ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [403] -- GOP Anti-Trump Rants

[ Posted Friday, August 12th, 2016 – 16:56 PDT ]

This column has always loved a good rant. Most of the time, we provide our own rant at the end of the column, on a subject too big to be contained in talking points. This week, we provide a number of rants from Republicans about their very own party's presidential nominee. Yes, it's only August and the Republican Party is coming apart at the seams. Which, of course, makes for great summertime reading for all!

Before we get to all the Republican-on-Republican violence, though, we've got to cast an eye over the week that was. If there's one thing that is unmistakably true about Donald Trump it is that he just can't help himself. You can read that literally -- nothing he seems to do ever improves his standing with the general electorate -- or as a metaphor for Trump's inability to stop saying silly and outrageous things in public. Either way, Trump certainly does pack a lot into a single campaign week, and can probably be expected to continue doing so right up to Election Day.

This was (as were many other previous weeks in the campaign calendar) supposed to be the week when Donald Trump successfully "pivoted" and turned everything around. To say that didn't happen would be an understatement. Hillary Clinton had a mini-scandal break that even involved emails, and yet it was barely a story in the political world (the emails weren't all that damning, even to anti-Clinton types) -- because Trump was, once again, sucking up all the oxygen.

Trump started the week off with a serious, read-from-a-TelePrompTer speech on the economy. This was the big pivot, folks! Everyone look -- Trump's being serious. Right up until he mispronounced the word "cities," inexplicably replacing the "c" with a "t." So much for being serious.

Later in the week, Trump claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got together a few years ago and said to each other: "Hey, we've got some free time, why not start a jihadist group in Iran and Syria?" No, really -- Trump claimed both Obama and Clinton were not only "founders" of the Islamic State, but apparently also that the Islamic State has somehow become a sports league who hands out "most valuable player" awards -- which would, of course, go to Obama and Clinton. Got all that? When gently asked to perhaps rephrase his statement a bit, Trump (of course) declined.

Trump also proposed during the week that U.S. civilians accused of terrorism either be sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or be tried in military tribunals. This remark, while shockingly unconstitutional, kind of got lost in the whirlwind, though.

Much more attention was paid to Trump using the "Second Amendment people" dog-whistle to a crowd, suggesting that perhaps guns would be the best answer if President Hillary Clinton ever started trying to appoint federal judges.

Once again, any one of these statements would have been a career-ender for just about any political candidate imaginable, but then Donald Trump is beyond "imaginable" and always has been.

Trump utterly blew his planned pivot to seriousness, pretty much all week long. He even blew a chance to rip into Clinton for having the Orlando shooter's father behind her at a rally -- while congressional-page-enthusiast Mark Foley was sitting right behind Trump. It's like we've all fallen into a bad Hollywood script that would never have been greenlighted for a movie, or something.

While Trump continues to absolutely tank in the polls (including all of the swing states he would need to claim victory), the Republican National Committee is apparently getting a wee bit nervous. They're holding what is being described as a "come to Jesus" meeting with Trump campaign staffers today, so who knows what will happen next? Some prominent Republicans are already publicly calling for the R.N.C. to direct all its money away from Trump and instead towards desperately trying to hold onto some Senate and House seats, but we'll get to that in the talking points section.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign has pulled all advertising out of Virginia and Colorado, because they consider those two swing states in the bag for Clinton. Instead, they're expanding operations in (are you sitting down?) Arizona and Georgia. No wonder some Republicans are already darkly muttering about the impending landslide that's going to bury Trump. Hillary Clinton even wrote an op-ed for a Utah paper, a formerly reddest-of-the-red state that could also flip for her.

Team Clinton is almost gleeful in their triangulation plans, at this point. Hillary is reaching out to Republican voters everywhere, but in doing so she risks generating some backlash among progressives, who already mistrust her. But the confidence being exuded by the Clinton campaign is palpable, and today Hillary released her 2015 tax return while taunting Trump to do the same (with a new "What's he trying to hide" ad).

All that, in one week. Whew! And it's only August... things will undoubtedly speed up even further in the coming months. But for now, let's move right along to the awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Senator Bernie Sanders gets a Honorable Mention this week, for clearly denouncing the decision made this week by the Drug Enforcement Agency to keep marijuana on Schedule I, a definition that includes the phrase "has no currently accepted medical use" -- even though half of the United States have now legalized medicinal use. Sanders is also co-sponsor in the Senate of a bill that would throw the legal issue to the states once and for all. See my column from yesterday for more details about this backward-facing decision, but it's good to see a politician who isn't afraid to get on the right side of history in such fashion.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week goes to none other than President Obama. What with everyone intensely watching all the polling surrounding the presidential race, Obama's job approval numbers haven't been in the news of late. They should be, however.

This week, on the Real Clear Politics tracking page, Obama sits at 51.9 percent approval from the public, with only 44.2 percent disapproval. Those are better numbers than he's seen since the second month of his second term, three-and-a-half years ago. Obama not only has been rising all year long, but he also got a convention "bump" in the polls on top of it. This should cheer up Hillary Clinton, because presidential job approval polling is very predictive of who will win in November. If Obama keeps his numbers above 50 until then -- as now seems entirely possible -- then Clinton might just be a shoo-in.

There's a simple explanation for this trend. It's not because of some big legislative victory Obama just won in Congress (Congress has barely done anything this year). It's not because of some dramatic foreign or domestic policy win, either. Obama is rising in the public's estimation because people are now being seriously confronted with the two candidates who might be our next president. In other words, the more the public pays attention to the 2016 campaign, the better they think of the job Barack Obama is doing.

One of the most amusing moments at the Democratic National Convention was hearing, during President Obama's speech, several shouts of "Four more years!" (even though this is constitutionally impossible). It seems a whole lot of other people are going to miss Obama when he's gone, and his spike upwards in the polls to almost 52 percent approval wins President Obama this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

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

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We almost didn't have anyone to give this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, but one really stupid gaffe caught our eye at the last moment.

Congressman Patrick Murphy is running in the Democratic primary in Florida to be the Democrat to take on Marco Rubio. While criticizing Donald Trump (and his "hatred and fear-mongering"), Murphy had the following to say, to Jorge Ramos:

We are stronger as one, as a united country. That's what makes this country so beautiful and so unique. You know, you think of the Statue of Liberty, right? And all of us. I'm an immigrant. We're all basically immigrants here. And you think of that beacon of hope, of opportunity, and Trump is tearing that apart. And that is scary to me.

Except that he's not actually an immigrant. From his own official biography page, he was "born and raised in Florida, spending most of his childhood along the South Florida coast." He's also already gotten into trouble about exaggerating his own history during his campaign -- which would tend to make you a lot more careful about what you say, you would think.

Reasonable people can interpret this as a weak attempt at a sweeping statement. "I'm an immigrant," Murphy says, in the same spirit that we were all Charlie Hebdo, in other words. "Most Americans are," Murphy might have said, "if you go back far enough in their family, immigrants." Unfortunately he didn't say that. He said "I'm an immigrant" when he most decidedly is not one. In Florida, where a lot of people care about that particular distinction.

This was a stumble, not an enormous fall. As we said, it almost doesn't even reach the level of the MDDOTW award, but for his political misstatement he was more disappointing than any other Democrat this week, so we decided to go ahead and give Murphy the award anyway.

[Contact Representative Patrick Murphy on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 403 (8/12/16)

It is extraordinarily rare for prominent members of a political party to publicly denounce their chosen presidential nominee. It's so rare in normal elections that it becomes big news immediately. This election, however, it has become almost commonplace for Republicans to repudiate Donald Trump's candidacy. As a mark of how commonplace it is, we had not just one scathing indictment of Trump and his campaign this week, but three.

The first is from Republican Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, who penned an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, explaining why she cannot bring herself to vote for or support her party's nominee. The second was from a group of 50 national security professionals stretching from the Nixon administration to the Cheney administration (whoops, we meant to say the "Bush administration," obviously). Kidding aside, these are the serious foreign policy types on the right, and they not only stated they weren't going to vote for Trump, they predicted that if he wins he will be "the most reckless President in American history." And the third public evisceration of Trump came from 70 Republicans who called on the Republican National Committee to "immediately halt all support for Donald Trump and invest its resources in a real and winnable campaign to save the Republican Senate and House."

So with that wealth of anti-Trump material coming from his own party, it seems almost redundant to come up with Democratic talking points this week. There is plenty of material available -- just in the past week alone -- that badmouths Trump worse than we could hope to do. So we're just going to provide excerpts from these three documents, with a bonus quote at the end, just for the heck of it.

 

Senator Susan Collins

Senator Collins started her opinion piece off with a flat statement: "I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president." She explains how she struggled with this decision, but Donald Trump just made it harder and harder for her to explain away his own behavior.

With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing -- either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level -- that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.

My conclusion about Mr. Trump's unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.

Collins then lists her three incidents -- Trump mocking a reporter for his disability, Trump stating that a judge born in Indiana couldn't possibly be fair to him because of his "Mexican heritage," and Trump's attacks on the Gold Star parents who appeared at the Democratic National Convention. Each time, says Collins, she "waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words." Then she begins painting a larger picture.

I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump's lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump's tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.

I had hoped that we would see a "new" Donald Trump as a general-election candidate -- one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no "new" Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.

Pretty harsh, but this was actually the kindest towards Trump of the three documents released this week. Which brings us to the next one, from the foreign policy experts.

 

National security officials' letter

This extraordinary letter also starts off (after an introductory paragraph explaining who the group is) with a blanket statement: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump." Once again, these are all Republicans, not some partisan sniping by Democrats. This letter minces no words whatsoever.

From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well-being.

Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

The letter ends by first explaining all the qualities and temperament necessary for any president (willing to listen to advisors, acknowledge errors, be disciplined, etc.). Then it tears into how far Trump falls short:

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.

C'mon, guys, tell us what you really think! Sorry, but at some point you just have to laugh at the language fellow Republicans are using against their own candidate. This letter lays out one targeted idea -- Trump being unfit to handle foreign policy -- while the next brings a very different focus.

 

Begging the RNC to bail on Trump

The third letter is entirely political in nature, since it was addressed to Reince Priebus and the Republican National Committee. It begs the R.N.C. to ditch Trump in no uncertain terms, from the second paragraph onwards.

Given the catastrophic impact that Donald Trump's losing presidential campaign will have on down-ballot Senate and House races, we urge you to immediately suspend all discretionary RNC support for Trump and focus the entirety of the RNC's available resources on preserving the GOP's congressional majorities.

They have already given up on winning the White House, obviously, and are now terrified that they are facing a disastrous landslide in November.

We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck.

