ChrisWeigant.com

Trump's Big Day

[ Posted Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 – 20:47 PDT ]

Earlier today, Donald Trump traveled to Mexico City to meet with the Mexican president. This meeting was pretty spontaneous, as it was only announced yesterday, and it took many observers by surprise. It was a risky move for Trump, with plenty of opportunities for it to turn out badly. But Trump exceeded expectations, as he appeared afterwards and read a prepared statement, then took a few questions from the press.

The bar for the Mexican meeting was set pretty low -- all Trump really had to do was get out of it without a major gaffe of any sort. He cleared this low bar, appearing as statesman-like as he's yet managed on the campaign trail. The Mexican president didn't insult Trump in his statement, Trump didn't insult Mexico and Mexicans in his statement, and the only real news from the meeting was that they didn't actually discuss Trump's outrageous proposal that Mexico is going to pay to build his wall. Well, according to Trump, at least. Within hours, the Mexican president insisted that he had indeed told Trump in no uncertain terms that Mexico wasn't going to pay for any wall. But whatever the reality of what was said in private, the public part of the event itself seemed downright chummy between the two.

In the private meeting (which, for some reason, included Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Sessions), apparently the Mexican president laid out his concerns about continuing NAFTA and stopping the flow of guns and money into his country from America. Trump addressed his concerns about shutting the border down and updating NAFTA, and reaffirmed America's sovereign right to build a wall on its borders if it chooses to.

Both men, in their statements and demeanor, were diplomatic. This is perhaps the first time Trump has ever merited that description, but as I said, he did clear that bar in his public statement and his answers to the very few questions allowed. So the meeting was a clear winner for Trump, doing precisely what it was intended to, politically: present Trump as both presidential, and also as a tough negotiator with a foreign leader. Trump's appearance was meant to reassure suburban voters that a President Trump wouldn't be an embarrassing loose cannon on the world stage, and he may very well have provided a degree of this reassurance today.

I wrote all of the above before I watched his speech this evening, I should mention. Trump flew from Mexico City to Phoenix and gave a speech to a crowd of (according to CBS) "6,000-8,000 people." From the announced location of the speech, I couldn't help but wonder if it was held in the very same room I saw Bernie Sanders deliver a speech in, roughly one year ago (to a crowd of over 11,000 people).

Donald Trump began his speech tonight by promising it wouldn't "be a rally speech," but rather a policy speech. This may have been the intent, but it certainly turned into a rally-type speech several times over the course of the 70 minutes it lasted. Perhaps he was ad-libbing, or perhaps the written speech had lots of red-meat lines built in -- it was tough to tell, at times.

Trump's speech tonight was more coherent and detailed than anything he's said previously on the subject of immigration, but it had relatively few new items or ideas contained within it. He obviously has given up on "softening" his stance in any way -- something both he and his campaign have been struggling with for the past two weeks. Trump tried mightily to brush aside the entire question of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already within America, both at the beginning and the end of the speech. Up front, he claimed that concerns about what to do with the 11 million were nothing more than a media conspiracy, because they refused to worry about the needs of American citizens. Trump promised not to worry about the needs of the 11 million at all, but rather to worry about the needs of Americans. He did toss in a line about treating them "with dignity," but essentially dodged the issue from the start.

Trump spent a lot of time detailing how horrendous the immigration situation is (in his eyes), with plenty of gory stories about "criminal aliens" killing and raping and committing horrendous crimes. At the end, he trotted out family members of crime victims, just in case anyone had missed the point. Trump bashed President Obama and Hillary Clinton for all he was worth, claiming at one point that Clinton would give all undocumented immigrants "Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security," without a shred of actual proof. The crowd certainly didn't seem to mind.

The meat of Trump's speech was a 10-point plan for what he would do if elected. He promised to deport two million "criminal aliens" in "the first hour" after he took office, the most astonishing promise of the night. He had kind words, once again, for President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback," even though he refrained from using the label. He reiterated his plan to suspend all immigration from certain regions and countries, and promised "extreme vetting" for anyone attempting to enter the U.S. from them. The rest of his points were familiar, starting with his big "build a great wall" applause line. Even though the Mexican president had already contradicted Trump's assertion that paying for the wall had not been discussed, Trump promised once again "they don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it."

The speech had wonky overtones, at times -- including a dive into "287(g) partnerships" -- which Trump carefully read off the TelePrompTer, but it also had plenty of freewheeling lines for the crowd, mostly on the subject of how Obama and Clinton are responsible for all the country's ills.

