ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [397] -- Taking The Trump Exit

[ Posted Friday, June 24th, 2016 – 16:56 PDT ]

Donald Trump's name lends itself to all sorts of mashed-up words, but we find it doesn't really work with the big story of the week. British voters decided to take the so-called "Brexit" (or "British exit") from the European Union. But what should we call the increasing stream of Republicans flowing away from Trump's campaign? Truxit? Trexit? See, it just doesn't work all that well.

But whatever you call it, the number of GOP stalwarts now taking the Trump exit continues to increase. It's kind of astounding that so many in the party are fleeing their own presidential nominee, since this (to put it mildly) isn't normal. Normally, the party rallies around their candidate right about now, but these are not (again, to put it mildly) normal times.

Just in the past week alone, we had well-respected Republican foreign policy wonk Brent Scowcroft actually endorse Hillary Clinton for president. That's pretty stunning. Then there were a list of 50 Republican business leaders who also publicly announced they were supporting the other party's candidate. George Will is now pleading with Republican donors to not give Trump a thin dime. Senator Mark Kirk, who is in fear of losing his seat in Illinois, is proudly running away from both Trump and his own party (his recent ad boasts Kirk "bucked his party to say Donald Trump is not fit to be commander-in-chief"). Go on, tell us how you really feel, Senator Kirk!

One Republican was a bit more eloquent about his disgust towards Trump. Lionel Sosa, described as: "One of the few Hispanic political operatives able to help Republican candidates win large percentages of Latino voters," will be leaving the Republican Party if it nominates Trump. He explains why he's made this decision:

I'll have to bid [the Republican Party] farewell, hoping that one day soon, it comes to its senses. Here's my thinking. This madness could be temporary because our nominee is not really a Republican. Not a real conservative. He's just a shark, a self-promoter out to see how far his out-of-control ego can take him.

Instead of "Tear down this wall," the party promotes a new and bigger wall. A thousand points of light has been replaced by a thousand points of anger. In place of compassionate conservatism, our nominee promotes callousness, extremism and racism. And instead of a unifier, the party now cheers the ultimate "us against them" proponent. Divisiveness incarnate.

Wow. And that's all coming from Republicans, mind you. The Trump campaign had another bad week all around, beginning with Trump firing his campaign manager. The news that the campaign is essentially broke also hit hard. Trump ended the last filing period with less money in the bank than many House candidates. Hillary is outspending him in battleground states by over a $20-million-to-zero margin.

From all reports, Trump just doesn't like to do fundraising. Fundraising is a part of politics that most politicians hate, because it involves picking up the phone and calling wealthy people to ask them to send you a bunch of money. It's tawdry -- there's no getting around it. Trump, so far, seems not to have called anybody on the GOP's "big donors" list. This, in addition to the "we're flat broke" campaign finance report, means GOP donors are now less inclined to make donations, even if Trump calls them up and personally asks. "Why throw away money on a losing cause?" the fatcats wonder. Making it even harder in the future for Trump to raise funds. It's a vicious cycle, and it couldn't be happening to a more deserving guy, really.

Trump tried to get back on offense this week, by giving a speech outlining all the ways he's going to be attacking Hillary Clinton over the course of the campaign. Unfortunately for Trump, most of it was laughably inaccurate and some of it descended to the level of flat-out conspiracy theory. Especially amusing was his claim that Clinton "was asleep" when the tragedy in Benghazi happened (she wasn't -- it was three o'clock in the afternoon when the call came in, not three in the morning).

Clinton also gave a speech which attacked Trump right back. She got off one amusing line during it (about how all Trump's books "seem to end at Chapter 11"), but she still needs some work on her delivery. But beyond oratory style, Clinton's biggest danger this year is going to be running a too-conventional campaign strategy against Trump, who is making up his own rules as he goes along. One thing Clinton should do to practice facing hostility would be to give a press conference (since it's now been over 200 days since she last did so). If you can't even face reporters' questions, after all, how are you going to ever face Trump on a stage?

Three names have popped up on the shortlist for Hillary's veep choice: Senator Tim Kaine, HUD Secretary Julián Castro, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren will actually be appearing on the stump with Hillary in Ohio on Monday, which could serve as an audition of sorts. Reports are that Clinton and Warren don't exactly have a close relationship, though, and there was a very disturbing story in Politico recently -- which was disturbing on a number of levels:

Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren's attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her," said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. "They would literally just say, 'We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you've had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can't trust you, you've killed it.'"

Personally, we think that is a dandy reason to pick Warren. Pissing off Wall Street would be a good thing, in our book at least. Forgive my language, but it actually comes from one of these donors, explaining why they wouldn't speak on the record: "There is no upside to my talking to you on the record. Either I piss off the Clinton campaign or I piss off Warren, or both."

Like we said, the whole article was a pretty cynical look at how politics works these days. Speaking of denouncing such a rigged system, Bernie Sanders made crystal clear what he wants now, in an op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post. Here are his opening and closing paragraphs:

As we head toward the Democratic National Convention, I often hear the question, "What does Bernie want?" Wrong question. The right question is what the 12 million Americans who voted for a political revolution want.

And the answer is: They want real change in this country, they want it now and they are prepared to take on the political cowardice and powerful special interests which have prevented that change from happening.

. . .

What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life. As Lincoln put it at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for.

Bernie now says he'll vote for Hillary Clinton, so he's edging closer to trying to unify the Democrats for the general election campaign.

In other news, Marco Rubio has decided that he will, after all, run for re-election. The Washington Post summed this up in a single headline: "Marco Rubio Is Running For Senate Again. So That He Can Run For President Again." Florida voters, beware!

It was a busy week for the Supreme Court, with rulings that watered down the Fourth Amendment, reaffirmed affirmative action in college admissions, and punted (with a 4-4 tie) on Obama's immigration plans. This last one was a political loss for Obama, as he likely won't be in office when the issue is fully resolved.

In marijuana news, there is a bipartisan bill moving in Congress to essentially remove all the restrictions on medical marijuana research. The astonishing part is that it was written by both strong supporters of ending the War On Weed as well as the staunchest drug warriors in the House. Maybe with those co-sponsors it has a chance of passing, who knows?

Data is now in from Colorado, showing that legalizing recreational marijuana use among adults had almost no impact on underage marijuana use. None! If anything, teen use went down because of legalization. Add that to the enormous heap of wrong predictions (and outright lies) the public has been told about marijuana, for approximately the last century.

In related news (heh), Led Zeppelin won a court challenge to the originality of "Stairway To Heaven."

All kidding aside, we'll end where we began, with Donald Trump. There's one Republican candidate for office (for a House seat from Tennessee) who obviously isn't taking the Trump exit. In fact, he's actually gone beyond Trump in racism (something that's not all that easy to do). He put up a proud sign with his own charming take on Trump's signature slogan: "Make America White Again." Hey, since it seems to be the year to discard all the dog whistles in favor of just saying what you feel, why not? The sign later came down, but it's obvious we're in for a whole different style of politics on the Republican side, possibly for a long time to come.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one is obvious. The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was Representative John Lewis, veteran of the Civil Rights battles, who staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives which lasted over 25 hours, in an effort to force a vote on gun control legislation that 85-to-90 percent of Americans want to see happen.

We already wrote this past week about what a brilliant piece of political theater this was. In fact, in the very first blog post I ever wrote, I called on Democrats (who, in 2006, were also in the minority in Congress) to start playing some offense instead of just moping about not being in charge:

Realistically, since Democrats don't control either house of Congress, they can't schedule floor votes on their issues (or even get them out of committee). But that doesn't mean they can't use the media to effectively start a national debate on their own "hot button" issues.

. . .

There's no shortage of good hot button issues to pick from that poll at 60%, 70% or even higher with the general public -- in both blue states and red.

. . .

Democrats need to take back Congress, but the only way they'll do it is to give people a good solid reason to vote for them, not just against the other guys. Something Americans would be for without caring which party thought it up. Something a devout churchgoer in the Deep South could support as enthusiastically as a tree-hugger in San Francisco. Republicans can scream and rant about being anti-this or anti-that until they're blue in the face, but the average swing voter is going to think: "Wow, that's a good idea. That would make my life easier. I'm voting for that."

This is precisely what the House Democrats just did. Following the Senate's lead (after Chris Murphy's filibuster), they focused on only two gun control bills: universal background checks, and banning suspected terrorists from buying guns. Both poll astronomically high with the public at large.

Democrats are now vowing to vigorously make their case out on the campaign trail. This is a great idea. Put as much pressure on Republicans as humanly possible on both issues. The campaign ads would almost write themselves ("Congressman Smith wants terrorists to be able to buy guns!").

For leading this effort in the House, and for showing the country what Democrats look like when they're on offense, John Lewis is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. He took an old civil disobedience idea and masterfully used it to radically change the debate on a very important issue. A hearty "Well done!" to Congressman Lewis and all the other Democrats who stood (or "sat") by him.

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

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Sadly, this one is also pretty easy this week. Representative Chaka Fattah was convicted of financial racketeering charges this week. You can read the whole sordid story for the details, if you'd like.

The icing on the cake, though, was Fattah's announcement (after he had been found guilty as sin) that he would be stepping down from his seat... in October -- the day before he will be sentenced. Because, you know, another three months of salary isn't too much to ask, right?

Republicans began moving quickly to force Fattah out, so he quickly decided that it'd be better for everyone if he just stepped down immediately. But even attempting to cash a few more paychecks after a racketeering conviction was a pretty nakedly greedy move, so both for his many crimes and his attempt to cash in until the last possible day, Chaka Fattah is unquestionably our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Since he is no longer a member of the House, his contact page will no longer be available. Maybe you could write to him when he starts his prison term, if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 397 (6/24/16)

Before we begin this week's talking points, we have some old business to take care of. A few weeks back, in FTP [374], we ran the final round of our "best playground taunt to call Donald Trump" contest. We had four finalists, but in the end we're going with the simplest and most elegant of the choices. We felt it was the most versatile, the most cutting, and the most dismissive label of all the suggestions we received.

The runner-up slogan is funnier, we do admit: "Crazy Uncle Donald." It universally brings to mind that relative you only see at Thanksgiving and Christmas who revels in being politically incorrect. However, we see this one as better for surrogates and attack dogs to use against Trump, because it is a little too blunt for a presidential candidate (one not named Trump, at any rate) to use. The word "crazy" is just a wee bit too much, at least to us.

Which is why we decided on "Poor Donald" instead. This is even more appropriate now that the Trump campaign appears to be in financial trouble. It fits in with Trump's refusal to release his tax returns -- probably because he wants to hide how little he's actually worth. Literal meaning works just fine in saying "Poor Donald," but it also brings to mind nothing short of pity. It evokes the flavor of "Richie Rich, the poor little rich boy." Poor Donald -- we should all hold a pity party for him.

We feel that this is calculated to get under Trump's orange skin in multiple ways, which was the whole point of the contest in the first place. So we congratulate Balthasar, a commenter at my blogsite, who came up with the winning entry. Woo hoo! You have earned respect (but, unfortunately, no actual prize), and we will begin using "Poor Donald" as many times as we can in the coming months.