This should not be a difficult decision, as Donald Trump's chances of being elected president are evaporating by the day.

"Evaporating by the day" -- that has a nice ring to it, don't you think? The letter then lists all the reasons why Trump has already "alienated millions of voters of all parties," most of which are specific but also including a few catchall items on the list, such as: "Exposing his total ignorance of basic foreign policy matters," and: "Deliberately and repeatedly lying about scores of issues, large and small." They even slam Trump for not releasing his tax forms, then continue in the same vein.

Those recent outrages have built on his campaign of anger and exclusion, during which he has mocked and offended millions of voters, including the disabled, women, Muslims, immigrants, and minorities. He also has shown dangerous authoritarian tendencies, including threats to ban an entire religion from entering the country, order the military to break the law by torturing prisoners, kill the families of suspected terrorists, track law-abiding Muslim citizens in databases, and use executive orders to implement other illegal and unconstitutional measures.

Since it's a letter with a political focus, it then turns to the dismal polling they've been seeing:

[C]urrent polling gives Trump barely a 15 percent chance of being elected president in November. That polling projects a potential 350 electoral vote blowout for Hillary Clinton, including a sweep of every battleground state from Florida to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina. Trump's across-the-board collapse has put even Republican bastions like Georgia and Arizona in play.

That's a pretty apocalyptic statement for the beginning of August! It's understandable when people get nervous a few weeks out from an election, but the general election has barely begun, and these Republicans are already worried about Hillary Clinton getting 350 electoral votes.

The letter then itemizes Trump's refusal to support members of the Republican Party, which includes things like calling an "incumbent Republican Senator a 'loser' to his Senate peers," and "Repeating his false and outlandish claims that yet another Senator's father played some role in the Kennedy assassination." This leads them to an extraordinary conclusion -- again, it is only early August.

In summary, every dollar spent by the RNC on Donald Trump's campaign is a dollar of donor money wasted on the losing effort of a candidate who has actively undermined the GOP at every turn. Rather than throwing good money after bad, the RNC should shift its strategy and its resources to convince voters not to give Hillary Clinton the "blank check" of a Democrat-controlled Congress to advance her big government agenda.

 

Rick Wilson minces no words

All of that was pretty scathing, we've got to admit. Republican-on-Republican violence is never pretty to watch, to put it mildly. But when reading an article in Salon which detailed how many extreme rightwing strategists and media types have denounced Trump, the following really stood out. We close today with the thoughts of Rick Wilson, "GOP strategist."

I have opposed Trump from the first day of his wretched, crapulous campaign. I have opposed Trump when his clownish minions called my clients seeking to have me fired. I have opposed The Donald when his slavish of Trumpbart stooges ran story after story attacking me, and unleashed their fever-swamp yokels on my email, my phone and my family.

I will continue to oppose Trump, implacably and unceasingly.

I will not bend. I will not cease this fight. I will never embrace this thuggish, venal, gibbering psychotic, and I will not countenance those who do. I don’t care if I’m the last Republican in America standing to resist this man, but with almighty God as my witness, I will not vote for Donald Trump.

-- 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

 

204 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [403] -- GOP Anti-Trump Rants”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    damn, and i thought the democrats were harsh!

    JL

  2. [2] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    May favorite headline of the day: Donald Trump backtracks on his backtrack. Pretty much sums up the whole thing...

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    "Crapulous" -- now that's a word!

    I will not bend. I will not cease this fight. I will never embrace this thuggish, venal, gibbering psychotic, and I will not countenance those who do. I don’t care if I’m the last Republican in America standing to resist this man, but with almighty God as my witness, I will not vote for Donald Trump.

    Love it!

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One thing you didn't mention was Patti Davis', Ronald Reagan's daughter, comments:

    To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about "Second Amendment people" was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, "Lock her up!" at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    On a lighter note, Bulwer-Lytton Awards are up!!

    http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/2016win.html

    The one I pointed out that made my husband laugh out loud:

    "She walked toward me with her high heels clacking like an out-of-balance ceiling fan set on low, smiling as though about to spit pus from a dental abscess, and I knew right away that she was going to leave me feeling like I had used a wood rasp to cure my hemorrhoids. — Charles Caldwell, Leesville, LA"

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Yes, it's only August and the Republican Party is coming apart at the seams.

    And the headaches for the Demcorat Party are just beginning..

    :D

    Hacker Publishes List Of Cell Phone Numbers, Private E-Mails For Most House Democrats
    http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

    Oh what Demcorat Party secrets we're going to see between now and election day.. :D

    I get it, I really do.. Trump and Hillary are virtually tied in polls, so ya'all have to pin your hopes on some GOP malcontents... :D

    I really feel for ya'all.. Saying 'President Trump' is going to be REALLY hard for ya'all.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    damn, and i thought the democrats were harsh!

    They are..

    I can find as many similar quotes from Democrats about Hillary...

    But it doesn't amount to a hill(ary) of carp.. :D

    There are ALWAYS going to be disgruntled lusers.. In EITHER Party..

    But I understand why ya'all have to latch onto this.. :D

    It'll make the sting of Hillary going down in flames that much easier to handle..

    Who am I to begrudge ya'all for doing whatever ya'all have to do to make it thru the day.. :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And note to Hillary..

    Getting up at 0200???

    THAT is rising early... :D Heh

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also keep in mind one very salient point..

    Each of those GOP'ers ya'all are quoting so exuberantly and jumping into bed with???

    Ya'all would be savaging them six ways from Sunday, save for the fact that NOW, they are saying exactly what ya'all want to hear.. :D

    Even *I* don't do it so enthusiastically when, say Michael Moore says over and over that Trump is going to win... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Much more attention was paid to Trump using the "Second Amendment people" dog-whistle to a crowd, suggesting that perhaps guns would be the best answer if President Hillary Clinton ever started trying to appoint federal judges.

    If that is actually what Trump said, you might have a legitimate issue..

    But it's not, so you don't.. :D

    "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."
    -Barack Obama, 2008

    Campaign hyperbole... Nothing more...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is what ya'all don't get about Donald Trump..

    The fact that so many Republicans are AGAINST Trump is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular with the vast majority of Americans..

    CW, I have pointed this out to you on many occasions.. Sometimes you write a commentary that garners you attacks from BOTH sides of the given issue.. I have always said that, when THAT happens, you must be doing something right.. :D

    So it is with Trump...

    The more he is attacked from the Left *AND* the Right, the more his support goes up from everyday Americans..

    Black Americans, hispanic Americans, white Americans.... ALL Americans....

    This is the simple fact of this election that continues to elude ya'all....

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "She walked toward me with her high heels clacking like an out-of-balance ceiling fan set on low, smiling as though about to spit pus from a dental abscess, and I knew right away that she was going to leave me feeling like I had used a wood rasp to cure my hemorrhoids. — Charles Caldwell, Leesville, LA"

    Hillary Clinton??? :D

    I will not bend. I will not cease this fight. I will never embrace this thuggish, venal, gibbering psychotic, and I will not countenance those who do. I don’t care if I’m the last Republican in America standing to resist this man, but with almighty God as my witness, I will not vote for Donald Trump.

    Big whoop-dee-doo... Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out...

    Trump is going to be your President.. Get used the idea, chump...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans by the hundreds said nearly the exactly same things about Ronald Reagan...

    {{YYYAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN}}

    Nothing to see here.. Move along...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    If 3 college roommates advertised for a 4th roommate, but specified only a white person need apply, ya'all would lose your frakin' minds and scream, "RACISM!!!!!" to the highest heavens, right???

    Debate flares after black college students seek a non-white roommate
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/11/debate-flares-after-black-college-students-seek-a-non-white-roommate/

    Start screamin'... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump's Mark Foley face plant was gold medal worthy.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's Mark Foley face plant was gold medal worthy.

    Kudos, JFC.... Kudos.. :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Later in the week, Trump claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got together a few years ago and said to each other: "Hey, we've got some free time, why not start a jihadist group in Iran and Syria?" No, really -- Trump claimed both Obama and Clinton were not only "founders" of the Islamic State, but apparently also that the Islamic State has somehow become a sports league who hands out "most valuable player" awards -- which would, of course, go to Obama and Clinton. Got all that? When gently asked to perhaps rephrase his statement a bit, Trump (of course) declined.

    It's funny how ya'all let Hillary nuance to hell and back, you let Hillary redefine what the definition of 'is' constantly, yet you take Trump literal for everything he says...

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump has a "tell." Honestly. It's a punctuation mark indicating a lie.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has a "tell." Honestly. It's a punctuation mark indicating a lie.

    Once again, I am constrained to point out that you have absolutely NO moral or ethical foundation to castigate Trump for his alleged lies...

    ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA..... NONE....

    "Dems da facts, JACK!!!"
    -Bill Murray, STRIPES

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    a lie is a deliberate falsehood. in order to lie, donald would first need to have some idea what the truth was, and would also have to care whether or not his statements were demonstrably true. neither seems to be the case.

    JL

    “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
    ~John F. Kennedy

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

    See Hillary Clinton....

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    in order to lie, donald would first need to have some idea what the truth was, and would also have to care whether or not his statements were demonstrably true. neither seems to be the case.

    And yet, Trump stands at the top of a GLOBAL empire of businesses and has made untold millions of dollars creating successful business after successful business after successful business..

    NONE of which could have happened if Trump is as you say...

    Don't let political bigotry blind you to reality...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You asked before how much the Clintons made....

    Clinton releases tax returns; earned nearly $240M since leaving White House
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/12/clinton-releases-tax-returns-107-million-income/

    Yea... Hillary knows the problems of the 99%.... :^/

    "In a pig's eye!!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Amok Time

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You asked before how much the Clintons made....

    Clinton releases tax returns; earned nearly $240M since leaving White House
    http://tinyurl.com/zvwod3z

    Yea... Hillary knows the problems of the 99%.... :^/

    "In a pig's eye!!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Amok Time

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Testing the NNL filters... Please forgive..

    washingtontimes

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    The NNL filters don't like the word i-n-c-o-m-e

    Just FYI...

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TS,

    "Trump has a "tell." Honestly. It's a punctuation mark indicating a lie."

    I'm pretty sure he lies deliberately a lot, but there's something to what JL says. He doesn't much care about what's true, so maybe:

    Trump has a "tell." Honestly. It's a punctuation mark indicating bullshit.

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NONE of which could have happened if Trump is as you say...

    so... your argument is that because donald has been successful at making money, his inaccurate statements must therefore be accurate?

    every journalism fact checker in existence has found donald to have made more false statements than any of the other twenty or so candidates in this cycle, including ted cruz. that's not my opinion, it's a fact. logically speaking, that leaves only three possible conclusions:

    1. every fact checker in the world is wrong.
    2. donald is intentionally lying.
    3. "He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood."

