. if you use organized economic power to support or oppose something, my view is that government has the right to impose limits on that economic power, based on the interests of our nation and its allies. how is your assertion of totalitarianism by the state of new york any different from an argument in favor of citizens united?

    JL

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just don't understand why Obama can't say radical islamic terrorists???

    Who is he afraid of offending??

    The radical islamic terrorists???

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    i mean, if you were sheldon adelson or the koch brothers....

    ..... or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.....

    i'd understand you taking the point of view that economic activity is protected first amendment speech.

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I just don't understand why Obama can't say radical islamic terrorists???

    For the same reason that David Berkowitz wasn't called a 'radical Jewish terrorist'. What he did had nothing to do with Judaism. The ideology that is espoused by ISIS or Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam, as most of the world understands it. No reason to label it 'Islamic' when it isn't, regardless of what it purports to be. If someone started a group purporting to be Christian, but believed a philosophy of "Hate thy neighbor", you wouldn't call them 'Radical Christians', you'd call them nut jobs.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Berkowitz was a single person whose crimes (not terrorism, but CRIMES) had nothing to do with his jewish-ness..

    Comparing Berkowitz to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, et al is like comparing apples and submarines...

    No reason to label it 'Islamic' when it isn't, regardless of what it purports to be.

    If it was just a random act here and there, you would have a point.

    But we are talking a systematic, systemic, ongoing and pervasive level of action that has been perpetrated for over 40 years.. ALL with Islam at it's base...

    If someone started a group purporting to be Christian, but believed a philosophy of "Hate thy neighbor", you wouldn't call them 'Radical Christians', you'd call them nut jobs.

    *I* would call them both because BOTH are factually accurate...

    And you can bet that if christianity played the part in all this violence that islam is playing, the ENTIRETY of the Left Wingery up to, AND including Obama plus every Weigantian here would ALSO be calling them radical christian terrorists..

    The common thread is islam... To deny this is to deny reality..

    And if our leaders can't even recognize the threat, how can they fight it??

    Answer?? They can't...

    Which is why we are seeing a San Bernardino and an Orlando and why we will continue to see more and more of the same...

    Because you can't fight something you refuse to see as the threat...

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    dsws wrote:

    ... the countless uses for this tool that have nothing to do with killing humans.

    A gun is not primarily a tool for killing people. It's primarily a tool for threatening people.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... Let's forget about the islamterrorist connection..

    What's islam's position on women?? gays?? adultery??

    You REALLY want to be defending a religion that authorizes rape and murder of women? A religion that EXECUTES gay people?? A religion that stone women (ONLY women) to death for adultery??

    Is that REALLY want you want to defend??

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    A gun is not primarily a tool for killing people. It's primarily a tool for threatening people.

    So says those who are completely ignorant of guns..

    No insult intended..

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The facts are mounting up...

    Jihadist terrorist attack..

    Not a Gay Bar hate crime attack.."

    Why can't it be both? Since it is acknowledged that ISIS is also very Anti-Gay.The two could be mutually reinforcing rationales, at least in the mind of the shooter.

  124. [124] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    101, 102

    Call me crazy, but your response is the very same non-committal answer you gave the last time we discussed Israel.
    I guess I can appreciate the consistency.

    But, if you agree with CW, you should disagree with Hillary to maintain that consistency.

    The anti-BDS gang that equates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism is flat out indefensible.

    Not supporting BDS is one thing, legislating punishment against those who are exercising their right to protest is a new and dangerous and extreme position... and clearly unconstitutional.

    If in place of Israel you were to substitute South Africa, Iran, oil companies, Frito-Lay or whatever, something becomes very clear... an exception is being made for Israel that wouldn't fly in any other circumstance.

    With billionaires on both sides of the aisle pushing this monstrous, constitution violating agenda, and the clearly false justifications being presented, I think the true motivations of those like Hillary for violating beliefs they would profess in all other circumstances becomes clear too.

    A

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why can't it be both? Since it is acknowledged that ISIS is also very Anti-Gay.The two could be mutually reinforcing rationales, at least in the mind of the shooter.

    Attacking gay bars is not tactically sound from a terrorism perspective..

