ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [404] -- As The Turd Tornado Turns...

[ Posted Friday, August 19th, 2016 – 17:26 PDT ]

Some weeks, it's tough coming up with a subtitle for these columns. Some weeks, not so much. This is one of the latter, because the juxtaposition of a colorful (to say the least) description of Donald Trump with a soap opera's title just naturally presented itself.

The quote comes in response to Trump's campaign shakeup, which we'll get to in a moment. One of the new people Trump hired comes from Breitbart News, and former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro was being interviewed by CNN's Brianna Keilar for his response to the shakeup. Here is the transcript, for everyone's edification:

SHAPIRO: I mean, as you probably know, I think Donald Trump's a turd tornado, but I also understand that he has no capacity whatsoever to control himself and be this staid politician that everyone wants him to be. Telling him to double down is not necessarily terrible strategy. If he's gonna go down, he's gonna go down being Trump.

KEILAR: A what tornado?

SHAPIRO: A turd tornado.

KEILAR: What is that?

SHAPIRO: Well, it's like a sharknado. Except with poop.

Thanks for clearing that up, Ben! We'll just add that to the images we never thought we'd have to think about in the world of politics (a list which has grown to epic proportions during this presidential race, it's worth pointing out). With such an auspicious metaphor to work with, let's see just how the turd tornado (turdnado?) turned last week.

The week began with a speech Donald Trump read off a TelePrompTer. And in a stunning development -- are you sitting down? -- he then did not stomp all over his message by saying monumentally stupid things for the rest of the week. No, really! True, his message was stomped all over by the shakeup news from his campaign, but this is actually an improvement for Trump. There wasn't a single tweet or off-the-cuff statement at a rally that derailed Trump's message this week -- which has got to be a new record for him. How many days can he keep this up? We certainly don't know, as evidenced by the fact that on Monday we wrote of the inevitability of it already happening by the end of the week -- which we have to admit turned out not to be the case at all.

Before we get to the shakeup, a word about Trump's messaging this week. He actually read three TelePrompTer speeches this week, and he seems to be improving (somewhat) on his delivery with each one. The first was on the subject of defeating terrorism and foreign policy in general. The Morning Joe program helpfully put together a mashup video of just a few of the things he said in Monday's speech that utterly contradict what he's said about the subjects in the past, which is pretty amusing to watch. The second was a law-and-order speech in front of a mostly-white audience, warning of the dangers of urban crime (which has been par for the course for Republicans since Richard Nixon's time, it's worth noting). By week's end, Trump had made some astonishing news in the third speech, but we'll get to that in a moment.

The campaign shakeup news was rather ominous for Republicans, since Trump pushed aside the only guy running his campaign who has had actual experience running campaigns before, and replaced him with two additions -- a woman who worked for Todd Akin's campaign (in the "outreach to women" job -- you just can't make this stuff up), and a guy who ran Breitbart News, a website for those who think that Fox News is just another part of the mainstream media's liberal conspiracy. Yes, there are people out there who think Fox isn't rightwingy enough, and they all apparently get their news from Breitbart. They also get plenty of conspiracy theories, but that almost goes without saying. The new theme for the campaign, as Shapiro referenced above, is going to be returning to "letting Trump be Trump." Hoo boy. Buckle up, boys and girls!

Little-noticed in the midst of all this news was the very first poll Breitbart ever commissioned, which was intended to "unskew" all that liberal polling saying Trump wasn't beating Clinton. The only problem was that even after all this unskewing, Clinton still beat Trump by five points. Guess they'll have to rework that unskewing formula, eh?

But back to the Trump campaign. With Trump adding a Breitbart executive to his campaign, the rest of the Republican Party spent the entire week waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nobody knew what form it would take, but this morning that shoe hit the ground with a thump, with the announcement that Paul Manafort would be stepping down from the Trump campaign. All week long, the Trump campaign had insisted that they weren't going through a shakeup at all, they were instead expanding the campaign by hiring more people to run things. This falsehood was exposed with Manafort's resignation. The Trump campaign is now being run by people who have never run a national campaign for anyone before. And it's worth pointing out that this isn't the first such top-level shakeup in Trump's campaign (and likely won't be the last).

All of this news has led to noticeable glee over in the Clinton camp (and among Democrats in general). It's easy to understand such giddiness, since Clinton's recent polling is so strong, both in battleground states and in previously-deep-red states as well. Tim Kaine is campaigning in places like Wyoming, Idaho, and Missouri (to be fair, the first two aren't realistic for Clinton to even hope for, as he was just fundraising there from wealthy Democrats). People are beginning to ask whether Trump's defeat will rival Barry Goldwater's -- and it's only August. With Trump doubling down on "being Trump," things look pretty rosy for Hillary Clinton right now.

But there's a cautionary tale running through the week that few inside-the-Beltway pundits have so far noticed. Could Trump actually be successfully pivoting, in the midst of the shakeup? He gave three TelePrompTer speeches, and had zero blowups this week. He didn't say (or tweet) anything so radical it dominated the news cycle in a negative way -- this during a week when naked Donald Trump statues mockingly appeared in multiple U.S. cities (more on that in the awards). He introduced his first two television ads of the general election. This is all new, for Trump. To end the week, Trump decided to pay a visit to flooding victims in Louisiana -- an opportunity for him to show some compassion and "look presidential." And in the third of those speeches he read this week, he kind-of sort-of apologized for all his previous outrageous statements. Here's what he read off the screen:

Sometimes in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues. But one thing; I can promise you this: I will always tell you the truth.

Laughable as that might sound (especially that last line), this appears to be the first time Donald Trump has ever even remotely admitted any sort of mistake he's made during the campaign. So, to review: three speeches read from prepared texts, two new television ads that will run in battleground states, one presidential-looking photo op, zero speeches ad-libbed at rallies, zero new controversial statements, and one semi-apology. That's a much more focused Trump than we've yet seen. So perhaps all the Democratic celebration about his new campaign team might be a wee bit premature. Has Trump truly pivoted? Has he ridden out his own personal poopstorm? Time will tell. Perhaps this is all the final influence of Manafort, on his way out -- perhaps next week Trump will return to form. But even with all the campaign shakeup news, Trump had a better week on the campaign trail than usual.

Finally, before we move along to the awards, we have to say a formal goodbye to John McLaughlin, who died earlier this week. The McLaughlin Group was a pioneer in political television, and for many (without cable subscriptions) was the only view into the contentious world that cable political shows have regularly become. With regulars on the right like Pat Buchanan and on the left people like Clarence Page, the show was always pretty freewheeling and interesting to watch. Countless political shows were inspired by their format, and McLaughlin had actually been trained as a Jesuit priest, which includes formal training in forming an argument (pro or con), so he was always able to examine strange angles and odd views that others routinely missed. OK, occasionally this veered into conspiratorial thinking, but McLaughlin usually seemed to be playing devil's advocate (rather than "true believer") by bringing such subjects up.

We'll miss seeing John, and we'll miss his show. Every year in this space, we run our year-end list of "McLaughlin awards," since his categories were so complete and well-thought out. So we have a personal connection to the show (even if they never knew about it). So, in homage, there is only one possible way to salute John McLaughlin: with the final phrase he used to close each of his shows, to show how we will miss his presence.

"Bye-bye."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Occasionally, we redefine our awards, and this seems a dandy week to do so. Rather than handing out a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, we are handing out a Most Impressive Anarchist Collective Of The Week award instead. We thought that changing it to the MIACOTW award would be more appreciated by an anarchist group, who might be offended by being linked to any official political party (even in an award).

The group INDECLINE had already made a name for itself by creating the largest-ever piece of illegal graffiti, by painting a political statement on a deserted military landing strip in the Mojave Desert. That's pretty cool, we have to admit, especially when you consider that they spent $20,000 creating it.

But this week, INDECLINE outdid themselves, by placing a rather unflattering statue of a naked Donald Trump in five American cities (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, and Seattle). Being anarchists, they didn't ask anyone's permission, just set the statue up (and epoxied it to the ground, to make it harder to remove). This bit of political theater was even given a name: "The Emperor Has No Balls." Reportedly, the statue didn't, but it's hard to tell from the available photos.

The artist, a guy from Las Vegas who goes by "Ginger," reportedly "has a long history of designing monsters for haunted houses and horror movies." That certainly seems like experience enough to create such monstrous statues, at least in our humble opinion.

The people behind the political theater knew their installations would be temporary. Reportedly, Cleveland was the fastest to remove it, while some in San Francisco are looking to preserve the statue in a suitable place. No real surprise there, we suppose.

Regular readers of this column will know that we are suckers for political theater (good, bad, and indifferent). As always, such theater must be judged on how amusing it is and how effective it is. On both these scales, "The Emperor Has No Balls" has to rate somewhere near the top end. It's funny, it made a huge splash online, and now millions of people have laughed at a naked Trump provided by a group that few had ever previously heard of. All around, that's pretty impressive, and well worth our special Most Impressive Anarchist Collective Of The Week award. Well done!

[Congratulate INDECLINE on their official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one wasn't hard to select this week. Former Pennsylvania state attorney general Kathleen Kane easily wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for being convicted of nine criminal charges, two of them felonies. It's pretty disappointing when any Democrat is convicted of crimes, but when it is the person who is in charge of the entire state's justice and law enforcement divisions, it reaches a whole 'nother level.

The whole story is convoluted and rather sad. It began with the Jerry Sandusky/Joe Paterno scandal, widened to sexist and racist emails, and wound up in a personal vendetta Kane waged against a political rival. The scandal not only shook up the Penn State's athletic department but also brought down two justices on the state supreme court, and even Kane's twin sister (who, it turned out, had sent some of the emails).

At the heart of the charges against Kane was a leak of grand jury evidence that she later tried to pin on a scapegoat rather than admitting to leaking. Not only did Kane commit the crime, she also tried to cover it up, to put it more bluntly.

Kane was once considered a rising star among Pennsylvania Democrats, but not any more (to put it mildly). Among her other woes this week, we simply have to add our own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. This was a shameful episode in the midst of an investigation of an even-more-shameful crime, and there's simply nothing good to say about it.

[Since Kathleen Kane has quit her office, she is now a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to provide contact info for people not currently serving in office.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 404 (8/19/16)

We should really just be able to write "Volume 404 -- Talking Points Not Found" here, but we fear few would get the joke (and it'd be awfully lazy to do so). Kidding aside, we actually do have to admit we have been rather lazy in putting together the talking points for the past month or so. This was due to the fact that all it took was repackaging what Republicans were saying about Donald Trump. No Democratic input was even necessary -- just repeating the scathing things Republicans were saying was enough.

This week, we're going to try to wean ourselves off this habit, by only providing a mere three (less than half!) of our talking points directly from Republicans slamming Trump. And we promise, our last talking point is one of the funniest we've come across yet, so there's that to look forward to.

As always, use these talking points responsibly, and refrain from operating heavy machinery while doing so. Heh.

 

1
   The middle finger

The Washington Post set the tone for what was going on this week, most notably in a headline to an article run immediately after the first news of the Trump campaign shakeup:

Donald Trump's Hire Of Breitbart News Chief Is A Middle Finger To The GOP Establishment

 

2
   Right back atcha...

Of course, to be fair, the number of Republicans giving Trump the finger has been growing for weeks, now.

"You can't really blame Trump for turning his back on the GOP establishment, because they've been running away from his campaign in droves. The letter begging the R.N.C. to pull all money from Trump in a desperate attempt to salvage Congress, which was released last week, was initially said to have 70 signatures of Republicans on it. Now it's got more than 100. Maybe by next week it'll have another 50, who knows? Also last week, a member of George W. Bush's cabinet came out in support of Hillary Clinton. Will the last Republican to leave Trump's campaign please turn out the lights?"

 

3
   Divine intervention necessary

George Shultz weighed in on Trump this week, too.

"When George Shultz -- one of the most-respected Republican foreign policy voices around -- was asked recently about the prospect of a Trump administration, his response was brief and personal: 'God help us.' Shultz is right -- if Donald Trump is elected president, this country is going to need all the divine intervention it can possibly get."

 

4
   Sorry, you can't come in

Even right-wing pundits are getting in on the act.

"What with all the news about Trump's campaign shakeup, the content of his Monday TelePrompTer speech was all but ignored. But Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin (whose column is even called 'Right Turn,' so you know where she's coming from) hilariously took Trump to task for his concept of 'extreme vetting.' Rubin pointed out that Trump might just be a victim of his own program, if his 'extreme vetting' idea were ever to become law. Trump would fail on the metrics of 'shares American values and respect for the American people,' as well as falling short on being one of 'those who we expect to flourish in our country and to embrace a tolerant American society.' Be careful what you wish for, Donald, as you might not pass your own test quite as easily as you might think."

 

5
   What, precisely, was Trump apologizing for?

The list is a long one.

"Donald Trump issued a blanket 'apology' this week. It was actually a non-apology, merely that he 'regretted' having said some things which 'may have caused personal pain,' but it's as close to saying 'I'm sorry' as we're ever likely to get. But his remarks were generic, with no specifics. The Washington Post then helpfully compiled a list of two dozen things he might have been referring to. Somebody needs to ask Trump which items on this list his non-apology apology covers, just to clear things up. With so many to choose from, inquiring minds want to know precisely what Trump actually 'regrets' having said so far."

 

6
   A conspiracy theory that makes sense

The facts do seem to fit....

"Since Donald Trump began running, I've heard a lot of wild-eyed conspiracy theories from the left over what his plans actually were going to turn out to be. Most of these involved reading Trump's mind and figuring out what his next move would be. Almost all of them have so far been proven hilariously wrong. My personal favorite was: 'Trump will drop out of the primaries the minute he loses his first state.' Or maybe: 'Bill Clinton talked Donald into destroying the Republican Party' -- that was a fun one, right? But there's a new conspiracy theory on the scene which actually could make a whole lot of sense. Is Donald Trump merely using a run for the presidency to launch his own branded media empire? Will 'Trump News' soon be on the air, competing with Fox News? Trump has reportedly been cozying up to Roger Ailes, and now he's got the head of Breitbart News running his campaign, so it's pretty easy to see how the effort could morph into 'Trump TV,' right after he loses in a landslide to Hillary Clinton. I mean, it could all make a twisted sort of sense, don't you think?"

 

7
   Score one for NYC Parks

Issuing dry press releases all day in a mundane local government department must get pretty boring. And then a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity crosses your desk....

"The funniest thing I've heard this week was the official New York City parks department response, after they removed a nude statue of Donald Trump which had been illegally mounted in Union Square. Whoever came up with this gem deserves a raise, or a promotion to a P.R. job where they can better utilize their obvious skills. After removing the statue, an official statement was then released: 'NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.' NYC Parks certainly rose to that occasion, as it were."

-- 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

 

276 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [404] -- As The Turd Tornado Turns...”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap, a virgin commentary!! :D Kewl.. :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The funniest thing I've heard this week was the official New York City parks department response, after they removed a nude statue of Donald Trump which had been illegally mounted in Union Square. Whoever came up with this gem deserves a raise, or a promotion to a P.R. job where they can better utilize their obvious skills. After removing the statue, an official statement was then released: 'NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.' NYC Parks certainly rose to that occasion, as it were."

    One has to wonder if talk of Hillary's vagina would garner such talk amongst the Left Wingery.. :^/

    Seriously, how can one make a claim of "serious" debate when this is what passes for it??

    What, precisely, was Trump apologizing for?

    Yep, just as I predicted.. Trump gets no credit, just more scorn..

    "Since Donald Trump began running, I've heard a lot of wild-eyed conspiracy theories from the left over what his plans actually were going to turn out to be. Most of these involved reading Trump's mind and figuring out what his next move would be. Almost all of them have so far been proven hilariously wrong. My personal favorite was: 'Trump will drop out of the primaries the minute he loses his first state.' Or maybe: 'Bill Clinton talked Donald into destroying the Republican Party' -- that was a fun one, right?

    Yea, them Left Wingers are REALLY out there.. :D

    This one wasn't hard to select this week. Former Pennsylvania state attorney general Kathleen Kane easily wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for being convicted of nine criminal charges, two of them felonies.

    While that's a run o the mill Democrat for ya, I would have thought Obama's ignoring of Louisiana would qualify for the MDDOTW award...

    Well, to be more accurate, Obama didn't IGNORE Louisiana.. He sent them a letter accusing them of racism.. The citizens of Louisiana REALLY appreciated that.. :^/

    Obama gets the Most Insensitive Moron With The Worst Optics Of His Presidency Award...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looking to the polls...

    In the 4-way race, Hillary continues her downward glide while Trump levels out..

    In the 2-way race, Hillary has a slight uptick while Trump levels out...

    Still NO "dropping like a stone" polling that many of the WPG have stated....

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    "When George Shultz -- one of the most-respected Republican foreign policy voices around --

    Iddn't it funny how, when a GOP'er says something the Left Wingery likes to hear, they are "most-respected"...

    Any other time the Left Wingery wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire...

    Everything is based on an ideological partisan agenda, not on facts..

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since ya'all want to talk about the GOP and Trump so much, I thought it only fair that we look at what Democrats are saying... or NOT saying... about Hillary Clinton..

    Democrat & Clinton Supporter Maggie Hassan Refuses To Answer If Clinton Is Honest

    New Hampshire Governor and Clinton surrogate Maggie Hassan was asked three times in an interview with CNN's Manu Raju whether or not she believes her party's nominee is honest.

    Q: “Do you think that she is honest and trustworthy?”

    A: “I support Hillary Clinton for the presidency because her experience and her record demonstrate that she is qualified to hold the job,”

    Q: “Do you think she is honest?”

    A: “She has, um, a critical, critical plan among others for making college more affordable,”

    Q: “But do you think that she is trustworthy?”

    A: “I think she has demonstrated a commitment always to something beyond herself, bigger than herself,”

    There you have it...