OK, that's enough old business, let's get on with this week's talking points. As always, use responsibly.

 

1
   92 percent

These first two come from a CNN poll with some eyebrow-raising statistics.

"Democrats in Congress held a sit-in this week to draw the public's attention to how bought-and-paid-for all the Republicans are on commonsense gun control laws. The N.R.A. calls the tune, and the Republicans dance. They refuse to even bring up a bill expanding background checks, even though an astounding ninety-two percent of the public agrees with the idea. Over nine out of ten Americans want Congress to act -- and we bet that includes a whole bunch of constituents who are paying attention now and who will be paying attention this November in the voting booth."

 

2
   85 percent

These first two are (if you'll forgive the analogy) a double-barrelled shot Democrats should be verbally firing.

"In the same poll, almost as many Americans support banning people on federal watchlists from buying guns -- an astounding 85 percent of the public agrees with the idea. What's even more startling is that the support among Republican voters is actually higher than the average. A whopping ninety percent of Republicans want to see people on the No-Fly List or other terrorist watchlists banned from buying guns. Once again, in case you missed it, ninety percent of Republicans want to see Congress act. The N.R.A. doesn't want Congress to act. It's pretty easy to see that Republicans are completely ignoring the will of the people -- their own partisan voters, even -- in favor of kowtowing to a big campaign donor."

 

3
   Getting out in front, for once

As mentioned earlier, it certainly is nice to see Democrats playing offense, for once.

"Count me among those who are pleased that Democratic politicians are making a stand (by sitting down) and for once going on offense on a political issue with sky-high public support. They should continue protesting Republican inaction right up to the election, in fact. Republicans have always been eager to explain why certain laws needed to pass for national security, always helpfully pointing out: 'If you're not a terrorist, this won't apply to you, so don't worry!' But when the subject of allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy high-powered military weapons, then Republicans balk. The public is not on their side, and Democrats are the ones showing leadership this time around. We can't force Paul Ryan to hold a vote in the House, but maybe if we make this a centerpiece of the election, we'll be able to get a vote under Speaker Pelosi next year. The time for moments of silence is over. The time for action is here. And you can bet your bottom dollar Democrats will be pointing this out from now to Election Day."

 

4
   Ryan's other failure this week

Paul Ryan has had a pretty miserable week. So point it out!

"Paul Ryan rolled out the long-awaited official Republican replacement of the dreaded Obamacare this week. Initially, Ryan promised he'd roll out actual legislation to accomplish this, but then he found out this was too hard to do, for a simple reason: the numbers just don't add up. When you propose a bill, it has to be 'scored' to see what the outcome will be in dollars and other statistics (like number of people insured). But all the Republican ideas -- each and every one of them -- will actually cost more money than Obamacare, and have a worse outcome. So Ryan instead decided to just put out a 'white paper,' which is Washington-speak for 'some vague ideas with no actual details or numbers.' Republicans have had six years to offer up their magical replacement plan for Obamacare, and they still cannot do it because the numbers just don't add up."

 

5
   Speaking of political stunts...

But there's an even better way to drive this point home.

"Paul Ryan complained that the Democrats were doing nothing more than (as he put it) putting on a 'political stunt' with their sit-in. If you're wondering why he's so cranky on the subject, it's because the Democratic effort completely buried his own political stunt this week. Ryan rolled out his replacement for Obamacare, straight from the Land of Make-Believe, which has no details and no numbers. When he took over leadership of the House, he promised he'd pass actual legislation -- an actual bill to replace Obamacare. He could not do so because, as always, the Republican numbers just don't add up. So rather than provide real numbers, Ryan decided a political stunt would do the job just fine. Too bad for him that he chose a week to pull this stunt when Democrats showed how much better they are at political theater. Ryan was upset because their stunt blew his away in the media world, plain and simple."

 

6
   Taking the Trump exit

Although admittedly not as catchy as "Brexit," we think this phrase nicely balances "jumping on the Trump train." When you want to get off it, it's not a train, it's a highway -- and many are already heading for the exit lane.

"At this point, you have to wonder how many Republicans are going to eventually decide to take the Trump exit. Brent Scowcroft and 50 Republican business leaders did so this week, declaring their support for Hillary Clinton rather than supporting their own party's nominee. Latino Republicans are heading for the exit, too. Conservative columnist George Will is begging Republican donors not to donate to his party's presidential nominee. Has America ever had a presidential election where so many respected voices from one party have denounced their own nominee? At this rate, I'd have to warn Republicans to head for the Trump exit ramp as soon as possible, because as time goes by a real traffic jam may develop."

 

7
   Only one year?

And finally, we had to end on a happy note.

"Can you believe it's only been a single year since the Supreme Court upheld marriage equality all across America? Thinking back to the time before the court ruled on the matter once and for all is like remembering some much more distant era in history. In only a year, gay marriage has been almost completely normalized. The political fight is over. Opponents have moved on to other (and smaller) political battlefields, and even Republican candidates for office now regularly refuse to even talk about gay marriage. That's a big change from when they confidently used it as a wedge issue in every election they could. Such a big change has happened so swiftly that it now feels like gay marriage was legalized a lot longer ago than a single year, in fact. This is the ultimate victory, folks -- the other side has completely given up the fight. Soon it will become hard to remember a time when marriage equality wasn't the law of the land for all."

-- 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

 

187 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [397] -- Taking The Trump Exit”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    But what should we call the increasing stream of Republicans flowing away from Trump's campaign?

    Truck off?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice. :)

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    In a sentence:

    "I'm not supporting our Republican nominee, I'm Trucking off as fast as I can in the opposite direction"

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    MDBPOTW (Most disappointing British Politician of the week):

    Nigel Farage said the country had voted to leave 'without a single bullet being fired'.

    Tell that to Jo Cox's two little children.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "I'm not supporting our Republican nominee, I'm Trucking off as fast as I can in the opposite direction"

    Not nearly as effective, I'm afraid. :)

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup. Trucked that one up, didn't I.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's better.

  8. [8] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Strongly agree with the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week being John Lewis.

    Just want to add that the idea of the sit-in actually originated with Rep Katherine Clark (MA-05) who then took it to Lewis.

    The chant of "No Bill, No Break", customised lyrics to We Shall Overcome (which included the line "We shall pass a Bill someday") and placards printed with the names/photos of gun violence victims were all organised beforehand. But the sit-in, as I understand it, was enacted on the spot without prior discussion. Only a handful of people knew about it beforehand.

  9. [9] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Another interesting tidbit of information in The Guardian this week involved Trump's former campaign manager:

    CNN hired Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager fired by Donald Trump, as a political commentator, a move that has angered members of the press who highlight the fact that Lewandowski has signed a non-disparagement agreement with Trump’s campaign.

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow! So Trump has a pre-nup for his staff. What a sad little man.

    You know we've got to do it: #saysomethingbadcorey

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    British voters decided to take the so-called "Brexit" (or "British exit") from the European Union.

    Just wondering if that little explanation was really necessary. I'm just sayin' ... :)

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, anyone not paying attention could use the Google, you know.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, then your column could have been a few words shorter. :)

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, do you think your readers are not so bright?

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    British voters decided to take the so-called "Brexit" (or "British exit") from the European Union.

    As somebody who writes technical white papers and then has them proof read by writing experts, always defining TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) in parenthesis after the first use is just a habit that I'm sure is even more drummed into journalists than gibberish spouters such as myself :)

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, Neil, that is a more common practice than you may think and not confined to white papers and expert writers.

    And, besides, that's not what Chris was doing.

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Firstly, Thanks CW, for choosing my entry as your winner.

    You have earned respect (but, unfortunately, no actual prize), and we will begin using "Poor Donald" as many times as we can in the coming months.

    Oh, that's a prize for me, as my immense satisfaction will have to compete with the constant urge to brag about it.

    And you can take it to the Convention! Perhaps you could ask every one of your interview subjects to use the term "Poor Donald" in a sentence and report the results?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is especially strong today... :D

    Trump will be the nominee and Trump will demolish Clinton in the General..

    Get used to it, people... :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop calling us 'people'. Ahem.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I'm going to keep calling him Mr. Trump and Hillary would be wise to do the same.

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Regarding the 'Trump Exit': as I said the other day, that would be from the 'Trump Towering Inferno."

    Heh. Still like that.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    This one is obvious. The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was Representative John Lewis, veteran of the Civil Rights battles, who staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives which lasted over 25 hours, in an effort to force a vote on gun control legislation that 85-to-90 percent of Americans want to see happen.

    I see.. So, when the GOP shuts down the government to push an agenda that the American people are all for, that's a bad thing..

    But when the Democrats shut down the government to push an unnecessary, unpopular and useless agenda???

    That's MIDOTW material???

    Gotcha... {wink} {wink} :D

    Cue cries of, "Well, that's different..." :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's not bad.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh. Still like that.

    It's not bad.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop calling us 'people'. Ahem.

    Weigantians?? :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I see.. So, when the GOP shuts down the government to push an agenda that the American people are all for, that's a bad thing..

    I remember that. Polls at the time showed that the American public was nearly 70% against the shutdown. You could do better than to simply assert falsehoods.

    But when the Democrats shut down the government to push an unnecessary, unpopular and useless agenda???

    Suffice to say it is necessary, popular (even with gun owners), and would save lives. The difference is that for their stunt, the Democrats decided to promote an idea with actual popular support.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow! So Trump has a pre-nup for his staff. What a sad little man.

    You don't think Hillary has one???

    Once again, the bigotry and hypocrisy is glaring and obvious..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I remember that. Polls at the time showed that the American public was nearly 70% against the shutdown. You could do better than to simply assert falsehoods.

    But Americans were 70% FOR what the GOP shutdown the government over...

    That's my point...

    uffice to say it is necessary, popular (even with gun owners), and would save lives.

    "it"??

    What "it"??

    The latest WIBN law that the Democrat's are whining about???

    Will it prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks??

    No, it won't..

    So it's moronic to waste time talking about it..

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Have gun regulations helped Chicago?? DC??? San Bernardino?? 9/11?? Oklahoma City?? Fort Hood?? Columbine?? Sandy Hook?? Charleston?? San Ysidro??

    The track record for Democrat's gun laws is doesn't even register, it's so low...

    By definition, those who commit terrorist acts and crowd based mass shootings are criminals..

    What part of GUN LAWS DON'T WORK do ya'all not understand???

    But hay... Tell ya what... Why don't ya'all bring up these gun regs every time there is gun violence anywhere in the country???

    Why politicize a tragedy for partisan gain??

    THAT right there shows the complete inanity of the Democrat's actions..

    They CAN'T stand on their own merits because they have no merit...

    These moronic actions MUST have a national tragedy to prop them up...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What part of GUN LAWS DON'T WORK do ya'all not understand???

    Your argument reminds me of the headline fromthe Onion after San Bernadino:

    'No Way to Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

    And so: background checks have prevented over 2.6 million guns from falling into the wrong hands. Polls show that a majority of Gun Owners support extending background checks to gun shows.
    Why is this even an argument?