    Don't let political bigotry blind you to reality...

    not all political bigotry is partisan. you may not be partisan but you definitely have a blind spot when it comes to donald. i own my partisanship. however, my first allegiance is to my country. in this case i'm going to go ahead and agree with the fifty GOP national security officials on which of the three possible options is most likely.

    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
    ~arthur conan doyle

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    so... your argument is that because donald has been successful at making money, his inaccurate statements must therefore be accurate?

    No.. I am saying that Donald Trump could NOT have been successful in business if, as you say, he did not have an idea of what the truth is and/or did not care what the truth was..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No.. I am saying that Donald Trump could NOT have been successful in business if, as you say, he did not have an idea of what the truth is and/or did not care what the truth was..

    okay, allow me to amend my statement:

    in order to lie ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, donald would first need to have some idea what the truth ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN was, and would also have to care whether or not his statements ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN were demonstrably true. neither seems to be the case.

    satisfied?

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    satisfied?

    Indubitably :D

    Welcome to my world.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    My overall point is that Trump can't be the person the Left Wingery claims he is..

    His success in business would simply make such a claim impossible to believe..

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Clinton said that Director Comey is "full of bull"..

    What a moron....

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    however, my first allegiance is to my country. in this case i'm going to go ahead and agree with the fifty GOP national security officials on which of the three possible options is most likely.

    Many GOP "officials" said the same things about Reagan..

    And he nearly single-handedly took down the Soviet Union..

    So, I don't put much faith in partisan "officials" who are seeing their iron grip on the Republican Party fading away...

    Trump is not a Republican.. He's an AMERICAN first and foremost...

    THAT is why these "officials" are running scared...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides.... On any other day, ya'all wouldn't spit on these GOP "officials" if they were on fire..

    Why would you think they would be worth listening to now???

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides.... On any other day, ya'all wouldn't spit on these GOP "officials" if they were on fire..

    Notable exceptions noted...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYPOET, JFC

    See Laura Restons article:

    "Donald Trump Is Being Honest With You"

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    36 (continued)

    https://newrepublic.com/article/122796/donald-trump-being-honest-you

    Reston calls his use of honest(ly) a "verbal tic."

    "...when Trump says it—as when he says "frankly"—you know he’s about to say something that will make headlines."

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "...when Trump says it—as when he says "frankly"—you know he’s about to say something that will make headlines."

    And when Hillary Clinton's lips are moving, you know she is going to lie..

    What's yer point??

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    logically speaking, that leaves only three possible conclusions:

    1. every fact checker in the world is wrong.
    2. donald is intentionally lying.
    3. "He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood."

    A fourth possibility exists..

    4. Every fact checker is in the bag for the Left Wingery..

    THAT is the most likely of the possibilities as the Left bias of the MSM (IE fact checkers) is well established..

    Duke's endorsement of Trump got SIX TIMES the MSM coverage that the Taliban Commander/God Hates Gays guy's endorsement of Hillary got...

    THESE are the facts...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    not all political bigotry is partisan. you may not be partisan but you definitely have a blind spot when it comes to donald.

    Just as ya'all have a HUGE blindspot when it comes to Hillary..

    What's yer point??

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that ya'all's blind spot is based on Party ideology and dogma..

    My "blindspot", even if it DOES exist, is not..

    Because, as ya'all have pointed out, Trump is NOT a "real Republican"....

    Or, more accurately, ya'all espouse the sentiments of those Republicans who claim Trump is not a real Republican...

    THAT is why Trump is so popular... He embodies the best of the Left and the Right...

    "That's because yer not human, Spock.. You're what happened when the donkey snuck into the horse barn."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    EDGARTOWN, Mass. (AP) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned fellow Democrats on Saturday to change their cellphone numbers and not let family members read their text messages after personal and official information of Democratic House members and congressional staff was posted online.

    Pelosi told Democratic lawmakers that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other Democratic Party entities were the target of "an electronic Watergate break-in."

    As a result, a mix of personal and official information of Democratic members and hundreds of congressional staff, purportedly from a hack of the DCCC, was posted online, Pelosi said.

    A hacker who calls himself Guccifer 2.0 took credit for posting the information Friday night. He had claimed responsibility for the recent hack of Democratic National Committee emails, which roiled the Democratic National Convention last month.

    Pelosi said she was flying from Florida to California when she heard about the posting of information such as cell phone numbers

    "Upon landing, I have received scores of mostly obscene and sick calls, voicemails and text messages," Pelosi said in her letter to colleagues. "Please be careful not to allow your children or family members to answer your phone or read incoming text messages. This morning, I am changing my phone number and I advise you to do so as well. "
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-colleagues-harassing-calls-messages-194244818--politics.html

    Now Pelosi knows what Trump supporters have had to endure...

    I have *ZERO* sympathy for Democrats...

    Suck it!!

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    4. Every fact checker is in the bag for the Left Wingery..

    ha! apparently so is every fact.

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Many GOP "officials" said the same things about Reagan..

    And he nearly single-handedly took down the Soviet Union..

    that's flat untrue about reagan. nixon was much more responsible than any other US president for the fall of the soviets.

    THAT is why Trump is so popular... He embodies the best of the Left and the Right...

    how can one sentence be wrong in so many different ways at the same time? your bias on this subject defies any and all reason.

    JL

  46. [46] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

    See Michale....

  47. [47] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale,

    Yeah, I'm feel really really bad about being caught in your little trap too but then, since you've taken up following Trump, it's hardly surprising that you would take the time to think up ways of treating people like scum off your shoe. Thanks for the putdown. It's exactly what I needed as I head back to hospital again.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You asked before how much the Clintons made....

    No, Michale, I didn't ask about that at all. I asked if you knew how much the Clintons paid in taxes since they started releasing their tax returns about 40 years ago ...

    The answer is about 43 million dollars, corresponding to an effective tax rate of about 30 some odd percent;

    And, you're way off in what they contributed to charity over those years ... about 10% of their income, according to news reports ...

    That's pretty impressive, no?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    ha! apparently so is every fact.

    You mean, like the "FACT" that Trump is a racist??

    You mean, like the "FACT" that Trump said he wants to ban muslims??

    Are those the kind of "facts" you are referring to??

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's flat untrue about reagan. nixon was much more responsible than any other US president for the fall of the soviets.

    That's your opinion unsupported by the facts.

    It was Reagan's build-up of US forces that bankrupted the USSR..

    how can one sentence be wrong in so many different ways at the same time? your bias on this subject defies any and all reason.

    Again, that's your opinion unsupported by the facts..

    I also have the same opinion regarding ya'all and ya'all's blind support of Hillary and the Demcorat Party..

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I'm feel really really bad about being caught in your little trap too but then, since you've taken up following Trump, it's hardly surprising that you would take the time to think up ways of treating people like scum off your shoe. Thanks for the putdown. It's exactly what I needed as I head back to hospital again.

    I really didn't deserve that.

    Be well...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Milwaukee Crowd Turns Violent After Police Fatally Shoot Armed Man
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/milwaukee-cop-cars-smashed-torched-after-police-kill-suspect-n630236

    Trump's numbers are rising... Hillary's numbers are falling..

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    App maker: Trump will win election
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

    Interesting concept...

    Sounds logical..

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    After an hours-long confrontation with officers, police reported at 10:15 p.m. that a gas station at N. Sherman Blvd. and W. Burleigh St. was set on fire. Police said firefighters could not for a time get close to the blaze because of gunshots.

    Later, fires were started at businesses — including a BMO Harris Bank branch, a beauty supply company and O'Reilly Auto Parts stores — near N. 35th and W. Burleigh streets, a grim and emphatic Mayor Tom Barrett said. He spoke at a midnight news conference at the District 3 police station at N. 49th St. and W. Lisbon Ave.
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/08/13/report-1-dead-officer-involved-shooting/88689152/

    Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you your Democrat Party... :^/

    Who would have thought indulging scumbags and giving them "room to destroy" would actually lead to MORE destruction!??

    Who would have thunked it.. :^/

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    THAT is the most likely of the possibilities as the Left bias of the MSM (IE fact checkers) is well established..

    Duke's endorsement of Trump got SIX TIMES the MSM coverage that the Taliban Commander/God Hates Gays guy's endorsement of Hillary got...

    THESE are the facts...

    No comment?? :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you your Democrat Party..."

    I am really not sure what one has to do with the other. How is the Democratic Party to blame for the violence exactly? Especially since it was the Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett who urged residents, and I quote:

    "If you love your son, if you love your daughter, text them, call them, pull them by their ears, get them home."

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    it's a holiday today so i don't have time to argue extensively, but i will say two things:

    1 - fact checkers' jobs are very different from reporters. citing differences in media coverage as evidence of fact-checking bias demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what fact checkers do. if there were "left-wingery" partisan bias among fact checkers, it would have shown up respective to all partisans. yet sanders and bush, kasich and clinton have all had very similar ratings throughout the campaign season. ben carson, who the media LOVE, had even lower fact-checker ratings by percentage than donald trump did. jeb bush, who they hate, had even higher ratings than bernie sanders. these are statements of fact that you can't pooh-pooh away with false claims of partisanship or hypicrisy.

    2. you are correct that my view of nixon's impact on the cold war is an opinion. however, you should know better than to think my opinion in my own subject area would be factually unsupported. via detente, triangular diplomacy, salt 1, ending vietnam, opening china, and various other maneuvers too numerous to name here, nixon played the soviets into a corner like a chessmaster, and removed the two biggest factors holding the soviet empire together, fear of their own government and fear of us.

    economic collapse, decentralization, local nationalism, militarism, imperialism, all the factors leading to the fall of the soviets, were exploited by nixon's foreign policy team to devastating long term effect.

    the biggest thing reagan gets credit for - outspending the soviets by funding star wars - was partly due to an accident by the OMB, adjusting the budget for inflation twice. the defense department kept the funding by threatening to go to the media if the white house withdrew it.

    these are "the facts"

    JL

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I get it, I really do.. Trump and Hillary are virtually tied in polls, so ya'all have to pin your hopes on some GOP malcontents... :D

    I really feel for ya'all.. Saying 'President Trump' is going to be REALLY hard for ya'all.. :D"

    Umm, what universe do you live in???

    The Real Clear Politics average of recent national polls clearly shows that Clinton has taken the lead over Trump, by a margin of 47.5 percent for Clinton to 40.5 percent for Trump.

    What's more, Clinton leads Trump by decisive margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and New Hampshire, and by a smaller but still significant margin in Florida.