    Not even a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat can say that Hillary is honest and trustworthy...

    Maybe Hassan thinks her tongue would turn to fire, I dunno..

    :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What a week for FTP! Kathy Kane (K is the funniest letter) to nude sculptures of Trump. Anybody else notice that Statue Trump is wearing a Masonic Ring? Well, at least he has something on. Some people say the flesh and blood Trump is a "never nude" person. I don't know.....Somebody at NY Parks & Rec knows funny. Could it be Uncle Leo's boy Jeffery?

    The flesh and blood Trump seems to be letting his locks go gray....as in gravitas. He certainly isn't the first politician to play that card.

    Divine intervention. No longer possible, but this election does have a certain John Waters campiness to it.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    What a week for FTP! Kathy Kane (K is the funniest letter) to nude sculptures of Trump. Anybody else notice that Statue Trump is wearing a Masonic Ring? Well, at least he has something on. Some people say the flesh and blood Trump is a "never nude" person. I don't know.....Somebody at NY Parks & Rec knows funny. Could it be Uncle Leo's boy Jeffery?

    Once again, I must point out that ya'all's obsession with a nude Trump and Trump's genitals is really becoming a cause for worry..

    Ya'all used to whine and complain that no one on the GOP side is talking issues.

    Now Trump is ALL about the issues and ya'all STILL are obsessed with penises (penisii??) and nudes...

    And STILL Hillary is MIA....

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    On more than one occasion, a Trump groupie has told me that it's irrelevant that he's an incompetent fool because he's going to hire excellent employees to run the country.

    You know, like he does for his campaign and casinos.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we're now back to blaming Candidates for the action of their supporters....

    BREAKING VIDEO: Protesters Block Trump Motorcade, JUMP ON VEHICLE!

    Protesters at a Donald Trump fundraiser at the Minneapolis Convention Center got between vehicles and jumped on the hood of a Secret Service SUV in Trump’s motorcade as the candidate was leaving the building.

    WILL THE MEDIA IGNORE THIS TOO?
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-protesters-block-jump-vehicle-trump-motorcade/

    I am so glad that Hillary supporters are so "peaceful" and "tolerant"... :^/

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the violence is clearly coming from the Left Wingery...

    And everyone here is perfectly fine with that..

    But let some scumbag mention Trump after being arrested and it's ALL about Trump...

    The hypocrisy is nauesating..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    echothebat wrote:

    This one is for you Michale -

    Yip, definitely no balls.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ever there was a contrast to make around "then-and-now" media coverage of a Republican and Democratic president put in similar situations and their respective reactions to it, this one definitely makes the Top 5.

    2005: President George W. Bush's presidency is basically declared over after he waits two days to cut a vacation short to return to the White House to directly engage in relief strategy around hurricane-ravaged Katrina. On Day 3, he would visit the Gulf Coast to survey the damage.

    The headlines at the time and since have included, A compassionate Bush was absent right after Katrina, The 7 worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency, Kanye West Rips Bush at Telethon, What If They Were White?, Jesse Jackson lashes out at Bush over Katrina response, Katrina thrusts race and poverty onto national stage: Bush and Congress under pressure to act
    and An Imperfect Storm - How race shaped Bush's response to Katrina.

    So it's clear how the narrative went from "Bush waited three days to visit the Gulf Coast" to "Bush is a racist who would have acted faster if white people were victims of Katrina."
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/291995-bush-condemned-for-katrina-but-media-apathetic-on-obamas

    Once again.. The hypocrisy is nauseating..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    This one is for you Michale -

    Yip, definitely no balls.

    Oh great.. ANOTHER one who doesn't come with a translation manual... :^/

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    2005: A Republican president takes three days to survey a natural disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi after cutting a vacation short.

    The media at the time declares that was way too long, far too insensitive, even pushes a narrative that labels him racist.

    2016: A Democratic president will not only cut a vacation short in any capacity to survey a natural disaster in Louisiana — the worst of any kind to hit the country in four years — but hasn't even made any public statements on it. Not one.

    The media of 2016 now yawns. Basically indicates its no big deal and if there is actual criticism, it doesn't lead a cable news hour or go anywhere near a front page.

    Blatant... Unequivocal... Hypocrisy...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    but hasn't even made any public statements on it. Not one.

    Actually, that's not entirely accurate..

    Odumbo DID make a statement accusing the people of Louisiana of racism and warned them against it...

    Yea... Great POTUS... :^/

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    18 year old Indian-American Trump fanboy Jake Anantha's story is very troubling. He went to see the Orange One's show in Charlotte and the Trumpthugs threw him out for being brown.

    "Why are all these white people allowed to attend and I’m not?" - Jake

    Actually Jake, a better question is: How did you not notice that troublemakers like you were not welcome there?

    Better late than never, Jake is no longer on board for The Donald's con.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    18 year old Indian-American Trump fanboy Jake Anantha's story is very troubling. He went to see the Orange One's show in Charlotte and the Trumpthugs threw him out for being brown.

    "Why are all these white people allowed to attend and I’m not?" - Jake

    Actually Jake, a better question is: How did you not notice that troublemakers like you were not welcome there?

    Better late than never, Jake is no longer on board for The Donald's con.

    Yea... THAT's what passes for "serious" posts around here... :^/

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And an RCP POP Poll update....

    Clinton's slight uptick has turned into a down tick... :D

    Trump's steady has turned into an uptick...

    Just the facts, people... Just the facts...

    Suck it! :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Now Trump is ALL about the issues and ya'all STILL are obsessed with penises (penisii??) and nudes...

    I am going to agree about the "penises," and I'd like to clarify that when I refer to him as "the little prick," I am referring to Clownfish Von Trump himself, and in no way whatsoever should that be considered a euphemism for Poor Donald's man bits.

    I also feel it is instructive to point out that the little prick himself felt obliged to bring it up during a nationally televised Republican presidential primary debate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ls6JfQOmmU

    During the Fox News debate, Donald Stump explained as rebuttal of the Senator from Florida he referred to as "Little Marco" and "Lightweight Marco":

    "I have to say this. I have to say this. He hit my hands. Nobody has ever hit my hands. I've never heard of this one. Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands — if they're small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee it."

    Perhaps this was a topic that "the big prick" at the network thought would inspire some good click bait? I have heard that the big prick they since fired has been hired by the little prick to help him with debate preparation. Hmmm... Perhaps the topic will be revisited? Far be it from me to criticize what passes for debate in the world of Right Wingery, but if they insist on discussing the subject, I'm up for it.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also feel it is instructive to point out that the little prick himself felt obliged to bring it up during a nationally televised Republican presidential primary debate.

    Yea... And how many months ago was that??

    And ya'all are STILL talking about it..

    Seems the obsession is on you..

    Hay, I don't mind that you are obsessed with Trump's penis.. More power to ya...

    But some people here would like to talk about ISSUES...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    But some people here would like to talk about ISSUES...

    Yunno.. Like ya'all USED to claim ya wanted.. Back when the ISSUES went yer way..

    Now that Hillary is at deaths door and Obama is offending entire states and Trump actually has a plan that the vast majority of Americans LIKE and WANT and Hillary (O)BLM morons are destroying left and right.......

    NOW all ya'all want to talk about is Trump's penis...

    :^/

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump did a good thing going to Louisiana...

    I am betting only ONE (maybe two) Weigantians can admit that...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    Part conspiracy theory (it isn't only Brietbart and Infowars, even though that is their only currency), part wishful thinking, part "give Trump an ego saving way out"?

    You tell me:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/opinion/campaign-stops/to-trump-even-losing-is-winning.html

    Can Trump really be stupid enough to insult Gold Star parents? Sadly, probably, but you never know, it might be like 1999 when the dotcom mantra was "get eyeballs, figure money out later".

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    But some people here would like to talk about ISSUES...

    While I may not always comment, I do read darn near every word on this website. Oh sure, you might not COMPLETELY have your FACTS straight since you reside in the State of Wingnutia, but I've seen no evidence to indicate that anyone has impeded your "talking."

    "Seems the obsession is on you.."

    LOL

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... but I've seen no evidence to indicate that anyone has impeded your "talking."

    Well, it has not been from a lack of effort, you know. :)

  26. [26] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What "good" occurred by Trump's going to LA? The governor had already asked that the President and the candidates not come to the state at this time because their resources are already stretched too thin! It takes a lot of law enforcement and emergency services away from doing the important work that is needed so that Trump can do a photo opportunity. That's what you call "good"? Unless Trump was going down there to fill sandbags and work, he should have stayed away!

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    [21] Michale wrote: Trump did a good thing going to Louisiana...

    I am betting only ONE (maybe two) Weigantians can admit that..."

    I can admit that I understand how it might have appeared to be a "good thing" from the standpoint of a Trumpanzee. Photo-ops do have that tendency to appear like someone really cares about people versus being just a pander bearing gifts.

    Little Donny defied the wishes of the Louisiana Governor in order to fly in and spend a minute delivering Play-Doh, while Taylor Swift donated a check for 1 million dollars in real dough, and she's not even a billionaire. Swift-boated by Taylor, Poor Donald, shown up once again by a woman.

    Now before Wingnutia weighs in to explain that I can't criticize Boaty McTrumpface because I won't criticize the Left Wingery for the EXACT same thing, I would like to point out that one is not required to debate the merits of the bubble brigade in order to make a valid point about Donald Ducking-His-Taxes.

    I myself sent a sizeable donation at Hillary's request, and we have already personally assisted the loading and unloading of a 10-ton transport and visited Louisiana and volunteered our time long before Trumpolini showed up for his photo-op. We are Texans, and we darn sure know how to take care of our neighbors.

    [24] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it has not been from a lack of effort, you know. :)

    LOL :)

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now that Hillary is at deaths door and Obama is offending entire states and Trump actually has a plan that the vast majority of Americans LIKE and WANT and Hillary (O)BLM morons are destroying left and right.......

    this paragraph is dark, disturbing and untrue.

    hillary's health is fine, and the narrative that there's something wrong with it is manufactured silliness.

    the governor of louisiana asked that candidates not visit. one did as she was asked, the other rolled in with 18 wheels and cameras blazing. in my view the candidate who deserves credit is the one who respected the local authorities' wishes.

    black lives matter has neither claimed nor implied that other peoples' lives don't matter. the problem is that our societal default still tends to implicitly value black peoples' lives less than the rest of us, which is the reason the specific emphasis is important. yes, every person's life SHOULD matter, but black folks are uniquely treated as if theirs don't. attempts to paint the entire group with the same brush as a few uncharacteristic members are not just incorrect but dishonest.

    as for what the american people want, at the moment it's president hillary clinton.

    JL

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And I'm not sure it's a good idea for the righties to start comparing the Baton Rouge flooding to Katrina.

    For instance:

    Gov. Bel Edwards -

    "I've also been gratified by the partnership we've had with the federal government — with the folks from FEMA, who have been embedded with us in Baton Rouge since last Thursday. And — and since that time, we've had every thing that we needed, in terms of assets and resources."

    "..within hours of me making a request for a federal declaration, I got it from the President. He called me. I want you to know that I've been speaking to Valerie Jarrett just about every day. He — he dispatched the FEMA administrator to meet with me for an entire day. Today, I had the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson. We've also had the four-star general who runs all of the guard for the country here today, as well."

    Now compare that to -

    (Former) Gov. Kathleen Blanco -

    “I wasn’t aware in those days that there was some intentional stalling going on in Washington,” she said. “ I felt like I had to ask more times than should have been necessary.”

    You see, that's the difference - Pres. Obama doesn't have to worry that if he were to say that his FEMA director was doing a 'heck of a job' that it would be an embarrassment, because in the present case, he IS doing a heck of a job.

    So which is more important: handing out play-dough to flood victims at a photo op or making sure that the machinery of government actually works?

    When you think about it, it's really the perfect analogy for this election cycle. Flash vs. competence.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    hillary's health is fine, and the narrative that there's something wrong with it is manufactured silliness.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary..Stumbling, coughing fits, having to be helped and held while doing stairs..

    That doesn't sound like a person who is in fine health.

    What you call "silliness" is nothing but denial..

    the governor of louisiana asked that candidates not visit. one did as she was asked, the other rolled in with 18 wheels and cameras blazing. in my view the candidate who deserves credit is the one who respected the local authorities' wishes.

    And yet the tone was completely different with Bush and Katrina..

    You can dissect the definition of 'is' all you want. But the fact is, the PEOPLE of Louisiana welcomed Trump and was moved to tears because Trump cared enough to come down...

    Obama was too busy golfing and Hillary was too busy sitting on her fat ass...

    black lives matter has neither claimed nor implied that other peoples' lives don't matter.

    Out and out BULLSHIT... The (O)BLM morons get VIOLENT when you correct them that ALL lives matter...

    yes, every person's life SHOULD matter, but black folks are uniquely treated as if theirs don't.

    PROVE IT..

    You can't because that is complete and utter bullshit..

    Nothing but unfounded guilt..

    attempts to paint the entire group with the same brush as a few uncharacteristic members are not just incorrect but dishonest.

    If it were just a few members you would have a point.. But it's not, so you don't...

    It's the entire basis of the entire racist hate group..

    as for what the american people want, at the moment it's president hillary clinton.

    And yet, TRUMP is back in the lead.. :D

    http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

    But, I have to give credit where credit is due, Joshua..

    At least YOU are not obsessed by Trump's penis and can ONLY talk about that.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you think about it, it's really the perfect analogy for this election cycle. Flash vs. competence.

    COMPETENCE??

    You mean, like Syria-competence?? Libya-competence?? Russia-competence?? Benghazi-competence??

    Which "competence" are you referring to??

    Hillary has NEVER been competent in ONE thing except screwing over people to increase her money and power...

    Trump has actually been successful in building hundreds of businesses..

    Hillary has NEVER been successful at ANYTHING except enriching her own life and making other lives miserable...

    Trump is flash *AND* competence...

    Hillary is nothing...

    No one here can name ONE thing that Hillary accomplished that helped anyone but Hillary...

    NOT... ONE.... SINGLE.... THING....

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    but I've seen no evidence to indicate that anyone has impeded your "talking."

    Other than the personal attacks, childish name-calling and the begging me to no post so much..

    Other than that, yer right. No impediment whatsoever.. :D

    Like Liz said, most everyone here has TRIED to impede my commenting. Up to AND including banning and forced limiting..

    But I am still here..

    As I have mentioned, there is only ONE way and ONE WAY only to limit my comments here..

    Address my facts and prove me wrong with facts of your own..

    But no one here can do that... All ya'all can do is throw down grammar lames and deny that there are any facts and talk about nude Trump and Trump's penis...

    As long as ya'all continue that, I'll always continue to win. And as long as I always continue to win, I'll never change...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    RCP POP update..

    In the 4 way race, Trump continues his numbers and Hillary's numbers continue to slide..

    In the 2 way match-up, Hillary's numbers continue to tick down and Trump's numbers continue to tick up..

    One of those FACTS I referred to above...

    No where is there ANY factual evidence of Trump's numbers "dropping like a stone".

    One of those BS statements ya'all call "fact"...

    "Just the facts.."
    -Sgt Joe Friday

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    hillary's health is fine, and the narrative that there's something wrong with it is manufactured silliness.

    What’s Wrong With Her? Hillary has No Campaign Rallies Scheduled on her Calendar
    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-Clinton-Needs-Help-Standing-Mark-Ralston-Getty-Twitter-575x450.jpg

    Hillary's health is fine??

    She has no public appearances scheduled..

    She can't stand on her own without help..

    She can't traverse stairs without assistance from multiple people...

    She hasn't been seen in public in several days...

    She won't release her medical records...

    More of those *FACTS* that no one will address...

    Hillary's health is NOT "fine"... She may not be KNOCKING on death's door, but she is sure in the hallway that leads to the door...

    But don't worry.. If that does occur I plan on being as respectful and remorseful as some Weigantians were when Justice Scalia died...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/lJjHTeo6mVw

    Something is DEFINITELY wrong with Hillary...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the event concluded, Trump supporters were forced to run a “gauntlet,” with many, including elderly women, being punched and pelted with garbage.
    http://theamericanmirror.com/video-agitators-bang-doors-trump-fundraiser-punch-attendees-gauntlet/

    The "peace" and "tolerance" of the Left Wingery...

    Another *FACT* that no one here can address...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Yer quotes are both from Demcorats...

    OF COURSE they are going to suck up to Hussein Odumbo and Crooked Hillary..

    DUH....... :^/

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    OF COURSE they are going to suck up to Hussein Odumbo and Crooked Hillary..

    Or, in the case of Blanco, jump on the BASH BUSH bandwagon..

    What ya'all don't get is that your argument is ALL POLITICS.. ALL Partisan agenda and ideology...

    Forget the Establishment politicians. They are going to say whatever suits the ideological agenda, irregardless of the facts or reality...

    What are the PEOPLE of Louisiana saying??

    They LOVE Trump. They LOVE it that Trump was there for them.. The are OFFENDED by Obama's absence and his accusations of racism where non exists...

    So, by all means. Continue to quote your Establishment Demcorats.... That don't mean dick...

    I'll listen to the AMERICAN PEOPLE....

    And, in Louisiana, those people LOVE Trump...

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

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I am betting there isn't a Weigantian who can rise above politics and ideology and say that was a good speech...

    I am betting that practically every Weigantian will pan, attack or ignore the speech SOLELY because it came from Trump..

    I won the last bet with myself.. Let's see if I can go for a 2-fer... :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Brought forward cause it's an important point..

    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.

    So, you agree that Trump's immigration idea of asking ALL immigrants those questions is a good idea...

    Right??

    And that, if each and every immigrant CAN'T agree to treat gays and women with respect and respect the rights of gays and women, then those immigrants should not be allowed to immigrate to the US..