    The NRA claims 5 million members.
    Private health exchanges (Obamacare) signed up six million members last year.
    Amnesty International has seven million members, as does the Twitter account of Indian movie star Anupam Kher.
    Sony's Playstation Plus has 7.9 million subscribers.
    The Jehovah's Witnesses claim 7.96 million members.
    The Church of Scientology claims 8 million members.
    Fraternities and Sororities in the US claim 9 million members, as does the website Chess.com.
    Solidarity had 10 million members, as do the dating apps Happn and Jaumo.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point is, ya'all HAVE all the gun restrictions that are compatible with the 2nd Amendment...

    The only place ya'all have to go is a gun ban...

    And to do that, you'll have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and gut the 4th and 5th Amendments..

    Good luck.. Lemme know how that works out... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I see.. So, when the GOP shuts down the government to push an agenda that the American people are all for, that's a bad thing..

    But when the Democrats shut down the government to push an unnecessary, unpopular and useless agenda???"

    Actually, that's a pretty good piece of falsehood you wrote there Michale, since Democrats in reality did not "shut down" the government at all!!! Republicans in the HOUSE simply IGNORED them and went right on with business as usual, including a scheduled recess of Congress. Also, unlike what the Republicans did, what Democrats did had no effect on the functioning of ANY of the rest of the branches of government at all, like the National Park Service, for instance.

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Have gun regulations helped Chicago?? DC??? San Bernardino?? 9/11?? Oklahoma City?? Fort Hood?? Columbine?? Sandy Hook?? Charleston?? San Ysidro??"

    They have HELPED the state of Hawaii however, which now has both the strictest gun regulations in the nation as well as lower gun violence than ANY of the less regulated mainland states.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, that's a pretty good piece of falsehood you wrote there Michale, since Democrats in reality did not "shut down" the government at all!!!

    You can spin it all you want, JM..

    But the intent was the same...

    They have HELPED the state of Hawaii however, which now has both the strictest gun regulations in the nation as well as lower gun violence than ANY of the less regulated mainland states.

    Hawaii has a special set of circumstances that don't apply to any other area of the country...

    Even if you could apply Hawaii to the rest of the country, that is ONE success out of dozens and dozens of failures..

    If ya'all want to push gun regs, let the regs stand on their own merits.. Don't politicize a tragedy to push an unpopular agenda..

    If your WIBN laws can't stand on their own.... Well, there's a reason for that...

    Michale

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The only place ya'all have to go is a gun ban

    And to do that, you'll have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and gut the 4th and 5th Amendments..

    i thought your position was that those don't apply to terrorists.

    i recognize your concern that a ban on terror suspects buying guns might get the foot in the door and result in further restrictions on legitimate gun owners. also the likelihood that such a ban would not prevent every single potential terror attack.

    however, if no-fly-no-buy means that even one potential terrorist attack is prevented, won't it be worth it?

    JL

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    i recognize your concern that a ban on terror suspects buying guns might get the foot in the door and result in further restrictions on legitimate gun owners. also the likelihood that such a ban would not prevent every single potential terror attack.

    however, if no-fly-no-buy means that even one potential terrorist attack is prevented, won't it be worth it?

    Yes, I thought I made that clear... I don't have a problem with stopping those on the TWL from purchasing guns.. I am a little more iffy on the NFL list...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I further believe that those on the TWL and NFL should not be allowed to vote...

    You???

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I have another movie suggestion for ya..

    EYE IN THE SKY

    Stars Helen Mirren and it was Alan Rickman's last movie..

    VERY good movie..

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gotta say...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClsAKXoVEAAvkDT.jpg

    That's pretty kewl... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    World’s 400 Richest People Lose $127 Billion on Brexit: Chart
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/world-s-400-richest-people-lose-127-billion-on-brexit-chart

    Ya'all should be ecstatic.... Dancing in the streets.... :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is what I don't get about ya'all...

    The power of the people just struck a blow against the faceless soulless globalist corporate entities...

    And ya'all are castigating the people and siding with the faceless soulless globalist corporate entities...

    What gives???

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I understand that describing the Brexit victory as Magna Carta 2.0 is inexact, I think it makes a key point: Britain will regain its political freedom, its autonomous self-government and its independence from an EU that is spinning out of control under the power of establishment elites, unelected and unaccountable socialist bureaucrats, and a judicial court that is increasingly making legal decisions that replace Britain's powerful common law.

    The EU's tax and regulatory policies, climate-change and welfare spending and free immigration -- even in wartime -- are gradually ruining Europe. That's why I believe Brexit is good for British freedom, political autonomy and the survival of democratic capitalism.

    The business elites told British voters that leaving the EU would lead to economic catastrophe. Well, in England, Main Street defeated the establishment elites by sending a populist message.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/25/magna_carta_20_good_for_freedom_good_for_growth_131015.html

    And I thought ya'all were all about populism..

    Michale

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brexit petition hits TWO MILLION as Brits call on Parliament to force through a second EU referendum
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-petition-hits-two-million-8281945

    Those Brits must have taken their cue from the 2000 Democrats..

    Keep voting until the desired result is obtained..

    Ya lost, ya wankers...

    Deal with it...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [43] Physicist Brian Cox: "...what happens if over 17 million people sign the petition for a second referendum?"

    You have to appreciate what the poor Brits are going through, unless you've never inadvertently locked your keys in you car..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You must appreciate what the British are going through, unless you've never inadvertently locked your keys in your car.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you equate the will of the British people with a mistake??

    Maybe it's REMAIN that would have been the mistake..

    The Brits took back their country...

    The populist forces defeated the globalist corporatist forces...

    I am just gabberflasted that ya'all are siding with the globalist corporatist forces against the populist forces..

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Revolt casts shadow over Hillary...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/brexit-revolt-casts-a-shadow-over-hillary-clintons-caution.html?_r=0

    And the hits just keep on coming for Hillary...

    Ya'all just have to appreciate the irony here..

    The GOP candidate is the populist candidate and the Dem candidate is the globalist, corporatist candidate...

    To paraphrase the old Klingon proverb...

    Irony is a dish best served cold..

    :D

    Don't get me wrong. I am all for a one government world. We HAVE to get there before we can join the United Federation Of Planets... :D

    But I want our one government world to be a government OF the people...

    NOT a government OF the corporations.....

    What simply flips my waffles is to see ya'all on the side of the corporations AGAINST the people....

    Mind-blowing....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am just gabberflasted that ya'all are siding with the globalist corporatist forces against the populist forces..

    in general i am a populist, and i'm not unaware of the irony.

    JL

    p.s. that's not really a klingon proverb, it's french. it's been pared down and revised over the years, but as best I can tell it was originally:

    La vengeance est un met que l'on doit manger froid.
    ~Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    anyone following the scottish plan to try to stay in the EU?

    I won't be getting too far down in the weeds until things settle a bit. In the meantime, I'm focused on the bigger picture, lessons to be learned and how they are applied, or not, to your own big election.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What simply flips my waffles is to see ya'all on the side of the corporations AGAINST the people....

    How, pray tell, do you deduce that?

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's Eye in the Sky all about, Michale?

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Corporations ARE people, my friend." - Mitt Romney

    Naw, you don't really believe that anyway.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How, pray tell, do you deduce that?

    Oh, the level of stretching and practice it must take to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to come to his conclusions has to be unbelievable!

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

    So, what do you think of Brexit?

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    How about you show us how the gun control laws made the murder rates worse in those cities?

    You claim that they didn't help stop violence, but you offer nothing to show that is actually the case -- that gun violence would have occurred at the same rate had control laws not been in place.

    No one ever claimed that these any piece of legislation would ever result in the elimination of all gun violence. Yet, you seem to think that is what gun control legislation is supposed to do or else it shouldn't even be considered.

    Yes, gun violence still occurred at an alarmingly high rate. Here's the difference between the Left and the Right. The Left believes that something must be done to stop it. The Right wants it to continue because that is what the NRA tells them to believe. The NRA knows the fear of violence will help sell more guns, which will contribute to even more gun violence and thus the never-ending cycle that has become their cash cow!

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think Brexit was voted for by people who were angry at what their lives are like, but don't know what they can do to change it for the better. Anger is one of the easiest emotions to manipulate; pride being the easiest. Once you allow arrogance to cause people to blame all of their problems on some thing other than themselves, it's easy to get them to believe that they surely could do things better without the others in the way. I never really read any articles that discussed or outlined the plans for how those against staying in the EU intended to get England back up and running like they believe it should. They only focused on being angry that others had caused their lives to suck.
    I doubt that many realized just how tough it would make things, at least for a while, if they got their wish to be on their own.

    Kinda like Trump backers. That wall might keep out the illegals that have caused all of their financial woes, but that wall doesn't actually change the average citizen's life one bit. Their life will still suck and they won't know how to begin to do anything about it -- until the next election and it's time to go after the next thing they are told by the Republicans has been causing all their problems!

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That may be why many voted in favour of leaving.

    But, I think there were many reasons for why votes were cast the way they were.

    At work today, I had a chance to speak with someone originally from Romania who had spoken with a good friend in London about the vote and both were happy with the outcome.

    I gathered from my conversation that the economic arguments made against Brexit were probably the worst kind of arguments that could have been made to persuade more Britons that staying within the EU was the best way forward when the status quo, economically and politically speaking, is inordinately benefitting only a relative few.

    Their satisfaction with the outcome had to do with how they thought the EU has handled freedom of movement, immigration, and the refugee crisis, not to mention how the still reverberating impacts of the global financial crisis are being felt, all of which has left them with a real sense of mistrust and utter lack of confidence in the competency of their own elected officials and of their European Union parliamentarians.

    The original concept of Project Europe, once valid and needed, is now perceived as too bureaucratic with too many regulations, too dictatorial, and too corrupt to see what it has become. Indeed, the best that establishmentarians could say about it was that it kept the peace. The chaos of Brexit may just end up exposing all of this. Which may be what many in the Leave camp hoped for.

    Call it a wake-up call to the establishment and the political elites that run it. My sense is that if the EU doesn’t learn the lessons of the Brexit vote and change in ways that benefit the whole and each of its member countries and their people, then an EU break-up may be as inevitable as it is necessary.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Hillary needs to learn these lessons, too, and apply that learning to her presidential campaign because that may be part and parcel of the only way she beats Trump.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem for the Remain campaigners is a bit like the problem the center politicians in this country are facing.

    The benefits of being in the EU are nebulous, and the impact does not have simple stories to support it.

    The Leave campaign had a simple story - "EU" = "Immigrants" = "Changing Britain for the Worse" and "Taking Our Jobs"

    This is similar to the simple story that drive many Trump supporters. Note that this isn't a racist story (even though Trump is obviously a racist himself) but a fear of "the other" and a perceived correlation that "more others" occurred in parallel with "my life isn't what I expected it to be".

    Hillary needs to be able to tell a simple story to beat Trump, but this isn't playing to her strength. Fortunately she has four people who can do it for her: Bill, Obama, Warren and Sanders (when he works thru his personal demons).