Trump cleared up his shifting stance on the 11 million halfway through his list, promising to cancel all of Obama's executive orders. He again didn't specify what this meant in any detail, but it was clear that all the "dreamer" kids would once again be subject to deportation. Trump clearly stated "no one will be exempt or immune" from deportation among the 11 million. At the very end of the speech, there was some line about how people who were already here might get some sort of consideration -- but only after the border wall was built, all "criminal aliens" had been deported, and everything else pertaining to immigration had all been perfectly solved, forever. But this "softening" line was weak and a virtual orphan, since it was actually a contradiction of what he had said earlier. The short version of Trump's speech might have been: "11 million people will be deported, or they're going to have to leave on their own. Period."

Far from softening his stance, tonight Trump doubled down on it. After actually achieving "statesman-like" status earlier in the day, Trump reverted to form. Because he was reading from a prepared speech, the language he used was less insulting than he's previously used on the same subject, but his positions remained just as hardline as they've ever been.

Trump had a choice to make -- a choice he's been struggling with for weeks. He could make a play for Latino, independent, and suburban white voters by "tacking to the middle" and softening his stance on undocumented immigrants, or he could ignore the advice to pivot and reassure his core base that he wasn't going to change a thing. He chose the latter.

What this means with the voters will take some time to determine. My own guess is that any possible goodwill he might have created from his Mexican excursion was wiped out by his hardliner speech tonight. Anyone looking for a shift in Trump's basic position on the issue would have been disappointed, even if they only saw soundbites or clips of that speech. Trump clearly doesn't care about his standing with Latino voters, and he's also clearly not all that concerned about his standing with suburban women, either.

Trump keeps faking the media out, I will give him that. His team keeps fanning the flames of "Trump's going to pivot soon!" only to have Trump stomp all over the idea. There may have even been a power struggle within the Trump campaign over the past few weeks (perhaps we'll see a few more resignations?), but quite obviously the "let Trump be Trump" faction won. He may shore up his support in Arizona, but I kind of doubt the speech he gave tonight is going to help him in many other regions of the country. Trump started the day by doing something he hasn't yet managed -- appear presidential -- but his speech is almost guaranteed to overshadow his spontaneous trip to Mexico. What was clear by the end of the day is something that's been fairly plain to see all along: Trump is just not going to pivot. Ever.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

80 Comments on “Trump's Big Day”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Chris ... I thought you would have loved point number 10 ... fix the LEGAL immigration system! :)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, that was a little joke.

  3. [3] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey CW:

    Totally unrelated. You saw the 9th circuit (West Coast) said Med Mary and Guns don't mix? Pretty cool. Really creates a juxtaposition where something might actually happen on a grand scale (I hope).

    Sometimes you do have to tear it down to make progress. This has the potential to be one of those instances.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now it seems Donald Trump has the Mexican President calling him a liar - not in small part I might add because Trump played him by saying that payment for the wall didn't come up.

    Even if I didn't distrust Trump because of his record number of "four Pinocchios" (or equivalent) from the fact checkers, it was obvious that Nieto was going to tell Trump Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall. This is a matter of pride for Mexico - saying 'No' to the yankee is always popular, Trump has turned it a third rail issue.

    Trump isn't going to change, however somebody has managed to get through to him that own goals such as publicly taking on Gold Star parents isn't a good idea.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It'll be fun to watch the professional trolls at the fake news channel and Trumpbart melt down as the Orange One gets closer and closer to the Biggest Loser title. Hannity is already blaming the Never Trump crowd for President Hillary and Coulter was braying about deporting 40 million people. The haters seem resigned to disappointment. Sad!

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's going to be very easy to make Mexico pay for the wall...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The simple fact that Nieto extended the invitation to Trump is a pretty sure indication as to who is going to win the election... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I can just imagine what what going through the head of the Mexican President as he looked across a table at Guiliani (the Old North), Sessions (the older South) and Trump. It must have crossed his mind for just a moment that they were there to re-establish the golden triangle.

    A reporter from Telemundo, I think, said tonight that he wouldn't be surprised to see a 'leaked' video of the meeting in a few days..

    The way it sounded to me, Kellyanne scripted the afternoon, and Sessions, Guiliani and Bannon scripted the evening speech.

    This speech made his 'Gotham City' acceptance speech sound positively cheery.

    You'd have never known, by listening to that speech that border cities are among the safest in America. You'd have never guessed that Mexicans comprise less than half of all illegal immigrants in America, or that all illegal immigrants only make up 3.5% of the US workforce at any given time.

    And you'd never, ever, guess that the person giving that speech has an extensive history of hiring illegal immigrants himself, or that nearly everything with his name on it is made outside the country.

    In fact, it was pointed out later that, except for a brief mention of e-verify, Trump seems to excuse employers of illegal immigrants from any responsibility for providing the magnet that draws them into the country in the first place.