    Right?? You would agree with that??

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You honestly believe I would agree to this!??"
    "No, Captain Picard. I am betting you won't..."

    -STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION, The Traitor

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Article from Time magazine from Nov. 17, 2015 on the vetting process had this to say:

    How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

    Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.

    What percentage of applicants “pass” the screening process?

    Just over 50%.

    How long does the whole process take?

    Eighteen to 24 months on average.

    How many have been resettled here?

    About 1,800 over the past year. They’ve been placed in dozens of states across the country, but most are in big states with large immigrant populations, such as California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan.

    Who are they?

    According to a senior administration official, roughly half the refugees admitted have been children. Around 25% are adults over 60. Only 2% of those admitted, the senior administration official said, have been single males of “combat age.”

    Has the system been successful so far?

    The security checks have a pretty good record. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has admitted some 750,000 refugees. None have been arrested on domestic terrorism charges, though two—a pair of Iraqis in Kentucky—were charged with terrorist activities connected to aiding al-Qaeda.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    None have been arrested on domestic terrorism charges, though two—a pair of Iraqis in Kentucky—were charged with terrorist activities connected to aiding al-Qaeda.

    San Bernardino...

    'nuff said about your vaunted "vetting" process....

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

    And if we were talking about the refugee program, you would have a point...

    But we're not, so you don't...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Little Donny defied the wishes of the Louisiana Governor in order to fly in and spend a minute delivering Play-Doh,

    Amid Louisiana flood disaster, youngest bear mental scars
    http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/092b915d97d1488ca5ce137405b6f67f/amid-louisiana-flood-disaster-youngest-bear-mental-scars'

    Yer right, Kick... Frak the kids... :^/

    Just give millions to bureaucrats...

    I am guessing you are not a parent... :^/

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Odumbo finally shows up in Louisiana, he is going to be roundly boo'ed and told that Trump has already been here to help...

    Of course, Odumbo will like choose the crowd so it may not happen....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could always talk about how utterly WRONG ya'all were on Brexit...

    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

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: Iran..

    I thought the JCPOA was supposed to be a first step towards a US re-approachment with Iran..

    Yet we now have Iran allowing Russian forces to stage military sorties from Iranian bases in Iran..

    This is the first time in HISTORY that Iran's Revolutionary Government has allowed foreign forces to operate from Iranian soil..

    All the JCPOA did is push Iran into the waiting arms of Russia...

    Good call, Obama.... :^/

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Road to urban despair paved by Democrats

    Riots broke out in Milwaukee the other day, and before that in other cities, each erupting with familiar sights: fire and pain, anger and looting.

    It will likely happen again in some other urban area, perhaps after a black man is killed by a police officer, whether the shooting is justified or unjustified. Was the victim a known criminal pointing a gun at a cop? Or not? These are reasons, but reasons really don't matter now, do they?

    The fire is the thing. The anger is the thing.

    And all we're doing now is waiting for the next one.

    What isn't discussed enough when riots happen and neighborhoods burn is the one thing most common to all these decaying urban tinderboxes.

    They're run by Democrats.

    Baltimore is a Democratic city, Milwaukee is a Democratic city, Chicago, Detroit, and on and on.

    This is a most inconvenient truth. This is what binds them.

    For decade after decade, Democrats have controlled policy and politics in the broken cities. This is the proof of Democratic success.

    The broken schools have been run by Democrats for decades. The broken institutions are run by Democrats.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-urban-unrest-kass-0821-20160819-column.html

    Yep... yep... yep... a thousand times.. yep...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Little Donny defied the wishes of the Louisiana Governor in order to fly in and spend a minute delivering Play-Doh,

    Ya'all just can't see past ya'all's ideological slavery and your partisan bigotry and admit that Trump did a good thing here..

    To put it in perspective, if Hillary had gotten off her fat ass and went down to Louisiana and brought play-dough for the kids, I would have given her credit.. I would have said, "Hillary may be the spawn of Lucifer and Hitler, but she did a GOOD thing here.." or words to that effect...

    Credit where credit is due.. Words I live by...

    I have seen the trauma and the pain and the devastation and sense of loss caused by floods first hand..

    http://www.oregonlive.com/history/2016/02/oregon_flood_of_1996_20_years.html

    I know first hand that ANY act of kindness should be acknowledged, regardless of ANY other consideration..

    It's sad that I apparently am alone in that way of thinking...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Little Donny defied the wishes of the Louisiana Governor in order to fly in and spend a minute delivering Play-Doh,

    Ya'all just can't see past ya'all's ideological slavery and your partisan bigotry and admit that Trump did a good thing here..

    To put it in perspective, if Hillary had gotten off her fat ass and went down to Louisiana and brought play-dough for the kids, I would have given her credit.. I would have said, "Hillary may be the spawn of Lucifer and Hitler, but she did a GOOD thing here.." or words to that effect...

    Credit where credit is due.. Words I live by...

    I have seen the trauma and the pain and the devastation and sense of loss caused by floods first hand..

    http://tinyurl.com/ze7nr2q

    I know first hand that ANY act of kindness should be acknowledged, regardless of ANY other consideration..

    It's sad that I apparently am alone in that way of thinking...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Testing...

    oregonlive

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Testing

    oregon_flood_of_1996_20_years

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    NNL filters don't like oregonlive and .com when it is together..

    Just FYI....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Other than the personal attacks, childish name-calling and the begging me to no post so much..

    until the posting too much part, i thought it was someone else referring to you. not counting the filter test, that's 21 of the previous 22 posts.

    PROVE IT..

    it becomes tiring catering to your selective amnesia by proving the same thing over and over, only to have you ignore or move the goalposts every time one does. perhaps that's your goal, exhaust everyone with such excessive fallacious argumentation that nobody cares enough to challenge it.

    my assessment of hillary is that she has a good chance at being elected president, and if that occurs she will likely do a competent job. suggestions that she's unhealthy are birther-style nonsnense, unsupported by real evidence.

    my assessment of donald is that his chances of being elected are around 30%, and his presidency would be dangerous to our national interests due to his inexperience and volatility.

    my assessment of black lives matter is that they're mostly good, honest people trying to address the very real problem of institutional racism in our country. every group of activists has a few radicals and crazy people at the periphery; the faults of those few are not an indictment of the group or its mission.

    my assessment of donald's immigration proposal is that its enforcement would create discrimination that would be illegal, immoral, likely to harm our economy and result in numerous lawsuits, and unlikely to help prevent terrorism. fortunately, it's unlikely he'd ever follow through with it even if he were elected.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    my assessment of hillary is that she has a good chance at being elected president, and if that occurs she will likely do a competent job. suggestions that she's unhealthy are birther-style nonsnense, unsupported by real evidence.

    Except the facts of photographs, videos, her lack of any rallies all month and her not releasing her medical records..

    Ahhh I see the problem..

    my assessment of hillary is that she has a good chance at being elected president, and if that occurs she will likely do a competent job. suggestions that she's unhealthy are birther-style nonsnense, unsupported by real evidence THAT I'LL ACCEPT

    There... Fixed it for you. :D

    my assessment of donald is that his chances of being elected are around 30%, and his presidency would be dangerous to our national interests due to his inexperience and volatility.

    That's an opinion based on NOTHING but ideology..

    If Trump as was inexperienced and volatile as you claim, he would not have been the success in business he has been...

    The FACTS show that your opinion is likely wrong..

    my assessment of black lives matter is that they're mostly good, honest people trying to address the very real problem of institutional racism in our country. every group of activists has a few radicals and crazy people at the periphery; the faults of those few are not an indictment of the group or its mission.

    Again, you ignore the FACTS based on your ideology..

    The facts clearly show that it's not a few radicals or crazy people.. THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of (O)BLM scumbags have rioted and destroyed..

    my assessment of donald's immigration proposal is that its enforcement would create discrimination that would be illegal, immoral, likely to harm our economy and result in numerous lawsuits, and unlikely to help prevent terrorism.

    And what do you base this assessment on??

    Again, nothing but ideology.. No practical experience, expertise or training.. JUST ideology..

    I respect your opinions...

    But they are opinions NOT based on facts, but rather on ideology...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    not counting the filter test, that's 21 of the previous 22 posts.

    So??? I like to comment...

    Sue me.. :D

    If one doesn't like the heat, stay outta the kitchen... :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    , i thought it was someone else referring to you.

    By all means, point out the childish name-calling...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    not counting the filter test, that's 21 of the previous 22 posts.

    I have explained on multiple occasions how ya'all could limit my postings..

    Complaining about my comment count, ya might as well be saying, "Please Michale.. Can you post some more??"

    :D

    "I'm gonna twist ya. I'm gonna flip ya. Frap your body till your bones hurt. And when you squeal, I'm just gonna go faster and harder."
    -NASA Flight Trainer, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Complaining about my comment count, ya might as well be saying, "Please Michale.. Can you post some more??"

    you misunderstand. your decision to regularly spam the forum with twenty straight posts full of incoherent, poorly researched assertions has nearly no impact at all on me personally. i just like you and think you're capable of doing a credible job supporting your point of view - a possibility that is undermined by excessive fallacious argumentation.

    instead of making scores of fallacious assertions and challenging the rest of the world to disprove them, i suggest doing less typing and more reading of content generated by a range of sources, so you can answer some of those questions for yourself.

    or not. i've seen that you have the ability to construct a rational argument; at the moment i just have to sift through tidal swells of illogic in order to find it. if you want to keep filling this comment section with dissertations based on "facts" which are figments of your own or someone else's imagination, by all means carry on. nobody's forcing you to have an opinion that's worth considering.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would be more inclined to take your criticisms to heart as legitimate if they were more evenly applied without regard to ideological dogma..

    For example..

    JM said that Trump's poll numbers were dropping like a stone.. You let such a demonstrable BS assertion go unchallenged because you want to believe the same thing...

    Another example...

    Both Neal and Balthasar made the TOTALLY BS claim that the decimation of the top leadership of the DNC (5 or 6 at last count) was "normal leadership rotation" and had nothing to do with the DNC Email Hack.. You let that total false assertion stand without comment...

    These are just 2 of hundreds of examples of totally bogus and un-factual assertions from the likes of ....well of EVERYONE... Yet, you fact-check my comments to hell and back..

    I like you as well, but I have to go where the facts take me.. And the facts clearly show that your fact-check biases and ideological bent is what drives your fact-checking...

    As such, I am simply inclined to chalk up the criticisms as more ideological bias and not really in keeping with reality... I don't expect you to police the entirety of Weigantia for facts.. But when you challenge my facts solely and let all the others have free reign with their BS statements...

    Well...... You can see how one might not take the criticisms at face value.. :D

    But like I said.. I still like ya... :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqY-L8CUEAAwkdg.jpg

    hehehehehehehehehe

    That says it ALL about Obama.... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would be more inclined to take your criticisms to heart as legitimate if they were more evenly applied without regard to ideological dogma..

    I won't even bother mentioning JFC.. I mean, if you REALLY want to point the finger at someone who combines BS and incoherence.... JFC would be the top dog in that regard...

    But JFCs comments are more ideologically acceptable to you, so he doesn't merit any challenge...

    Only the Trump supporter merits a challenge.. :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    JM said that Trump's poll numbers were dropping like a stone.. You let such a demonstrable BS assertion go unchallenged because you want to believe the same thing...

    that's false. when i saw the thread, i commented that the polls were stable. these accusations toward me are both ad hominem fallacies and baseless.

    But JFCs comments are more ideologically acceptable to you, so he doesn't merit any challenge...

    JFC's comments are short, few and far between, and i don't respond because they generally have little substance upon which to base a challenge. if he says, "the orange monster with the small hands also has no balls and is so scared of losing that his wig is turning grey," what is there of substance for me to respond with? yes, he probably does have balls? no, his hair was probably chosen for the appearance of gravitas? sure, it's a realistic fear since donald is losing in all the polls at the moment?

    JL

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's false. when i saw the thread, i commented that the polls were stable. these accusations toward me are both ad hominem fallacies and baseless.

    If so, then I will apologize...

    What about Neal's and Balthasar's assertion??

    JFC's comments are short, few and far between, and i don't respond because they generally have little substance upon which to base a challenge.

    And the fact that they are ideologically acceptable?? NOTHING to do with it, right? :D

    As far as the quantity issue, I think that's just a cop out.. If facts are king, then they should be king regardless if it's 1 post or 100 points..

    But tell ya what.. Let's take the quantity out of the equation and then I'll show you that it's not about the numbers, it's about the ideology.... :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ok, as requested, i found a JFC post with something substantive to respond to:

    jake anantha was kicked out of a trump rally, likely due to being incorrectly profiled. that's one fact and one opinion based on an unconfirmed fact.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article96648367.html

    i suggest that if the campaign is serious about practicing what they preach, they will invite anantha to be a special guest at a future rally and try to win back his vote.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    funny, JFC actually did make a valid point, i just didn't notice because it was written at a time i wasn't commenting, and was surrounded with schoolyard name-calling.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    and was surrounded with schoolyard name-calling.

    So that narrows it down to sometime within the last 12 months... :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I have an idea that will put the question to rest once and for all... :D

    Stay tuned...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can hardly wait ...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes... It will be stupendous.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good. Because, I have an idea or two to float as well ... :)

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Ross Perot said in the 1992 Presidential Debates...

    "I'm all ears..."

    :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You go first. I insist. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    "OH no... I have seen WAY to many Bond movies to know you never reveal the details of your plan, no matter HOW close you are to succeeding!!"
    -Azreal, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I understand your predicament perfectly well.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have no predicament.. I am peachy keen wonderful, as my lovely wife would say...

    I am simply going out of my way to make ya'all more comfortable...

    Hay.. What are friends for?? :D

    We'll see how it works out.. :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/clinton-camp-sends-out-desperate-plea-for-more-funds/

    Why is Clinton desperate for cash when she is shellacking Trump???

    :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    apophis wrote:

    I believe it's a plea not to become overconfident, thinking this election is in the bag.

  81. [81] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The media needs a horse race narrative. They don't like the "it's over" narrative, so they're susceptible to the stuff Republicans make up. She's given them something to talk about that also applies to the puppet Trump and his "self-funded" scampaign.

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what? a political campaign is desperate for cash? in other shocking news, the pope is catholic.

    "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still valiantly holding on in his fight to remain dead."
    ~chevy chase, SNL

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    There's a cloud of fear and sorrow.
    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

    They say that anger is just love disappointed.
    They say that love is just a state of mind.
    But all this fighting over who is anointed,
    Oh, how can people be so blind?

    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    There's a cloud of fear and sorrow.
    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

    Oh, they tell me there's a place over yonder
    Cool water running through the burning sand.
    Until we learn to love one another,
    We will never reach the Promised Land.

    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    There's a cloud of fear and sorrow.
    There's a hole in the world tonight.
    Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

    -THE EAGLES

    :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    apophis wrote:

    "The media needs a horse race narrative."

    I agree with this, but the true is that this is a very stable election. What's a talking head to do?

  85. [85] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why is Clinton desperate for cash when she is shellacking Trump?

    You've missed the point of the article. Hillary is asking for donations (desperate for cash? please) because she's shellacking Trump. Apparently, donors have slowed down their donating because they've noted that Trump is reaching the point wherein Divine Intervention would be required for him to actually win. Accordingly, they have had to be reminded that 2 1/2 months is a very long time in politics, and that, even when one is ahead in the race, she still has to keep running in order to cross the finish line first.

    That is a desperate attempt at getting eyes on an otherwise mundane story in August. Like the "DNC shakeup" stories, the reality is a lot more boring. Last I saw the DNC chair wasn't having to do the rounds of the Sunday shows like Priebus is this morning, trying to explain that he isn't be worried about his candidate because he hasn't make a mistake in a whole week-and-a-half!

    In fact the polls suggest that the DNC is having alot more success on the ground than the RNC, and will probably be able to 'flip' far more seats down-ballot than the GOP this cycle. Rather than trying to imagine their opponents in worse straights than they actually are, perhaps the rank and file would be better off worrying about their own party's ability to get out the vote in November.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    what? a political campaign is desperate for cash?

    But WHY is a political campaign desperate for cash if Hillary is going to sweep all 50 states??

    WHY desperation when Trump is such a bad and flawed candidate???

    To listen to ya'all, Hillary could pack it in now and STILL win the election??

    I am hearing TWO diametrically opposing stories and I am just wondering what the frak is going on??

    Help me out here... :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe it's a plea not to become overconfident, thinking this election is in the bag.

    But that is what you and Paula and Matt and Blathasar and Neal and JFC etc etc etc have been saying for the last week.

    The election IS in the bag according to ya'all....

    So, either ya'all were bullshitin' then or Hillary is bullshitin' now..

    Which is it??

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathasar...

    You've missed the point of the article. Hillary is asking for donations (desperate for cash? please)

    Did you READ the article???

    According to Mook, Hillary is "desperate"....

    Why would you want to ignore the FACTS???

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all see the problem with being blinded by partisan ideology???

    Ya'all eventually get tripped up by yer own bullshit... :D

    Point... Set.... Match.... :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact the polls suggest that the DNC is having alot more success on the ground than the RNC, and will probably be able to 'flip' far more seats down-ballot than the GOP this cycle. Rather than trying to imagine their opponents in worse straights than they actually are, perhaps the rank and file would be better off worrying about their own party's ability to get out the vote in November.

    OK, so the Democrats are going to take the Senate AND the House...

    No problem then.. Democrats can lie down and take a nap.. Everything is in the bag, right??

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's hilarious..

    All I have to do is repeat your own words back to ya'all and twist ya up in knots... :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the RCP POP update...

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    Trump's numbers continue to go up...

    Hillary's numbers continue to slide down...

    Just the facts...