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    The Leave campaign had a simple story - "EU" = "Immigrants" = "Changing Britain for the Worse" and "Taking Our Jobs"

    While that may have moved a certain percentage of Britons into the Leave camp, I think it misses a major part of the story of what motivated many others and what may have severe impacts upon the outcome of the US vote this November.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary needs to be able to tell a simple story to beat Trump, but this isn't playing to her strength. Fortunately she has four people who can do it for her: Bill, Obama, Warren and Sanders (when he works thru his personal demons).

    She actually has five. Ahem.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Neil,

    The Leave campaign had a simple story - "EU" = "Immigrants" = "Changing Britain for the Worse" and "Taking Our Jobs"

    While that may have moved a certain percentage of Britons into the Leave camp, I think it misses a major part of the story of what motivated many others and what may have severe impacts upon the outcome of the US vote this November.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The problem for the Remain campaigners is a bit like the problem the center politicians in this country are facing. The benefits of being in the EU are nebulous, and the impact does not have simple stories to support it.

    We may have to take a closer look at the EU and how it has evolved - apparently, corruption is rampant, bureaucratic regulations have become quite cumbersome and it is run in an almost dictatorial fashion as opposed to through consensus where the elites in each of the member countries benefit inordinately from membership.

    It sounds like the EU might need some serious reforms if it is to survive another forty years.

    The political and financial establishment in the US will do well to take heed of the situation the EU finds itself in.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    in general i am a populist, and i'm not unaware of the irony.

    Of course you're not.. :D

    The Brexit vote was a POPULIST vote against the globalist corporatist forces of darkness...

    Those who are against BREXIT are siding with the evil corporatists..

    The irony is palpable and so thick it can be cut with a knife.. :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The problem that Globalists (and countries that have embraced the promise of globalism, including the US, Britain, and the European Union) face right now is that they have managed to spread markets far and wide, which has been a boon to everyone working above the 50th floor (and, to be fair, to the very poorest in the world as well), but have failed to put anything in place to protect the living standards of those workers in the advanced Western world who have, over the last few decades, watched their purchasing power diminish dramatically and seen their earnings stagnate, most importantly the lower middle classes and below, who have had to bear the brunt of it all directly.

    That is the genesis of the Brexit vote. The rest is all side-effect.

    And they'll have to work fast if they want to hold off their arch-enemies, the Nationalists, who would presumably back out of, and would certainly complicate, world markets, which would inevitably shrink as a result, causing capital to dry up, especially in developing areas of the world. This could cause increased political disruption, including an increase in anti-western sentiment.

    So this is a unique moment, when the left has an opportunity to appeal to the business sector and to say, "See? See what your trickle down theories and benign neglect of the dislocated have done for you? You've just lost the GNP of Canada in one day because you've spent the last twenty years fighting to deny these poor bastards a modest raise. Perhaps it's time to start working with governments on their mission to improve people's lives instead of financing ignorant, economically stupid politicians who promise not to raise taxes on you. Unless, of course, you favor the alternative, which, in the long run, won't leave you any more popular, wealthy, or frankly, likely to survive."

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    How, pray tell, do you deduce that?

    Simple..

    As I told Joshua above, on the one side were the BREXIT supporters. Populist people-power supporters..

    On the other side were the globalists corporatists....

    Ya'all are siding with the globalists corporatists AGAINST the populists people-power people..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's Eye in the Sky all about, Michale?

    Drone attacks on terrorists and the moral implications of same...

    Towhit, is it morally acceptable that one innocent dies in order to save a hundred other innocents...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    How about you show us how the gun control laws made the murder rates worse in those cities?

    Simple...

    If law-abiding citizens are not allowed access to firearms, only the violent criminals have guns..

    You do the math..

    "An armed society is a polite society"
    -Robert A. Heinlein

    You claim that they didn't help stop violence, but you offer nothing to show that is actually the case -- that gun violence would have occurred at the same rate had control laws not been in place.

    Perhaps.. But it would be the violent criminals dying.. Not innocent men, women and children..

    No one ever claimed that these any piece of legislation would ever result in the elimination of all gun violence. Yet, you seem to think that is what gun control legislation is supposed to do or else it shouldn't even be considered.

    No, I believe that the discussion of legislation should address the issue that prompted the discussion in the first place...

    It would be like pushing legislation for air bag safety in cars after a bridge collapse that kills hundreds of people who just happen to be driving in cars when the bridge collapses.....

    It's ridiculous and it's contemptible to push a partisan agenda at the expense of a completely unrelated tragedy....

    Yes, gun violence still occurred at an alarmingly high rate. Here's the difference between the Left and the Right. The Left believes that something must be done to stop it.

    Then let the Left do something that actually has an effect on the tragedy that prompted the actions..

    But pushing a COMPLETELY unrelated agenda that will do NOTHING to address the problem that prompted the discussion is contemptible..

    The NRA knows the fear of violence will help sell more guns, which will contribute to even more gun violence and thus the never-ending cycle that has become their cash cow!

    Except that it's the DEMOCRAT'S actions that are prompting more gun sales and more gun owners..

    And, ironically enough, guns are being purchased by the MILLIONS and violent gun crimes are going down..

    Funny how that is, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Kinda like Trump backers. That wall might keep out the illegals that have caused all of their financial woes, but that wall doesn't actually change the average citizen's life one bit.

    Yea??? Let's ask Kathleen Steinle how her life would be changed if illegals were kept out??

    I think her life would be DRASTICALLY changed.. Because she would actually be ALIVE... Not brutally murdered...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Heh.

    So, what do you think of Brexit?

    I think it's awesome..

    It shows that the power is STILL with the people and that the people DO have a say in their destiny..

    It was a blow to the corporatist globalist mentality..

    And it's a sure-fire sign that Trump will be our next President...

    Trump = Brexit

    Hillary = EU

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wasn't me! Obama shrugs off his humiliating failure to stop Britain quitting Europe by claiming 'globalization' was to blame for shock result
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3658258/White-House-crisis-talks-Britain-DEFIES-Obama-quit-European-Union-plunge-world-markets-shock.html

    And THAT just makes the icing on the cake.. :D

    But Obama was right. It WAS the populist people rising up against the globalists corporatists forces...

    And, in this country, the forces of globalization and corporatists are represented by Hillary Clinton and the populist people are represented by Donald Trump...

    The writing is on the wall, my fellow Weigantians...

    Read 'em and weep....

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It wasn't me! Obama shrugs off his humiliating failure to stop Britain quitting Europe by claiming 'globalization' was to blame for shock result

    I said as much in post [66].

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Yea, I just saw that when I got to my shop...

    The problem that Globalists (and countries that have embraced the promise of globalism, including the US, Britain, and the European Union) face right now is that they have managed to spread markets far and wide, which has been a boon to everyone working above the 50th floor (and, to be fair, to the very poorest in the world as well), but have failed to put anything in place to protect the living standards of those workers in the advanced Western world who have, over the last few decades, watched their purchasing power diminish dramatically and seen their earnings stagnate, most importantly the lower middle classes and below, who have had to bear the brunt of it all directly.

    Exactly... Enslave the poor, enhance the rich and tell the Middle Class to go frak themselves...

    But what no one here wants to do is address the elephant in the room..

    And the elephant is that the above is exactly what Obama, Hillary and the Democrat Party stands for these days..

    And they'll have to work fast if they want to hold off their arch-enemies, the Nationalists,

    Uh no.. And you were doing so well!! :D

    In this case, the BREXIT'ers *ARE* the Nationalists...

    So this is a unique moment, when the left has an opportunity to

    And the Left *IS* the forces of globalization and corporatization...

    THAT is what ya'all don't get...

    Yer on the wrong side...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Open revolt against encrusted establishment'...
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/24/brexit-strengthens-global-effort-to-unseat-unresponsive-elites/

    Hillary is the "encrusted Establishment"....

    Trump represents the populism of the people...

    These are the facts of the issue. And they are indisputable..

    Admit it.. Your more than a little concerned that the BREXIT success pushes Trump's chances of victory much higher..

    It's OK, you can tell me... :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You can spin it all you want, JM..

    But the intent was the same..."

    1.) Since when are intent and results the same thing?

    2.) Even on intent, you are still wrong. The intent was not to shut down the government. The intent was to disrupt the proceedings in the House to force a vote on the two bills at hand. Whether or not they actually passed was irrelevant.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really quite simple, my friends...

    If you are for populism, if you are for the Middle Class, if you are against evil corporations and elitists.... Then you should cheer the BREXIT and rally with the Brits...

    If you simply toe the Party line and are enslaved by Party dogma...

    Then you castigate, demonize and ridicule the British people for their votes....

    Like I said... Simple...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It seems to me that if you are really against elites, then backing a flashy billionaire for president doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

    Thing is, just by repeating a lot of crap he read on Worldnet Daily (or heard on Hannity), he's managed to convince a lot of undereducated white folk that he's one of them. Mind you, this man has never NOT been rich. He has never lived without a maid, or doorman, or chauffeur. Poor Donald, working class hero.
    BWAHAHAHAHA. That's a good one.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems to me that if you are really against elites, then backing a flashy billionaire for president doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

    Yer absolutely right.

    It DOES seem a little incongruous...

    But the facts ARE the facts..

    It is simply undeniable that Hillary Clinton is the Establishment/Globaltist/Corporatist candidate that was just thrown out of the UK by the Brits..

    he's managed to convince a lot of undereducated white folk that he's one of them.

    So, basically what you are saying is that anyone who supports Trump is stupid...

    :D

    Well, ya got the elitist part down pat.. :D

    Poor Donald, working class hero.

    Yep..

    And that just pisses ya'all off to no end, doesn't it. :D

    Trump is the Populist candidate..

    Hillary is the Corporatist candidate...

    When the rubber hits the road, it all comes down to Party Loyalty...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    he's managed to convince a lot of undereducated white folk that he's one of them.

    But, of course, ya'all know better, right???

    Ya'all aren't going to be fooled!! :D

    Deny reality all you want..

    But the facts of the here and now is that Hillary is the EU and Trump is the BREXIT.... :D

    Will that be true in November?? No telling...

    But in the here and now, it is undeniable...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What's Eye in the Sky all about, Michale?

    Drone attacks on terrorists and the moral implications of same...

    Towhit, is it morally acceptable that one innocent dies in order to save a hundred other innocents...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOqeoj669xg

    "I have attended the immediate aftermath of five suicide bombings on the ground, with the bodies. What you witnessed today with your coffee and biscuits is terrible. What these men would've done would've been even more terrible.
    NEVER tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."

    -Alan Rickman, EYE IN THE SKY

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    2.) Even on intent, you are still wrong. The intent was not to shut down the government.

    The intent was to shut down the House until such time as the Democrats demands were met...

    You can semanticize it all you want...

    But the facts are the facts..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:
  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Brexit vote was a POPULIST vote against the globalist corporatist forces of darkness...Those who are against BREXIT are siding with the evil corporatists..

    Once again, as per your usual strategy and tactics, your attempt to simplify the situation completely obscures the reality of the situation.

