{{ccchhhiiirrrrppppp}} {{cchhiirrrrpppp}}

I know, I know... I shouldn't be too hard on ya'all..

Ya'all are simply part of the Borg collective and are waiting for instructions (AKA Talking Points) from the Borg Queen, Hillary...

Michale

As I am wont to do..

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

Michale

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html

JUST THE FACTS...

And the response from the WPG???

{{ccchhhiiirrrrppppp}} {{cchhiirrrrpppp}}

I think it's clear A> who has the facts on their side and 2> Who does and doesn't address points. Yes, I am looking at you, Paula... :D

Michale

You are the one who refuses to debate the facts. Two examples that come to mind: First, you claimed that the DOJ had accused Officer Wilson of committing a racially motivated murder of Michael Brown.

Actually, I did debate that issue with Joshua after you bailed because you couldn't handle how wrong you were...

So, THAT complaint of yours is also bogus... :D

Michale

In the last commentary and in this commentary, I have posted DOZENS of *facts* regarding Hillary's Pay-For-Play State Department...

Do they address these FACTS?? No, they don't.. They CAN'T address the facts so they just clam up and run away..

Point to Michale....

Michale

And, as you see by Bashi's response, when their dogma is questioned, they automatically turn around and attack the those who question their dogma..

They go on and on about no facts, yet they have absolutely NO FACTS of their own..

That's why I always win the debates here. The second I ask for FACTS to support their claims, they clam up and disappear..

A win by default is still a win... :D

Michale

Michale- Please don't take this post the wrong way.

Ya'all can say want you want about Michale and his posts, but doesn't it embarrass you that Michale seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works based on your responses to my posts from Friday Talking Points?
I certainly don't agree with Michale on many points but he cleaned your clocks on the issues in my posts.

Thank you, Don...

It's nice to have the FACTS acknowledged.. It's so refreshing because only ONE other person here in Weigantia has the integrity to call a spade a spade...

But I shouldn't be too hard on people like Paula, Bashi, Blathasar, Neal, etc etc etc.. They are slaves to their ideology... They are simply INCAPABLE of looking at things objectively and acknowledging reality..

I pity them in the same manner I pity a religious fanatic.. They have no free will of their own.. They are slaves to their dogma...

Michale

Forget where I heard that one, but always thought it was pretty funny...

There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't

:D

Michale

Once again, you accuse me of something that YOU do constantly.. You refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of MY points..

Like THAT point there, for example...

Listen didn't MAKE any points. He rambled a huge diatribe that makes absolutely no sense..

For example, he claims to have asked me when I decided to be heterosexual. I described the moment, in likely TOO vivid a detail :D, and that was THAT..

NOW he claims that I didn't answer the question..

You didn't choose to be heterosexual that night, you just realized that you were attracted to girls!

What a completely incomprehensible statement...

he will deny the validity of your statements and simply reflect back to you whatever you say.

You mean, like you just did with your entire comment??

Like I said, Paula. You have an uncanny knack of accusing me of something that you do constantly...

But, I guess I must thank you for continuing to make the comment section about me..

When will you people learn.. :^/

Michale

Here's the long term problem: ask a GOP officeholder "are you content to do well just in midterms, while totally giving up any chance for taking the White House for a generation's time?" That's a big problem, they'll tell you.

But that's not the "long term problem" that JM was referring to..

Further, if the GOP only exists to obstruct the Demcorat Party (as ya'all have claimed time and time and time again) then shellacking the Democrats in the midterms allows them to maintain their OBSTRUCT THE DEMCORATS agenda just fine. :D

Michale

You and Michale really are opposite sides of the same coin. I think most of the posters here do actually understand how democracy works, and many of them would likely think both you and Michale grossly over simplify to the point of not getting it yourselves. For example you site that Trump raised $80 million in donations during July and therefore that money can only be large corporate donations. Within minutes on google I can find an equivalent article confirming Trump's $80 million as well as a site [opensecrets.org] that lists all his donors to both directly to his campaign as well as PAC's supporting him through July 21st, the last reporting cycle. There is one donation of $150,000 and two donations of $100,000 to Pac's and they drop fast from there. Directly to his campaign, the donations start at $15,000 and drop quickly from there. Considering who is donating, a lot of federal government departments, even those high numbers are likely individual smaller donations from employees. Compared to Hillary, he really is taking relatively small donations. Though both campaigns have had quite a bit of success with under $200 donations as well. If you can't back up your assertions, why should we take you seriously? Or anyone for that matter? It's all nice and cute to generalize about money and policy, but put some facts on the table and let us see you know what you are talking about. What legislation was bought to pass or not pass? Who were the specific legislators that were bought for that decision? Which Supreme Court decisions were because of money and not specific interpretations of the constitution? Anyone can talk smack, lets see you back it up...