    Not surprising, considering his own history.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you'd never, ever, guess that the person giving that speech has an extensive history of hiring illegal immigrants himself, or that nearly everything with his name on it is made outside the country.

    A wise Weigantian once said that you can't knock a person for taking advantage of existing rules..

    Apparently, that only applies to those with a '-D' after their names... :^/

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Apparently, that only applies to those with a '-D' after their names...

    Yeah? well, those with a "D" after their names aren't having a full-on freak-out over illegal aliens. To hear Trump tell it, it's the plot of 'In Cold Blood' and the Zombie Apocalypse rolled into one, when in fact, the entire population of illegals (less than 50% of whom are Mexican) is fewer people than watched the Olympics streamed online last week.

    Perhaps we should shut up and let some 14 year old Ukrainian Trump Models do the talking for us.

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    The simple fact that Nieto extended the invitation to Trump is a pretty sure indication as to who is going to win the election... :D

    Then based on the "simple fact," I guess it's a "pretty sure indication" the election is going to be a tie. LOL

    Shhhhh {index finger to mouth}... no one tell those living in the alternate reality that his name is Peña Nieto and that he in actual fact invited Clinton and Trump. We wouldn't want that bubble they're blissfully living in to burst... would we?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah? well, those with a "D" after their names aren't having a full-on freak-out over illegal aliens.

    No... They just have a full on freak-out over successful Americans..

    Shhhhh {index finger to mouth}... no one tell those living in the alternate reality that his name is Peña Nieto and that he in actual fact invited Clinton and Trump.

    Yea, he did invite Clinton too...

    But Clinton told him she wouldn't attend unless he could make a million dollar "donation" to the Clinton Foundation... :^/

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah? well, those with a "D" after their names aren't having a full-on freak-out over illegal aliens.

    They ALSO have a full on freak out over cops that are just doing their jobs...

    "I can do this all day.."
    -Steve Rogers, CAPTAIN AMERICA-The First Avenger

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of "full on freak outs"...

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/01/the-most-unhinged-liberal-reactions-to-trumps-immigration-speech/

    When it comes to "full on freak outs" NO ONE surpasses the Hysterical Left Wingery...

    NO..... ONE.......

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that those illegal immigrants you love so much are responsible for the deaths, rapes, assaults and attacks on tens of thousands of Americans...

    Isn't it funny how no one here wants to talk about those Americans, eh??

    No, it's not funny.. It's sad....

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    Josh Marshall: He made a fool out of Mexico's president, who's now getting a merciless response from every sector of Mexican society. But he also showed himself to be the purest kind of bully and coward. If that point is pressed it'll get to him and he'll act out. The most effective folks to press the point is the opposing campaign. So watch closely whether they actually follow through.

    The big orange is great at making claims but goes ballistic when pressed. More ammunition for HRC.

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    Charles Pierce:
    Quite simply, for almost 98 minutes, the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties did a very convincing imitation of someone who should not be allowed out in public without a keeper, and whose keeper should not be allowed anywhere near him without a net, sufficient backup, and a tranquilizer gun capable of inducing coma in a herd of drunken elephants.

    Yep.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Re #16 & #17

    And yet, Hillary is behind in some polls and barely ahead in others...

    If Trump is all you say, then Hillary must be a sad sack of a candidate.....

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, ya just HAVE to admire the power that Trump holds over the media...

    Everything in the MSM is TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP.... Hillary is no where to be found....

    Trump plays the tune and the MSM dances to it.. :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House Watch
    White House Watch: Trump 40%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 7%, Stein 3%

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

    Funny how Trump is everything bad and evil in the world....

    Yet Crooked Hillary can't seem to put him away....

    Doesn't say much for Crooked Hillary, eh? :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how Trump is everything bad and evil in the world....

    Yet Crooked Hillary can't seem to put him away....

    And THAT just chaps ya'all's arse, now don't it?? :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Where is the Orange One going to put his Big Beautiful Stupid Wall of Trump? In the Rio Grande? Or is he going to try to confiscate land from Red State Americans to build a monument to himself like he did in Jersey?

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump's racist hate speech is even capable of turning wealthy Republican Cubans to Hillary.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article99171802.html

  24. [24] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick [11],

    "he in actual fact invited Clinton and Trump"

    I read that The EGO rudely invited himself, so Peña Nieto decided to graciously invite both of them.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read that The EGO rudely invited himself, so Peña Nieto decided to graciously invite both of them.

    And, of course, everyone here will immediately jump on you, fact-check you and demand you provide documentation..

    Oh wait... They only do that to people who say what they DON'T want to hear... :^/

    Silly me... :D

    Ya'all are so damn predictable, it's gotten almost boring...