    Well done.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, as per your usual strategy and tactics, your attempt to simplify the situation completely obscures the reality of the situation.

    And, once again, you attempt to complexualize (an old word I just made up.. :D) a situation so as to obfuscate how bad it really is for Hillary and the Democrat Party.. :D

    It IS a very simple issue..

    On the one side, you have the middle class and the populism of the people...

    On the other side, you have the New World Order, globalists and corporatists....

    Now, I have been listening to ya'all for over a decade telling me how evil and bad the corporatists are... Ya'all were very adamant and very straight-forward..

    Now, all of the sudden, when the agendas of the Democrat Party and the corporatists align...

    NOW... it's a hugely complex issue...

    I am not buying it..

    It's still the same easy simple issue it's been for the last decade..

    The ONLY difference is NOW, the Democrat Party has switched sides and is now the Party of the globalists, elitists, corporatists...

    See??? VERY simple...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    “What this vote is about is an indication that the global economy is not working for everybody. It’s not working in the United States for everybody and it’s not working in the U.K. for everybody.”
    -Bernie Sanders

    It's only working for the globalists, the elitists, the corporatists... People like Hillary and Obama...

    And their days are numbered...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Recently I visited Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Irish Republic, and found evidence of what Sanders is talking about in fishing communities from County Down to Donegal.

    In the picturesque Ulster village of Portavogie, 100 commercial fishing boats belonging to local fishing families once plied the Irish Sea. Today, there are only 40, and what they can catch and where they can fish is determined by bureaucrats in Brussels. But thanks to Brexit, those territorial waters, and the shrimp they are known for, once again belong to the British.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/26/is_brexit_a_good_omen_for_trump_131004.html

    Seems pretty simple to me...

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    http://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/disgraced-ex-un-officials-death-conveniently-timed/

    Another "convenient" strange death of a corrupt person with ties to Clinton...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    On the one side, you have the middle class and the populism of the people...

    On the other side, you have the New World Order, globalists and corporatists....

    Can you back any of this bs up with data? I see that Scotland, Northern Iraland, Gibraltar, most of London and all the 18-24 year olds throughout the UK overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU. Those who voted for it were generally lower income, lower education levels and older.

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You must be very bored to be pushing conspiracy theories..

    The ONLY difference is NOW, the Democrat Party has switched sides and is now the Party of the globalists, elitists, corporatists...

    Well, that isn't true in either sense, but if the GOP is ready to stop coddling corporations, and is ready to put Wall Street on the same diet that we're on, I'm sure we're ready to talk.

  91. [91] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Did'ja see that George Will left the Republican Party? Echoing Reagan, he said, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican party left me."

    Latest poll shows Hillary up by 5 points.

    Trump says the decline in value of the British Pound is good because it means that more people will be able to play at his Scottish Golf course.

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It IS a very simple issue..

    that is a million percent untrue. the issue is incredibly complex. there are many different social and economic classes, many different strains of populism and corporatism, each with different attitudes toward social control, economic control, which liberties ought to be sacrosanct and which restricted, and how all those decisions ought to be made.

    a problem this complex, subjected to the form of an either-or dichotomy between simple solutions, is about as close to the height of foolishness as can possibly be achieved.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"
    ~HL Mencken

    populists and corporatists both exist at every point on the spectrum from malignant to benign. my instinct is that there's no actual ill will on either side, perhaps even the desire to do good. but that alone isn't going to get us positive results. even the best of intentions can quickly turn terrible in the face of events.

    business insider reported last september that donald used to keep hitler's speeches by his bed, presumably to learn the useful lessons without adopting the more genocidal aspects. but sometimes when you learn that stuff you don't realize where you're headed.

    KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
    GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
    SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.
    KIRK: But it was brutal, perverted, had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example?
    SPOCK: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state, run benignly, could accomplish its efficiency without sadism.
    ~Star Trek - Patterns of Force

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    reporters from the guardian were also banned from that golf course.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/donald-trump-media-ban-guardian-denied-entry-campaign-event

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    You must be very bored to be pushing conspiracy theories..

    Well, actually, I am.. :D

    But I figured I would give Hillary a break from being raked over the coals as a corporatist globalist and just show how she is a cold-blooded murderer.. :D

    Well, that isn't true in either sense, but if the GOP is ready to stop coddling corporations, and is ready to put Wall Street on the same diet that we're on, I'm sure we're ready to talk.

    Near as I can recall, it wasn't the GOP that was threatening the Brits if they chose to leave the EU....

    :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    that is a million percent untrue. the issue is incredibly complex.

    Unless, of course, the vote would have gone the Democrat Party/EU way... :D

    But, for me, it's very simple...

    Remember, knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. :D

    KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
    GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
    SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.
    KIRK: But it was brutal, perverted, had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example?
    SPOCK: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state, run benignly, could accomplish its efficiency without sadism.
    ~Star Trek - Patterns of Force

    Kudos...

    One of my favorite TOS episodes... :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did'ja see that George Will left the Republican Party?

    Who???

    :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face it.. Trump is as much a REAL Democrat as he is a Republican....

    That is why he is going to demolish Hillary...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    seriously? george will has been the conservative author i most respect for over a decade, and a lion of US conservatism for much, much longer. he is well informed, well reasoned, and often makes me doubt my premises, which is what a great opposition author ought to do.

    JL

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Never heard of him...

    But, that doesn't say much since I don't really much care for the GOP....

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    at the moment, neither does he.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    at the moment, neither does he.

    Touche' :D

    Good one... :D

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:
  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    25 out of 36.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some of them were very tough... I had to guess at one, which was the STAR TREK PHASE II question......

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Phase II project was forgettable in so many ways..

    But they're planning a new Star Trek series that does NOT follow the alternate timeline of the movies.

    I rather like the new movie timeline. No more need to wonder why ST art departments refuse to apply any sort of consistency to Vulcan, other than to imply that Vulcans are some sort of mole people who rarely put structures above ground. Romulus has always looked more advanced than Vulcan. Maybe Vulcans advanced their mental abilities by rejecting architecture.

    Fun Fact: Seeing the new movie will be my birthday present this year.

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The news if filling up with reports of folks who regret their Brexit votes.

    Apparently, a lot of people didn't expect this effort to leave to pass, so cast their 'leave' vote as a protest vote, and are now regretful about it.

    Others were so certain that the 'remain' side would win, that they didn't bother to vote.

    One fellow, interviewed on the BBC, said that he didn't think his 'leave' vote would count, and regretted it immediately.

    Others changed their minds after seeing the disastrous market results and hearing the commentary that accompanied the news. One woman said she was "conned" into believing that a "leave" vote would fill GB coffers with cash. "we need another referendum, she says."

    Why indeed not call a second referendum? Every proposal requires a 'second' under Robert's Rules of Order. If the 'leave' side is really sure that the folks who voted for their side did so knowing fully well what that vote meant for themselves and their country, then what have they to fear from another one, two or three more votes? Are they bigger whimps than Scott Walker? Because he didn't even sweat his recall vote, and he'd tell you - you're stronger after the second win.

    Here's a link to the Huffpo post I'm referencing.

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:

    [57] Listen: Yep, well stated.

    It is amazing the speed and depth of the regret being reported re: the Brexit. I don't think Brexit was the answer. The answer is to end the austerity being imposed on people. Or, at least, A answer. I'm sure it's not the total solution but it's a start. It will be interesting if the whole thing just gets ignored/reversed -- that's probably the best solution. That way the point will have been made by people who feel fed-up; the point will have been received by people who didn't grasp the depths of the problems people were facing, and maybe something constructive can start to occur.

  108. [108] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also of note, Hillary takes a 51 to 39 lead over Trump in new ABC poll -- fwiw. I don't think Trumpty's infomercial about his golf course went over very well; his timing was atrocious and his clear lack of grasp about the events re: Brexit -- beyond words.

    Meanwhile, George F. Will becomes an independent. I will feel more respect for the man when he quits his gig at FOX -- the home of all-things-horrible-re-republicanism. George crossed the line years ago, finally HAD to go to FOX because he'd become such a water-carrier for the far-right ABC couldn't tolerate him anymore. (Or whatever network he used to appear on.) He says it's not his party anymore but he is most definitely complicit in what it has become. When he admits that, the healing can begin....

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, yes ... let the healing begin.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    The news if filling up with reports of folks who regret their Brexit votes.

    Here's a link to the Huffpo post I'm referencing.

    Huffpoop??

    'nuff said.. :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also of note, Hillary takes a 51 to 39 lead over Trump in new ABC poll -- fwiw. I don't think Trumpty's infomercial about his golf course went over very well; his timing was atrocious and his clear lack of grasp about the events re: Brexit -- beyond words.

    Why is everyone so shocked about the BREXIT win???

    I know, I know.. Odumbo wanted GB to stay under the thumb of an appointed government that is the PU... And that's good enough for ya'all...

    But seriously...

    Doesn't it bother ya'all just a little that ya'all are on the same side as the fat cat bankers and the evil corporate CEOs???

    Doesn't that bother ya'all at all???

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, ya guys are in great company...

    Linsay Lohan ALSO sides with the globalists, corporatists, elitist side...

    :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, ya guys are in great company...

    Linsay Lohan ALSO sides with the globalists, corporatists, elitist side...

    :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The intent was to shut down the House until such time as the Democrats demands were met...

    You can semanticize it all you want...

    But the facts are the facts.."

    FINALLY. GOOD! At LEAST I got you to correct yourself, and you went from the FALSE assertion that Democrats shut down the WHOLE government to shutting down the HOUSE ONLY. So they were NOT in the same league as what the Republicans did AT ALL.

  115. [115] 
    John M wrote:

    On the Star Trek quiz, I am ashamed to say that I did not do better than getting 32 out of 36, SIGH!

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the Star Trek quiz, I am ashamed to say that I did not do better than getting 32 out of 36, SIGH!

    Don't feel bad.. Some of them were tough..

    Beyond the PHASE II one, the one that almost tripped me up was WHICH FAMOUS HISTORICAL PERSON DID KIRK AND SPOCK NOT MEET...

    I almost selected DaVinci, but then I remembered Spock's line about recognizing the brush strokes of a Flint painting...

    :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Britain "may never" trigger the formal divorce process with the EU despite last week's referendum in which the country voted to leave, EU diplomats said Sunday.

    "My personal belief is they will never notify" the EU about their intention to leave, a senior EU diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
    -EU Diplomat

    Is this the same EU diplomat who said that Britain would never vote to leave the EU.. :D

    Meanwhile the EU had received "thousands" of emails from Britons since Friday saying they were unhappy with the result, including some from people who had voted to leave the EU and were now regretting it.

    "It's the first time after a decade of hate mail from Britain, we are flooded with love emails," said the diplomat.

    "We have a lot of support in email"

    :D heh

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton says that the US needs an "experienced" leader to avoid the troubles of this country..

    Uh....

    Someone correct me, but it's those "experienced" leaders who CAUSED the troubles...

    It's like when these foreign policy "experts" complain about Trump...

    Yet, it's those same "experts" that royally frak'ed things up!!