"There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't."

Forget where I heard that one, but always thought it was pretty funny...

:-)

-CW

First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly.

Just don't post more than one link per comment -- multilink comments get automatically held for moderation, which can (as you can tell) take a while, sometimes. But if you keep it to one link per comment, you should be good.

The preview button is sadly pretty broken and un-useful, sorry about that. But you can use regular html tags (some of them, at least) in your comments, if you want to use bold or italic text, for instance. You can even embed links with the "a href" tag, although it's not necessary (paste a link's URL in and it will appear as a link).

I hear your point about early voting, and as for black swans, please see today's column.

:-)

Again, welcome to the site and my apologies for the delay in seeing your first comment.

-CW

This could be the start of a glide path into oblivion for Fox News.

Some challenges they are facing:

1. Lawsuits that expose a Mad Men-like culture of old male bigots
2. A leadership crisis to replace Ailes and his cronies
3. The loss of the extremists to the alt-right news vehicles such as Breitbart
4. A diminishing audience that isn't being replaced by new younger viewers
5. The loss of some of their top rated entertainers
6. The sudden loss of viewing figures after any election is over (Presidential elections are good for viewing figures)
7. The move away from TV as a medium - my grown kids don't have TVs in their houses, or if they do they are only for sports

Interesting times.

This is EXACT why I don't deal in "truth" but rather in FACTS...

"TRUTH" is subjective and is dependent on the whims of the individual... This moron's "truth" is that Hillary is the second coming and Trump is Lucifer incarnate..

TRUTH has no place anywhere in academia save a philosophy class...

FACTS rule.. TRUTH drooools...

Michale

Random unattributed quote from an article I was just reading...

I'd only add:

(2a) -- Dems actually got 1.5 million more total votes for their House candidates coutnrywide, proving gerrymandering was indeed the reason for the big GOP majority.

Michale [31] -

Here's the long term problem: ask a GOP officeholder "are you content to do well just in midterms, while totally giving up any chance for taking the White House for a generation's time?" That's a big problem, they'll tell you.

TheStig [40] -

OK, that was funny!

"Name an Irishwoman who likes to sit around outside your house...."

"Patty O'Furnature!"

Heh. Got a million of 'em. I'll be here all week... don't forget to tip your waitress....

:-)

-CW

The email did not contain a message in the body, yet the subject line reads “Reminder fabius at 3:30. Take a nap [sic].”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/23/emails-show-huma-used-to-put-hillary-down-for-nap-time/#ixzz4IC8FvrzW

Oh great... If ya'all get your way, we're going to have a POTUS who needs a nap time..

"Sorry, General.. I know that we're being nuked by China.. But President Hillary needs her nap time undisturbed"
-Chief Of Staff Abedin

Yea.. NOTHING to worry about with Hillary's health..

Michale

"Oh really?"

"No, O'Reilly."

Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist. **This joke was constructed entirely from recycled materials**

By FAR....

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/02/ftp302/

Nothing much on my end has changed since then..

But a LOTs changed from the Demcorat side of the fence...

That likely explains all the hate... :^/

Michale

No, I would encourage people to stop posting endless whinings and complaints about one person's commenting style..

Real supportive!

I'll forgive you this utter BS because you are completely ignorant..

But it is WELL DOCUMENTED that NO ONE here supports CW.COM more than I do..

By FAR....

So, when you have a lot less ignorance under your belt and are a little less hysterical, then we can continue to make this commentary thread ALL about me..

Michale

Why don't YA'ALL start your own I HATE THAT MICHALE POSTS TOO MUCH WITH FACTS THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS blog...

So you would encourage people to stop visiting CW's blog, is that it? Real supportive!