    Hence, my recent hiatus...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    sd4david wrote:

    Chris, your blog is great. Michale hijacking the comments section sucks. If Michale has so much to say, perhaps Michale should get his/her own blog.

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale hijacking the comments section sucks. If Michale has so much to say, perhaps Michale should get his/her own blog.

    Aw, relax, dave. I kinda like having the M around, and he has backed off of the multiple posts a bit lately.

    Truth is, in real life I sometimes seek out a conservative to trade barbs with - keeps me on my toes, and often makes me rethink the importance or impact of my arguments.

    There's nothing quite as slow and boring as a group of posts that all agree.

    Ya'all are so damn predictable, it's gotten almost boring... Hence, my recent hiatus... Michale

    This is something, up with which I cannot put. I shall up my game accordingly!

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Aw, relax, dave. I kinda like having the M around, and he has backed off of the multiple posts a bit lately.

    Yeah, Dave ... take it easy.

    You must be new here. :)

    Hope you stick around ... the place - even Michale - will grow on ya after a little while. Believe me.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yet Crooked Hillary can't seem to put him away..

    She's circling. If you count just the states where she has a double-digit lead, she's banking close to 260 electoral votes. Meanwhile he has slim leads in a number of states that he should be blowing her out in, like Georgia and Arizona.

    She can seriously ring his bell in a debate, but I don't expect a knock-out until election day.

    Why? Well, guys like you, and my brother, and my best friend from high school, all of whom support Trump. I'm trying to understand. I am. But I still think that Trump will ultimately lose.

    You know why? Because nerds hate him. I knew nerds who liked George Bush. I've known many Libertarian nerds - they're actually common. But over the last year I haven't met a single nerd who backs Trump. I think it's the 'Biff Tannen' vibe he gives off.

  30. [30] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    When it comes to "full on freak outs" NO ONE surpasses the Hysterical RIGHT Wingery...

    NO..... ONE.......

    There I fixed it for you....Given your propensity to condemn our source material from the supposed "rags"....

    I mean really? come on the Daily Caller? While not nearly as hysterical as say Infowars or Breitbart it is still in the same league as Huffpo so therefore it is not trustable, at least according to your standards.

    Just sayin'.

  31. [31] 
    Paula wrote:

    From DailyKos: That's a long time: Trump phone bank volunteers are required to first sign a 2,271 word nondisclosure agreement promising that they will not say anything bad about Trump, his family, his company or his products ... forever.

    http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/31/volunteer-dial-trump-first-sign--non-disclosure-form/89673064/

    That's gotta be helping with volunteer recruitment!

  32. [32] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    To all of the usual culprits,

    I suspect that a large part of the "silence of the Michales" is probably due to him battening down the hatches for the set of storms that is moving into his neck of the woods.

    I know it has been a busy week for me doing the same and I don't even live in FL...

    Good Luck M! Stay safe...

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump is all you say, then Hillary must be a sad sack of a candidate.....

    Pretty much.

    And, that goes double for her running mate.

    Even Biden is looking lame.

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even Biden is looking lame.

    You'll never get me to stop liking Joe, Liz. I get a kick out of him every time he's on.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC [24],

    I read that The EGO rudely invited himself, so Peña Nieto decided to graciously invite both of them.

    Hmmmm.... interesting; I had not read that one until now. I did read where Trump tried to self-invite to Chelsea's wedding, though. He tried to wangle directions from someone who knew he wasn't invited and was politely told to call Chelsea directly. Poor Donald.

    And, of course, everyone here will immediately jump on you, fact-check you and demand you provide documentation..

    And, of course, "everyone here" won't "immediately" jump on you because:

    (1) "everyone here" doesn't live on here, and

    (2) the resident crybully will generally beat them to the comment.

    Ya'all are so damn predictable, it's gotten almost boring...

    Please prattle on... you are quite predictable yourself, just as Trump is along with the majority of his sheeple... such easy marks, so easily conned and herded. Poor Donald and his supporters are the most beaten-down lot this country has ever seen. Everything is rigged against them. :D

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You should get more than a 'kick' out of him, Balthasar, whenever he is on ...

    I'm serious ... I'm not being facetious here!

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You'll never get me to stop liking Joe, Liz. I get a kick out of him every time he's on.

    Wait a second ... what, exactly, did you mean by that?

    And, yes, this is a trick question so, be careful!

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    "I can do this all day.."
    -Steve Rogers, CAPTAIN AMERICA-The First Avenger

    Fine.

    But, keep trying not to do it everyday! :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean really? come on the Daily Caller? While not nearly as hysterical as say Infowars or Breitbart it is still in the same league as Huffpo so therefore it is not trustable, at least according to your standards.

    Just sayin'.