    Sucks, don't it?? :D hehehehehe

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, back at'cha -

    There's a hole in the GOP tonight
    and a sense of deep foreboding,
    There's a hole in the GOP tonight
    'Cause their prospects are eroding.

    They say that this is a 'change' election
    They say Bernie fans all made that clear
    Some of the dems would have changed direction
    Until they saw Trump - so, not this year.

    There's a hole in the GOP tonight
    and a feeling of fear and dread
    There's a hole in the GOP tonight
    Is the hole in somebody's head?

    There's an ideal world that conservatives posit
    with less regulation and trickle-down wealth.
    But Trump hates trade and would blow up the budget
    and talks instead about Hillary's health!

    There's a hole in the GOP today
    that deepens with every Trump gaffe.
    There's a hole in the GOP today
    (but he's been good for a week-and-a-half!)

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathasar..

    Fine... Then Hillary doesn't have ANYTHING to worry about, right??

    Hillary has got this in the bag and there is no need for Donors or sending money to Democrats because it's all in the bag...

    YOUR words, not mine..

    :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay, I am just agreeing with what ya'all have been saying for the past week..

    NOTHING to worry about..

    HILLARY has this in the bag....

    Trump is toast.....

    That's ya'all's claim...

    So, no worries, right??? :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, we're talking a COMPLETE run of the board by Democrats!!

    A 60+ majority in the Senate, owning the House and the White House!!!

    So, ya'all have absolutely NOTHING to worry about, right??

    Trump is history....

    It's gonna be awesome!!!! :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Personally, yes, I believe that Trump is toast.

    I think that Trump has lost considerable support from moderates on his side (confirmed by a Frank Luntz - organized focus group I saw this morning), while Hillary leads by enough votes in enough battleground states to win.

    That doesn't mean that I believe that Democrats and independents, or even moderate Republicans should be complacent. I will be myself mobilizing every vote possible to the polls, partly in the hope of taking the house and Senate as well - that's the 'real election': in truth, the congress has become so divided that a big win that isn't paired with the capture of at least one half of the legislature only accomplishes a half to a third of what we need to do to turn the country around. Even if Hillary does as well as expected, that extra push will require every vote we can muster. And: Supreme Court.

    So to recap: Trump Toast, yes. Complacency: no.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops...

    Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) said Sunday that Donald Trump has helped draw attention to recovery efforts after the recent devastating floods in his state.

    In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," the governor downplayed critical remarks he made before the Republican presidential nominee visited his state.

    "I didn't dismiss his trip as a photo-op. Before he came down, I said we welcome him here, we want him to be helpful," Edwards said. "And we hope that it doesn't turn into a mere photo-op."
    Edwards said Trump's visit to the state was positive for Louisiana.

    "Because it helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here, that it was helpful," he said.

    "I also appreciated the good phone call, the conversation that I had with Gov. [Mike] Pence [R-Ind.], who was sincere and genuine when he called, and we spoke for a long time on Friday morning about their desire to be helpful," he said about Trump's running mate.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292131-louisiana-gov-i-didnt-dismiss-trumps-visit-as-photo-opp

    Boy, don't ya'all have egg on yer faces!!! :D

    Apparently, Gov Edwards reads CW.com and say Comment #50...

    Further apparently, he was the only one to take the comment to heart.. :D

    Don't ya'all feel sucky right now.. :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow!"

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    So to recap: Trump Toast, yes. Complacency: no.

    Sounds like you are trying to play both sides...

    If Trump is toast, there is no reason to worry.. Complacent away!!!

    If Trump could actually win, then he is not toast and therefore one shouldn't be complacent..

    Once again, I am just showing how ridiculous ideological blindness is.. :D

    "I just love fucking with the clergy"
    -Loki, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow!"

    NOW yer getting it!!! :D

    "Yer the only one gets me."
    -OTHO, Beetlejuice

    :D

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on Friday thanked Trump for visiting Louisiana following the floods.

    DOH!!!

    And ANOTHER Democrat thanks Trump..

    Apparently Ms Landrieu ALSO reads CW.com and saw comment #50... :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I have a feeling that if your team gets elected, Mike "the smoother" Pence will be a very busy VP.

    Bel Edwards is just trying to be nice. He said, 'don't just come for a photo-op' and Trump did exactly that. What is Bel Edwards supposed to do that turd sandwich? Best to just add Ketchup.

    I recall that you described Bel Edwards earlier as a democratic flunky. Funny how YOUR tone changes when someone seems to agree with you.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow!"

    Just keep in mind... "Tomorrow" is CW's new commentary.... We can't miss the MMMMMR..... That would just be cruel... :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bel Edwards is just trying to be nice.

    Oh.... *NOW* he is just "trying to be nice"...

    So, NOW you are in the head of Gov Edwards..

    Let me give you another possibility..

    Gov Edwards appreciated how Trump came and helped the people of Louisiana... Edwards' people...

    Maybe Gov Edwards has more than an ounce of integrity (apparently a lot more than ya'all have) and was able to look above and beyond partisanship and ideological blindness and give credit where credit is due..

    Is THAT a possibility, Blathasar??

    Naaawww, of course not.. In your little narrow mind...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Apparently, Blathasar did NOT read comment #50.....

    "WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED!!!???"
    -YAGO, Aladdin

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I recall that you described Bel Edwards earlier as a democratic flunky. Funny how YOUR tone changes when someone seems to agree with you.

    Or, more accurately, Gov Edwards did something to PROVE he is not a Demcorat Flunky... He actually rose above politics and acted like a HUMAN BEING who actually CARES for the people who elected him......

    "OH MY GOD WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    I know, I know.. It's such an alien concept for a Democrat to actually CARE for the people who voted him into office..

    By why let a little thing like FACTS intrude on your ideological blindness....

    :^/

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sounds like you are trying to play both sides...

    Sounds like you're trying to obfuscate. My words are clear: it will take an act of God or a complete breakdown of the Democratic party or a complete breakdown of Hillary Clinton in the debates for Trump to win this election, none of which are likely.

    I ALSO believe that complacency within Democratic ranks would be very bad, particularly for down-ballot democrats. Luckily, interest in the 2016 election is higher than it has ever been, and there is no evidence that the Dems will have any trouble getting folks to the polls. The GOP on the other hand, has seen mass defections (like the whole state of Utah, for instance) and nearly every tight race in the country is breaking for the Democrats. So who should be worried, huh?

    If I were still a Republican, I'd have planned a trip to a southern beach in the fall already by now. Best to just stay indoors at home or outdoors far away, rather than vote for idiots.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sounds like you're trying to obfuscate. My words are clear:

    No. Your words are political..

    MY words are clear..

    You are trying to play both sides.. You say Trump is toast..

    If Trump is toast, then there is no need to worry about complacency..

    If Trump ISN'T toast, then Democrats should worry about complacency..

    You seem Joshua, this is EXACTLY the blind ideological partisanship I am talking about...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    calling a candidate "toast" is hyperbole. my opinion is that the race is far from over. however, i see no inherent contradiction between believing you'll win and trying hard to guard against complacency.

    JL

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Akron Ohio Clinton/Kaine campaign office yesterday. The festivities began at 2:00 pm. I'd estimate about 200 people crammed into the space for the speakers who included several local/state luminaries + Marlo Thomas (That Girl!) and ABC News reporter Claire Shipman (Shipment? Since I don't do TV I wasn't familiar with her). People were busily signing up volunteers -- I will be doing some phone banking during the next several weeks.

    There was food. There were life size Hillary cutouts and a wonderful wall piece where people could write their names and good-luck messages -- it was crammed.

    The mood was upbeat but no one was taking anything for granted.

    Interestingly, someone in the crowd told me HRC staffers had scoped out the Trump office which was a few streets down the main thoroughfare where we were. She said they'd told her it was pretty dead -- that they were having trouble getting volunteers. So after we left the opening we went down the street to the take a look. The Trump space was in the corner of a small plaza. It had two Trump/Pence signs in the south and west facing windows and that was it. It looked closed.

    It occurred to me to wonder about the disadvantage Trump has now created for the RNC in that, among other things, I'm willing to bet all those people cheering at Trump rallies are not the same folks who typically show up to do GOTV and phone banking and all the rest for the Republican Party. And it would not surprise me at all if many of the folks who normally would put in the time are not going to be willing to do it for Trump.

    On our side there may be a percentage of people who aren't nuts about Hillary, but there are a whole lot of people who are willing to make the calls and walk the neighborhoods and do voter registration and remind people they can vote early. I think that can go a long way to overcome doubts or lack of motivation by some voters.

    Another tidbit -- don't know how accurate this is at all so just throwing it out there -- but my husband read somewhere that many Trump fans don't register to vote because they don't want to do jury duty. I have known people who have expressed those exact sentiments but don't know how widespread that thinking is.

    So we'll see.

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    (Shipmen, not Shipment! Hate spell checker thing.)

  112. [112] 
    apophis wrote:

    Paula; Thank you for the report.

    I know a couple of people who will not register because of jury duty.

  113. [113] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110] apophis: Won't that be amazing if it turns out to be a factor in this election? Probably not that big of one, but every little bit helps (or hurts -- depending on one's pov)!

  114. [114] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    Michael is the only one allowed to use hyperbolic language on here. Anyone else who tries to use it is challenged to prove the exact terminology was actually said. That way he gets to tell himself that he, once again, proved that he is the only one here is who isn't a slave to HRC and gives himself one Trump-treat as a reward for being so special. I used to think that he was way too intelligent to take some of the positions that he does -- it just seemed like he'd argue with a stop sign. He'll trash everyone for supposedly taking a position that he's been told by Trump that we hold dear despite it being untrue, but when we call him out for something he's actually stated, we are personally attacking his delicate disposition. Classic Trump troll!

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder whether Ann Coulter will still be OK with Trump performing abortions in he Oval office at the end of the week?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/17/coulter-trump-can-perform-abortions-white-house/

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump had his "black" pivot (what-a-ya-gotta-lose?) last week, and it looks like he's going to have his Latino pivot (I-was-only-kidding-about-the-wall-etc-you-can-stay-after-all) this week.

    That's what we all like most about Donald, he tells it like it is!

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just keep in mind... "Tomorrow" is CW's new commentary.... We can't miss the MMMMMR..... That would just be cruel... :D

    "You lost me completely."

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    calling a candidate "toast" is hyperbole. my opinion is that the race is far from over.

    I completely agree... It's not me who is saying that Trump has already lost..

    however, i see no inherent contradiction between believing you'll win and trying hard to guard against complacency.

    If we were talking about someone saying "I believe that my candidate may win" then you would have a point.. yada yada yada yada.. :D

    But we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who are saying "TRUMP HAS ALREADY LOST"...

    So, if Trump has already lost, then there should be no problem with complacency...

    Now, if they want to concede that Trump could win, then guarding against complacency is logical..

    "Simple logic"
    -Spock

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Classic Trump troll!

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response to my argument and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your acknowledgement of my superior argument is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "You lost me completely."

    It's a moot point.. Listen's personal attack pissed me off so there won't be any change in my posting habits.. Other than there will likely be a definitive increase in my comments...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But if you are confused by the MMMMMR, it means Michale's Monday Morning Magnificent Media Roudup... :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    And aawwwwaaaaaayyyyy we go... :D

    HILLARY GETS CAUGHT LYING!! AGAIN!!!!
    http://www.people.com/article/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-pinning-email-scandal-on-him

    Same old Hillary.. Simply CANNOT help herself...

    Joshua, this is another one of those blatant lies I know no one here will acknowledge..

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, who has made opposition to a U.S.-led nuclear agreement with Iran a major theme of his re-election campaign, likened home-state President Barack Obama to "drug dealer in chief" over a $400 million payment linked to the release of American prisoners.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-mark-kirk-barack-obama-drug-dealer-iran-met-0822-20160821-story.html

    I like a man who can tell it like it is.. :D

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Hillary’s press secretary Brian Fallon responded by mocking Rudy’s prostate cancer that kept him out of the 2000 Senate race:

    Google Rudy and health and you can read about how he withdrew from '00 Senate race against Clinton https://t.co/vkFgjgDBkf

    — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) August 21, 2016
    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/08/21/hillary-spox-brian-fallon-mocks-rudy-giulianis-prostate-cancer/

    Ahhh yes.. Let's have the Clinton campaign mock Rudy Giuliani's cancer...

    What could POSSIBLY be wrong with that??

    But let the Right Wingery point out the FACTS of Clinton's real health problems?? And screams of "FOUL!!!!" comes from the Left...

    Will any from the Left condemn Hillary's campaign for this atrocious twit??

    {{cchiirrrrppppp}} {{{chiiirrrrrpppppp}}}

    Didna think so... :^/

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Hillary’s press secretary Brian Fallon responded by mocking Rudy’s prostate cancer that kept him out of the 2000 Senate race:

    Google Rudy and health and you can read about how he withdrew from '00 Senate race against Clinton https://t.co/vkFgjgDBkf

    — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) August 21, 2016
    twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/08/21/hillary-spox-brian-fallon-mocks-rudy-giulianis-prostate-cancer/

    Ahhh yes.. Let's have the Clinton campaign mock Rudy Giuliani's cancer...

    What could POSSIBLY be wrong with that??

    But let the Right Wingery point out the FACTS of Clinton's real health problems?? And screams of "FOUL!!!!" comes from the Left...

    Will any from the Left condemn Hillary's campaign for this atrocious twit??

    {{cchiirrrrppppp}} {{{chiiirrrrrpppppp}}}

    Didna think so... :^/

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Legalized pot is making America’s lower class poorer and less responsible
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/20/legalized-pot-is-making-americas-lower-class-poorer-and-less-responsible/

    Yea, let's legalize marijuana..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong!??

    Who would have thunked that making pot legal would encourage laziness in the masses..

    Oh... wait.... :^/

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Outrage after Virginia server receives 'racist' note in lieu of tip
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/22/outrage-after-virginia-server-receives-racist-note-in-lieu-tip.html

    So, now citizen = race....

    Jeezus, the Left Wingery is totally frak'ed up with their Politically Correct ways....

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    RCP POP UPDATE

    In the 4-way match-up, Hillary still continues her downward trajectory... Trump's numbers hold steady...

    In the 2-way race, Hillary continues to drop in support.. Trump's support numbers continue to rise..

    We can forgo future RCP POP updates if the WPG will just concede that they were full of shit when they said Trump's numbers were "dropping like a stone"...

    Funny how the WPG demands total facts from me, but they continue to traffic in nothing but bullshit...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    WHO ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS

    FREDERICKSBURG, VA – Donald Trump addressed a crowd of more than 3,000 people at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center in Virginia on Saturday evening.
    Prior to Trump’s address, Breitbart News caught up with many rally attendees – which included women, veterans, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants, seniors and millennials – and asked why they are supporting Trump.

    The responses amongst a diverse group of Trump supporters were overwhelming: “he’s my voice,” “I need relief,” “we need change,” “we need to turn this country around,” “he believes in this country,” the supporters explained.

    Anna, who immigrated to the United States from Peru, told Breitbart, “I liked him from day one. He speaks his mind. He’s my voice. I felt that way from day one.”

    Anna’s husband, Butch, was a Ted Cruz supporter during the primary, but said that once Trump became the nominee, he didn’t have to think twice about whom he’d support in the general election. “The people who are #NeverTrump are for Hillary Clinton,” Butch explained. “I don’t know how you could be for anyone but Trump.”

    Anna said that she did not think Hillary Clinton would be good for American women. “Hillary Clinton is for Hillary Clinton. That’s the only woman she supports,” Anna said. “I’m a Latina for Trump!”

    At this point, another woman—an immigrant from Ecuador— who was standing nearby, but did not know Anna and Butch enthusiastically chimed in: “Trump’s honest! He says the truth! Hillary’s supposed to be in jail! She’s lying to the country. Mentirosa! Mentirosa! [Spanish for ‘liar’]”

    Anna laughed and joined in on the woman’s chant: “Mentirosa! Mentirosa! Liar!”

    “Hillary is a liar!” the woman from Ecuador said waving her Make America Great Again sign. “I never liked her!”

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/21/exclusive-meet-the-many-for-whom-donald-trump-is-their-voice-thousands-rally-in-virginia/

    These are the Americans ya'all call "bigots" and "racists" and "violent"...

    I would suggest that ya'all should be ashamed of yerselves (NEN).. But ya'all are Hillary supporters so apparently, shame is something ya'all are not acquainted with... :^/

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, here’s a nice column about Trump
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-few-nice-words-about-the-new-mr-donald-nice-guy/2016/08/19/1312f480-6644-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.9c762a052e77

    Trump could do the nicest thing in the world and would STILL be attacked by the WPG..

    Wait a tic. Trump DID do the nicest thing in the world.. He brought toys to children who had been GREATLY traumatized by one of the scariest things that could happen to a child...

    And he was STILL attacked by the WPG...

    Once again, I would suggest the WPG should be ashamed, but once again I must note what I noted previously.. :^/

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a flooded Louisiana neighborhood, residents ride home through alligator-infested waters
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-flooding-homes-20160820-snap-story.html

    Trump went there to help...

    Odumbo stayed on vacation to play golf..

    That's why Trump is da man and Odumbo is da bum...

    "That's why ELVIS is The King and you are a schmuck"
    -Selma Hayek, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Health insurers eye steep increases

    With the fourth open-enrollment period set to begin this fall for the marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act, it’s becoming clear that the market for health insurance has not evolved as expected, or hoped.

    The market is smaller than projected. The people who have bought health plans overall are sicker than predicted. And health insurers have incurred larger losses than anticipated.

    As a result, some large national insurance companies, including UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Aetna, plan to abandon markets across the country next year. And health insurers in Wisconsin are proposing the largest rate increases yet for health plans sold on the online marketplaces throughout the state.