"MICHALE POSTS TOO MANY FACTS THAT ARE NOT FACTUAL IN ORDER TO DISTRACT FROM THE ORIGINAL DEBATE" is what CW might want to change this blog site's name to. When someone points to something Trump says that we disagree with, you rush to find something that a democrat once did that is similar and demand that we discuss that and NOT address what Trump said. The saddest part is that you only reaffirm that Trump was wrong to say whatever he said by demanding that we admit that someone else was wrong for saying/doing the same thing!

You are the one who refuses to debate the facts. Two examples that come to mind: First, you claimed that the DOJ had accused Officer Wilson of committing a racially motivated murder of Michael Brown. You were trying to make the point that the DOJ's findings were often based on data that could be interpreted multiple ways, but you chose to use a false example that sullied the Officer's credibility. You hemmed and hawed about what you really meant to say, but the fact was that what you said was wrong...and you refused to acknowledge that.

The next one is from back when I first shared with the group that I am gay. I had asked you very directly if you could remember when it was in your life that you chose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual. You said yes, but didn't actually give me the details until after the conversation had run its course. Finally, you shared that you remember vividly when you chose to be heterosexual -- it was when you were watching Lost in Space as a kid and suddenly realized that Judy Robinson (Or maybe it was Penny, they all look the same to me) gave your rocket a "lift off". While being a funny story, it failed to answer the question that I asked! Choosing your sexual orientation would mean that you were equally attracted to Dr. Smith (just kidding, Don West was the stud on the show) and after weighing the pros/cons of each, you decided to go with being heterosexual. It would mean that you could just as easily CHOOSE at anytime to become homosexual, if you wanted to -- but that's not how it works. You didn't choose to be heterosexual that night, you just realized that you were attracted to girls! I don't like mustard. Can't stand it. Seriously, it triggers the gag reflex with me! There is no way that I can CHOOSE to like it, because my tastebuds wouldn't listen if I said I was going to find mustard delicious from now on. The issue we were debating was whether or not we CHOOSE our sexual orientation. You said we do, then provide "proof" that only supported MY argument, but still claimed you had proven me wrong!

Now, I know that I am "attacking you" by pointing all this out, and we all gang up on you. But if everyone else says it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck...its a safe bet that it is a duck!

Says the guy who never has a fact to comment with.. :D

But, by all means. Make the entire comment thread about me..

Who needs to talk about issues, right?? :^/

Michale

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

And the hits STILL keep on comin'... :D

Michale

There, fixed it for you. "Facts" as a word just doesn't work with bold all caps...

No one would read it. And even if he did get readership, the type of person that would follow him would most likely out Michale Michale. Which of course would be completely hilarious to see...

I have a better suggestion.

Why don't YA'ALL start your own I HATE THAT MICHALE POSTS TOO MUCH WITH FACTS THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS blog...

Then ya'all could whine and complain and spam to your hearts content and not pollute this site with yer whinings..

Yea, that's a much better idea....

Michale

You can nitpick all you want.. Spin the factors that help your case and ignore the factors that hurt your case..

But the SIMPLE fact remains..

Republicans are still doing great, even if it's the mid-terms..

So, that doesn't really sound like a long term problem...

And, if Hillary takes the White House and you claim that the "Party holding the White House always loses seats" then, again, I must ask... HOW is this a "problem" for Republicans???

Look, I am just going with logic here..

You say that the Republicans have a "long term problem" but what you REALLY mean is that Republicans have a "long term problem" except for mid-terms...

And if there is an exception like that every 4 years, this begs the question....

How could it POSSIBLY be a "long term" problem???

Michale

"Then, of course, came the Democrat Nuclear Shellacking of 2014...

The Republicans could sure use more "long term problems" like that, eh?? :D"

You conveniently ignore all of the following:

1.) It was a mid term election. When voter turnout is normally much lower, with fewer Democrats turning out and more Republicans.

2.) If not for gerrymandering in the Republicans favor, the Republicans would have had a smaller seat margin than they did.

3.) The party holding the White House almost always loses seats in Congress during the mid term election.

4.) The Senate at least is very likely to flip back to being under Democratic control during this Presidential election year.

5.) The Republicans I am sure would be absolutely THRILLED to trade places with Democrats regarding their respective long term demographic trends. At the state level, see places like California. :-D

In other words, the rest of ya'all are slackers!!! :D

Michale

While I do listen to my gut (Chris's gut: "GA voting Dem?!? BWAH-hah-hah!!!"), I also have to take the polls into account. And polling in AZ and GA has been weaker than ever before. Well, maybe not ever -- I do seem to recall that one of the two states I called wrong in 2008 was saying GA would go for Obama... heh...