    Tell ya what.. Ya'all quit quoting HuffPoop and DailyShit and I'll quit quoting Daily Caller.

    Deal?? :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please prattle on... you are quite predictable yourself, just as Trump is along with the majority of his sheeple... such easy marks, so easily conned and herded. Poor Donald and his supporters are the most beaten-down lot this country has ever seen. :D

    And yet, Trump is beating Hillary in the majority of polls...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    To all of the usual culprits,

    I suspect that a large part of the "silence of the Michales" is probably due to him battening down the hatches for the set of storms that is moving into his neck of the woods.

    I know it has been a busy week for me doing the same and I don't even live in FL...

    Good Luck M! Stay safe...

    Thanx, Goode.. Much appreciated..

    It actually hasn't been too bad.. The original track of Hermine was supposed to go right over the top of us.. But the track moved considerably north and west prior to landfall.. We're still getting a lot of wind and rain, but it's nothing compared to say, Floyd in '99... They closed the schools, wife's work shutdown for the day and the Gov declared a State Of Emergency.. For a storm that is BARELY a Cat 1...

    Sheet, we don't even get out of bed for anything less than a Cat 2.. heh

    But the sentiments are appreciated... :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmm.... interesting; I had not read that one until now.

    Yea.. JFC didn't read it either. He just made it up.. Duh... :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    I know it has been a busy week for me doing the same and I don't even live in FL...

    Yea, looks like Hermine is going to be felt from Florida on up thru New York...

    "Let's be careful out there..."
    -Sgt Esterhaus, HILL STREET BLUES

    :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump are conceding his diplomatic coup.

    “Trump achieved his purpose,” said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. “He looked serene, firm, presidential.” Our “humiliation is now complete,” tweeted an anchorman at Televisa.

    President Nieto’s invitation to Trump “was the biggest stupidity in the history of the Mexican presidency,” said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.

    Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this upset with an American.

    Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.

    When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall, even if “they don’t know it yet.”

    Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/conquistador-trump/#hpYvg8OWpXhSSUQT.99

    Like I said, my friends of Weigantia...

    Ya'all better get used to saying President Trump... :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell ya what.. Ya'all quit quoting HuffPoop and DailyShit and I'll quit quoting Daily Caller.

    Deal?? :D

    Or, on the flip side, we can agree to give or take credit on articles based on the merit of the articles themselves, rather than based on the site that presents them...

    I am fine either way. But, fer chreest's sake, pick a lane!! :D

    "I'm gonna help you either way, but dood.. You got to pick a lane.."
    -Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all better get used to saying President Trump... :D

    Trump has promised to deport Beiber..

    That right there is a good enough reason to vote for him.. :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good Luck M! Stay safe...

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

    :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump has promised to deport Beiber..
    That right there is a good enough reason to vote for him.. :D

    yeah, it almost is.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh :D

    Common ground.. A wonderful thing. :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has promised to deport Beiber..
    That right there is a good enough reason to vote for him.. :D

    And next on the list is Celene Dion..

    Balthasar: "If I had to hear that god-awful Celene Dion song one more time I was going to have to smite myself.."
    Sam: "Whose... 'Celene Dion'??"
    Balthasar: "Some destitute lounge singer in Quebec and can we keep it that way, please!"

    -SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Tell ya what.. Ya'all quit quoting HuffPoop and DailyShit and I'll quit quoting Daily Caller.

    Deal?? :D

    Why does there have to be a deal? Why can't it just be quid pro quo?

    You bring up Brietbutt, InfoDorks, and Daily Crapper and we will mock it and you will put on your butt hurt panties. We bring up ours and you mock and ridicule it and we might put on our butt hurt panties....

    Oh...wait....nevermind...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    You bring up Brietbutt, InfoDorks, and Daily Crapper and we will mock it and you will put on your butt hurt panties. We bring up ours and you mock and ridicule it and we might put on our butt hurt panties....

    Yea, it just gets tedious after a while.. :D hehehe

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton suggested to FBI investigators in a July interview that she had little understanding of classified information when she served as secretary of state.

    Clinton told FBI agents she could not remember ever receiving any training for how to preserve federal records or treat classified material.

    "Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined," the FBI wrote in its notes.

    "Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system," the FBI wrote.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2600898/

    And THIS is the person that wants to be President!???

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Fine.

    But, keep trying not to do it everyday! :)

    We'll see how it goes :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton Told FBI She Couldn’t Recall Key Details 26 Times
    In interview with investigators Hillary struggled to recollect major briefings, especially after 2012 fall

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-told-fbi-couldnt-recall-key-details-26-times/

    Yea.... "Perfect" health....

    Clinton just lost the election....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mark this day on ya'all's calendars...