    Trump's numbers have been falling rapidly, while Clinton has been rising. Of the last 16 Presidents who won the White House, all of them were ahead in the polls at this point in the race.

    Saying "President Clinton" is going to be really hard for you Michale.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I am really not sure what one has to do with the other. How is the Democratic Party to blame for the violence exactly?

    Simple...

    It's the Demcorat Party who encourages and condones this type of violence by giving these thugs and scumbags "room to destroy"...

    It's the Demcorat Party who encourages and condones this type of violence by honoring these thugs and scumbags at their convention..

    Trump's numbers have been falling rapidly, while Clinton has been rising.

    Yea?? Prove it...

    Of the last 16 Presidents who won the White House, all of them were ahead in the polls at this point in the race.

    And if this race was the same ol same ol, then you would have a point...

    But this race is unlike ANY OTHER race in history and Donald Trump is unlike ANY OTHER candidate in history...

    Conventional wisdom doesn't apply.. ESPECIALLY politically biased conventional wisdom..

    Saying "President Clinton" is going to be really hard for you Michale.

    Not at all.. I said it for 8 years with not a problem. :D At least THAT President Clinton had a modicum of confidence even though he was a rapist and serial sexual harrasser and couldn't keep it in his pants...

    Hillary has NONE of Bill's competence in governing...

    But YOU will have an IMPOSSIBLE time saying "President Trump"... :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Trump's numbers have been falling rapidly, while Clinton has been rising.

    Yea?? Prove it..."

    I JUST DID. With the Real Clear Politics polling average that I just cited, which you insisted was the only one with any meaning, along with all the OTHER polls that have been mentioned over the past couple of weeks since the conventions ended, including what even many Republican officials have been expressing.

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    Face it, Trump is sinking like a stone, and unless he can reverse it, he is on track to lose in one of the biggest landslides in recent history.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not at all.. I said it for 8 years with not a problem. :D At least THAT President Clinton had a modicum of confidence even though he was a rapist and serial sexual harrasser and couldn't keep it in his pants...

    Make that a modicum of COMPETENCE even though he was a rapist and a serial sexual harrasser and couldn't keep it in his pants..

    My bust.. :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I JUST DID. With the Real Clear Politics polling average that I just cited,

    According to the RCP, Trumps numbers are RISING, not falling like a stone..

    Face it, Trump is sinking like a stone, and unless he can reverse it, he is on track to lose in one of the biggest landslides in recent history

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru the day.. :D

    This is an ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election and yer candidate is the BIGGEST Establishment rhymes-with-witch in existence..

    Add to that the FACT that any terrorist attack or LEO attack will favor Trump and destroy Clinton.....

    Given these facts, I can't understand how ANYONE can believe Clinton can win..

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially since it was the Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett who urged residents, and I quote:

    The news conference ended with Aldermen Russell W. Stamper II and Khalif Rainey delivering strongly worded statements about the disturbance springing from the frustrations of black Milwaukeeans and the problems they face.

    Rainey, who represents the area where the man was shot by the officer and the disturbance occurred, was particularly pointed. He said Sherman Park had become “a powder keg” this summer, and ended his remarks by implying that downtown could be the site of disturbances if the issues facing African-Americans here not addressed.

    “This entire community has sat back and witnessed how Milwaukee, Wis., has become the worst place to live for African-Americans in the entire country,” Rainey said. “Now this is a warning cry. Where do we go from here? Where do we go as a community from here?

    “Do we continue – continue with the inequities, the injustice, the unemployment, the under-education, that creates these byproducts that we see this evening? … The black people of Milwaukee are tired. They’re tired of living under this oppression. This is their existence. This is their life. This is the life of their children.

    “Now what has happened tonight may have not been right; I’m not justifying that. But no one can deny the fact that there’s problems, racial problems, here in Milwaukee, Wis., that have to be closely, not examined, but rectified. Rectify this immediately. Because if you don’t, this vision of downtown, all of that, you’re one day away. You’re one day away.”

    And yet, you have this Democrat scumbag threatening more violence and more destruction and more rioting if demands aren't met..

    Yep... Your Demcorat Party at it's finest..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The video clip shows angry rioters chanting “black power!” before asking “is they white?” as cars slowly drive past.
    “Yeah they white!” states someone else, prompting the mob to run towards the vehicle.
    “Yeah they white, get their ass!” screams another.
    “Hey they beatin’ up every white person!” exclaims another rioter.
    “He white – beat his head – bitch!” he adds.
    The footage appears to show the mob attacking cars and trying to drag out the drivers.
    The footage then cuts to an upper floor window before the person shooting the video states, “I think they just beat some white bitch ass for no reason – they bust open the window.”
    Local reporters were also targeted for violent assaults, including a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter, who was “thrown to the ground and punched”.

    http://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-rioters-target-whites-for-beat-downs/

    And the condemnation from the Demcorat Party??

    {{{chiiirrrrrpppppppp}}} {{{ccccchhhhiiiirrrrrrrpppppppppp}}}

    Non-existent...

    And ya'all REALLY think that Hillary can win???

    On what planet?

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly..

    What *IS* about these moronic Democrats?!?

    A cop shoots and ARMED MAN who refused orders to drop his weapon and these Dumbocrats RIOT!!??

    Obviously, there isn't any legitimate social agenda at work here.. It's just morons, scumbags and thugs wanting to prey on decent Americans and simply destroy and pillage....

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Hillary and the Demcorat's response to this??

    Invite the thug's and scumbag's family to the national convention.. :^/

    Good call!! :^/

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is simply no way that ya'all can spin this that it isn't a total cluster-frak for Democrats..

    Hillary and the Democrats jumped into bed with the racist hate group, ONLY Black Lives Matter and this is a direct result of that schlupping...

    Hillary and the Demcorat Party OWN (O)BLM...

    No amount of spin will erase that simple fact...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially since it was the Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett who urged residents, and I quote:

    Milwaukee officials plead for calm after police shooting sparks violence
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/14/milwaukee-police-in-standoff-with-crowd-after-fatal-shooting.html

    See, that is the problem with Democrats..

    They plead.. They beg..

    "Oh, please please!!! Please don't destroy.. Please don't rape and burn and pillage... Please!??"

    The better way???

    "Listen, assholes... Clear out or be shot or arrested... Your choice..."

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    It is a low bar; but being demonstrably sane, competent and able to refrain from publicly envisaging her opponent’s murder is now at the heart of Mrs Clinton’s sales pitch.

    - The Economist, August 13, 2016

    "I can be more presidential than anybody, if I want to be, I can be more presidential than anybody. When I have 16 people coming at me from 16 different angles, you don't want to be so presidential. You have to win, you have to beat them back. But I would say more presidential, and I've said this a couple of times, more presidential than anybody other than the great Abe Lincoln. He was very presidential"

    - Donald Trump, March 8, 2016

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    The bar might bit a teeny bit lower than "the Great Abe Lincoln".

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    How "presidential" was Hillary when she let 4 good Americans die in Benghazi??

    How "presidential" was Hillary when she opened up the entirety of the State Department to our enemies??

    {{chhiiirrrrppppp}} {{cchhiiirrrpppp}}

    Yea, that's what I thought..

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like we're going to have a plethora of reports for Michale's Magical Monday Morning Media Roundup (patent pending) :D

    And awaaaaaayyyy we go.... :D

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unease continues after Sherman Park uprising

    For a second night, disorder hit Milwaukee's Sherman Park neighborhood late Sunday..
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2016/08/14/calm-restored-scene-unrest-clarke-calls-national-guard/88716616/

    Once again, thugs and scumbags come out of the woodwork in Milwaukee...

    There is absolutely NO social justice agenda here. The cop who shot the armed scumbag was black. It was a textbook case of a Good Shoot...

    Where's the condemnation from the Left Wingery???

    Where's the condemnation from the Hillary campaign??

    Where's the condemnation from the Obama administration??

    Non-existent...

    I mean, honestly...

    Let Trump say something stoopid and the condemnation comes fast and furious within seconds from the Left Wingery peanut gallery...

    But when the Left Wingery's (O)BLM scumbags start looting and destroying and shooting???

    {{chirrrpppp}} {{cchiiiirrrppp}}

    Ya'all know I am right...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Call By Obama for Peace After Milwaukee Anti-Police Riot; Press Fails to Question Golfing Obama About Riot

    The vacationing President Barack Obama has issued no statement on the riot in Milwaukee Saturday night over the fatal police shooting of an armed Black criminal–not even a call for peace while the shooting is investigated.

    The rioting left four officers wounded and caused Gov. Scott Walker to activate the National Guard in case of further riotimg.

    Instead, Obama went golfing Sunday on Martha’s Vineyard where he is taking his annual two-week summer vacation.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/no-call-obama-peace-milwaukee-anti-police-riot-press-fails-question-golfing-obama-riot/

    Of course, Obama was too busy playing golf to even COMMENT on the looting and destruction in Milwaukee where officers have been injured...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress could get record of FBI's Clinton interview over emails by this week
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/15/congress-could-get-record-fbis-clinton-interview-over-emails-by-this-week.html

    Woot!!!

    Clinton is on record as saying that she told the FBI *exactly* what she told the American people..

    *NOW* we're going to find out if this is true or if Clinton lied.... AGAIN... :D

    I have to ask again.. How do ya'all expect Hillary to win with all these knocks against her???

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary drafts illegal 'Dreamers' to get immigrants to vote
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-drafts-illegal-dreamers-to-get-immigrants-to-vote/article/2599321

    Hillary is hiring criminals to help her campaign..

    How completely and utterly apropos....

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the Issues Favor Trump
    Of course, he doesn't like to talk issues.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/all-the-issues-favor-trump/article/2003805

    If Trump could quit getting side-tracked by every bigoted and racist tidbit thrown out by the Hillary Campaign and the media and stick with the issues, Trump would decimate Clinton...

    Because each and every issue this country faces, Trump is on the side of the vast majority of Americans and Hillary is on the side of Hillary, the Establishment and the 1%.... In that order...

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong"
    -God

    :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”
    -Hillary Clinton

    Except, of course, if the survivors of sexual assault, rape and sexual harassment accuse Hillary's husband..

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/juanita-broaddrick-wants-to-be-believed?utm_term=.pqx0ZX3ard#.uj0Mgzv5Od

    THEN they are to be destroyed...

    Democrat Hypocrisy...

    Talk about your redundant label... :^/

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "You're not wrong" -God

    appeal to authority?

    Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims to have spoken with God, they're speaking to me. Or they're speaking to themselves.
    ~dogma

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have to ask again.. How do ya'all expect Hillary to win with all these knocks against her???

    both candidates have shown the ability to effectively shrug off whatever hits come their way, regardless of whether those are instigated by others or self-inflicted.

    we're still in the earliest days of valid polling, but i'd still rather be 6.8 points up in the RCP average than 6.8 points down.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    both candidates have shown the ability to effectively shrug off whatever hits come their way, regardless of whether those are instigated by others or self-inflicted.