JohnM [25] -

Part of it is demographics, more liberal types moving to big-job cities in VA, NC, and GA. Part of it is the fact that the GOP looks like it's going to lose one of its normally reliable demographics this time around: suburban married women. But I think that's largely due to the Trump factor, personally. Maybe you're right -- maybe such women will gravitate more towards Dems in future years. It might depend on who gets nominated for the next few election cycles, though.

TheStig [17] -

3,289? Wow, must've been a light week for me. Heh. Don't worry, I'll strive to break 4K this week...

:-)

-CW

Yes, the Republicans have that very same "long term problem" in the aftermath of the 2012 election..

Then, of course, came the Democrat Nuclear Shellacking of 2014...

The Republicans could sure use more "long term problems" like that, eh?? :D

The ONLY way that Americans can vote Democrat in this election is if they ignore 8 years of incompetent and pay-for play Democrat governing....

Michale

Why in the hell should I trust the advice of someone who exercises so little self-control???

Howz that software crutch you been working on going?? :D

Michale

I..... COMMENT..... A.... LOT.....

Get over it..

Complaining that I comment a lot simply invites MORE comments due to me responding to the complaints... Remember, Paula. YOU claimed I never address points ya'all make.. Listen claimed that I never address the criticisms.

So, this is me addressing your points and addressing Listen's criticisms.. So much for ya'all's BS accusations, eh??

If you don't like me commenting a lot, then quit spamming the community that I comment a lot...

It ain't rocket science, people.. :^/

Michale

Why is that any of your business??

I don't question why you post here..

Wouldn't it be nice if you show me the same courtesy?? :^/

Michale

Michale: why don't you start your own blog?

More insults, more personal attacks and more name-calling..

Credit where credit is due..

Liz was gracious to acknowledge my efforts to "play nice" and Joshua also came out with a very pleasant "Thank You" for my efforts..

That's it...

As I said, credit where credit is due.... Words I live by....

Michale

Address my points and best me in the arena with facts of yer own..

But ya'all CAN'T do that because yer "facts" don't hold water..

So you just prefer to ambush me and gang up on me in the locker room and try to harass and bully and intimidate me into silence..

Ain't gonna happen...

It's THAT simple...

Michale

Get over it...

I would have to wonder of the stability of someone who goes thru so much trouble to word-analyze the entirety of the comments here.

Maybe it's not ME that should move out of the basement, eh TS :D

Show a little respect.

That's rich, coming from the likes of you.. :^/

I *DID* show CW respect when I took a week off so ya'all could enjoy the Democrat Party convention..

What did I get for that??

More insults, more personal attacks and more name-calling..

So take your request and shove it up your ass.... I did my part and proved that ya'all simply have a problem with me because I don't toe yer Demcorat Party line..

Michale

The last Friday Talking Points article, contained 3289 words.

As of approximately 3pm Pacific Friday, the comments section contained a total of 14130 words. 8880 of these words came from a single individual - that's just under 62% of the total contributed by everybody else who is not actually writing the article.

I submit it is past time for the individual submitting 63% to spread his wings and get his own blog. Stop squatting on somebody else's. Know the joy of having to come up with an original topic several times a week. Of doing actual research and meeting deadlines. Of having to read a thicket of comments, manage the spammers and clean out the filter. Read all the comments and respond as needed. Say up late. Find a way to pay for it all.

I like to think of CW.com as a sleek little hot rod burning up the less traveled winding roads of American Political Journalism. Unfortunately, this little roadster has somehow gotten entangled with an 800 foot gas bag that's slowing it down.

What is the harm? Spam by any other name is spam. Spam makes the comment experience annoying.
It's CW.com, not MichaelwithCW.com. Show a little respect. Move out of the basement. By all means stop by for a visit now and then.

First off, it's clear that Trump supporters care about their children and grandchildren.. Hillary supporters care about their politics..

Second, referring to the Louisiana Floods, a Trump supporter had this to say:

“It appears as if President Obama only makes statements during tragedies if there is political gain attached.”

ZIIIIINNNGGGGGGG

So dead on ballz accurate, it's scary!!!