    Today marks the beginning of the end of Hillary's Presidential campaign...

    I predict the stress of these revelations coupled with the upcoming WikiLeaks release will cause Hillary to vapor-lock....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    My respect for FBI Director Comey has just be raised to new heights....

    He is letting the American people decide if Hillary is capable of being President...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    n unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.
    The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton’s private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
    Story Continued Below

    The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state’s handling of classified information.
    According to the bureau’s review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor “exit nodes” — jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697#ixzz4J8QZr35U

    We now know that Clinton's private insecure home-brewed email server WAS hacked...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is going to decimate Hillary's Presidential Campaign...

    There is absolutely NO WAY to spin this to make Hillary come out OK....

    Turn out the lights, cancel the utilities, close up shop...

    It's over.....

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale, [multiple posts above]

    And yet, Trump is beating Hillary in the majority of polls...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Are you really that stupid or is that what they're telling you on "Brietbutt, InfoDorks, and Daily Crapper" (credit to goode trickle)?

    Let me help you cut through all the fog of the election, m'kay? Donald Trump has very few viable paths to the presidency, but he does have a few. Cutting right to the chase, almost every one of those few paths runs through Pennsylvania. Wake me up when Pennsylvania is leaning Trump. As the polls stand now, today, Trump is losing and losing pretty bigly, but there is still time.

    And THIS is the person that wants to be President!???

    So if 26 "I can't recall" type answers has you all excited, am I correct in guessing you've never seen a Trump deposition? LOL

    https://americanbridgepac.org/app/uploads/Trump-Deposition-Trump-University.pdf

    There is absolutely NO WAY to spin this to make Hillary come out OK....

    We now know that Clinton's private insecure home-brewed email server WAS hacked...

    In your multiple postings above, you seem blissfully unaware that you are the one posting the "spin." This is yet another prime example that the demarcation line between the supporters of the major presidential candidates is indeed their education.

    So someone with the free software TOR -- The Onion Router -- installed on their device logged into an email account on Hillary's email server. This is done in order to hide the user's originating IP address. A user would then still require the credentials to access the account. This is not remotely proof that the system was hacked. If it actually was, FBI Director Comey, the same guy you are praising above, would have already said that her system was hacked.

    There's nothing new here. This is merely a nothing story being spun to the ignorant and uneducated who quite predictably jump to conclusions and gleefully spew the partisan narrative. So I can deduce one of two things going on here...

    Either:

    (1) You are really that stupid and easily conned, or

    (2) You are trying to con all of us.

    If we were so easily conned, we would already be supporting the orange little prick. :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said..

    There is NO WAY that this can be spin'ed to make Hillary come out OK... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we were so easily conned, we would already be supporting the orange little prick. :D

    What IS your obsession with Trump's penis??

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if 26 "I can't recall" type answers has you all excited, am I correct in guessing you've never seen a Trump deposition? LOLM

    Trump's "can't recalls" were some podunk university..

    Hillary's "can't recalls" were when she was running the UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT...

    The fact that you equate the two shows how utterly enslaved you are by Party ideology and how totally drunk you are on the Hillary Clinton koolaid....

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can run away, now that you have been totally decimated.. :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    A user would then still require the credentials to access the account.

    And apparently, the hacker DID have the "credentials" to access the account because the FBI stated that an email account "was accessed"...

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to your ideological enslavement issues??

    OK.. NOW you can run away.. :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooo!! Oooo!! One more...

    Wake me up when Pennsylvania is leaning Trump.

    Hillary's numbers in PA are *PLUMMETING*

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

    A 10 point lead has shrunk to a 6 point lead and Hillary's numbers are STILL heading down..

    So, enjoy yer nap time... Yer gonna need it!! :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooo!! Oooo!! One more...

    "Ooo One more.. One more...Why did the hero flush the toilet? Because it was his DOODIE!!!"
    -Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D heh

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    What IS your obsession with Trump's penis??

    I call Trump a "little prick;" so what? You're the one who keeps bringing up his penis. You must really enjoy bringing it up because you do it A LOT. The fact that you do bring it up A LOT leads me to deduce one of two things...

    Either:

    (1) You are ignorant to the fact that "prick" has more than one meaning
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prick

    or

    (2) You enjoy bringing up DJT's penis.

    Either way, please keep prattling on and on about it every chance you get.

    Quick question: Tell us all what you think when you hear Trump's middle name...

    Either:

    (1) toilet, or

    (2) prostitute's client.

    Let us all know, please. Either way, I am guessing it satisfies your obvious obsession. :D

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump's "can't recalls" were some podunk university..

    Hillary's "can't recalls" were when she was running the UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT...