    I never thought about it that way, but yer dead on ballz right...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    appeal to authority?

    hay, if she's on my side, why not??

    "You can't win!! I've got GOD on my side!!!"
    -Max Von Snydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

    Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims to have spoken with God, they're speaking to me. Or they're speaking to themselves.

    Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out.

    heh :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    we're still in the earliest days of valid polling, but i'd still rather be 6.8 points up in the RCP average than 6.8 points down.

    True, but with what's coming down the pipe, I don't think polls in the here and now are going to mean dick..

    I mean, seriously, look at it..

    There really isn't anything that could likely happen that will hurt Trump..

    Between the emails and the corruption investigations and the neurological health issues and the terrorist attacks, there is a BUTTLOAD of *likely* crap coming that will bury Hillary.. Possibly literally...

    I'de put my odds with Trump over Hillary, based on that simple fact alone...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/765166967820918784

    Hillary is still imitating Trump :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/f57b1948e3687e396d17135bc9a190fd.jpg

    Wait a tic..

    I thought it was TRUMP who was BFF with Putin???

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/a3014c7f6f50c575a0613c100f123730.jpg

    "So THAT's how it is in that family."
    -Principle Rooney, FERRIS BEUHLER'S DAY OFF

    :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "So THAT's how it is in that family."

    Really. That's a nice pair, there.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    True, but with what's coming down the pipe, I don't think polls in the here and now are going to mean dick..

    agree. i'm sticking with my initial position - this election is far too volatile to justify playing any sort of odds.

    I never thought about it that way, but yer dead on ballz right...

    of course i am. perfect in every way, that's me. i just wish you'd give a little credence to my views on nixon. we may not agree on the details, but our shared mission here is getting at the truth - whatever it might be.

    we're on a mission from god
    ~elwood blues

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really. That's a nice pair, there.

    Of course it's a nice pair..

    But Hillary is old enough to be Agguilerra's grandmother..

    I guess Hillary and Bubba are two of a kind...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    agree. i'm sticking with my initial position - this election is far too volatile to justify playing any sort of odds.

    Troo dat...

    of course i am. perfect in every way, that's me. i just wish you'd give a little credence to my views on nixon. we may not agree on the details, but our shared mission here is getting at the truth - whatever it might be.

    Naaw, you can have the truth.. I am just interested in the facts..

    :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Naaw, you can have the truth.. I am just interested in the facts..

    facts have interpretations. emphasizing some facts and minimizing others changes the conclusions one can logically draw. this is why reality doesn't always conform to those facts one might notice. if the analysis of political facts were an exact measurement rather than an educated guess, you would have realized that comey would not recommend indictment, and the rest of us would have realized that donald was going to take the GOP nomination. in both cases the wrong prediction was factually based.

    god knows stuff we don't ;)

    Me and the Lord, we got an understanding.
    ~Jake Blues

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    facts have interpretations.

    Actually, it's the other way around..

    Facts are facts..

    TRUTH... Now THAT is subjective..

    "Their truth is not YOUR truth!! REPENT YOUR DISOBEDIENCE!!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada, STAR TREK, For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky

    How we choose to INTERPRET facts is what leads to the wrong conclusions... As you say..

    But that's not on the facts, that is on us..

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-slips-steps-away-podium-biden/

    And Hillary almost takes another tumble..

    One of these days, there won't be anyone to catch her...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    I didn't think Trump would be the Republican candidate because I figured he wanted out of the race and would drop before the primary convention-- that way he could always say that he COULD'VE been President if HE had wanted to be, but he chose not to. That would protect the Trump brand from being damaged by a loss, and I think he tried to sabotage his campaign multiple times to give himself an out (calling McCain a loser for being a POW for instance), but he was shocked that his fans didn't revolt on him and he started believing his own hype!

    I think Trump was as shocked as everyone else was that he won the nomination. Everyone that I know who voted for Trump has pretty much said the same thing to me: "I voted for Trump in protest because I couldn't stand the other candidates, not because I actually thought he would or could get the nomination!" Like many Brits who voted for Brexit in protest, they were horrified when their vote-for-show actually won!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Trump was as shocked as everyone else was that he won the nomination. Everyone that I know who voted for Trump has pretty much said the same thing to me: "I voted for Trump in protest because I couldn't stand the other candidates, not because I actually thought he would or could get the nomination!" Like many Brits who voted for Brexit in protest, they were horrified when their vote-for-show actually won!

    Yea... THAT'S what it is.. :D

    Whatever helps ya get thru the day...

    :D

    Ya'all just CAN'T fathom that rational, logical and patriotic Americans would LOVE Trump and despise Hillary...

    So it HAS to be that they are idiots.... THAT's got to be it...

    (calling McCain a loser for being a POW for instance)

    If that's what Trump had actually said, you would have a point..

    But it's not, so you don't...

    This is JUST like the TRUMP IS A RACIST bs and the TRUMP SAID TO BAN MUSLIMS bs and all the other BS...

    You don't have ANY facts, so ya'all just make shit up...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    And here is ya'all's "peaceful" and "tolerant" (O)BLM Democrats...

    Race agitators looted businesses and clashed with Milwaukee police for a second night after an armed black man pointed his gun at a black officer Saturday night and was killed.

    A group of protesters converged on the 7th District Police Station where they stopped at a yellow police tape outside the station and shouted expletives and gay slurs at six officers in riot gear standing outside.

    “F*ck you!” one woman yelled. “Get your bitch ass up here!” she said, apparently taunting them.

    “F*ck you boys!” she continued. “F*ck all y’all pussy ass f*ggots!” she shouted.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-agitators-hurl-gay-slurs-milwaukee-police/

    Whoooaaaaaa

    Ya'all's "peaceful" and "tolerant" (O)BLM Democrats seem to have a touch of hatred for gay people....

    Condemnation???

    {{{ccchhhiiiirrrrrppppp}}}

    No???

    Didn't think so.... :^/

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Even if the Party supports hate-filled, gay-bashing racists.... :^/

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    I know that you won't believe this, but the truth is that not all black people are in BLM. And even if she was, why would I have to condemn her just because you want me to? It's a sad way for you to try to get people to engage you, I realize that now, but as I've told you before : they are not my words to have to defend!

    Here's Trump saying McCain wasn't a war hero.

    “He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317#ixzz4HRmoMa4P

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that you won't believe this, but the truth is that not all black people are in BLM.

    Oh, I do believe that..

    There are many MANY black people who condemn the actions of these hate filled racists..

    Ironically enough they are mostly Republican black people..

    And even if she was, why would I have to condemn her just because you want me to?

    I don't want you to condemn her because I want you to. I want you to condemn her because if she was a Trump supporter, you would be condemning her six ways from Sunday..

    I want you to condemn her because it's the right thing to do.. No pun intended.. :D

    Here's Trump saying McCain wasn't a war hero.

    And Trump was dead on ballz accurate..

    McCain WASN'T a "war hero" because he was captured..

    He was a war hero for what he endured AFTER he was captured...

    Trump was dead on ballz accurate...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Trump was dead on ballz accurate..

    McCain WASN'T a "war hero" because he was captured..

    Berghdahl was captured... He is NOT a "war hero"..

    He's a scumbag deserter..

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    McCain WASN'T a "war hero" because he was captured..
    He was a war hero for what he endured AFTER he was captured...
    Trump was dead on ballz accurate...

    did you write that with a straight face?

    Be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out.
    ~Groucho Marx

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    did you write that with a straight face?

    Of course I did.. It's the facts..

    Are you saying that a person who is captured is automagically a "war hero"??

    Are you saying that Berghdahl is a "war hero"??

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, to be perfectly frank, of the 3 of us (you, me, Trump) I am, with all due modesty) the one most qualified to asses the validity of a "war hero", having been the only one of the 3 mentioned who has actually seen combat...

    ESPECIALLY since the Left Wingery's current defense of McCain is SOLELY and COMPLETELY due to partisan/ideological needs of the moment.. When McCain was running against Obama, the Left Wingery attacked McCain with glee...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, look at the facts and the reality??

    Ya'all want to define "war hero" as anyone who has been captured...

    So that means the most moronic elltee, LT Podunk, gets lost and leads his men right into an enemy camp and gets his entire platoon captured is, by ya'all's definition, a "war hero"...

    That's crazy....

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's crazy....

    "So let me get this straight. You want to slingshot around the sun, go back in time, hope we find some humpbacked whales, bring them FORWARD in time and hope that they tell this probe what to go do with itself."
    "That's the idea."
    "Well, that's crazy!!!"

    -STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    let's compare your statement and donald's statement:

    what donald says:

    "He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured."

    what michale says:

    McCain WASN'T a "war hero" because he was captured. He was a war hero for what he endured AFTER he was captured.

    are you physically unable to tell the difference between those two statements? you've put words in donald's mouth that he didn't put there himself. donald was upset at mccain and criticized him unfairly. later donald walked back that criticism, but claiming he never made the criticism in the first place is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

    i agree with you that being captured is not grounds for hero status; mccain is a war hero for his actions after being captured. however, donald's criticism of mccain was absolutely the opposite of what you're claiming it was.

    JL

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that combat is not a Left Wingery sporting event nor is it a college campus..

    There are no "participation trophies" and there are no "safe spaces"...

    Calling someone a "war hero" just because they were captured is ridiculous..

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    are you physically unable to tell the difference between those two statements?

    Different words that amount to the same thing...

    So Trump is not the most loquacious speaker to come around the bend... Big whoop...

    The fact is ya'all are making a mountain out of a grain of sand, simply because it's Trump... The Left Wingery said LOTS of worse things about McCain, right??

    So, it's nothing.... It's like TRUMP IS A RACIST or TRUMP WANTS TO BAN MUSLIMS... It's twisting or ignoring Trump's words just to make a partisan/ideological attack..

    Michale

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    i agree with you that being captured is not grounds for hero status; mccain is a war hero for his actions after being captured.

    I agree.. Especially since it's exactly what I said. :D

    donald's criticism of mccain was absolutely the opposite of what you're claiming it was.

    Maybe that is how you are INTERPRETING it.... But that's not how I read it..

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Maybe that is how you are INTERPRETING it.... But that's not how I read it..

    with all due respect, your reading strains credulity. donald said "he's a war hero because he was captured." he said that exact phrase TWICE for emphasis, with the clear implication that mccain does not deserve his war hero status. there is zero indication anywhere in the video segment that donald had ANY idea why mccain actually IS a war hero.