    It's like listening to bankers who caused an economic meltdown on how to fix it...

    Oh wait.....

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    FINALLY. GOOD! At LEAST I got you to correct yourself, and you went from the FALSE assertion that Democrats shut down the WHOLE government to shutting down the HOUSE ONLY. So they were NOT in the same league as what the Republicans did AT ALL.

    Like I said.. Semantics..

    "Oh, the Democrats just shut down a LITTLE bit of the government to get their way. THAT's different"

    Democrats and Republicans use the same methods to achieve the same goals...

    When Republicans do it, it's pure evil incarnate...

    When Democrats do it, it's pure as the driven snow..

    "Woops... Looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it..."
    -Joyce DeWitt, THREES COMPANY

    :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations 'to be morphed into one' post-Brexit
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

    And the evil agenda is revealed...

    I honestly can't believe ya'all are for this...

    It's gabberflasting...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Don't feel bad.. Some of them were tough..
    Beyond the PHASE II one, the one that almost tripped me up was WHICH FAMOUS HISTORICAL PERSON DID KIRK AND SPOCK NOT MEET...
    I almost selected DaVinci, but then I remembered Spock's line about recognizing the brush strokes of a Flint painting..."

    Yeah, those were two of the ones that tripped me up. The other two were; what did Dr. McCoy never claim to be? (He has claimed not to be so many things!!!.) and who was the first Spock ever mind melded with? I don't remember that character Simon at all.

  122. [122] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations 'to be morphed into one' post-Brexit
    And the evil agenda is revealed...
    I honestly can't believe ya'all are for this...
    It's gabberflasting..."

    Why is it so hard to believe??? Why is it evil?

    1.) It has been American policy since the end of WWII by all administrations both Democratic and Republican, to support and encourage European integration.

    2.) The USA is an AMERICAN superstate built on Federalism. So why is it bad for the European continent but good for the American continent?

    3.) The beloved Star Trek Universe is built on the notion of a United Earth, i.e. a one world Federal government. So why is it surprising? Even Picard spoke in one Star Trek episode about the "European Hegemony" as being one of the first steps Earth had taken towards a true planetary world government. That he did not like the idea of admitting to the Federation only part of a planet. Crusher even mentioned Australia being one of the last nations to join the United Earth government before the Federation was formed.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, those were two of the ones that tripped me up. The other two were; what did Dr. McCoy never claim to be? (He has claimed not to be so many things!!!.) and who was the first Spock ever mind melded with? I don't remember that character Simon at all.

    Yea, those were close.. I remembered Dr Simon Geller from DAGGER OF THE MIND.. I knew it was an early episode, so I figured it was the first time..

    The McCoy one was also a guess.. Like you said, he has claimed so many things.. I just chose the one that was least familiar.. :D

    Why is it so hard to believe??? Why is it evil?

    Because it's being pushed by corporate entities AGAINST the will of the people..

    Ya'all have convinced me that corporations are evil and bad..

    NOW you are all for them creating superstates???

    The beloved Star Trek Universe is built on the notion of a United Earth, i.e. a one world Federal government. So why is it surprising? Even Picard spoke in one Star Trek episode about the "European Hegemony" as being one of the first steps Earth had taken towards a true planetary world government. That he did not like the idea of admitting to the Federation only part of a planet. Crusher even mentioned Australia being one of the last nations to join the United Earth government before the Federation was formed.

    As I have said, I am all for a United Earth...

    But I am for a United Earth based on cooperation of people and governments..

    Not imposed by corporate entities..

    Doesn't it concern you that EVERY global corporation, EVERY corporation that ya'all have deemed evil and corrupt....???

    EVERY ONE of them is FOR the creation of a superstate??

    Doesn't that concern you???

    Ya'all went batshit crazy because corporations were considered people..

    But NOW!??? NOW ya'all are simply ecstatic about the idea of corporations being GOVERNMENTS!!!???

    All because Obama, Hillary and the Democrats are for it...

    Globalism.. Corporatism... FREE TRADE...

    What kind of Democrats are ya'all!???

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Because it's being pushed by corporate entities AGAINST the will of the people..

    Ya'all have convinced me that corporations are evil and bad..

    No, no. I call BS on that. Righties are playing like they're suddenly bolsheviks in the hope of picking up Bernie fans. The real plan is sitting on Paul Ryan's desk, and it LOVES corporate America. Big bear hug and kisses. Gives Ayn Rand out for Christmas, right?

    Peasants with pitchforks notwithstanding, that guy will still be in power next February, barring an election blowout that cripples the GOP down-ballot as well.

    If you really want to shake up the centers of power on Wall Street, hope that Hillary puts Elizabeth Warren on the ticket. They hate her.

    But to solve the toothache that was the EU bureaucracy, the Britons have decided to employ the extraordinary plan of putting a gun to their collective cheek and pulling the trigger.
    Corporate bad guys or not, that's just not a very good idea. The good news is, they haven't actually given the EU notice that they plan to leave yet, which has to happen before the process begins. So far, all we've actually seen are the markets, saying collectively, and very loudly: "Are you out of your f**king minds?", while Parliament ponders whether it can take a Mulligan on this one.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, no. I call BS on that. Righties are playing like they're suddenly bolsheviks in the hope of picking up Bernie fans. The real plan is sitting on Paul Ryan's desk, and it LOVES corporate America. Big bear hug and kisses. Gives Ayn Rand out for Christmas, right?

    And yet, it's Obama and the Democrats pushing SUPER CORPORATE STATES and FREE TRADE...

    But to solve the toothache that was the EU bureaucracy, the Britons have decided to employ the extraordinary plan of putting a gun to their collective cheek and pulling the trigger.

    That's just what the evil corporations WANT you to believe...

    So far, all we've actually seen are the markets, saying collectively, and very loudly: "Are you out of your f**king minds?", while Parliament ponders whether it can take a Mulligan on this one.

    Of course.. The evil corporations are pulling the puppet strings to overturn the will of the people..

    And ya'all are cheering them on!

    It's gabberflasting..

    The PEOPLE have spoken..

    Ya'all used to claim ya'all represent the people..

    But now Obama loyalty is more important than that.. :D

    Michale...

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: [124] But your argument is nonsensical.

    Democrats, for very good reasons have always supported the European Union, and are dismayed that voters in England, some of whom took this referendum in very ugly directions - an MP was shot, after all - voted with nationalistic fervor to leave it. Sure, corporations are involved - aren't they always? - but it was the lads of Lewdsbury who did this one.

    Perhaps the problem is that you're applying Republican logic to your analysis of Democrats' thinking.

    The Manichean Republican mind tends to frame every question as a binary choice: yes - no, good - bad, good - evil. If the Democrats don't like the way that corporations manipulate government for their own ends, he thinks, "Therefore, Democrats hate Corporations.
    The concept, 'I don't like it, but I don't hate it." rarely occurs.

    If the Manichean mind has just two buttons on his control panel, the liberal mind has a slider bar. Real liberals don't paint with one paintbrush and color all corporations, all people of an ethnic group, or everybody with a limp as either good or bad. Most democrats can tell you something good about every republican idea, even the ones they despise.

    Manicheans can't imagine that.

    Trump, for instance, views everything as a zero-sum game: I win, you lose. Black-white. No wonder that he's paranoid and thin-skinned if he thinks that every criticism of him is a declaration of war.

    And he doesn't know how to move to the political middle because he can't see it. From his perspective asking him to move to the middle is like asking Indiana Jones to step off the ledge ("The path is there, you just have to believe in it").

  127. [127] 
    Paula wrote:

    [126] Yep!

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can rationalize it all you want...

    But it doesn't change the FACT that ya'all are on the side of the evil corporations and against the will of the people..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Manichean Republican mind tends to frame every question as a binary choice: yes - no, good - bad, good - evil. If the Democrats don't like the way that corporations manipulate government for their own ends, he thinks, "Therefore, Democrats hate Corporations.

    Oh give me a break..

    I have been treated for TEN YEARS of how bad and evil the corporations are here in Weigantia...

    Now that ya'all have switched allegiances and are in the pocket of the corporations, NOW you try to equivocate and convince me that corporations are good and doing the right thing...

    Com'on... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night... :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Manichean Republican mind tends to frame every question as a binary choice: yes - no, good - bad, good - evil. If the Democrats don't like the way that corporations manipulate government for their own ends, he thinks, "Therefore, Democrats hate Corporations.

    Oh give me a break..

    I have been treated for TEN YEARS of how bad and evil the corporations are here in Weigantia...

    Now that ya'all have switched allegiances and are in the pocket of the corporations, NOW you try to equivocate and convince me that corporations are good and doing the right thing...

    Com'on... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night... :D

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny the timing of the EuroSuperstate with it's own standing army...

    Brussels is pushing for the superstate now because they are afraid more countries will follow Britain's example..

    The agenda is crystal-clear.. Ignore the will of the people... Push the Globalist Corporatist agenda..

    Ya'all DO realize that ya'all won't have a moral leg to stand on when ya'all claim to support the middle class and the "little guy", right??

    Because it's the middle class and the little guy that is getting totally scrooed by the globalist corporatist agenda..

    "The will of the people!!??? Bah!! Who needs it! Globalism!! Corporatism!!! THAT's the ticket..."
    -The Democrat Party

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny the timing of the EuroSuperstate with it's own standing army...

    Brussels is pushing for the superstate now because they are afraid more countries will follow Britain's example..

    The agenda is crystal-clear.. Ignore the will of the people... Push the Globalist Corporatist agenda..

    Ya'all DO realize that ya'all won't have a moral leg to stand on when ya'all claim to support the middle class and the "little guy", right??

    Because it's the middle class and the little guy that is getting totally scrooed by the globalist corporatist agenda..

    "The will of the people!!??? Bah!! Who needs it! Globalism!! Corporatism!!! THAT's the ticket..."
    -The Democrat Party

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since these questions were ignored, let me repeat them..

    Because they are at the heart of the issues...

    Doesn't it concern you that EVERY global corporation, EVERY corporation that ya'all have deemed evil and corrupt....???

    EVERY ONE of them is FOR the creation of Euro superstate??

    Doesn't that concern you???

    Ya'all went batshit crazy because corporations were considered people..

    But NOW!??? NOW ya'all are simply ecstatic about the idea of corporations being GOVERNMENTS!!!???

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as your idea that the people have demanded a second referendum??

    An online petition demanding that referendum has tens of thousands of forged signatures...

    The will of the people has spoken..

    Ya'all lost...

    Get over it.

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    In all the recent events, Edmund Hillary's pending FBI Indictment Recommendation has been pushed to the way side..

    So, let's review the facts..

    “There is simply no doubt that the FBI is going to recommend a series of charges to Attorney General Lynch.

    First of all, the key to this is the private server. The existence of that server and its use by Hillary and her aides in an unencrypted mode, along with all their unencrypted personal devices, is a per se violation of the Espionage Act. It is the failure to properly store, maintain and protect classified information.