    The proposed increases could range from 5.44% to 37.88% statewide, according to filings with the federal government. In Milwaukee County, the smallest proposed increase is 9.06%.
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/health-care/2016/08/21/health-insurers-eye-steep-increases/88807658/

    Wait a tic...

    Wasn't the Affordable Care Act supposed to make health insurance... yunno... AFFORDABLE???

    When are ya'all going to concede that Obama's ACA is a complete and utter failure..

    Oh wait, I know.. NEVER!!

    But if it was Bush's ACA, ya'all would have deemed it a failure from day one...

    Like I said.. It's ALL based on Party ideology... Facts don't matter...

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, if you are confused by the MMMMMR, it means Michale's Monday Morning Magnificent Media Round-up ... :D

    I see.

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A moot point, indeed, Michale because, I don't believe you had a new idea lined up for the comments section.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    A moot point, indeed, Michale because, I don't believe you had a new idea lined up for the comments section.

    Actually, I did.. I was going to limit my comments to one comment for each commentary and one comment for each response to either my comment or the commentary..

    That way, it would be glaringly obvious who gets fact-checked the most and who is allowed free reign with the BS with absolutely no fact-check at all..

    But, as I said, it's a moot point..

    The childish name-calling done just pissed me off..

    So, when it Rome... :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hasn't been much worth commenting on lately. Although this comment should have be on Thursday's column, it applies to this and pretty much all threads of comments.
    If you're voting for Hillary or Trump you are part of the problem- not part of the solution.
    "The only way to win is not to play."
    Joshua- Wargames
    "All in all you're just another brick in the wall"
    Pink Floyd
    Tear down that wall= vote Stein!

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're voting for Hillary or Trump you are part of the problem- not part of the solution.

    It would be more accurate to say that if you vote Trump you MAY or MAY NOT be part of the problem...

    If you vote Hillary, you definitely ARE part of the problem..

    Trump MAY frak things up utterly and completely. On the other hand, with his experience and his business chops and his alliegence to NO ONE but the voters... He might be the second-coming of Saint Ronald Reagan...

    We KNOW what a Hillary presidency will be like. Odumbo's third term w/o any of the "good" things... In other words, totally frak'ed up beyond all belief or recognition...

    This pre-supposes that Hillary actually MAKES it to election day.. Given her health issues, that's a mighty big if...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    I don't understand your animosity towards Trump...

    He's has much of an Independent as Stein or Johnson. As evidenced by the fact that he is, on some issues, to the LEFT of Hillary...

    But he's smart enough to know that a registered Independent will never win.. So he co-opts one of the major Partys.. :D

    Personally, I love it. I can honestly say that I am voting for a TRUE Independent who gives the finger to BOTH Partys..

    What's not to love!?? :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary has a year old letter from an INTERNIST that says she is in good health..

    And we're supposed to BELIEVE that??

    Given all the **FACTS** that show everything from a spasmodically bobbing head to having to be nearly carried up stairs to her falling and stumbling left and right..

    But a year old letter from an internist..

    THAT'S all ya'all need...

    Right.. No ideological slavery there.. :^/

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    , while Taylor Swift donated a check for 1 million dollars in real dough,

    Yea, like Swift doesn't have an image problem herself.. :D

    hehehehe

    But, unlike ya'all *I* can give credit where credit is due..

    Despite her psycho/stalk-y/looney tunes life, I applaud Swift for helping out the flood victims of Louisiana..

    Credit where credit is due..

    Ya'all would do well to heed such lessons. But ya'all are too consumed by ideological bigotry...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I was going to limit my comments to one comment for each commentary and one comment for each response to either my comment or the commentary..

    i think a better test would be to not name-call for a week. still, if you were planning to limit your posts just to test my response, and stopped because someone name-called you back, then you're doing it for the wrong reason.

    JL

  142. [142] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (134,135)-
    A vote for Hillary or Trump is a vote for corporations and against the American people.
    Saying that Trump could be the second coming of Reagan is a reason not to vote for Trump.
    Trump's allegiance is not to the voters- it's to the Big Money donors to his general election campaign and to himself.
    He is not "independent" like Johnson or Stein. He is much more comparable to Perot- a Republican pretending to be independent. Whatever positions Trump or Hillary takes in the campaign are irrelevant because they are designed to fool enough voters to win the election- not positions that will be implemented after the election.

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    there's no rule against hyperbole, here or anywhere else. michale may share some of the behaviors of internet trolls, but in my view he is clearly not one. in psychology we call it sub-clinical. i like this article on types of internet trolls:

    http://webtrends.about.com/od/Internet-Culture/tp/10-Types-of-Internet-Trolls-Youll-Meet-Online.htm

    admittedly type 2 is a pretty close fit at times, but there's enough evidence of non-trolling content for me to say it's not a valid comparison.

    unless that was also hyperbole...

    JL

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    the political influence of mega-corporations is systemic, and voting for an independent candidate for president won't do a lick of good unless the rest of the system is able to accommodate the change. even in the impossible event that an independent might win, such a president won't have that much impact on the economic system. however, the democratic nominee will make a big difference right now in foreign policy and supreme court nominations, which will absolutely prevent further court decisions like citizens united.

    JL

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FBI found more than 14,000 emails former Sectary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government after she left office -- despite her insistence she'd handed in all her work-related messages.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fbi-found-14000-new-hillary-clinton-emails/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWTJaak1XSXlOVEl6WW1VeiIsInQiOiJ2eEJoN2JXSmhCaXd5RVFcL004WVJiRkxQWm5zOE5BQXU4Unp2Q0pnbUFyK2lYWVo3WlJPeHhld2hWUlVJUExEQ2NwdkVScjRpNEVXTWxSQU5MZzJcL0JRSlVyeEZKeUVPeVZWbGdPd1Bwa0RBPSJ9

    And Hillary is continued to be exposed for the liar that she is...

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Trump's allegiance is not to the voters- it's to the Big Money donors to his general election campaign and to himself.

    Trump HAS no big money donors..

    THAT's the point..

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think a better test would be to not name-call for a week.

    I don't do name-calling against fellow Weigantians..

    If ya want to stop ALL name-calling against EVERYONE, I am game to try that.. But you would have to convince everyone else to stop ALL the name-calling as well..

    I don't think THAT is possible... :D

    still, if you were planning to limit your posts just to test my response, and stopped because someone name-called you back, then you're doing it for the wrong reason.

    Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing.. :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's no rule against hyperbole, here or anywhere else. michale may share some of the behaviors of internet trolls, but in my view he is clearly not one.

    The problem here is that those who call me a troll define "troll" as someone who posts something they don't like...

    Again, it's an ideologically based definition...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    New emails Monday show the Clinton Foundation using Huma Abedin to try to arrange meetings between the foundation's supporters and then-State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/clinton-foundation-asked-huma-abedin-favors-emails/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RGbVl6QTNNelkzTldSaCIsInQiOiJBQndDcXZiZXVZY3gxSDZoSnl3Tk9yaCtmSnN1SlczT3AyTjRGczZJbVNvTEhxaTdlUmw2dndkMTJHTW1iRFpldmRhbWljQkhYUldFbjYrWnBMQnRxWnYrZVRuenRORmxPekFmWDhnUXorMD0ifQ%3D%3D

    And the hits just keep on coming...

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and just in case ya'all weren't paying attention..

    Donald Trump donated $100,000 to the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Louisiana where he visited.

    But of course, ya'all don't CARE about the facts, do ya..

    You just want to bash Trump for anything and everything.. Even if it is 1000% total bullshit..

    And ya'all HONESTLY ding ME on facts?? :^/

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    apophis wrote:

    "it turns out that Trump did not donate $100,000 to an aid relief organization; instead he gave it to a church headed by Pastor Tony Perkins, the leader of a hate group of virulent anti-choice and anti-gay religious extremists"

    Maybe the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church will use the money to do some good, just not for gays and pro-choice people.

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    [48] Michale wrote: This is the first time in HISTORY that Iran's Revolutionary Government has allowed foreign forces to operate from Iranian soil..

    Misleading because the "HISTORY" of Iran's "Revolutionary Government" is not exactly a long one, and oh, the irony because it was the revolutionaries who denounced the shah as being a foreign puppet.

    All the JCPOA did is push Iran into the waiting arms of Russia...

    You mean the "brilliant," "strong," "real leader," "big hero," arms of Vlad, whom Trump has praised as better than America's last two presidents and whom he admiringly said is "re-building the Russian empire" and "Russia, if you're listening..."?

    Oh, the irony to hear this "waiting arms of Russia" rhetoric from a supporter of the
    GOP's nominee for President of the United States.

    ??????? ?? ?????????

  153. [153] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (143)-
    He self-financed the primary. The general election is a separate campaign that he is not self-financing.
    I read an article that Hillary raised 90 million in June and Trump raised 80 million. Are you claiming the majority of that money and any money raised since then has been through small aggregate contributions ?

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    So, I posted something in Russian, and it printed as "??????? ?? ?????????"

    Kharasho Do svidanya

  155. [155] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet22 (141)-
    It's true that voting just for a third party presidential candidate in 2016 will not solve the whole problem. It's also true that a third party presidential candidate cannot win in 2016.
    But these are not sufficient reasons to vote for Hillary.
    As stated previously, participation in Voucher Vendetta in 2016 will begin to change the whole system so that it will possible for a candidate like Bernie to win the Democratic nomination in 2020 and many other candidates that will change the system rather than maintain the status quo in 2018 and 2020.
    If the Democratic Party embraces this change it will not only survive- it will thrive. If it fights to maintain the status quo then it will be possible to elect a third party candidate president in 2020. Without this possibility there is no incentive for the Democratic Party to change.
    As for the Supreme Court, the problem that needs to be fixed is lifetime appointments. And that will only be fixed by agents of change- not status quo politicians. And status quo politicians have no incentive to change when people vote out of fear and become bricks in the wall.
    They are playing the long game and they have you playing the short game.
    Yes, ending lifetime appointments will take a constitutional amendment, but if it's possible for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United then an amendment to fix lifetime appointments is also possible.
    Of course, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United would be unnecessary if citizens just united by participating in Voucher Vendetta.

  156. [156] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "he gave it to a church headed by Pastor Tony Perkins, the leader of a hate group"

    Wow. The Orange One is learning how to dog whistle a little late in the game.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    "it turns out that Trump did not donate $100,000 to an aid relief organization; instead he gave it to a church headed by Pastor Tony Perkins, the leader of a hate group of virulent anti-choice and anti-gay religious extremists"

    He gave the money to a church that was helping in the relief effort..

    Yer just pissy because he didn't give it to an ideologically accepted church..

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Misleading

    It's FACTUAL...

    Period...

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church will use the money to do some good, just not for gays and pro-choice people.

    As opposed to your politically correct and ideologically acceptable "churches" who won't lift a finger for Trump supporters...

    Clean your own house before casting aspirations on another..

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    He self-financed the primary. The general election is a separate campaign that he is not self-financing.

    Which puts him on higher moral ground than Crooked Hillary...

    Are you claiming the majority of that money and any money raised since then has been through small aggregate contributions ?

    I am saying that Trump will keep his promise to the American People..

    As I indicated above, Trump is an unknown.. We don't really know how he'll govern.. But we DO know he is successful in business.. WILDLY successful...

    We DO know everything about Hillary. A cheat.. A liar... A power hungry neocon.. A liar.. Butt ugly.. Did I mention she is a liar?? At deaths door... And a liar..

    All in all, Trump is logically the better choice...

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    To clarify..

    Yer just pissy because he didn't give it to a Left Wingery ideologically accepted church..

    Gods, I am going to SOOOOO enjoy a Trump Presidency around here... :D

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    State Dept Warns: Iran Seeking to Capture U.S. Citizens
    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-dept-warns-iran-seeking-capture-u-s-citizens/

    Of course.. Now that Iran knows that Odumbo will pay ransom, it's open season on Americans..

    Good job, Odumbo...

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (157)-
    Higher moral ground than Hillary? Not much ,if at all- and not enough to be on anything that could be called moral ground.
    By not self-financing the general election campaign he already broke his promise.
    As for being a successful businessman- he is only a legend in his own mind and in the minds of his deluded supporters. I guess the bankruptcies and getting himself paid while stiffing contractors and partners is your idea of a successful businessman- but it's not my definition.
    But it's easier to provide non-answers and deflect by saying he is better than Hillary than to face the defects in your own candidate.
    Whether it's Trump or Hillary, you have to convince me your candidate is good which can't be done because they are both bad. The degree of bad is irrelevant.

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TrumpTroll: (noun) A thin-skinned creature that tries to force others to concede to his arguments through bullying, inundating the board with flurry of messages that he wants addressed, yet cannot handle being treated how he treats others. Avoids addressing criticism or admitting when he is wrong by playing hurt and rambling on about random tangents on how mistreated he is. Easily recognized by the bright orange ring around his mouth.

  165. [165] 
    Paula wrote:

    Don Harris: I take issue with your position that there is no difference between Trump or HRC.

    There was a chilling article out today with accompanying tweets describing the people who attended Trumps NC rally this weekend. The people there were openly racist and violent. They are being steered to believe Trump is losing because the media isn't being fair to him and they were becoming threatening to reporters who had the misfortune of having to cover the event. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/22/1562234/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up-A-safe-space-for-bigots-and-racists

    They are big-talking how they're going to react if Trump is "robbed" -- and while, frankly, I think most of them are all mouth and not much else, chances are there will be loonies who will do violence, and probably their chosen victims will be black, muslim or gay. Or journalists.

    Violence is probably going to occur when Trump loses BECAUSE too many people for too long have been giving this kind of rhetoric a pass, and too many people for too long have been going along with bullshit memes questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency and Hillary's candidacy.

    If Trump WERE to win that win would legitimize every kind of 'ism, and accompanying violence.

    There is no equivalency between Trump and HRC. Nor is it HER fault that her opponent turns out to be so utterly, utterly despicable and dangerous. But it will be the most vulnerable who will be the initial principle victims of a Trump presidency, followed by who knows what. You want to change the system? You don't insist on doing it during an election year. At that point it's too late.

  166. [166] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Once again I did not say Hillary was worse than Trump, better than Trump or equal to Trump. They are both bad and the degree of how bad they are is irrelevant.
    You are dead wrong that an election year is too late to change the system. The whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to change the system.
    Waiting for the next election cycle to begin is too late. By voting for a candidate that can't win in 2016 to establish competition for the next election cycle it can be possible for that candidate or another candidate from that party to win in the next election cycle. This is the only thing that will get the Democrats or Republicans to change.
    If you keep falling for the lesser of two evils argument and voting out of manufactured fear as stated earlier you are playing the short game while they play you and the long game. They will have no reason to change.
    If you don't understand that then you don't understand how democracy is supposed to work.
    If even a quarter of the people that wasted their vote on Gore in 2000 had voted for Nader we would not be faced with the two bad choices we have now.
    We have the tools to take control- we just need citizens to have the balls to use the tools instead of wimping out and voting out of fear.
    A vote for Trump is a vote for bad. A vote for Hillary is a vote for bad.
    A vote for Stein is a vote for change. If you don't vote for change you will never get it.

  167. [167] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [167] I agree with Don except I think Trump is worse bad than Hillary. That won't change my vote. The (D)s & (R)s will always have a stranglehold on us if we always vote for them. I prefer the Green party, but I would even encourage voting Libertarian.

  168. [168] 
    Paula wrote:

    YOU are dead wrong for the simple reason that a majority ISN'T going to vote for Jill Stein, no matter how much you wish they would. And therein lies the problem. You telling us here to do that will not convince enough people to make the slightest dent required. And you haven't convinced me at all. You prefer Stein over Clinton. I prefer Clinton over Stein. We cancel each other out.

    For you to reach enough people to make Stein a contender a whole lot of stuff needed to have happened long before now and needs to be happening now and those things aren't happening.

    I understand the frustration of thinking the system continues to sustain itself in a way you don't like, but the problem is changing that isn't going to happen the way you wish it would.

    I disagree HRC is bad, but I'm not going to convince you. I think she's good. But to say "the degree of badness" is irrelevant is easy for you to say, but won't be easy at all on the people who are the targets of Trump-hate.

    Hillary doesn't preach hate. That's a difference and it means something. I may be hateful at times but she isn't. She is better than me, She is better than Trump. That DOES matter.

  169. [169] 
    Paula wrote:

    Libertarians are complete idiots John. They are whiners who think everyone should pay for them but they shouldn't have to pay for anyone.

    D's and R's will have a stranglehold because the current system favors them. You can tilt at windmills from the outside or you can push from the inside. That is what Bernie did. He effed up by going dirty along the way but he did, in fact, get stuff into the platform that matters. You get change by coming up with workable ideas and convincing people they're worthy and that works just as well from the inside as the outside. Elizabeth Warren had huge impact very quickly as a Senator because she figured out how to persuade colleagues as well as citizens.

  170. [170] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "D's and R's will have a stranglehold because the current system favors them"

    They have a stranglehold because they write the rules to favor themselves rather dramatically, so I agree that the "current system favors them".

  171. [171] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I didn't say there was anything good about the Libertarians.

  172. [172] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "You get change by coming up with workable ideas and convincing people they're worthy and that works just as well from the inside as the outside."

    It seems quite evident to me that a majority of Dems are good with our various perpetual wars. It doesn't make sense to even be part of a party so committed to something I oppose so completely. (D) or (R), we get more perpetual war. No thanks. I won't be voting for that.

  173. [173] 
    Paula wrote:

    It seems quite evident to me that a majority of Dems are good with our various perpetual wars.

    Do you mean literal wars, or the constant internal struggles within the party?

    I don't agree with either, but in terms of the internal conflict I think there's been a lot of movement over the last several years and I think HRC reflects an understanding of that movement. I myself have been deeply unhappy with the Dem party for a long time, but I far happier now than I have been previously. I think it's very easy to get in a groove where one gets so used to the problems they can't acknowledge any forward movement. I think Obama is exactly right in saying the ship of state moves slowly. People hate change. Change happens usually after years of sustained effort that seems to lead nowhere, then BAM! you get critical mass and it happens.