    JL

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, let's face reality here.

    Trump could say that water is wet and the sky is blue and the majority of the Left Wingery and some even of the Right Wingery would argue with that and spin it to make Trump into a liar...

    That's the reality of the Trump candidacy...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    "he's a war hero because he was captured." he said that exact phrase TWICE for emphasis,

    He was saying what the Left Wingery was saying...

    He was mocking the Left Wingery for saying that McCain is a war hero because he was captured..

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    He was mocking the Left Wingery for saying that McCain is a war hero because he was captured..

    no, he was mocking mccain for calling his supporters "crazies." there was absolutely no discussion of anybody lefty on the table at that moment.

    I mean, let's face reality here.

    not exactly your strong suit.

    JL

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, he was mocking mccain for calling his supporters "crazies." there was absolutely no discussion of anybody lefty on the table at that moment.

    We'll just have to disagree on that. :D

    <I mean, let's face reality here.

    not exactly your strong suit.

    And yet, I have been right a HELLUVA more than I have been wrong.. :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We'll just have to disagree on that.

    there was nobody lefty being discussed at the time, it was all a criticism of mccain. that's not a matter of opinion. watch the full segment here:

    https://youtu.be/7k1ajHAeXMU

    i think you know i acknowledge those times when you're factually right about something. this is not one of those times, and the video proves that beyond all reasonable doubt.

    JL

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    "John McCain, a war hero who was held in a POW camp for 5 years, you call him a dummy. Is that appropriate?"

    That was the question..

    And it goes back to my answer.. It's a non-sequitor question...

    What does being a POW have to do with being a dummy or not??

    "Trump is making my life miserable. They have 15,000 crazies"
    -John McCain

    Now THAT's inappropriate...

    "He's a war hero because he was captured"

    That's what the host said..

    And THAT is ridiculous.. McCain is NOT a war hero because he was captured... We have already established that..

    So the host is a moron...

    Regardless, Trump THEN said, "I like people who weren't captured"

    How is that slamming McCain???

    It was an off the cuff remark that was funny and people laughed..

    So, my initial assessment is still valid, in my opinion..

    Your opinion may be different, but thass OK.. :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, basically the "war hero" issue is not an issue insofar as what Trump said...

    He was mocking McCain and calling McCain names and the Left jumped on that, even though the Left is guilty of calling McCain MUCH WORSE names and attacking McCain MUCH WORSE-edly. :D

    Trump is not politically correct..

    THAT is why most Americans like him..

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "He's a war hero because he was captured"

    That's what the host said..

    watch again, that's not what frank luntz said. luntz said, "he's a war hero, five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp," and donald cut him off.

    donald's the one who said, "He's a war hero because he was captured." luntz requested clarification and donald said it again.

    about the kindest spin i can give this is that maybe donald didn't really know why mccain was considered a war hero, and was speaking from ignorance.

    http://www.newsweek.com/sorry-trump-story-john-mccain-war-hero-355617

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it was more Luntz interrupting Trump..

    But... OK...

    What EXACTLY are you (and the Left Wingery) slamming Trump for vis a vis his statement about John McCain and war hero status..

    We have gone back and forth on this so much, I am kinda lost on exactly what ya'all's beef is with Trump on this issue..

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, being the Cup Is Half Full kinda guy that I am...

    I am glad we can agree that McCain is not a war hero, just because he was captured. :D

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We have gone back and forth on this so much, I am kinda lost on exactly what ya'all's beef is with Trump on this issue..

    he insulted mccain's war record.

    look, there's a lot of criticism that john mccain rightly deserves, but being a war hero is not something people who don't know any better should try to take away from him. donald twice said that john mccain was a hero because he was captured. at best an ignorant comment deserving an apology, at worst an insult to all the POW's for whom mccain willingly submitted himself to five years of brutal torture.

    JL

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    he insulted mccain's war record.

    Actually, he didn't say ANYTHING about McCain's war record until the host brought it up.. Then, when the host DID bring it up, all Trump said is, "I like people who weren't captured"...

    Childish and petty to be sure.. Mocking, definitely.. But hardly an insult..

    Even if it was an insult, it really has no bearing on anything relating to Trump's candidacy or competence... It's simply indicative of Trump's refreshing lack of politically correct attitude that endears Trump to the majority of Americans..

    AND...

    And the Left Wingery has absolutely no moral foundation to criticize Trump for any of it, because THEY have insulted McCain far worse than anything Trump has said.....

    It's like criticizing Trump for his campaign lies and ignoring Hillary's lies of the last quarter of a decade...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if I allow you that everything you say about Trump vis a vis McCain's war record is 1000% dead on ballz factually accurate....

    So what??

    It has absolutely no bearing on Trump as POTUS...

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    being cinc means you need to order people to fight and possibly die. if donald is going to be president, i think he needs a much greater appreciation of the sacrifices military people make. whether it's john mccain, humayun khan or whomever else, anyone who gives them orders should understand and respect their sacrifice - not make off the cuff comments about who does or does not deserve to be called a hero.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    anyone who gives them orders should understand and respect their sacrifice .

    Benghazi...

    'nuff said...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think he needs a much greater appreciation of the sacrifices military people make. whether it's john mccain, humayun khan or whomever else,

    Trump didn't say anything bad about Humayun Khan...

    You prove my point... It's nothing but partisan ideology at work..

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump didn't say anything bad about Humayun Khan...

    Saying that Captain Khan's father is a moron and a prick is not saying anything bad about Captain Khan....

    Just FYI...

    MIchale

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and mccain?

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    and mccain?

    Trump said "I like people who weren't captured" after McCain said that 15,000 Americans were "crazy"....

    If McCain is going to be such an asshat, I don't have a problem with Trump treating him like an asshat, McCain's service to this country notwithstanding..

    John Kerry served his country.. John Kerry then turned around and shit on his country... John Kerry is an asshat, his service to this country notwithstanding...

    Same concept...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://sjfm.us/temp/umbrellas.jpg

    That says it all about Hillary's (O)BLM morons... :^/

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all are feeling too beat up over Trump...

    After $300 Million Loss, Another Major Insurer Pulls Out of Obamacare
    How can President Obama and Hillary Clinton believe a "public option" will be more economical and better run than private insurance?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/after-300-million-loss-another-major-insurer-pulls-out-of-obamacare/article/2003852

    We can always talk about the death spiral that TrainWreckCare AKA CRAP CARE is in.. :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Trump said "I like people who weren't captured" after McCain said that 15,000 Americans were "crazy"....

    neither half of that statement is entirely accurate. mccain, in an interview, said that donald had "fired up the crazies." that's not the same as calling every single attendee crazy. mccain later said that he hadn't meant it as an insult. i don't know whether or not i believe that, but if donald wants the public to give his own "jokes" the benefit of the doubt, he should be a little more tolerant of such comments when he's the recipient.

    http://www.thewrap.com/john-mccain-says-calling-donald-trump-supporters-crazies-is-a-term-of-endearment/

    as to the claim donald made that mccain was "a hero because he was captured," we've already agreed that it was inaccurate, so the only remaining question is whether it was an error of ignorance, malice or both.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Benghazi...'nuff said...

    every time we THINK there's been enough said, someone else convenes yet another committee, conducts yet another investigation, and spends millions more dollars to discover that there's STILL no evidence to back up the right-wing contention that what happened there was somehow hillary's fault.

    Saying that Captain Khan's father is a moron and a prick is not saying anything bad about Captain Khan....

    if captain khan were alive and could speak, do you seriously believe he would agree on that count? i don't.

    JL

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    neither half of that statement is entirely accurate. mccain, in an interview, said that donald had "fired up the crazies." that's not the same as calling every single attendee crazy

    Close enough..

    if captain khan were alive and could speak, do you seriously believe he would agree on that count? i don't.

    As has been WELL ESTABLISHED (HuffingtonPost Circa 2005) when family members are involved, all logic goes out the window..

    Irregardless of that, Captain Kahn's agreement or disgreement of the statement doesn't change the validity of the statement...

    Saying Liz Cheney's father is a war-mongering evil Darth Vader is not an attack on Liz Cheney, regardless of how Liz Cheney feels about it..

    Regardless of THAT, how would you KNOW what Captain Khan would say?? He might agree whole-heartedly that his father is a moron and a prick...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    how would you KNOW what Captain Khan would say?? He might agree whole-heartedly that his father is a moron and a prick...

    no one can say with 100% certainty that any son will love his father, but most do. and there's no evidence that khizr khan was anything other than a good father. further, others who served alongside humayun khan, including his CO, have supported his family and condemned donald's words against them. if captain khan had ever spoken ill of his family, i would think that those he served with would not be so quick to defend them.

    JL

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    and there's no evidence that khizr khan was anything other than a good father.

    Other than the fact that he would use his dead son to push a partisan agenda and lie about another American..

    if captain khan had ever spoken ill of his family, i would think that those he served with would not be so quick to defend them.

    Good point..

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    And lets be clear about one point..

    Masiri Kahn attacked Trump.. With lies and BS....

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND I am constrained to point out that Trump had NOTHING to do with Mitziri Kahn's son's death..

    But Hillary did..

    Funny how no one wants to talk about that, eh??

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @136-138,

    1. who on earth is mitziri?

    2. humayun khan died in 2004. what exactly did hillary clinton have to do with that? did she time-travel?

    3. khizr khan did not lie, he shared his opinion. i've read it three times and there's nothing factually inaccurate in the speech.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. humayun khan died in 2004. what exactly did hillary clinton have to do with that? did she time-travel?

    Captain Khan died in a war that Hillary and the Democrats authorized...

    3. khizr khan did not lie, he shared his opinion. i've read it three times and there's nothing factually inaccurate in the speech.

    He said that Trump wanted to ban muslims.

    That is a lie. Trump said no such thing...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Captain Khan died in a war that Hillary and the Democrats authorized...

    In other words, Hillary and the Demcorats are a LOT more responsible for Captain Khan's death than Donald Trump is..

    "But you already knew that... That's what I like about you. Yer attention to detail.."
    -Ace Ventura

    :D

    Michale....

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    He said that Trump wanted to ban muslims.

    That is a lie. Trump said no such thing...

    he absolutely said such a thing.

    https://youtu.be/viDffWUjcBA

    if, as you say, you want to debate the exact meaning of "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the US," then that's your prerogative. however, calling that statement a proposed ban on muslims is not factually inaccurate, and therefore not a lie.

    JL

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    if, as you say, you want to debate the exact meaning of "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the US,"

    Of course, if you actually FINISH the quote, you discover the REAL and FACTUAL meaning..

    ..."until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..."

    I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that..