    The FBI already has established a criminal case against a number of people on that charge, including Gen. David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA.
    The FBI, by virtue of seizing not only Hillary Clinton’s server but also numerous servers at the State Department, has begun to unravel the various communication levels and levels of classification beyond what the State Department is slowly releasing to the public.

    The FBI is acting on the basis that the server was set up purposefully to avoid disclosure to the public, the press, the Congress and the courts in response to legitimate legal requests and in response to subpoena.
    That establishes the intent necessary for criminal activity, in the area of negligent handling of classified information”

    -Former US Attorney Joseph diGenova

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what ya'all just don't get about the BREXIT issue..

    The same people who said that Britain would NEVER leave the EU..... The same people who said that Trump would NEVER be the GOP nominee...

    Those are the EXACT SAME people who are saying that Trump will NEVER be POTUS...

    They (and ya'all incidentally) have been wrong at every turn..

    What makes them (and ya'all) think you are going to be right about President Trump???

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

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats on guard over Brexit’s angry populism

    As Mr Trump was claiming during a visit to Scotland that the fall in sterling after Brexit would help his golf resort at Turnbury, Mrs Clinton was arguing that the outcome reinforced the need for “calm, steady, experienced leadership” in the White House. But critics counter that she is the embodiment of the establishment in a year when anti-establishment forces are strong. Her “Stronger Together” campaign slogan bears an uncanny resemblance to the “Stronger In” campaign that failed to convince the working-class voters who voted for Brexit.
    “Some in the press and the Democratic party may be underestimating Trump. Republicans are not. Hillary Clinton should be very worried,” says John Barrasso, a Republican senator from Wyoming. “If the election comes down to change vs more of the same, Donald Trump will be the next president of the US.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d8fac80-3c7f-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4CrwYWAWe

    That's what ya'all just DON'T get..

    The same "We're fed up and we're not going to take it anymore!!" mentality that pushed the BREXIT to victory in a landslide is the SAME mentality that fuels Trump's campaign..

    And, like BREXIT, the Left Wingery will be all a-twitter on the day after Trump wins in a landslide, wondering how they could not see this coming???

    All the signs are there, my friends... You just refuse to believe your own eyes and, instead, just rely on Party dogma and ideology...

    "We're at war with East Asia.. We have always been at war with East Asia"
    -1984

    If there is a flaw in my logic... By all means.. Point it out...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why indeed not call a second referendum?

    OK, then if Hillary wins the election, let's call a SECOND election in June of 2017.... :D And if Hillary wins THAT.. Let's call a third election...

    At what point to ya'all give up and accept the will of the people??

    If the globalists and the elitists succeed in overturning the will of the people, then the people are left with only one recourse..

    Armed rebellion...

    One would think that the British, of ALL people, would understand that... :^/

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hillary will have to face a second election in the fall of 2020, but not a third, because Republicans re-wrote the constitution to say that they don't have to run against popular democrats more than twice in a row anymore.

    At what point to ya'all give up and accept the will of the people??

    Interesting question, considering the Republicans' general attitude toward the current, twice-elected occupant of the oval office.

    Polls seem to suggest that the Brexit crisis has made a lot of Americans stop and think about the actual fallout of a Trump election in less than abstract terms. Maybe some are not so sure that their protest vote won't boomerang back on them as the Brexit vote did on the Brits.

    And of course Trump keeps committing unforced errors in these crisis. Remember John McCain's stumble during the economic crisis? Trump is doing that right now, over and over again. It's hurting him.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting question, considering the Republicans' general attitude toward the current, twice-elected occupant of the oval office

    They have never questioned the vote of the people.. They questioned the SANITY of it..

    Logical, considering...

    Polls seem to suggest that the Brexit crisis has made a lot of Americans stop and think about the actual fallout of a Trump election in less than abstract terms.

    Yea... And the EU has a lot of support in email... :D

    Maybe some are not so sure that their protest vote won't boomerang back on them as the Brexit vote did on the Brits.

    What boomerang was that??? More dire scaremongering from the elitists and the corporatists?? :D

    Ooooooo scary... :D

    Let's face reality, shall we..

    The people of Britain will be much better off out of the EU??

    The elitists and the corporatists and the globalists???

    Not so much..

    Who do YOU side with?? :D

    The answer is obvious...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    One really has to wonder..

    How is it that the Left Wingery went from warriors for the middle class to corporatist globalist lackey in so short a time....

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:
  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand all the commotion with these terrorists..

    They are just the JV and Obama has them contained...

    Apparently, the TERRORISTS don't know that they are just the JV and they are contained...

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand all the commotion with these terrorists..

    They are just the JV and Obama has them contained...

    Apparently, the TERRORISTS don't know that they are just the JV and they are contained...

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    brexit? well, it was a nice thought, just not that bright. for the people? sure. against corporate hegemony? maybe. but whatever the motivation behind it, stupid is still stupid.

    Mr. Gumby (Michael Palin): Basically, I believe in peace and bashing two bricks together.

    John Lennon (Eric Idle): I'm starting a war for peace.

    Shabby (Michael Palin): Cor blimey. I'm raising polecats for peace.
    ~monty python's flying circus

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    brexit? well, it was a nice thought, just not that bright. for the people? sure. against corporate hegemony? maybe. but whatever the motivation behind it, stupid is still stupid.

    In YOUR opinion..

    Can you allow for the possibility that YOU are wrong and ALL THE MILLIONS of Brits who voted to regain their country are right???

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, after all.. Bernie is on the same side as me..

    And ya'all were ga-ga for Bernie.... Until ya'all sold your soul for the rhymes-with-witch Clinton...

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Remainders remained home; the silent ones didn’t If you want to know who didn’t go out and vote – it’s the people hilariously demanding a second chance. The people who were sure Brexit wasn’t going to happen, were so sure it wasn’t going to happen, that they didn’t bother to get off their arses and vote. Now they want a do-over, a redo, calling this election a mulligan. I don’t think it works that way. If you didn’t take it seriously the first time, and everyone else who voted did – that’s on you. You were caught out in your arrogance and ignorance, assuming everyone who was for the exit was a frail, white angry pensioner. Turns out they were people you know – they just never told you so!

    While you ragged on and on about the bigotry of the leavers at a cocktail party in Chelsea or a pub in Islington, those who disagreed just silently nodded, hoping you’d shut up at some point.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/28/greg-gutfeld-brexits-babies-why-leavers-won-and-losers-cant-stop-crying.html?intcmp=hplnws

    Like I said..

    Ya'all lost... Your precious globalists and corporations lost..

    Quit whining about it...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Report: Adult Refugees Enrolled In Canadian High School, Harassing Young Girls
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/report-adult-refugees-enrolled-in-canadian-high-school-harassing-young-girls/

    Yea... Integrating refugees into western communities..

    What could go wrong!?? :^/

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Hillary Clinton has 42 percent to Republican Donald Trump's 40 percent - too close to call - as American voters say neither candidate would be a good president and that the campaign has increased hatred and prejudice in the nation, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

    This compares to results of a June 1 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University, showing Clinton edging Trump 45 - 41 percent.
    http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363

    If Trump is so bad, why are the polls so close??

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Utah’s Misty Snow makes history as Dems’ transgender Senate nominee

    Snow began living openly as woman in October 2014 and believes being a transgender person, a rarity in U.S. politics, will drum up attention and campaign money, while her Sanders-inspired run will fire up Democrats and some independents.
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/4060147-155/utahs-misty-snow-makes-history-as

    TRANSLATION: I am no different than anyone else, but I am using my difference to further my political agenda that says I am no different than anyone else..

    What IS it about the Left that they always claim that they don't want to label people, but then they go OUT OF THEIR WAY to label people...

    Left Winger 'logic'... :^/

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump is so bad, why are the polls so close??

    Do you want me to answer that?

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want me to answer that?

    "I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THIS!!"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    But only if your answer doesn't talk down to Trump supporters or accuse them of being ignorant and stoopid..

    Your answer must predicate that Trump voters are at least as smart as ya'all are...

    Have a ball... :D

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want me to answer that?

    "I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THIS!!"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    But only if your answer doesn't talk down to Trump supporters or accuse them of being ignorant and stoopid..

    Your answer must predicate that Trump voters are at least as smart as ya'all are...

    Have a ball... :D

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And ya'all were ga-ga for Bernie.... Until ya'all sold your soul for the rhymes-with-witch Clinton...

    in this election cycle i've supported clinton from the get-go. i'm fully aware of ALL her many and myriad negatives, especially the corporate ones, but simply put i still think she'd be best by far at doing the job of president.

    Your answer must predicate that Trump voters are at least as smart as ya'all are...

    smart people and smart actions are two different things.

    i'm sure many brexit voters are very smart people as well, but it's still a dumb decision and is already having severe consequences on the british economy. four months from now, the british economy will almost certainly be in recession. what now seems like a populist wave will then be a cautionary tale.

    don't mess with the bull young man. you'll get the horns
    ~the breakfast club

    JL

  156. [156] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's barry ritholtz's take on it:

    http://ritholtz.com/2016/06/things-may-not-thought-regarding-brexit/

    Nobody Knows Anything
    ~william goldman

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm sure many brexit voters are very smart people as well, but it's still a dumb decision

    In YOUR opinion..

    That's my point.. You can't even conceive you could be wrong..

    and is already having severe consequences on the british economy.

    Maybe for the elitists and the corporatists...

    But not for the middle class... Their lives are no different, but WILL be better in the long run..

    four months from now, the british economy will almost certainly be in recession.

    Yea.. And Trump will NEVER be the GOP nominee... :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But not for the middle class... Their lives are no different

    that's just factually not true. any middle class brit who wants to buy something imported now has to pay a LOT more for it than they did last week.

    JL

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    . i'm fully aware of ALL her many and myriad negatives,

    You just don't believe any of them.

    Or worse, you believe them but don't care...

    Michale...

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Things like NOT LYING is only important when the President has a -R after their name... :^/

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's just factually not true. any middle class brit who wants to buy something imported now has to pay a LOT more for it than they did last week.

    Which means that they can buy something NOT imported for a LOT cheaper AND it rewards the local businesses AND supports the local community and economy..

    It's a WIN WIN WIN for the middle class..

    You remember the Middle Class, right?? The people that the Left Wingery USED to care about???

    Before they sold their souls to the almighty corporations...

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's just factually not true. any middle class brit who wants to buy something imported now has to pay a LOT more for it than they did last week.

    Recently I visited Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Irish Republic, and found evidence of what Sanders is talking about in fishing communities from County Down to Donegal.

    In the picturesque Ulster village of Portavogie, 100 commercial fishing boats belonging to local fishing families once plied the Irish Sea. Today, there are only 40, and what they can catch and where they can fish is determined by bureaucrats in Brussels. But thanks to Brexit, those territorial waters, and the shrimp they are known for, once again belong to the British.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/26/is_brexi

    Again, I am simply gabberflasted that ya'all are defending the corporatists and throwing the middle class to the wolves..

    Is Party Loyalty THAT important???

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Which means that they can buy something NOT imported for a LOT cheaper AND it rewards the local businesses AND supports the local community and economy..

    no, even domestic producers depend on global resources, factors of production and travel costs, in addition to which they're scared of the impending recession and in shorter supply, so their prices are up to meet the market. there's no escaping the negative financial impact of brexit.