    Now with respect to actual wars, there is a problem to be addressed but the question is how, and the answer isn't elect Bernie, or elect Jill Stein or whoever. The war problem is bigger than individual presidents.

  174. [174] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm talking about dropping bombs.

  175. [175] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "The war problem is bigger than individual presidents."

    True enough. That's why I've made it plain that my objection to Hillary really isn't really about her, but I don't believe she'll even do less bombing.

  176. [176] 
    Paula wrote:

    [175] I am not for perpetual war. I don't think Dems are for perpetual war. I do think Repubs are for perpetual war. I think our economy is deeply enmeshed in war and will continue to be until a better scheme is devised. Just like Bernie could run on continuing coal-mining in West Virginia -- people make a living doing it, even if they simultaneously harm the environment. West Virginian coal miners believe they have a right to continue to harm the environment in order to make a living. Lots of people make that calculation and will continue to do so as long as there is no equivalent alternative.

    If you put Bernie or Jill Stein or Gary what's-his-name in the Oval Office they would very quickly be faced with decisions on that front and I don't think they'd find it easy at all to just say "pull out" or "cut the defense budget in half" or anything else that we'd like to see. NOT unless there is a better solution/option provided. Otherwise I think you'd find things would probably change very little. But I recognize that's purely speculative on my part.

  177. [177] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [162],

    I hope that you're prepared for a flurry of posts insisting that both sides have violent actors, and that BLM protesters and lefties are MUCH more violent than Trump supporters, etc etc....

    I'm with you, Paula: Hillary isn't the one pre-judging the election to be 'rigged' before a single ballot has even been printed.

    Perhaps this is Trump's version of an old sports tactic: "working the refs", wherein both sides tell the ref (or ump) to watch the other team extra closely, because of their opponent's particular reputation for bad sportsmanship. I believe it was Richard Nixon, who first started pinning back the ears of the press in this way in the modern era.

    But I have a question for the Donald: would you still consider the system rigged if you were to somehow win? Did it suddenly un-rig? Or could someone complain that you'd won because the system was rigged (against Hillary)? Why not? They'd have the same evidence that you have right now that it is rigged in someone's favor, not necessarily hers. Depends how you look at the evidence. The network news divisions seem to hate Trump, but are owned by corporations whose CEO's are actually very friendly with Trump and travel in the same circles. And why not? Trump has been a bonanza for ratings, and everyone agrees, including those CEO's, that he was worth every bit of the two billion dollars worth of free media he received from them. During that same period of time, it was Hillary, not Trump, who received the most negative press.

    The worst offender was FOX, who treated Bush as a joke and Rubio as a child, and who actually divided candidates for the presidency into adult and kiddie sections and got away with it. Worst of all, they have excused every inexcusable utterance that's come out of Trump's mouth, including his obnoxious dismissal of McCain's heroism. This from the network that once devoted whole segments to whether Obama's statement to Hillary during the 2008 primaries "you're likeable enough" was rude enough to disqualify him for the presidency. I'm not kidding.

    And now Roger Ailes, forced out of Fox's executive office by his own indiscretions, is an advisor to Trump, and has, by some accounts, been advising Trump for some time. Now that we know what we know, we have to ask: was Trump's attack on Megyn Kelly actually a brushback aimed at potential witness by Roger Ailes? As much as to say, "I can turn the crowd against you when I want to."

    Of course, Trump's attack was so inartful, it actually proved the point that Kelly was making with the question: that Trump publicly demeans women. Later, when Kelly revealed that she, too, had been sexually harassed by Ailes, Trump publicly defended Ailes.

    So can Hillary followers make a case for bias? You bet your Citizens United they can. How else could Trump be in a statistical tie with Hillary despite having a nearly non-existent campaign?

    So yeah, I can make a case that the system is rigged - against Hillary!

  178. [178] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    If you believe that Hillary is good, then you are not voting out of fear- you have been duped just like Michale who thinks Trump is good. But you continue to argue that if others don't vote for Hillary and Trump is elected it will be the fault of people that vote for someone other than Hillary or Trump.
    This is trying to use fear to get others to vote for your candidate and is dishonest if your position is that Hillary is good.
    IT DOESN'T MATTER IF STEIN CAN"T WIN IN 2016! Voting for Stein in 2016 will make it possible for her or another Green Party candidate to win in 2020. That is more important than you're imagined fear of Trump or Trump supporters imagined fear of Hillary.
    We survived two terms of Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W.Bush and Obama. We will survive a term or two of Trump or Clinton- but we will continue to decline as we have under those presidents and the corrupt Congresses that aided them. We will not survive if the choices in future elections continue to be worse which a vote for Clinton or Trump guarantees.
    And when you say I am dead wrong when I say the whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to bring about change- then what the fuck is the purpose of elections?

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    TrumpTroll: (noun) A thin-skinned creature that tries to force others to concede to his arguments through bullying, inundating the board with flurry of messages that he wants addressed, yet cannot handle being treated how he treats others. Avoids addressing criticism or admitting when he is wrong by playing hurt and rambling on about random tangents on how mistreated he is. Easily recognized by the bright orange ring around his mouth

    Yer acting like a real prick, did you know that??

    I find it really funny how I am accused on the one hand of OVERLY addressing criticism, then on the other hand, accused of NOT addressing criticism..

    It's also hilarious that ya'all go on and on about how I post then blame ME when ya'all go on and on about how I post..

    Your entire comment is one big personal attack that, in one instance, says one thing and then in the very next instance, says the exact opposite...

    But you have given me a great idea..

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz, I have changed my mind... I *AM* going to change my posting habits...

    I am going to start posting *EXACTLY* how ya'all accuse me of posting.. I am going to take ya'all's words to heart and post exactly like ya'all say I do.. I mean, what the hell. If I am going to be accused of it, I might as well, do it, right??

    Hope ya'all enjoy it.. Ya'all will be BEGGING me to go back to my normal posting style...

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Libertarians are complete idiots John. They are whiners who think everyone should pay for them but they shouldn't have to pay for anyone.

    Bigotry anyone???

    :^/

    Michale

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope that you're prepared for a flurry of posts insisting that both sides have violent actors, and that BLM protesters and lefties are MUCH more violent than Trump supporters, etc etc....

    Yep..

    The difference between ya'all and me is that *I* have FACTS to back up what I post..

    A group of men chanting "Black Lives Matter" were accused of viciously beating up seven white victims in Akron early Sunday morning.

    According to the police report, the attack happened around 12:30 a.m. in the area of Carroll and Goodkirk streets.

    Police said seven white men were walking when they were approached by five black men and two white men, shouting, "Black lives matter."
    http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32814897/men-chant-black-lives-matter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims

    Ya'all just have nothing but political bigotry and personal attacks..

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    So can Hillary followers make a case for bias? You bet your Citizens United they can. How else could Trump be in a statistical tie with Hillary despite having a nearly non-existent campaign?

    Uhhhh Maybe because the American people WANT a change of direction??

    Maybe the American people DON'T want a scumbag rhymes-with-witch who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped her on the ass... A greedy and conniving luser who's ONLY claim to fame is that she is married to a serial rapist and sexual assaulter..

    Din't THAT possibility ever occur to you?

    Of course not. Because you are so blinded by political bigotry and hatred you can't see past your own ideology..

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    And when you say I am dead wrong when I say the whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to bring about change- then what the fuck is the purpose of elections?

    Welcome to the wonderful world of Weigantia. Where you can't hold your own opinion without being attacked and, AFTER you are attacked, you get accused of the one doing the attacking.. :D

    It's fun.. You'll get used to it..

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems quite evident to me that a majority of Dems are good with our various perpetual wars. It doesn't make sense to even be part of a party so committed to something I oppose so completely. (D) or (R), we get more perpetual war. No thanks. I won't be voting for that.

    HOLY TESTICLE TUESDAY!!!

    JFC actually not only said something coherent, he actually said something that I dead on ballz totally and 1000% actually agree with...

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    Voting for Stein in 2016 will make it possible for her or another Green Party candidate to win in 2020.

    that's just magical thinking. no matter who wins or loses this time around, the party infrastructure will still be there for the next presidential cycle.

    if your goal is to create conditions to facilitate a minor candidate having a legitimate shot, the first step is having a liberal supreme court to uphold changes to campaign finance. the judiciary is the only part of government still capable of being free of the influence of campaign money, and without that neither vouchers nor vendettas will come to much of anything. in this cycle, unless you live in a "safe" state, a vote for hillary will bring that possibility closer; a vote for stein will not.

    @balthasar,

    agree that donald didn't have a leg to stand on with the "rigged" comments; he was just having a tantrum because he was down in the polls. neither you nor donald is necessarily wrong though. if you look, there's plenty of evidence both parties try their best to game the results in one way or another. those kinds of shenanigans have been going on since the invention of the ballot.

    @paula,

    hillary reflects ideological movement like she reflects everything else, based on whatever the polls and the focus groups say. i have no problem with public servants supporting whatever they think the public supports, that's been a big part of how the clintons have succeeded in politics. i support hillary because she has the most experience and knows how to do the job of president, but i have no illusions that her ideology is driven by anything other than the pragmatics of her position.

    i do take issue with you for bad-mouthing gary johnson and the libertarians as selfish "idiots." they have a legitimate philosophy which they believe in, and they apply it equally to economic and social issues. one need not agree with libertarian philosophy to recognize it as a sincerely held belief system. since hillary is a statist and donald is a demagogue some people with a conservative mindset might wish to vote libertarian. although that probably won't accomplish anything practical, to my knowledge they haven't done anything to warrant the name-calling.

    @JFC,

    sometimes dropping bombs is required to prevent even worse things from happening. i don't favor going out in search of a fight where none exists, but some fights will come to us regardless of whether or not we come to them.

    JL

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    The funny thing is, with JFC's slam against the D or the R (a slam that is dead on ballz accurate, I might add) he completely misses the point of the Trump campaign..

    Trump is the Republican candidate in NAME only...RCINO???

    As is well documented, Trump has policy positions that are to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton.. Ya'all's comments indicate that Republicans hate Trump almost as much as Democrats do...

    For all intents and purposes, Trump *IS* the only Independent that actually has a chance of winning..

    So, if a Weigantian IS truly against the Democrat AND Republican Partys, then Trump is the only logical vote...

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    neither you nor donald is necessarily wrong though. if you look, there's plenty of evidence both parties try their best to game the results in one way or another.

    Yes.. Yes their is...

    hillary reflects ideological movement like she reflects everything else, based on whatever the polls and the focus groups say.

    I couldn't agree more. Which is exactly why I DON'T like Hillary... She is a consummate politician and will say ANYTHING that she thinks people want to hear..

    Hillary had to "evolve" on gay marriage... Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that her evolution isn't contrived and campaign related?? Trump was pro-gay when Hillary was defending the Defense Of Marriage Act...

    That is exactly why Hillary will make a BAD President. The President has to be the one with the cool head and will have to do things that are unpopular to serve the greater good.. A poll-driven President will get this country into so much trouble...

    to my knowledge they haven't done anything to warrant the name-calling.

    Bigotry knows no logic or reason..

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    wow, you posted seven times since i started typing.

    @russ,

    calling people names won't help them change their behavior. you call him a troll, he calls you a prick, no progress.

    be the change you want to see in the world
    ~gandhi

    and that goes for all of us, self included.

    JL

  190. [190] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm going back to sleep now.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    “President Bush is a president who only saw the people [of Louisiana] from the window of an airplane, instead of down here on the ground trying to provide comfort.”
    -Senator Barack Obama

    One has to wonder how Obama saw the people of Louisiana from the golf courses of Martha's Vinyard??

    Bush at least had the integrity to cut short his vacation and actually GO SEE the devastation of NOLA..

    Apparently, Obama couldn't be bothered...

    Ya gotta hand it to Obama. He accomplished an incredible feat..

    He made Trump look more presidential than the President Of The United States...

    Quite and accomplishment..

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Trump's visit helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here. Donald Trump and Mike Pence were sincere and genuine .?.?. about their desire to be helpful.”
    -Governor John Bel Edwards

    “I want to thank Mr. Trump for coming because he brought attention to our state, and we need that now.”
    -Former Dem Senator Mary Landreiu

    Ooooo That just pisses ya'all off, doesn't it!?? :D

    You can't see me but I am laughing at ya'all... :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    calling people names won't help them change their behavior. you call him a troll, he calls you a prick, no progress.

    The difference being that I did not call Listen a prick..

    I said he is ACTING like a prick..

    But, why bother with the facts when making accusations.. :^/

    wow, you posted seven times since i started typing.

    SO WHAT!???

    Jeezus H Christ, if you want to count my posts, wait til the Holiday Fundraiser.. :D

    I post a lot. Get over it.. :D

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Mr Trump's visit was awesome!! Our own dear president is too busy at Martha’s Vineyard to visit us.”
    -Flood Survivor

    “Mr Trump really cares, and this is his way of showing it. It’s something a president should do.”
    -Flood Survivor

    Once again, Donald Trump being more presidential than President Obama...

    I can't wait til Obama gets boo'ed when he travels to the flood zone today. If he actually goes..

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    wow, you posted seven times since i started typing.

    SO WHAT!???

    And if I posted in the exact same manner, but posted RAH RAH HILLARY/DEMOCRAT posts neither you nor anyone else would say dick about it..

    So the *FACTS* clearly show that my posting a lot is not the problem.

    My posting a lot against Democrats..

    THAT is the only "problem".

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as I am wont to do, credit where credit is due..

    calling people names won't help them change their behavior. you call him a troll, he calls you a prick, no progress.

    You are dead on ballz accurate on this..

    I treat people exactly how they treat me. If they want to talk issues and have intelligent conversations, then I can faithfully do that..

    If they just want to hurl insults, well I can do that as well..

    "To those who want to be our friend, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States.. For those who would wish to make war? Well, we can be faithful to that as well."
    -President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    I call Hillary a no good lying bitch and Weigantians take that personally and call me names... And then I respond and so on and so on and so on..

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet22-
    Absolute nonsense. Voting for Hillary is what will ensure that the party infrastructure remains intact.
    What good is a Supreme Court that is appointed by Big Money politicians going to do in ruling on campaign finance legislation that is written and passed by Big Money legislators?
    The magical thinking is to vote to validate Big Money politicians, then expect those politicians to change the system that they are currently exploiting. If that approach worked we would not be talking about the problem of money in politics because the last forty years of campaign finance reform legislation would have already solved the problem.
    Only the threat of losing the elections to independents or third parties will get the politicians in the CMPs to change- and if they don't then it will be possible to replace them with independents or third party candidates.
    And Voucher Vendetta is about more than just the presidential election. It is about changing the whole system including Congress, governors, state legislators, etc.
    So if you must vote for Hillary to stop Trump you can still participate in Voucher Vendetta by voting against your Big Money congressman, senator, governor and state legislators by voting independent, third party or writing in your own name for these down ballot elections. After all, 90% of citizens live in "safe" districts for the incumbents in Congress and states for the Senate and you seem to think it is okay to vote for Stein in safe states.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how no one wants to talk about Trump in Louisiana anymore??

    Now that DEMOCRATS have come out and given Trump props and kudos for his actions, NOW no one here wants to talk about Obama's bonehead move of having Trump act like the President and Obama act like the schmuck...

    "Kahn.. I am LAUGHING at the superior intellect.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

    Of course ya'all could just come out and admit ya'all were wrong, that Trump DID, in fact, do a good thing..

    Ha! What am I thinking... It's well established that Weigantians *NEVER* apologize and *NEVER* admit they are wrong (NEN {cough} Joshua {cough} :D )....

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    What the Hillary supporters believe is that Hillary will follow thru on all her promises and push a progressive/liberal agenda...

    They actually BELIEVE Hillary when she says she is going to do away with CU, even though Hillary has been the BIGGEST beneficiary of CU.. Just like Obama before her....

    Hillary had to "evolve" on practically every issue that progressives hold dear..

    And the Hillary supporters actually BELIEVE that the evolution will hold after she is elected..

    They are in for a rude awakening...

    The magical thinking is to vote to validate Big Money politicians, then expect those politicians to change the system that they are currently exploiting.

    EXACTLY!!!!

    To expect Hillary and the Demcorats to actually KILL their golden goose or BBQ up their cash cow???

    Well, that's just plain gullibility...

    "Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."
    -Rufus, DOGMA

    :D

    Only the threat of losing the elections to independents or third parties will get the politicians in the CMPs to change- and if they don't then it will be possible to replace them with independents or third party candidates.

    "ding, ding, ding, ding.. We have a winner!! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!"

    It's all ideological enslavement..

    WINNING is more important than beneficial change....

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    OHMYGOD!!!

    State trooper shoots dead an unarmed deaf father who was trying to communicate via sign language after being pulled over for a speeding violation
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753378/North-Carolina-state-trooper-shoots-dead-deaf-mute-man.html

    Call out (O)BLM!!!!

    Get the race baiters out in force!!!!

    Let's Riot!!! Let's Pillage!!!! Let's Destroy!!!!

    Huh??? Whaaa??? It's a white guy who was killed???

    Ooops.. Nothing to see here... Go about your business....

    The Left Wingery in action... :^/

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    A sports executive who was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and whose firm paid Bill Clinton millions of dollars in consulting fees wanted help getting a visa for a British soccer player with a criminal past.

    The crown prince of Bahrain, whose government gave more than $50,000 to the Clintons’ charity and who participated in its glitzy annual conference, wanted a last-minute meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    U2 rocker and philanthropist Bono, also a regular at foundation events, wanted high-level help broadcasting a live link to the International Space Station during concerts.