    The ONLY people who DO have a problem with that are terrorists, terrorists sympathizers and those pushing a Demcorat agenda of open borders...

    , calling that statement a proposed ban on muslims is not factually inaccurate, and therefore not a lie

    As I proven with your OWN link, it IS a lie..

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Captain Khan died in a war that Hillary and the Democrats authorized...In other words, Hillary and the Demcorats are a LOT more responsible for Captain Khan's death than Donald Trump is..

    i guess the khans don't hold hillary personally responsible. they didn't mention george w. bush either. donald has never been a part of government at any level, and has therefore never had a chance to make that kind of mistake, much less learn from it.

    JL

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a temporary ban is still a ban. still not a lie.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    i guess the khans don't hold hillary personally responsible.

    Of course not.. Kizinti Kahn makes money by supporting Hillary and Hillary's agenda...

    donald has never been a part of government at any level, and has therefore never had a chance to make that kind of mistake, much less learn from it.

    And Hillary MADE the mistake and didn't learn from it.. Hence, Benghazi...

    But at least we agree that Hillary DOES share a modicum of responsibility..

    a temporary ban is still a ban. still not a lie.

    Not to a Party who epitomizes arguing what the definition of 'is' is....

    At BEST, it's disingenuous and dishonest..

    Something else the Demcorat Party epitomizes..

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    a temporary ban is still a ban. still not a lie.

    Kahless Kahn said that if Trump had been President, Kahn and his family would not have been able to immigrate to the US because of Trump's "ban" on Muslims..

    That was a lie..

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's "ban" on immigration is simply a call to more accurately scrutinize immigrants from those countries where terrorism is a problem..

    No one in their right mind or without a politically correct agenda would have a problem with that...

    Did you read about Trump's immigration policies??

    You have a problem with any of those???

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you read about Trump's immigration policies??

    You have a problem with any of those???

    BESIDES the fact that they are Trump policies... I mean, that's a given... :D

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Michale, i don't have time now to dissect every one of the numerous faults in your argument, but i think you're flat wrong on all counts. Donald proposed a ban on Muslims, perhaps temporary but with no clearly defined end. Calling that a ban is neither inaccurate nor dishonest nor disingenuous, and right now the only one trying to redefine"is" would be you.

    Clinton's vote in Congress to authorize bush to use force isn't a modicum of responsibility, it's a rhetorical dodge. Khizr Khan, whose name you seem unable to refrain from intentionally writing incorrectly, feels disrespected by Donald's proposed ban on Muslims and not by hillary's vote to allow George bush to start a war for which he had no exit plan. Khan is entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to call that opinion a lie, because it isn't one.

    JL

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Donald proposed a ban on Muslims, perhaps temporary but with no clearly defined end.

    Sure there was a clearly defined end..

    When our leaders can competently address the terrorism issue..

    Calling that a ban is neither inaccurate nor dishonest nor disingenuous, and right now the only one trying to redefine"is" would be you.

    Nope.. As I said, the prick Kahn said he and his family wouldn't have been able to immigrate to the US if Trump had been President is a flat out lie...

    Clinton's vote in Congress to authorize bush to use force isn't a modicum of responsibility, it's a rhetorical dodge.

    Nope.. It's you who is dodging Clinton's responsibility. You want to pin the blame on Bush and the GOP while ignoring that Clinton and the Demcorats share responsibility..

    Khizr Khan, whose name you seem unable to refrain from intentionally writing incorrectly

    Ya picked up on that, eh?? :D He is not worthy of respect, ergo he is not worthy of me expending any effort to learn his name..

    feels disrespected by Donald's proposed ban on Muslims

    feels disrespected by Donald's proposed TEMPORARY ban on Muslims

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    I don't give a rats ass if Kubla Kahn feels "disrespected".. If he wants respect, then he needs to BE respectful.. He was not. He was using the honorable memory of his hero son to further his own monetary agenda and his own support of Sharia...

    and not by hillary's vote to allow George bush to start a war for which he had no exit plan.

    EXACTLY... It's all based on his Party ideology, not on any real facts..

    Khan is entitled to that opinion.

    Yes, he is entitled to that opinion, regardless of whether it is based on lies and his own greed..

    No one is disputing that...

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Kudos, JL..

    At least you are discussing it and making an argument.. That puts ya head and shoulders above everyone else.. :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if the roles were reversed, and Kubla was speaking against Hillary, everyone here (sans you, of course) would be making the exact same arguments against Kahn that I have been making...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama and Hillary "banned" muslims from Iraq in 2011....

    How is that any different than what Trump stated???

    Answer: There is no difference other than Trump has a -R after his name and Obama and Hillary have a -D after their names..

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama and Hillary "banned" muslims from Iraq in 2011....

    Here, let me help you..

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

    :D Always willing to help out a buddy... :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left Wingery (and all of Weigantia) savaged Bush for doing nothing but a fly-over in the aftermath of Katrina...

    http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/theadvocate.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/d5/bd531ae8-3a67-5619-915b-a031247f0057/57b254baf13f0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C777

    Louisiana is hit once again and Obama can't bear to leave his precious golf course...

    Once again proving the hypocrisy of the Demcorat Party and Weigantians... :^/

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama and Hillary "banned" muslims from Iraq in 2011....

    huh? how is that even possible? i think you may need to change your nonsense filter. iraq is 99.2% muslim. are you claiming that obama and hillary tried to ban the entire population?

    JL

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    huh? how is that even possible? i think you may need to change your nonsense filter. iraq is 99.2% muslim. are you claiming that obama and hillary tried to ban the entire population?

    I am not CLAIMING it.. It's a bona fide fact...

    In the aftermath of 2 Iraqi immigrants being found to be working for Al Qaeda, Obama and Hillary banned ALL muslim immigrants from Iraq....

    Funny how it's EXACTLY what you accuse Trump of doing..

    But I guess it's OK when someone with a -D after their name does the banning... :^/

    Banning!??? My dad was born in Banning!! :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama, under fire for golfing on posh Martha's Vineyard during a week of anguished cries for help from flooded Louisiana, ripped former President Bush 11 years ago when the Republican was seen as slow to react to Hurricane Katrina's crash into New Orleans.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-obama-ripped-bushs-unconscionable-ineptitude-during-hurricane-katrina/article/2599641

    Our Hypocrite-In-Chief

  160. [160] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am not CLAIMING it.. It's a bona fide fact...

    if you actually have proof of this, i'll be shocked.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you acknowledge the proof, I'll be only mildly surprised.. :D

    Obama & Clinton Banned Iraqi Refugees in 2011 for 6 Months!
    Posted on June 14, 2016

    Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.
    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/the-obama-clinton-ban-on-muslims

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you acknowledge the proof, I'll be only mildly surprised.. :D

    Obama & Clinton Banned Iraqi Refugees in 2011 for 6 Months!
    Posted on June 14, 2016

    Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.
    http://tinyurl.com/z4ojxgq

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Review

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just testing..

    conservative

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    More testing

    conservativereview

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wierd...

    commentary the-obama-clinton-ban-on-muslims

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    OK, the NNL filters don't like www and conservativereview and com when it's all together with dots between the,,,

    Just FYI

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @161,

    i read the article you linked, as well as the article IT linked, and the two did not match up factually either with each other nor with your claims that Obama and Hillary banned muslims from Iraq in 2011.

    now at least i know what you were TRYING to say. banning muslims from iraq implied that muslims would not be allowed to enter iraq, not the US, which makes no sense since iraq is entirely muslim and not our government's jurisdiction. what you meant was that following an attempted terrorist attack, obama stopped iraqui refugees from entering the US for six months.

    even allowing for your grammatical snafu, that's not even remotely equivalent. there was no religious litmus test for entry, it was a blanket ban on a country, due to a specific security concern associated with that specific country, for which there was ironclad evidence.

    that's like claiming equivalency between the olympics banning a single nation with a state-sponsored doping program, for a single olympics, and banning all nations who have ever had a single athlete accused of doping, for as many olympics as it takes until the problem of worldwide doping is fully investigated and understood.

    so yes, that is VERY different, and your claims of equivalency are in my opinion completely ridiculous.

    JL

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    now at least i know what you were TRYING to say. banning muslims from iraq implied that muslims would not be allowed to enter iraq, not the US, which makes no sense since iraq is entirely muslim and not our government's jurisdiction.

    You totally miss the point..

    Obama and Hillary banned muslims from immigrating to the US...

    It was a temporary ban, like Trump proposed...

    It's an exact equivelance...

    I am actually surprised that you won't concede it...

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You totally miss the point.. Obama and Hillary banned muslims from immigrating to the US...You totally miss the point..

    no, i got the point, it's just not a good or legitimate point. a country is a geopolitical entity. a religion is not. the first amendment prevents us from restricting religion, not from restricting a specific foreign country. country does not equal religion.

    JL

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    to clarify: if you said we need to temporarily ban people from iraq, iran and syria, and create a more thorough vetting process, i don't think anyone would have said boo. i might have even agreed. but that's not what we're talking about. there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world, and most are not from countries that support terrorism.

    JL

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    to clarify: if you said we need to temporarily ban people from iraq, iran and syria, and create a more thorough vetting process, i don't think anyone would have said boo.

    That's EXACTLY what Trump said...

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you agree that further screening of muslims coming in from terrorist prone countries is a worthwhile and viable method of immigration, right???

    Welcome to Trump'ism.. :D

    . the first amendment prevents us from restricting religion,

    You are completely wrong there.. US Law allows for immigration based on religion..

    Always has...

    Michale

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
    US Code, Title 18, Section 1182

    Further, US Code and US Law also stipulates emergency immigration based on religion for those of faith who are being persecuted in their own lands. Immigration based on religion...

    Immigration based on religion is codified in US laws..

    The POTUS has the right, some would say the OBLIGATION to ban immigration of any group he deems detrimental to the peace and security of the United States.. Just like Obama banned muslims from Iraq in 2011

    So, please... Quit the bogus unconstitutional argument..

    It doesn't hold water..

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What you say he said, and what every apologist says he said, is not what he said.

    Title 18 does not overrule the constitution. A ban on a country is permissible. A ban on a religion or ethnicity is horrific. Shall we bring back segregation as well?

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Also, at no time did Obama or hillary ban Muslims. That's an intentional misstatement of fact. Christians and atheists from Iraq were also not permitted, because the country not the religion was the salient factor. That is a small difference numerically but a big difference ethically.

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Christians and atheists from Iraq were also not permitted, because the country not the religion was the salient factor.

    Actually, at the time, Christians were still being allowed to immigrate from Iraq..

    The ban only applied to muslims..

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    A ban on a country is permissible. A ban on a religion or ethnicity is horrific.