    The fact that you equate the two shows how utterly enslaved you are by Party ideology and how totally drunk you are on the Hillary Clinton koolaid....

    That is an extremely weak straw man argument and one that you seem to be stuck on like a broken record... "party ideology," "koolaid," because (D) after the name, yada, yada, yada, ad nauseam. Why don't you educate yourself and expand your horizons rather than relying on that same old lame old line of utter intellectual laziness? At what point did I "equate the two"? Hint: I didn't.

    If you will review your comment at [55], you were inferring that Hillary somehow had a health problem because of those type answers. I'm merely pointing out that Trump's depositions are full of those same "can't recall" answers also in relation to your health comment. Obviously, that's only an example of merely one deposition. There's plenty more where that came from and many of them involve being sued by the United States for housing discrimination, employing illegals, etc.

    BTW, nice insight into how a trained expert LEO such as yourself thinks about testimony under oath when it involves what you consider a "podunk" issue... LOL... Next time you're extolling the virtues of the "great" Ronald Reagan, maybe someone will come along and remind you how much Saint Reagan forgot under oath when he was the President of the United States. Hint: It was at least 124.

    Funny how you think Reagan was a great president just because yada, yada, yada... You know the rest. :)

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is an extremely weak straw man argument and one that you seem to be stuck on like a broken record... "party ideology," "koolaid," because (D) after the name, yada, yada, yada, ad nauseam. Why don't you educate yourself and expand your horizons rather than relying on that same old lame old line of utter intellectual laziness? At what point did I "equate the two"? Hint: I didn't.

    Yes you did.. Simply by the fact that you used Trump's "can't recall"s when you defended Hillary's "can't recall"s...

    Next time you're extolling the virtues of the "great" Ronald Reagan, maybe someone will come along and remind you how much Saint Reagan forgot under oath when he was the President of the United States. Hint: It was at least 124.

    OK, so NOW you are equating Reagan's health problems with Hillary's health problems.

    Of course, the major difference is that Reagan had his health problems *AFTER* he was president and Hillary has her health problems BEFORE she would have been president..

    Yer not very good at this, are you?? :D

    But, by all means... Continue.. It's a slow day (we're still getting remnants of Hermine) and it amuses me.. :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let us all know, please. Either way, I am guessing it satisfies your obvious obsession. :D

    My obvious obsession being showing how utterly enslaved by Demcorat Party dogma you are...

    Yep.. It satisfies it just fine.. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale, [65]

    And apparently, the hacker DID have the "credentials" to access the account because the FBI stated that an email account "was accessed"...

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to your ideological enslavement issues??

    Okay, you got me here because I thought you were actually inferring that this article constituted proof that HRC's... repeat HRC's... email account was hacked, which Comey had already said there was no proof that had happened.

    Debate point to Michale on this one, but it's still a partisan hack worded article. It was actually one of Bill Clinton's staffer's email account, not HRC's email.

    https://www.wired.com/2016/09/fbi-says-bill-clinton-staffers-email-breached-private-server/

    "The FBI's review of available…web logs showed scanning attempts from external IP addresses over the course of [IT manager Bryan] Pagliano's administration of the server, only one appears to have resulted in a successful compromise of an email account on the server," the report reads. "Three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing an e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believed to belong to President Clinton staffer [redacted]."

    On Clinton’s private server, other than that single staffer’s compromised account, the FBI’s report notes only multiple hacking attempts in the form of “brute force” guessing of login credentials. Those attempts increased when the existence of the server was exposed by the New York Times in the spring of last year. But none of the recorded attempts seem to have succeeded. At one point, the FBI record notes, Clinton did receive an email containing a malicious link, sent from the apparently hijacked or spoofed personal account of a State Department staffer. Clinton responded, “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” But the FBI found no evidence of malware on Clinton’s server or any of her personal devices. For all her security snafus, give Clinton this much credit: she can at least spot a phishing email when she sees it.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale, [70]

    Yes you did.. Simply by the fact that you used Trump's "can't recall"s when you defended Hillary's "can't recall"s...

    I didn't defend them. Go back and read what I said. I merely asked that if those ICRs got you excited, was I correct in guessing that you had never seen any Trump testimony where he had given similar answers. There was no effort whatsoever on my part to contextualize wherein the similar testimony was given, merely that it was similar testimony; that comparative context bridge you built in order to defend Trump was all your handiwork.