    In each case, according to emails released Monday from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, the requests were directed to Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and confidante, Huma Abedin, who engaged with other top aides and sometimes Clinton herself about how to respond.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

    Hillary Clinton and her Pay-To-Play State Dept....

    I have the facts....

    I await the standard response from the WPG when presented with facts they don't like..

    "Michale, you post too much!!!"

    :^/

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Paula wrote:

    [177] Balthasar: Yep!

    {178] Don Harris And when you say I am dead wrong when I say the whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to bring about change- then what the fuck is the purpose of elections?

    The purpose of elections is to choose between available candidates.

    CHANGE is accomplished in a variety of ways with elections being only one. And generally speaking, if you achieve change through the person elected it is because that person is willing to enact whatever is needed to create the change. And leaders typically become change-agents only after all sorts of activism and other activity has happened over time to convince them of the "change" position.

    Hopefully we will eventually achieve Single-Payer healthcare. If we do it will have happened because of the steps that came before. When ACA was being negotiated I was both furious and disillusioned when the Public Option was nixed. That was my lowest point in the Obama presidency. But my sister, who is a nurse, told me not to be an idiot. She said she spent half her time on the phone arguing with insurance companies on behalf of patients and that the laws about pre-existing conditions and etc. were going to be a huge improvement and that it was a first step. A friend of mine who worked in Social Services expressed herself similarly. Both saw it as the beginning, not the end.

    Now, Aetna decides to be a prick because it couldn't merge with another company and pulls out of the Exchanges in some states. And the Public Option is on the table. And as time moves on the Public Option may come about in part because Insurance companies shoot themselves in the foot. And that way the public is behind the President/Congress/Senate instead of resisting the change. At the time of the ACA debate the American public was still more afraid of losing the existing system than disgusted with it. Plus 7% of the economy runs on the for-profit medical industry. So there is resistance. Change happens when the potential Change-Agent is backed by enough people to withstand/overcome remaining resistance.

    And Change-Agents have to work in the system they walk into. So if, by some miracle, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson won, they wouldn't be able to wave a wand and force change. They'd have to get Congress/Senate to agree with them and the public would have to support them. And the Courts have to agree the changes are constitutional, etc.

    To me fringe candidates serve a purpose -- they bring issues into discussion. Fringe candidates and activists then push, in a variety of ways, until the issue becomes mainstreamed, then the "mainstream" candidates pick them up and make them happen. The fringe candidates deserve credit for what they do, but shouldn't be seen as saviors because they aren't.

  203. [203] 
    Paula wrote:

    [186] NYPoet: Libertarianism is a sincerely-held conglomeration of badly-thought-out ideas held by idiots.

    I have argued with Libs and heard debates with them and they break down in two rounds.

    Trump followers sincerely believe their horrible mish-mash of hate is legitimate too. Sincerity is not a useful standard of measurement for the "legitimacy" of anything.

    However, I agree that some Republicans might decide to vote Lib rather than for Trump. As a practical matter that's fine. But they aren't doing it because they've become enamored of Libertarianism.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump followers sincerely believe their horrible mish-mash of hate is legitimate too

    Just as you believe your horrible mish-mash of hate against anyone who doesn't toe your HILLARY IS GOD line is legitimate too..

    What makes you any different from the Trump supporters you attack??

    Michale

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    But my sister, who is a nurse, told me not to be an idiot.

    Ahhhh So... Name-calling runs in the family.. :D

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What good is a Supreme Court that is appointed by Big Money politicians going to do in ruling on campaign finance legislation that is written and passed by Big Money legislators?

    the government is made up of human beings, and those people are only as beholden to campaign finance as their positions make them. "big money" isn't who they are, it's just one of the necessary tools to do the job.

    legislators and executives generally don't enjoy being beholden to big money donors, and have in the past been happy to pass laws like mccain-feingold, in spite of their fear of retribution. supreme court justices keep their job for life, and therefore are mostly immune to economic leverage, no matter who appointed them.

    JL

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    and therefore are mostly immune to economic leverage, no matter who appointed them.

    But they are NOT immune to ideological leverage which is, I believe, the point..

    Hillary could pressure the judges to protect her cash cow/golden goose...

    Is that not a possibility??

    And what will the Demcorat voters do in retaliation??

    Not a damn thing...

    THAT, i think, is the point Don is making..

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    THAT, i think, is the point Don is making..

    But I am always amiable to being corrected.. :D

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    libertarianism is a fairly well reasoned philosophy; i may not agree with it, but i don't see why you'd see fit to call it a "conglomeration of badly thought out ideas," nor the value in calling its adherents "idiots." libertarianism holds that the highest value in society is personal freedom, and that whatsoever increases overall freedom for the most people is generally for the best. this has led them to advocate lower degrees of both social and economic control, and policy based on the austrian school of economic theory. friedrich hayek may have lost out to keynes in popular policy, but he and his adherents were no fools.

    JL

  210. [210] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hillary could pressure the judges to protect her cash cow/golden goose...
    Is that not a possibility??

    she could try, but she'd have no leverage. a lifetime appointment can't be taken back.

    JL

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    she could try, but she'd have no leverage.

    She has all the leverage she needs.. Personal loyalty..

    Let's say she put Huma Abedin in as a Justice...

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Abedin would say NO to Hillary??

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    a lifetime appointment can't be taken back.

    Sure it can.... Quite easily as a matter of fact..

    As the body count associated with the Clintons attests to...

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Paula,

    "I don't think Dems are for perpetual war."

    I said they're "good with it". I stand by that assessment.

    I don't watch conventions, but I did see that general barking like mad man. I thought Biden was ready to drone somebody and I don't recall hearing anything critical about the body count or the pointlessness of our perpetual wars. Lots of cheering though.

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't watch conventions, but I did see that general barking like mad man. I thought Biden was ready to drone somebody and I don't recall hearing anything critical about the body count or the pointlessness of our perpetual wars. Lots of cheering though.

    That's because there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What are YOU doing here?? President Trump already visited us to make sure we're OK..."
    http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/AP_obama_louisiana3_ml_160823_4x3_992.jpg

    But, as I am wont to do, credit where credit is due..

    At least Obama showed up....

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Paula wrote:

    [209] nypoet: libertarianism holds that the highest value in society is personal freedom, and that whatsoever increases overall freedom for the most people is generally for the best.

    That's just jolly as a sentiment. The problem is turning it into laws and rules and ways to live. Scratch a libertarian and you end up with gabble and babble -- they offer very little in the way of workable anything. They can't figure out how they can have comfortable lives where people have jobs and roads are maintained and people get educated and everyone isn't poisoned by bad actors while they abolish taxes in the name of "freedom". Their answer: let the free market handle it. Which is stupid, stupid, stupid.

  217. [217] 
    Paula wrote:

    [213] Yes, the General went on at the Convention. I actually read and heard people not liking that but there were multiple levels of concern about multiple things at that point with the convention. Sorry you didn't like the cheering or Biden or whoever. I enjoyed the whole thing for the most part.

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    she could try, but she'd have no leverage. a lifetime appointment can't be taken back.

    President Hillary doesn't have to apply leverage in any case..

    She could just make sure that the case never goes before the SCOTUS...

    Whose going to go against a President Hillary and push a CU case to the SCOTUS??

    Answer... No one who wants to stay on this side of ground level... :D

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    She could just make sure that the case never goes before the SCOTUS...

    Congratulations, you've just flunked constitutional law.

    May I remind you that Bill Clinton was STILL president when Bush v Gore was decided? That Nixon was STILL president when the Pentagon Papers case was decided? That Obama was STILL president when opponents of Obamacare got their hearing before the court?

    The Supreme Court didn't listen to FDR, either, despite his having named a large number of its judges.

    Every SCOTUS judge of the modern era has voted with both the majority and minority of the court, as far as I know. For instance, Elana Kagan voted against parts of the Obamacare plan, Roberts famously decided in favor of parts of it.

    That dog won't hunt (and I think it's a goat).

  220. [220] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (202)-
    "the purpose of elections is to choose between available candidates."
    Jill Stein is an available candidate. Or did you mean to say available candidates that can win?
    I would disagree that your definition is complete. Elections are also to register approval or disapproval of the job the incumbents has performed and to demand better if the incumbents are found wanting.
    I am glad you acknowledged that elections are part of what brings about change.
    "Leaders typically become change-agents only after activism and other activities has happened over time to convince them of the "change" position."
    Activism like voting for candidates that advocate those positions like running their campaigns with small contributions like Stein instead of selling out to the corporations like Hillary and Trump doesn't count?
    The rest of your comment about health care proves my point that your way does not work. The Democrats spent the entire time claiming they were fighting for a public option then at the last minute without any warning or discussion "compromised away the public option because it was the "only way to get any legislation passed".
    So instead of real health care reform we got a giveaway to the insurance companies. The truth is that the "compromise" was the plan all along. The orchestrated "battle over the public option was just a ruse to get the bases of both CMPs to contribute money to stop the other side.
    And you keep falling for it.
    As I keep repeating and you keep ignoring- it doesn't matter if Stein can't win in 2016. The purpose of a vote for Stein is to register a vote against the status quo and build competition to make it possible to remove the corrupt politicians like Clinton or Trump. And once again, Voucher Vendetta is about all the elections for all offices so when it is possible to elect someone like Stein president there will already be many legislators in place ready to help them achieve change.

  221. [221] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet22 (206)-
    Where do you come with such nonsense? The positions do not attract the money- the money defines the positions. The Big Money is NOT necessary as proven by Bernie's ability to raise competitive amounts of money through small contributions.
    Bernie did not lose because he couldn't raise enough money, he lost because the system is rigged and was manipulated for Hillary.(And because he did not take my advice and make his campaign about changing the whole system by including congressional and senatorial elections in the small contribution model from the start of his campaign)
    Your McCain-Feingold example is flawed for the same reason that Paula's health care example is flawed. At the last minute a "compromise" was reached that doubled the amount that individuals could contribute. As the rest of the legislation was negotiated to work with the old limits it was rendered moot and ineffective by the new limits. And a challenge to McCcain-Feingold is what brought us Citizens United.
    Voucher Vendetta solves the problem of money in politics without legislation so it will not be feel good bullshit like McCain-Feingold and will not lead to future court challenges that could lead to more Citizens United type rulings.
    Of course, you did not respond to my suggestion that citizens should vote for third party or independent candidates in the "safe" congressional and senatorial elections that 90% of citizens have available.
    As for Supreme Court justices being immune to economic pressures (or any other pressures) you seem to think this is a good thing. It's not.
    It is a double edged sword because they are free to do the wrong thing as well as the right thing. Were Citizens United, the Kelo decision or Bush v.Gore the right things or the wrong things?
    This is why I stated the solution to the Supreme Court problem (that you put completely on the president when the president nominates a candidate and the Senate confirms the nominee)is to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. You also ignored that.

  222. [222] 
    Paula wrote:

    [220] Don Harris: You can say elections are also about people registering their unhappiness by doing protest votes but I think those protest votes only serve to make the protester feel like he/she has done something. When the 3rd party candidate goes on to lose anyway and they haven't done the other work needed to become real players rather than vanity figures they simply disappear into the ether, only to rise again 4 years later. On Election Day all that matters is the votes cast for the people on the ballot.

    I'm not saying you can't or even shouldn't do protest votes if you want to, I'm just saying they accomplish nothing in terms of creating practical changes in real life.

    Similarly, my point about the ACA is that it has, in fact, done a lot of good for a lot of people while still being imperfect and a step on the continuum. You may sneer at people no longer being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, but that's why I was able to get insurance after ACA but not before. There's al whole lot of things that improved for a whole lot of people after passage of ACA and still more things happening now. I wasn't happy about the public option situation then; I'm happy it's on the table now. I think medical insurance companies SHOULD be put out of business but lots of Americans work for them and invest in them -- it's coal miners all over again. But until we work out how to run economies in today's environment old-school stuff will continue. Many, many Americans do "make-work" -- some of which is quite harmful. But we live in a society that demands people earn money to be able to live and we have lots of bad ways for them to do it. Until we have nothing-but-good-ways or we convert to a society/economy that offers a guaranteed basic income or some such thing shit is gonna continue to happen.

    Stein's inevitable loss won't build competition. It won't do anything. Instead of expending energy doing futile things to "change the system" you might join the system, build a power-base and change it from within. You're way more like to have an impact.

  223. [223] 
    Paula wrote:

    And Bernie did not lose because the system was rigged against him. He lost because he didn't convince enough Democratic primary voters to vote for him. His wins -- other than Michigan -- were all in Caucus states were turnout was low. He had big rallies -- like Trump -- and ran ads but his outreach to many groups was poor or non-existent. He had a strong, but narrow, message which he repeated over and over, but he left whole swathes of the world out of the discussion. He had a terrible interview with the NY Post (was the post?), he never released his taxes and he went dirty on Hillary. The whole DNC boondoggle is almost entirely irrelevent in that they didn't run the state contests.

    The fact that individual members preferred Hillary to Bernie is both understandable and natural. When it's all said and done, that preference has not been shown to have turned into any actions by anyone. You can't force people to like someone they don't -- I can't make you like Hillary or Obama. And, although I liked Bernie in the beginning and, while I'm still mad at him to an extent, like him again now -- I ended up preferring Hillary and no amount of "he was robbed!!!" Could change my mind. Or the minds of lots of other Democrats. Bernie came into the party, used its assets while bitching the whole time, made his case, won over a large group of people and didn't win over an even larger group of people, then said he will leave the party again. But he's still prepared to do some campaigning for Hillary so he's apparently come to terms with events and realizes he still has a platform from which to do more good. Which is terrific.

  224. [224] 
    MHorton wrote:

    So, Michale seems less insane than usual with his open ignoring of facts.

    And Don Harris; the problem with Stein is that she doesn't have a base. She has no local, state or federal supporters.

    Also, her platform is vague; she's going to create millions of jobs by switching us to green energy by 2030? That's not a jobs plan.

    She's going to institute single payer healthcare?

    She's everything Bernie tried to warn his followers against; someone who claims that by winning the Presidency they can solve America's problems.

    That just isn't the case. You need a movement built from the ground up; that's why Bernie never said he could solve everyone's problems from the White House. His main promise was that from the Bully Pulpit he could put the pressure on Congress and the courts, and keep the base fired up, to win change through successive elections.

    Stein promises a fantasy, of a savior riding in and instituting the right policies and magically righting the ship.

    The US has been subjected to poor policy and bad decisions for decades; it's going to take decades more work. And the Greens aren't interested in the hard work that real change requires. That's why Stein isn't even on every ballot.

    The Libertarians at least do the work, but their beliefs are too "pure" so they have a built in ceiling of about 12%- the conservative third of people who lean Republican, basically. But they've lost their most extreme people to the Constitution Party, who are... just nuts.

    If you want to institute change on a nation the size of the US, you need the support of AT LEAST 100 million people.

    If Jill Stein can't get 55k people in Georgia she's never going to provide change.

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    MHorton,

    So, Michale seems less insane than usual with his open ignoring of facts.

    Which "facts" did I ignore??

    Or, to be more accurate, which RELEVANT facts did I ignore??

    Oh and..

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane

    :D

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathasar,

    That dog won't hunt (and I think it's a goat).

    Really??

    So, explain to me exactly how a Citizens United Case could get to the SCOTUS if President Hillary doesn't want it to..

    Your examples are ridiculous as they are special circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated...

    I'll await your response.. 1,000 quatloos says I never see it.. :D

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Michale seems less insane than usual with his open ignoring of facts.

    Why, thank you! I think... :D

    Michale

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Don Harris; the problem with Stein is that she doesn't have a base. She has no local, state or federal supporters.

    Oh com'on, M... Let's be honest..

    Stein's ONLY problem is she doesn't toe the Hillary/Demcorat Party line... She is not a slave to Party ideology and dogma..

    THAT is Stein's only "problem"....

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of conceding when one is wrong..

    Does anyone {{cough}} Paula {{cough}} :D want to address the point on how wrong ya'all were on BREXIT??

    No?? Didna think so... :D

    Hay, if ya'all are going to accuse me of shit, I am going to prove ya'all wrong with FACTs are every juncture.... :D

    Michale

  230. [230] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, explain to me exactly how a Citizens United Case could get to the SCOTUS if President Hillary doesn't want it to..

    Why am I doing your research for you?

    Okay, there are several ways that a case can reach the Court without interference from the Executive branch. There is direct appeal from an Appeals Court ruling. Or there might be disagreements between different circuits of the Appeals Courts. One could also (as in Bush v Gore) appeal the decision of a State Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court also settles differences between the different branches of government, so, say, the House of Representatives could bring a case against the executive branch.

    It only requires four votes among the Justices for the Court to grant a writ of certiorari, so conservatives can, at the moment, get just about anything they want before the Court in any given session.

  231. [231] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Does anyone {{cough}} Paula {{cough}} :D want to address the point on how wrong ya'all were on BREXIT?

    We weren't wrong about Brexit. It appears that, the British government has adopted a policy of taking as long as possible to implement Brexit, so almost nothing has been done yet about implementing it, if they ever intend to at all. This calmed the markets.

    I'm guessing that Brexit will wither on the vine, eventually. There are too many ties to Europe to undo, too many markets that would be unsettled if decoupled from the Euro. In a year or so, the new Prime Minister will begin introducing legislation that mitigates or reverses many of the supposed provisions of Brexit, until it is little more than a rearranging of chairs on the deck.

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is direct appeal from an Appeals Court ruling.

    From who???

    The Supreme Court also settles differences between the different branches of government, so, say, the House of Representatives could bring a case against the executive branch.

    So you think it's realistic that a Demcorat House would bring suit against a Hillary Administration???

    You must live in a state that has legalized marijuana and you just got an awesome new batch.... :D

    We weren't wrong about Brexit.