    That's your opinion...

    But where in the Constitution does it say it's not allowed??

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    A ban on a religion or ethnicity is horrific.

    And yet....

    Further, US Code and US Law also stipulates emergency immigration based on religion for those of faith who are being persecuted in their own lands. Immigration based on religion...

    Immigration based on religion is codified in US laws..

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    A ban on a religion or ethnicity is horrific.

    And yet, the Obama Administration has in place a de-facto ban on christians immigrating to the US..

    So what you are REALLY saying is that a ban on a religion or ethnicity that are firmly in the Demcorat camp is horrific..

    A ban on religion or ethnicity that DOESN'T support the Demcorat Party is perfectly acceptable..

    :^/

    Michale...

  181. [181] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But where in the Constitution does it say it's not allowed??

    first amendment. policy allowing an entire worldwide class of people to be banned from the country based only on their religion is a "law respecting establishment of religion."

    Further, US Code and US Law also stipulates emergency immigration based on religion for those of faith who are being persecuted in their own lands. Immigration based on religion...

    now you're moving the goalposts. again. that's allowing extra immigration, again from a specific place, due to compassion for a legitimately oppressed minority (factual), not allowing less immigration from everywhere on the globe due to baseless fear of an entire religion (a fictional depiction of all muslims as possible extremists).

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    first amendment. policy allowing an entire worldwide class of people to be banned from the country based only on their religion is a "law respecting establishment of religion."

    Give me the exact wording..

    Because A> the banning is taking place on foreign soil..

    and

    2> The people being banned are NOT American citizens and therefore the Constitution doesn't apply...

    now you're moving the goalposts. again.

    No, the goal posts have ALWAYS been at religion based immigration..

    Whether you want to call it a ban or whatever, that is what the issue is..

    And the US has ALWAYS had laws that allowed for religion based immigration..

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Give me the exact wording..

    ok.

    First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    ~US Constitution

    nothing whatsoever about it applying only to citizens.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    ~US Constitution

    And limiting immigration to immigrants that are thoroughly vetted would have no bearing on the establishment clause..

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, even if there WERE a Constitutional issue with increased vetting of muslim immigrants, the simple fact is that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact..

    If those who practice a certain religion are a threat to the safety and security of Americans, then they can be scrutinized further and banned from entering the United States if such scrutiny brings to light evidence that they are a threat..

    Do you WANT muslim terrorists in the US???

    Of course you don't....

    What sane person would!??

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    ok.

    First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    ~US Constitution

    nothing whatsoever about it applying only to citizens.

    Allow me to throw you a bone..

    Your argument would be better suited if you quoted the 14th Amendment rather than the 1st Amendment..

    Yer welcome.. :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't want terrorists of ANY kind. islamists are a small minority; many muslims don't even consider them muslims. even calling islamists muslims is a bit of a slur.

    And limiting immigration to immigrants that are thoroughly vetted would have no bearing on the establishment clause..

    if donald's own word were what you just said, then you'd have a valid point. however, as you are wont to say, they weren't, so you don't.

    Your argument would be better suited if you quoted the 14th Amendment rather than the 1st Amendment..

    the 14th is about equal treatment under law. that one actually does concern citizenship, but is too widely applied already. the 14th amendment is the pretext for citizens united granting corporations and unions the free speech rights of real persons.

    JL

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the really tricky part about immigration vis a vis the 14th is that it may not apply to those abroad, because it refers twice to residents, "within its jurisdiction."

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't want terrorists of ANY kind. islamists are a small minority; many muslims don't even consider them muslims. even calling islamists muslims is a bit of a slur.

    OK, forget terrorism..

    What about mainstream islam that denies women equal rights and approves of gay bashing and gay killings??

    It's not just the terrorism...

    if donald's own word were what you just said, then you'd have a valid point. however, as you are wont to say, they weren't, so you don't.

    Actually, it was what Trump said. He just said it poorly.

    But we are agreed that, if Trump DID mean that, which all the evidence points to, then it's a GOOD thing, right??

    What do you think about Trump's immigration process he outlines??

    Quizzing incoming immigrants on their tolerance for gay rights and women's rights??

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you think about Trump's immigration process he outlines??

    Quizzing incoming immigrants on their tolerance for gay rights and women's rights??

    I mean, do YOU want immigrants coming to America who think it is perfectly acceptable to subjugate and beat and rape women and who think it is perfectly acceptable to kill gay people??

    Trump doesn't... Neither do I...

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I mean, do YOU want immigrants coming to America who think it is perfectly acceptable to subjugate and beat and rape women and who think it is perfectly acceptable to kill gay people??

    this is called the complex (or loaded) question fallacy. How many times per day do you beat your wife?

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/69/Complex-Question-Fallacy

    What do you think about Trump's immigration process he outlines??

    i think it's a good start that he expressed regret yesterday over the fact that he spoke offensive words, and that the result was it hurt people. now it's up to him to correct his own mistakes, or live with the public belief that those mistakes were intentional. i'll get to the specifics of the plan in a subsequent column, but i did read an excellent article about it in fortune magazine.

    JL

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    this is called the complex (or loaded) question fallacy.

    You can label the question all you want.

    Doesn't negate the validity of the question, nor does it explain your unwillingness to answer the question..

    Modern islam approves of gay bashing and gay killing and approves of the subjugation and rape and honor killing of women..

    Shouldn't a muslim who wants to immigrate to the US be questioned on their beliefs in that regard??

    i think it's a good start that he expressed regret yesterday over the fact that he spoke offensive words, and that the result was it hurt people.

    Yes, it was...

    Will he get any credit for it from Weigantians besides from present company??

    10,000 quatloos says no...

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Doesn't negate the validity of the question, nor does it explain your unwillingness to answer the question..

    that is precisely what it does, on both counts.

    unless you'd care to explain why you haven't stopped beating your wife, i will also refrain from answering fallacious loaded questions.

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    unless you'd care to explain why you haven't stopped beating your wife,

    I have never STARTED beating my wife, so stopping is not really an accurate question to ask..

    See how easy it is??

    i will also refrain from answering fallacious loaded questions.

    Because the answer shows the fallacy of your argument..

    Trump WANTS to stop terrorists from entering this country.

    Hillary does not..

    Your support of Hillary indicates that you also do not mind terrorists entering this country..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Final Frontier

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have never STARTED beating my wife, so stopping is not really an accurate question to ask..

    you mean by the time you were married you were already beating her, or it happened without you even starting? quit dodging the question, which is it?

    most muslims do NOT support raping women or murdering gays, but if you're going to continue asking loaded questions, so shall i.

    JL

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    you mean by the time you were married you were already beating her, or it happened without you even starting? quit dodging the question, which is it?

    I have answered your question..

    When are you going to start answering mine??

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    most muslims do NOT support raping women or murdering gays,

    All the facts to the contrary...

    Even if you ARE correct, what about the ones who do??

    Shouldn't we keep THEM out of the US??

    Another question you can't answer because it perfectly illustrates the fallacy of your support of Hillary...

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    you mean by the time you were married you were already beating her, or it happened without you even starting? quit dodging the question, which is it?

    You'll have to clarify.. Are you asking if I beat my wife BEFORE I even met her??

    How, exactly would that be possible??

    I am making an effort to answer your question but I feel you are being intentionally obtuse..

    But it's so typical of the WPG.. Always demanding answers and demanding responses to points made, but NEVER (OK you are the exception) answering any questions or responding to the follow-up..

    I am STILL waiting for Paula to respond to a dozen follow-ups...

    It's so typical... Always demanding, never reciprocating... Present company excepted, of course.. To an extent..

    I'll be awaiting your clarification and your answer to MY questions..

    Michale...

  199. [199] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Even if you ARE correct, what about the ones who do??

    they should go through the same vetting process as christians, jews, hindus, buddhists, daoists, shintoists, atheists and anybody else. the government must treat all individuals seeking visas the same, not single them out based on how they choose to worship. being muslim or mexican doesn't make one a rapist or a murderer of gays any more than being christian does.

    JL

  200. [200] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You'll have to clarify.. Are you asking if I beat my wife BEFORE I even met her??

    maybe you knew her but she wasn't your wife yet. anyhow, the point wasn't to find out how long you've been domestically abusing women, it was to demonstrate the rhetorical tactic you've been using vis-a-vis muslims.

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    anyhow, the point wasn't to find out how long you've been domestically abusing women, it was to demonstrate the rhetorical tactic you've been using vis-a-vis muslims.

    And yet I have answered your question to the best of my ability and you have continued to avoid my question..

    Which proves that I have nothing to hide and you are ashamed of your support of Hillary.. :D

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    maybe you knew her but she wasn't your wife yet.

    But that's not what you said..

    You said:
    you mean by the time you were married you were already beating her,

    SO, which is it?? When we were married or before she was my wife??

    Regardless, let me be clear. I have never beat my wife, ever.. Not before she was my wife, not after she was my wife..

    Now, I have answered your question thoroughly and without reservation..

    Now, would you do me the same courtesy and tell me why you are for open borders and letting terrorists cross our southern border with impunity...

    Because THAT is exactly what Hillary's "immigration plan" amounts to...

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brexit Armageddon was a terrifying vision – but it simply hasn’t happened

    Project Fear predicted economic meltdown if Britain voted leave, so where are the devastated high streets, job losses and crashing markets?

    Unemployment would rocket. Tumbleweed would billow through deserted high streets. Share prices would crash. The government would struggle to find buyers for UK bonds. Financial markets would be in meltdown. Britain would be plunged instantly into another deep recession.

    Remember all that? It was hard to avoid the doom and gloom, not just in the weeks leading up to the referendum, but in those immediately after it. Many of those who voted remain comforted themselves with the certain knowledge that those who had voted for Brexit would suffer a bad case of buyer’s remorse.

    It hasn’t worked out that way. The 1.4% jump in retail sales in July showed that consumers have not stopped spending, and seem to be more influenced by the weather than they are by fear of the consequences of what happened on 23 June. Retailers are licking their lips in anticipation of an Olympics feelgood factor.

    The financial markets are serene. Share prices are close to a record high, and fears that companies would find it difficult and expensive to borrow have proved wide of the mark. Far from dumping UK government gilts, pension funds and insurance companies have been keen to hold on to them.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/20/brexit-eu-referendum-economy-project-fear

    Ya'all were TOTALLY and COMPLETELY wrong again... I was dead on ballz right... AGAIN...

    Will anyone admit it??

    {{{cchhiiirrrrppppppp}}} {{cchhhiirrrrpppppp}}

    Yea, that's what I thought...

    What ELSE are ya'all wrong about??? hmmmmmmmmm????

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woops... Wrong FTP :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.