Michale

Stumped by Trump’s success? Take a drive outside US cities
http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/

Maybe if he pulled his nose out of Hillary's ass and took a look around at REAL Americans and actually gain some experience beyond the ideologically acceptable, he might be able to answer his own question..

Doubt it, though...

For those of feeble mind, ideological slave chains are too hard to break...

Michale

Of course.. Let's ignore any FACTS that don't support the TRUMP IS TOAST hysteria...

Gotcha.. :^/

Michale

Let me note that we can (should) all stop obsessing about the National Polling Data. Not that it doesn't favor Clinton, but the National Polls are basically redundant in late August - there is enough state polling (in the right states) to make the forecast, the National Polls add virtually nothing from an information standpoint. The election is settled by electoral votes. Let me add a Napoleon Dynamite "Gosh!"...for emphasis.

I disagree with putting AZ,GA,IA and NC in the "tossup" bucket. AZ and GA lean distinctly Republican, IA and NC lean distinctly Democratic. If you are a betting man or woman (or LGBT etc.) you do NOT want to put even money on any of these. Take a look at the NYT Upshot state tables. Equally important, the odds that ANY of them prove decisive is small. Too few EV, too far down the probability ranks. Gosh! It IS kind of amazing that states like TX and LA are no longer viewed as solid locks for the Republicans, but that's demographics for you. Overall the EV race is more fluid in the bastion states than it was in the last race.

None of the above implies the Presidential Election is a done deal. Even with the current state rankings, Trump has a real chance of actually trying to govern, or delegate governing. I'd personally rate it 10 to 20%. As of Now. These will change as the race moves forward. Gosh!!!!!

New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/

"I can do this all day..."
-Captain America, CIVIL WAR

And just might.. :D

Michale

So I expect the more conspiratorial nonsense that will get the village idiots excited (watch for 30 excited revelation posts from our local one)

Awwwwww, how sweet..

And here I thought you were ignoring me.. :D

Michale

http://www.infowars.com/top-doctor-concerns-over-hillarys-health-not-a-conspiracy-theory/

See, I can do that too.. :D

Michale

Obama’s flood of hypocrisy opens the door for Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-flood-of-hypocrisy-opens-the-door-for-trump/2016/08/22/29423f1c-6866-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.328a4db99226

And then there is the reality....

Michale

[5] Paula -

Then, perhaps most interestingly, they've broken off states where a significant portion of the electorate will vote early or by mail.

At this point with polls as they are, dems seem to be mostly fearing "the black swan". If the election were held today, Clinton would almost certainly win. So it makes strategic sense to advocate holding the election today, as it were, by pushing for early voting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-campaign-theories_us_57b4d216e4b0fd5a2f4112d6?section=&

Here's an interesting discussion about the Clinton versus Trump approaches: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/20/why-donald-trumps-1980s-style-campaign-is-struggling-in-2016/

Basic premise: Trump's campaign is based on the celebrity idea of getting as much exposure as possible through media to get people to like you. Clinton's campaign is based on the understanding that "liking" needs to be converted to "voting". It talks about innovations Clinton's team have adopted in terms of segmenting the country not by location (North, NorthEast, Midwest, South, etc.) but by the nature of the terrains.

The Clinton campaign is doing things differently — dispensing altogether with the geographical logic for breaking down the country. They've split it into three, with each "pod" responsible for states where there will be a common strategic approach. So one pod includes big diverse states where mobilization will be essential to her victory, and one small states where persuasion will play a bigger role. Then, perhaps most interestingly, they've broken off states where a significant portion of the electorate will vote early or by mail.

Gonna be interesting.

This means that the press, who have to sell column pixels, will need to search out every possible Clinton way of imploding that they can.

Don't get me wrong, they will also gleefully report the latest Trump cray-cray moments, but the will actively seek out any chance the the race can get closer via a Hillary slip up.

So I expect the more conspiratorial nonsense that will get the village idiots excited (watch for 30 excited revelation posts from our local one) and a massive hangover that we hope the RWNJs don't learn from again (thanks 2012).

I'm really weary of red and blue states. We need a revolution. Why can't we have colors that better represent the contestants? Orange for Trump, pink for HilRod, green for Stein, tie die for Johnson. What have you got to lose?

Can't wait for the debates!