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see that Hillary has finally capitulated to Trump and identified the problem has islamic terrorism...

    Obama??

    He is still being a dumb ass....

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

    Once again, the hypocrisy is glaring and unequivocal..

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We don't need conspiracy theories and pathological self-congratulations. We need leadership, common sense, and concrete plans because we are facing a brutal enemy."
    -Hussein Obama

    Which is why we need Donald Trump..

    Because our current leaders can't even recognize WHO the enemy is!!

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, Hussein Obama is right..

    There is nothing to worry about with ISIS..

    They *ARE* just the J.V. after all... Right?? :^/

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I am ECSTATIC that Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration and they entirety of the Left Wingery are pushing a gun ban...

    Nothing guarantees a Trump Presidency more than the Looney Left Wingery trying to equate gun ownership with terrorist attacks....

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are told not to judge all muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. Yet we are also told TO judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
    -Left Wing "logic"

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    i realize you've been busy fixing this wonderful site so we have a forum to vent our issues, but when possible i'd like a response to my views on BDS and citizens united, please [112/115].

    not that i agree with the JCPA on many political things, but their views on BDS are at the very least germane to the question of whether retaliation by US governmental interests is something other than "totalitarian"

    http://jcpa.org/unmasking-bds/

    the publicized “demands” of the BDS movement state clearly that the endgame of this punitive global campaign is to cause Israel’s implosion as the nation-state of the Jewish people and enable the creation of another Arab-majority state in its place.

    presuming for a moment that this may be the case, how is government economic action against this movement totalitarian? there's a legitimate disagreement about which side is right in this conflict, and our government is entitled to weigh in on the side it supports. cuomo is not proposing military action, merely the exact same action the BDS people themselves are taking against israel.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why can't it be both? Since it is acknowledged that ISIS is also very Anti-Gay.

    I am also constrained to point out that ISLAM is ALSO "very Anti-Gay"... So much so that muslim governments EXECUTE gay people under the auspices of islam...

    Not radicals... Not jihadists... Islam GOVERNMENTS execute gay people under the auspices of mainstream islam..

    And this is the religion ya'all are DEFENDING!???

    It boggles the mind....

    Is the Left pro-gay or pro-islam..

    Because one sure as hell can't be both...

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it is true that the best defense is a good offense, President Obama should be celebrating in the end zone now. Obviously furious over criticism that his anti-terror policies are weak and that the Orlando slaughter proves it, he went on a televised tirade to let America know he’s mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

    He laid waste to a field of straw men, cable-TV pundits and the always-evil “partisan rhetoric,” by which he means anyone who disagrees with him. It was a striking display of personal anger and pent-up grievances — and a total failure of leadership during a national crisis.
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/15/obamas-tantrum-a-striking-display-of-failed-leadership/

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who is Hussein Obama?

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Call me crazy, but your response is the very same non-committal answer you gave the last time we discussed Israel.
    I guess I can appreciate the consistency.

    Al, is it possible for you to discuss something without resorting to this kind of snide sarcasm?

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al, I'm going to go ahead and assume that your silence means you can't. :)

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al, I'm going to go ahead and assume that your silence means you can't.

    NOW yer getting it.. :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who is Hussein Obama?

    I think he hangs around with Donald Drumpf and the Orange Men...

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Furthermore, a "blacklist" generally means a list of individual people who are forbidden from doing an entire class of action (e.g. employment, air travel, gun ownership). the refusal of public agencies from one state to do business with companies who participate in BDS fails the blacklist test on two fronts: first, the companies are not prevented by law or executive action from doing any class of business entirely, they just lost a fairly large client as a consequence of their political stance. second, there are no individual rights at stake; members of a company who tries to do economic harm to israel are free to stop BDS, to join a new company or to find new clients.

    the state of new york decided to engage in BDS against practitioners of BDS, and that's a legitimate political decision, not a constitutional violation. if the state of oregon decided they wanted to participate in BDS against israel, they would be equally entitled and equally accountable to their voters.

    JL

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news, the BERNIE OR BUST group just gained a LOT of traction...

    A DNC document dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid from the Capital lawn – described “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”

    “With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted “BernieOrBust,” a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.