    You weren't???

    So.... Brexit failed and there was no vote successful to leave the EU???

    And all the hysterical proclamaitions ya'all made that would occur if Brexit PASSED (Not if it was implemented, but if it PASSED) all came true???

    Ya'all were DEAD WRONG about EVERYTHING to do with Brexit..

    But, as per the norm, you do not have the integrity to stand up and say, "Yes, Michale.. YOU were right about Brexit and I was wrong.."

    Which simply proves what I have said all along...

    Ya'all simply CAN'T admit when you are wrong...

    I'm guessing that Brexit will wither on the vine, eventually.

    Yea, you also said that Brexit wouldn't pass.. You ALSO said that if it did pass, it would be armageddon.. You ALSO said that Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee.. You ALSO said that Trump's numbers are dropping like a stone..

    You have been WRONG at each and every turn...

    And when Brexit DOESN'T "wither", you STILL won't admit you are wrong...

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    {{chiirrrrppppp}} {{chiiiirrrrrpppppp}}

    Yea... That's what I thought.... :^/

    Michale

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time..."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    :D

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So you think it's realistic that a Demcorat House would bring suit against a Hillary Administration???

    You must live in a state that has legalized marijuana and you just got an awesome new batch.... :D

    So you think the House will go Democratic this year? I want some of what YOU'RE smoking; I'm sure it's better!

    And yes, Either party to a case before the Appellate Court can appeal a verdict to the SCOTUS, as both Larry Flynt and Anna Nicole Smith were able to do, for instance.

    The aforementioned Obamacare case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 6 (or 10?) Republican States' attorney generals.

    Yea, you also said that Brexit wouldn't pass.. You ALSO said that if it did pass, it would be armageddon.. You ALSO said that Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee.. You ALSO said that Trump's numbers are dropping like a stone..

    You have been WRONG at each and every turn...

    Yeah, it's been a tough year for logic and reason. It's also been a tough year for anyone trying to predict from past models. Mea Culpa!

    I have my suspicions that all these international populist/nationalist insurgencies are being coordinated by some billionaire (Russian or otherwise) somewhere, but for now I'll keep that to myself.

    On that note, American billionaire Robert Mercer is having a pretty good year, considering his financial ties to Breitbart. I heard he's just sent funds to John McCain's primary opponent. I'm sure he's proud of himself.

    That's probably why Trump is trying to gin up an attack on the (completely transparent) Clinton Foundation - to distract from his own dark money sources and ties, some of which might be found in the tax forms he refuses to release.

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, it's been a tough year for logic and reason. It's also been a tough year for anyone trying to predict from past models. Mea Culpa!

    If we were talking logic and reason, you would have a point..

    But we're not..

    ALL of your assumptions have been based on partisan ideology..

    I have my suspicions that all these international populist/nationalist insurgencies are being coordinated by some billionaire (Russian or otherwise) somewhere, but for now I'll keep that to myself.

    Of course you do.. :D

    Like I said... Nothing but ideology.. :D

    That's probably why Trump is trying to gin up an attack on the (completely transparent) Clinton Foundation - to distract from his own dark money sources and ties, some of which might be found in the tax forms he refuses to release.

    Ideology....

    And Hillary is at death's door which is why she won't release any medical records...

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since all your assessments and conclusions are based SOLELY on ideology and Party slavery, there is no sense in debating the issues..

    It would be like debating the existence of god with a religious fanatic..

    Completely and utterly a waste of time.. You point out every fact that PROVES them wrong, but they stubbornly hold onto their faith..

    So it is with partisan political fanatics..

    NO amount of facts will sway them from their position...

    But at least the journey is fun.. :D

    "I love fucking with the clergy"
    -Loki, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    MHorton-
    Welcome.
    Stein is not perfect. Neither was Bernie. I supported Bernie in the primaries and I support Stein now because they are closest to the most important issue to me- getting the Big Money out of politics. After all, it is the one issue that affects all other issues.
    It is true Stein can't win in 2016 and it will take more than competition in the presidential contest to change the whole system. That is why Voucher Vendetta addresses changing the whole system all the way down the ballot.
    Despite comments advising that I should work within the system, I AM working within the system. Last time I checked the ability and right to vote for independent and third party candidates is part of the system. And Voucher Vendetta also allows those that are working within the two party system to use Voucher Vendetta to influence the CMPs and their candidates.
    No movement starts out with the support they need to be successful. Sometimes it takes more than one election cycle to achieve the support needed. I am willing to put in the time to build that support for future elections rather than concede defeat and vote out of fear to validate the very kind of candidates and parties that are doing the things that I oppose.

  239. [239] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, since all your assessments and conclusions are based SOLELY on ideology and Party slavery, there is no sense in debating the issues..

    Nonsense. This is a forum for debate. If the ideologues and party faithful wish to contribute their opinions, they're as welcome as free thinkers or even word salad aficionados.

    And I suppose Nihilists are included in there somewhere...

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nonsense. This is a forum for debate. If the ideologues and party faithful wish to contribute their opinions, they're as welcome as free thinkers or even word salad aficionados.

    You misunderstand..

    It makes no sense for ME to waste my time debating with a religious fanatic, the existence of god...

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nonsense. This is a forum for debate.

    Further, this is a forum for REALITY-BASED debate...

    Debating the idea that Hillary can do no wrong is not reality-based debate...

    It's religious fanatic type debate....

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It makes no sense for ME to waste my time debating with a religious fanatic, the existence of god...

    On the other hand, try explaining Pokemon Go to an aboriginal Amazonian. He'd shrink your head.

    So reaching consensus on a shared reality has admitted degrees of difficulty.

  243. [243] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Let us stipulate, then:

    Hillary is fallible.

    Donald Trump is fallible.

    Your turn..

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    So reaching consensus on a shared reality has admitted degrees of difficulty.

    CONSENSUS! :D

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CONSENSUS! :D

    Yes. Consensus.

  246. [246] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Still your turn. Any two facts that we can agree upon.

  247. [247] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He's thinking ...

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I missed that..

    Let us stipulate, then:

    Hillary is fallible.

    Donald Trump is fallible.

    Your turn..

    Hillary has had some spectacular and embarrassing failures..

    So has Donald Trump...

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary and Donald are not as well acquainted with truth-telling as we expect our leaders should be...

    How'mi doing?? :D

    Michale

  250. [250] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I will accept your statements from [248] as fact.

    Good. You're trying, at least. My turn:

    Hillary is fallible.

    Donald Trump is fallible.

    Hillary has had some spectacular and embarrassing failures..

    So has Donald Trump...

    Now something a bit more challenging:

    Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

    So does Hillary Clinton.

  251. [251] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's going to be a tough one to beat ... er, best!

  252. [252] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's going to be a tough one to beat ... er, best!

    There is video backing it up.

  253. [253] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure there is but, if you think I'm going to click on that link, you're crazy! :)

  254. [254] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm sure there is but, if you think I'm going to click on that link, you're crazy! :)

    Lol. Here it is in raw format:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/25/trump_live_polls_immigration_policy_with_hannity_town_hall_audience_who_wants_them_thrown_out.html

    Apparently Trump & Hannity polled the audience for an instant 'market test'....and that's how we formulate policy in the 21st century...

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I haven't forgotten you.. Your comment requires a bit more thought than usual and I have a few irons in the fire so to speak...

    If you don't mind, let's follow it up on the coming http://FTP...

    Michale

  256. [256] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fair enough!

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let me ask a follow up here which will allow me to better formulate a response..

    Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

    Do you have any issues with this??

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would adding the word 'otherwise' change anything for you ...

    Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not otherwise broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

    I know you always point out that undocumented workers have broken the law just by being here ...

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not otherwise broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

    Actually, I didn't catch that.. :D But it makes no difference in how I feel about it..

    The question is, how do YA'ALL feel about it???

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It sounds fairly reasonable, as far as it goes, and very much like what many Republicans and Democrats have been saying over the years of discussing this issue.

    How do you feel about it?

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am torn, to be honest..

    It's rewarding criminality... It totally decimates the idea that crime doesn't pay...

    I prefer to send them back to their countries and let them get in line like honest law-abiding immigrants do..

    Having said that I spose I could come round to the idea that they can stay while they are paying their back taxes... I am not a big fan of ripping families apart SOLELY because of illegal entry..

    But ANY violent misdemeanor or felony and they're out, regardless of family status...

    Michale

  262. [262] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can understand how you could be torn about this.

    I think a big part of the problem is that it has been a problem for so long and no administration has really been terribly serious about solving it. And, so, after so much time has allowed the problem to get worse, it is difficult to solve it with harsh tactics such as deporting every single last one of them and telling them to get in the legal line if they want to come back to the US.

    Over time, many of these undocumented workers have been working very hard for very little but at least they have the dignity of being able to provide for their families. How do you take that away from people. My answer is that you simply can't. Not if you have any compassion at all.

    And so, the solution has to involve allowing these undocumented workers and their families, including their naturally born American children, to stay in the US while meeting certain clearly identified conditions, including the ones recently suggested by Trump and outlined by many others for quite some time now.

    I think you also have to take into account the kinds of work that many of these undocumented workers do - such as the dignified but back-breaking work in agriculture and the hospitality industry - and the responsibility that their American employers have in all of this.

    I think the key notions here for America are compassion and good governance and rule of law - you must find a way to mesh these concepts, among others, in a solution to illegal immigration that is practical, that works and that live up to the promise of America.

    If everyone starts from that kind of thinking, then I believe this issue can be resolved in the best interests of all.

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can understand how you could be torn about this.

    I think a big part of the problem is that it has been a problem for so long and no administration has really been terribly serious about solving it. And, so, after so much time has allowed the problem to get worse, it is difficult to solve it with harsh tactics such as deporting every single last one of them and telling them to get in the legal line if they want to come back to the US.

    EXACTLY.. Solving it back when it was a LITTLE problem would have been much more logical.. By kicking the can down the road for so long, only draconian measures will actually FIX the problem..

    Over time, many of these undocumented workers have been working very hard for very little but at least they have the dignity of being able to provide for their families. How do you take that away from people. My answer is that you simply can't. Not if you have any compassion at all.

    But the flip side of that is one must have compassion for the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who have been victimized in one form or another by illegals..

    The FIRST duty of a compassionate government is to protect it's own citizens first...

    And so, the solution has to involve allowing these undocumented workers and their families, including their naturally born American children, to stay in the US while meeting certain clearly identified conditions, including the ones recently suggested by Trump and outlined by many others for quite some time now.

    But the problem is that the government has been lowering the standards by which the illegals can stay.. First it was ANY criminal record and yer gone.. Then it was ANY misdemeanor or felony and your gone. Then it was ANY violent misdemeanor or felony and then yer gone. And so on and so on and so on..

    That is why the Right is so adamantly opposed to giving ANY kind of leeway or compromise. Because it's well documented that the Left will use that compromise to push for more and more...

    I think you also have to take into account the kinds of work that many of these undocumented workers do - such as the dignified but back-breaking work in agriculture and the hospitality industry - and the responsibility that their American employers have in all of this.

    I completely and unequivocally agree.. Employers who hire illegals should be penalized... No doubt..

    I think the key notions here for America are compassion and good governance and rule of law - you must find a way to mesh these concepts, among others, in a solution to illegal immigration that is practical, that works and that live up to the promise of America.

    Like I said, even in compassion, priorities must be established.. And Americans come first..

    Michale

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
    -Captain Spock

    Michale

  265. [265] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not sure that quote fits this discussion, Michale.

    Because, the many will benefit from immigration reform, including from devising a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented or illegal immigrants who meet the criteria that is decided upon for that pathway.

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    By kicking the can down the road for so long, only draconian measures will actually FIX the problem..

    The way I see it, the length of time that has elapsed has made the kind of fix you have in mind impossible, draconian measures or no.

    Too much time, too many people, too settled in their lives. Draconian measures are not the kind of measures that can solve this. Your country needs to find a compromise that will benefit the country and all of its citizens.

    Will compromise be easy to find? Apparently not. But, nothing worthwhile is ever easy, is it.

  267. [267] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But the flip side of that is one must have compassion for the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who have been victimized in one form or another by illegals..

    I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here by victimized. Victimized by crime committed by illegal immigrants, violent or otherwise?

    Victimized through loss of opportunity taken by illegal immigrants? Economically victimized?

    In any case, don't you think that reforming the system and providing a pathway to citizenship will reduce the victimization? If not, then you must think that reform is not possible and only draconian measures will solve this problem. Which is a vicious circle that will get you nowhere, fast, no?

  268. [268] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But the problem is that the government has been lowering the standards by which the illegals can stay..

    But, that doesn't seem to me to be too hard to fix. You just need political will and a citizenry demanding reform through compromise. Easier said than done, I realize. But, certainly not an insurmountable problem, given some bold political leadership.

  269. [269] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Like I said, even in compassion, priorities must be established.. And Americans come first..

    I think this is where we really see things differently. Part of the reason why is that I'm an outsider looking in and hoping against hope that the promise of America is alive and well and I am just cockeyed optimist at heart who always tries to look on the bright side, no matter what! :)

    You see, I believe that an 'America First' strategy for immigration reform (legal and illegal immigration) would include a compromise that allows illegal immigrants who meet a set of criteria to remain in the country and work towards citizenship. I think this compromise can benefit all Americans.

    I don't presume to know all of the details of how that would work but I don't see any other option that would keep America great, to borrow a phrase ...

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, the many will benefit from immigration reform, including from devising a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented or illegal immigrants who meet the criteria that is decided upon for that pathway.

    But many Americans will be attacked and raped and murdered...

    The cost of the Democrats' version of immigration reform is too high..

    'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here by victimized. Victimized by crime committed by illegal immigrants, violent or otherwise?

    Yes...

    Victimized through loss of opportunity taken by illegal immigrants? Economically victimized?

    Yes...

    In any case, don't you think that reforming the system and providing a pathway to citizenship will reduce the victimization?

    Truly reforming the system would..

    But that's not what the Democrats are pushing..

    You see, I believe that an 'America First' strategy for immigration reform (legal and illegal immigration) would include a compromise that allows illegal immigrants who meet a set of criteria to remain in the country and work towards citizenship. I think this compromise can benefit all Americans.

    I agree... But before we can get to that compromise we must secure the border and STOP more illegals coming in...

    THAT's what Democrats DON'T want...

    Michale

  271. [271] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    THAT's what Democrats DON'T want...

    Yes, I know that's what you have been saying here. That Democrats want more illegal immigrants pouring across the border because that means more Democrat votes. That's your position, right?

    Well, I don't know where that leaves our little discussion here. Which, by the way, I thought was progressing so well ...

    Until I realize that there is no immigration reform that you can get behind, even if a bipartisan proposal is made. Am I mistaken?

  272. [272] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But many Americans will be attacked and raped and murdered...

    The cost of the Democrats' version of immigration reform is too high..

    So, you are saying that there can be no immigration reform because many Americans will be attacked, raped and murdered?? You mean that immigration reform is not possible? Then, why are we having this discussion. I thought you were open to possibilities that could lead to real reform.

    Forget about the Democrats' version. I want to know what your version might look like and would it be worthy of bipartisan support and, therefore, workable?

  273. [273] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I agree... But before we can get to that compromise we must secure the border and STOP more illegals coming in...

    I understand that net flow of immigrants across your southern border is close to nil, these days. Does border control need to be strengthened beyond what it is now. I don't know. But, if that is needed then it shouldn't be hard to do.

    Can't strengthening border control go hand-in-hand with a compromise that allows a pathway to citizenship? Why can't border control be part of the compromise? Does it have to be a separate track that needs to be accomplished to the satisfaction of some standard before compromise on immigration reform can be reached?

    I really don't understand why strengthening border control can't just be part of the overall reform process and not a stumbling block to it ...

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I know that's what you have been saying here. That Democrats want more illegal immigrants pouring across the border because that means more Democrat votes. That's your position, right?

    That's the only logical conclusion that makes any sense and fits the facts...

    Until I realize that there is no immigration reform that you can get behind, even if a bipartisan proposal is made. Am I mistaken?

    I am willing to entertain ANY immigration reform...

    ONCE we secure the border...

    o, you are saying that there can be no immigration reform because many Americans will be attacked, raped and murdered??

    You are comparing apples and orangutans...

    There is immigration reform..

    And then there is border security...

    You can't have one without the other... (why does the theme from MARRIED WITH CHILDREN pop into my head?? :D)

    The problem is, Democrats want to ignore border security...

    Forget about the Democrats' version. I want to know what your version might look like and would it be worthy of bipartisan support and, therefore, workable?

    My version first and foremost means securing the border. When someone is deported for criminal activities in the US, they STAY deported and are not free to re-enter the country to kill or rape or victimize MORE Americans...

    Why hasn't HIllary or Obama talked with the families of those who have been murdered by illegal immigrants????

    Michale

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand that net flow of immigrants across your southern border is close to nil, these days.

    You understand wrong..

    There has been a massive influx of illegal immigrants for the last several months...

    Can't strengthening border control go hand-in-hand with a compromise that allows a pathway to citizenship?

    It could.. But Democrats want to give the pathway to citizenship first and then maybe possibly discuss securing the border... Kinda like when Democrats pushed TrainWreckCare thru by hook or by crook and then said they will "talk" about tort reform after it's passed...

    I really don't understand why strengthening border control can't just be part of the overall reform process and not a stumbling block to it ...

    It CAN be a part of the overall reform process.. But it has to come FIRST....

    It's like laying a foundation of a house.. It's part of the overall house construction process, but it HAS to come first or else everything falls apart...

    Michale

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    It could.. But Democrats want to give the pathway to citizenship first and then maybe possibly discuss securing the border... Kinda like when Democrats pushed TrainWreckCare thru by hook or by crook and then said they will "talk" about tort reform after it's passed...

    They never did.... :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.