    JL

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    four months from now, the british economy will almost certainly be in recession. what now seems like a populist wave will then be a cautionary tale.

    Nothing but fear mongering...

    "I don't anticipate that there's going to be major, cataclysmic changes as a consequence of this."
    -Hussein Odumbo

    So, which is it???

    Is it the end of the world, as you claim it is??

    Or is it "eh, no biggie" as Hussein Odumbo claims it is???

    Pick a lane...

    "You gotta pick a lane.."
    -Boogertron, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, even domestic producers depend on global resources, factors of production and travel costs, in addition to which they're scared of the impending recession and in shorter supply, so their prices are up to meet the market. there's no escaping the negative financial impact of brexit.

    "THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!"
    -Chicken Little

    :D

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all's reaction is the EXACT reason that Brexit happened..

    Ya'all try to control thru fear-mongering, the facts be damned...

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    reading comprehension please?

    there's a negative financial impact right now, and economists predict that trend to continue toward recession going forward. that's NOT cataclysmic and the sky will NOT fall, but the value of the english pound has already suffered, and english buying power is reduced, even domestically. that's factually accurate. you really might benefit from reading the ritholtz article i cited in [156].

    read carefully please.

    JL

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. So we agree..

    The sky is NOT falling, nothing cataclysmic is happening and there are minor fluctuations....

    Ho hum... nothing major happening...

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    The sky is NOT falling, nothing cataclysmic is happening and there are minor fluctuations....

    Seems to me a VERY small price to pay for a people re-asserting their authority over their own country and striking a blow to corporatism...

    Ya know...??? They kinds of things ya'all USED to believe before you sold your souls on the almighty altar of globalism, elitism and corporatism......

    CONFORMITY..... STATUS QUO..... ESTABLISHMENT....

    FRAK the Middle Class.....

    That's what ya'all are all about now.... :^/

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Oh, the hysteria!

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, the hysteria!

    Yea, here in Weigantia..

    In the REAL world, they are known as facts.. :D

    Get used to it, sunshine.. Yer gonna be seeing a LOT of facts over the coming months.. :D

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But only if your answer doesn't talk down to Trump supporters or accuse them of being ignorant and stoopid..

    I resemble that remark.

    The answer lies simply in the knowledge that pollsters have not been very reliable of late.

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The sky is NOT falling, nothing cataclysmic is happening and there are minor fluctuations....Ho hum... nothing major happening...

    yes, yes, no, no and no.

    the sky doesn't need to fall for people to be seriously impacted. there's a lot of territory between brexit and weimar germany, for example, but people on the street will still feel the change. the impact we're seeing is fairly major and not mere fluctuations.

    not cataclysm.

    not apocalypse.

    just real, tangible, substantial pain in the wallet.

    JL

  174. [174] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to whether or not that pain is worth it? as of right now, not to scotland. not to northern ireland. wales and england perhaps, but even they may find the independence not worth the cost, once they actually find themselves paying it.

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    The answer lies simply in the knowledge that pollsters have not been very reliable of late.

    Nor has anyone here in Weigantia...

    Well, except for yours truly.. :D

    just real, tangible, substantial pain in the wallet.

    Yea, that's what you keep saying..

    Yet, there is no evidence of this, save the scare mongering from the elitists, corporatists and globalists..

    as to whether or not that pain is worth it? as of right now, not to scotland. not to northern ireland. wales and england perhaps, but even they may find the independence not worth the cost, once they actually find themselves paying it.

    Yes.. That's what the elitists, corporatists and globalists keep saying...

    The same mor.... er.. people who claimed that Britain would NEVER vote to leave the PU...

    They were wrong then... They'll be wrong again...

    It's that simple..

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yet, there is no evidence of this, save the scare mongering from the elitists, corporatists and globalists..

    the english pound has lost 10% of its value vs. the US$ in the past week. that's a true fact. non-partisan currency projections are for it to drop another 5%, and for the euro to eventually lose value as well. unless that loss somehow magically reverses, the price of pretty much everything in britain will continue to rise. every industry except exports and tourism will suffer. that's real and based on fundamental economic principles, not some wild opinion of mine.

    68% of scotland, and 56% of northern ireland, and economists world-wide could not ALL be under the sway of unfounded "sky is falling" fear. their fears are realistic and factually justified. the rest of your argument is ad hominem, duly ignored.

    JL

  177. [177] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yea, that's what you keep saying..

    yet you read the same words i wrote and somehow get the idea that i'm predicting armageddon. have you read the ritholtz article yet? it's not that long.

    JL

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    the english pound has lost 10% of its value vs. the US$ in the past week. that's a true fact. non-partisan currency projections are for it to drop another 5%, and for the euro to eventually lose value as well. unless that loss somehow magically reverses, the price of pretty much everything in britain will continue to rise. every industry except exports and tourism will suffer. that's real and based on fundamental economic principles, not some wild opinion of mine.

    And yet... "everything and everyone will continue on, business as usual."

    Nothing bad is going to happen... There are no mass suicides of the peasants.. There are no storming of the castle walls...

    68% of scotland, and 56% of northern ireland, and economists world-wide could not ALL be under the sway of unfounded "sky is falling" fear.

    And not all those economists could be wrong that Brexit would never happen..

    Yet they were.....

    It's like FOS Bashi bringing up Nate Silver's prediction and treating it as gospel.....

    Silver has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY....

    Neither do those elitists and corporatists who predict an economic collapse....

    Fear mongering doesn't work anymore.. The people are on to that... :D

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    two straw men for the price of one? okay, sure:

    straw man 1: And not all those economists could be wrong that Brexit would never happen..

    that was politics, not economics. politics, obviously, is much less predictable. if it weren't, this blog would be a lot more boring. not that economics is an exact science either, but it's much more reliable than most social science, and certainly more reliable than nate silver.

    straw man 2 + ad hominem:Neither do those elitists and corporatists who predict an economic collapse....

    not collapse, decline. say it with me now, slowly this time. not collapse. not armageddon. not ho-hum, not business as usual. decline. significantly less than before. simple.

    many very intelligent people who have no corporate allegiance see the reasons why british economic decline is an inevitable consequence of brexit.

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem is you see argument 1 as a different argument than argument 2...

    But what you don't realize is that they are part and parcel to the SAME argument..

    It's the political agenda that is coloring the economic argument..

    Just like with the global warming fanatics..

    The political agenda colors the "science" argument...

    Ya'all have been wrong at every turn because ya'all are ignoring reality in favor of the political agenda...

    Trump would NEVER be the GOP nominee because it goes against ya'all's political agenda..

    Britain would NEVER vote to leave the PU because it goes against ya'all's political agenda..

    The Daesch would NEVER be able to mount significant terrorist attacks because they are the JV and they are contained..

    Ya'all have been wrong about EVERYTHING...

    So, why should anyone believe ya'all are right about the economic fallout???

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just a hint..

    Your argument would have a LOT more credibility if ya at least ACKNOWLEDGED how wrong everyone was to begin with...

    But, by ignoring the FACTS on how wrong ya'all were, you simply lose any credible argument you might have been able to make...

    Michale

  182. [182] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't recall having made any predictions about the outcome of the brexit vote. why should i acknowledge when somebody else is wrong?

    “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

    i guess HL Mencken's timeless words apply to the english public as well.

    let me try an analogy on the micro level so you'll understand this. let's say you have a job at a big firm that pays you 80K a year. your office decides they don't like all the company rules and people from other departments traipsing through.

    so, you all decide to break away and start your own firm. but without the rest of the company you have fewer connections, fewer resources, tougher competition and less ability to earn, so your new salary is only 60K a year, and your future prospects for a raise are slimmer than they were before. furthermore, some departments in your office are unhappy leaving the original company and want to go back.

    it's not the end of the world, you're not unemployed and destitute, but neither is it business as usual. you may feel the independence is worth the sacrifice, but there WILL be a sacrifice, and most individuals in the office will pay. that's all i'm saying.

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't recall having made any predictions about the outcome of the brexit vote. why should i acknowledge when somebody else is wrong?

    Because you are quoting those same "experts" in your predictions..

    Experts that DID predict that Brexit would never occur and they were dead on ballz WRONG..

    it's not the end of the world, you're not unemployed and destitute, but neither is it business as usual. you may feel the independence is worth the sacrifice, but there WILL be a sacrifice, and most individuals in the office will pay. that's all i'm saying.

    OK, I understand where you are coming from but you are still wrong.

    It IS "business as usual" (as liz points out) albeit business is a bit slower..

    But BECAUSE I run my own company now, BECAUSE I have broken away from the elitist corporate mentality who doesn't care about my little slice of the world, the slow down is TEMPORARY...

    And I have much MORE potential NOW than I did under the thumb of Brussels..

    Yes, things are slower now... But NOW I can chart my OWN course for the company, away from the dictates of a faceless unelected and inexperienced moron that is Brussels...

    Now let me give YOU an analogy...

    You are part of a huge faceless School District who's headquarters are in Bumfuq DC.. You are told to teach this utterly MORONIC set of lessons called COMMON CORE..

    You decide, "Frak that!!" and start your own school....

    Yes, things are going to be slow at first. But you can chart your OWN destiny away from the appointed MORONS who think that COMMON CORE is the end all get all...

    The Brits have taken their destiny into their OWN hands.. NOW they can govern themselves rather than being directed by some un-elected MORON who doesn't know the first thing about their culture....

    Yes, it's going to be slower and hard at first...

    But their destiny is their own... Not directed by some faceless clod in Brussels..

    You see where I am coming from???

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a concept ya'all USED to cherish and approve of when ya'all WERE warriors for the middle class...

    Because you sold yer souls to Hussein Odumbo and his elitist corporatist globalist agenda...

    Michale..

  185. [185] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the vote was close, and the only expert i cited did not make a prediction either way - he predicted economic contingencies based on both possible outcomes. i refuse to hold myself accountable for someone else's error, and while "y'all" is a perfectly acceptable phrase in conversation, it's not a valid excuse for calling one person out on a different person's error. i own my mistakes (but only when they're mine), and there's a picture of me in a "keep the change" t-shirt to prove it.

    Yes, things are going to be slow at first. But you can chart your OWN destiny away from the appointed MORONS who think that COMMON CORE is the end all get all...

    that idea has been done, and it's called charter schools. the individual results are mixed, but the overall systemic impact is very negative. if you're trying to get me to agree with you, that's probably not the route to take.

    JL

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    that idea has been done, and it's called charter schools. the individual results are mixed, but the overall systemic impact is very negative. if you're trying to get me to agree with you, that's probably not the route to take.

    I took a shot.. :D

    Irregardless, we're likely not going to agree..

    I see the value in the middle class forging their own way, out from under the thumb of a faceless un-caring and un-elected bureaucrat whose only metric is the bottom line..

    You don't...

    "Let's agree to disagree."
    -Boris The Animal, MEN IN BLACK III

    :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the majority of Brits agree with me... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.