    You do that straw man act a lot. As I have said before, it's kind of an endearing trait you have... annoying as hell and intellectually lazy, but nevertheless endearing and utterly predictable. :D

    If I was going to defend either Clinton or Trump (or Reagan, for that matter) for the usage of IDK or ICR phrases, I would simply say it is better for any and/or every one of them to invoke such phrases versus prattling on and on and speculating about something that may or may not have ever taken place at all. A really good interrogator will bait you with questions regarding things that may have never happened. Prattling on and on and speculating can hook you and reel you in. Reading through his many, many transcripts, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can discern the manner in which Trump can be baited. Reading through his childish tweets is similarly revealing. Trump is quite easily baited with a tweet. :)

    OK, so NOW you are equating Reagan's health problems with Hillary's health problems.

    Your doubling down on the stupid is always a nice touch. LOL :D

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    But, by all means... Continue.. It's a slow day (we're still getting remnants of Hermine) and it amuses me.. :D

    Seriously though, batten down the hatches and stay safe on your peninsula. YOYO, got to go TCB.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't defend them.

    OK Great..

    So, we agree that Hillary's "I can't recall"s are pathetic and disqualifies her from being President..

    I am glad you came around to the only logical conclusion..

    Your doubling down on the stupid is always a nice touch.

    What YOU call "stupid" is nothing but the facts.. :D

    Seriously though, batten down the hatches and stay safe on your peninsula. YOYO, got to go TCB.

    Thanx.. :D I think we're past it now... 92L is churning off the coast of Africa though.. Maybe it's 2005 all over again.. :D

    Michale

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    OK Great..

    So, we agree that Hillary's "I can't recall"s are pathetic and disqualifies her from being President..

    Tripling down on the "stupid" with another straw man argument? #Shocker... Who could have seen that coming... if not every single one of us?

    I said I did not defend her IDKs and then explained why those type answers are infinitely better than prattling and speculation during an interrogation, no matter who is using similar language.

    I am glad you came around to the only logical conclusion..

    "Logical"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride... Heroes. Giants. Villains. Miracle Men. True Love. - Not just your basic, average, everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, ho-hum fairy tale.

    Putting aside your straw man #3, my actual argument was closer to the fact that Hillary's sworn testimony and Trump's and Reagan's all sounded similar. While Trump has never been POTUS [and statistically speaking, probably never will because of his 08-31-2016 {circle THAT date} Phoenix speech], his prior testimony on numerous occasions has resembled Hillary's recent testimony, and both of them resemble the sworn testimony of former POTUS Ronald Reagan. A logical conclusion based on my actual argument would be that the testimony of Hillary and Trump sounded like a POTUS... you know, "presidential."

    Let go of the poor overworked straw man arguments, will you? Hmmmmm... Oh, how can I put this in terms that you will grasp? ... ... Okay... So every time you are tempted to use the straw man, just picture the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz dancing around and singing "... if I only had a brain."

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

    Another good lesson from the Land of Oz is that the Wizard is NOT the only one capable of fixing problems, merely a con man hiding behind a great big curtain. :)

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said I did not defend her IDKs

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what you did by bringing up Trump's IDKs and trying to compare the two...

    Logical"? You keep using that word.

    Yes, I do.. Because it's the ONLY logical word to use.. :D

    You keep saying it's a strawman argument yet you never offer any facts as to WHY it's a strawman argument...

    Funny how that always is, eh? :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yooo Hooooo????

    Kick??? Did you get lost trying to find yer brain??? :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale, [77, 78]

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what you did by bringing up Trump's IDKs and trying to compare the two...

    Dude, your ignorance is showing for ALL to see. You must really enjoy looking uneducated too because you keep doing it. If you actually think a person can't compare people's testimony under oath without defending them, then here's your sign.
    __ .__ .___
    _______/ |_ __ ________ |__| __| _/
    / ___/\ __\ | \____ \| |/ __ |
    \___ \ | | | | / |_> > / /_/ |
    /____ > |__| |____/| __/|__\____ |
    \/ |__| \/

    You keep saying it's a strawman argument yet you never offer any facts as to WHY it's a strawman argument...

    Most of your posts are straw man arguments; lots of them are multiple straw man arguments. You post a boatload of crap that nobody said, and then you call everybody stupid for saying it and/or believing it. You're arguing your own BS versus arguing any real issues.

    Did you get lost trying to find yer brain??? :D

    No, but I did "get lost." I have a wonderful life off the Internet. Life is very good. Cheers. :)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most of your posts are straw man arguments; lots of them are multiple straw man arguments. You post a boatload of crap that nobody said, and then you call everybody stupid for saying it and/or believing it. You're arguing your own BS versus arguing any real issues.

    Yea, once again.. You make the claim..

    But you have absolutely NO FACTS to back it up... :D

    Funny how it is ALWAYS that way.. :D

    No, but I did "get lost." I have a wonderful life off the Internet. Life is very good. Cheers. :)

    And yet, you are always on here espousing how good your life is off here.. :D

    Funny how it is ALWAYS that way... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.