ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [406] -- Deportation Clarification

[ Posted Friday, September 2nd, 2016 – 17:19 PDT ]

Donald Trump going to Mexico could have had a certain "Nixon goes to China" flavor about it, and he actually was getting some good reviews for crossing the very low bar of "not totally embarrassing himself or his country" -- at least for the first few hours. Then he went to Phoenix, and Mr. Hyde came back out.

Trump gave what was billed as a major speech on immigration, which turned out to be exactly what he'd been saying all along on the subject. The big difference? It was in (gasp!) a numbered list read off a TelePrompTer. As for the policies, there wasn't much difference at all from what he's been saying throughout the campaign so far.

Deportation force? Check! [Trump called it a "deportation task force" which was about the only real change.] Big, beautiful wall? Check! [It will now have magic tunnel sensors!] Mexico pays for the wall? Yep! ["They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it."] Deportation for all? Oh, you bet! [Only change seems to be that some will have to wait a little longer to be deported.] Dreamer kids? Deport 'em all! Two million "criminal aliens" deported in the first hour he's in office? Count on it! Softening? Pivot? Nope! [Fooled ya again, suckers!]

No word on whether Trump enjoyed a taco bowl at any point during his big Mexico/immigration day. The fallout from his hardliner speech in Phoenix was swift, as several of the "Latino advisors" Trump had recently met with quit the effort in disgust and publicly renounced their support for Trump's campaign. So, it looks like that whole minority outreach thing is going swimmingly, folks!

Tomorrow, Trump is apparently planning the same sort of minority outreach to African-Americans. That should be interesting, to put it mildly.

If it even happens, that is. The negotiations for this visit have been pretty convoluted, so far. Ben Carson was apparently the instigator of this trip, designed to introduce Donald Trump to some actual African-Americans in Detroit (where Carson grew up). Not a bad idea, on the face of it. But the Trump campaign is about as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs about what could happen.

At first, Trump was supposed to address the congregation at a Great Faith Ministries International service. This was then changed to just an interview with the pastor, held in private, to be broadcast publicly a week later. Just to be certain there wouldn't be any surprises, the Trump campaign demanded all questions be submitted in advance, in writing. Then Team Trump carefully wrote out answers for Trump to parrot back. No word on whether a TelePrompTer would be allowed, or if Trump would be allowed to just read from prepared notes. And the icing on the cake: Trump's campaign would be allowed to edit the interview after it happened, "so that the final version reflected the campaign's wishes." You can see what we mean about that cat nervously eying all the rocking chairs, right?

The New York Times helpfully provided excerpts from the prepared answers Trump was supposed to read. Most of it is commonplace progressive-bashing Republican boilerplate, with faint overtones of racial condescension: "If you want a better America, you must break from the historical hold that Democrats have had on people of color and move to options that allow you to achieve your potential." The most amusing part of the script was the answer Trump's handlers prepared for the first question: "Are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is an inspired word of God?"

As I went through my life, things got busy with business, but my family kept me grounded to the truth and the word of God. I treasure my relationship with my family, and through them, I have a strong faith enriched by an ever-wonderful God.

Translation: "My family's religious! Didn't you see my wonderful kids at the convention? All their religious faith has got to have rubbed off on me a little bit, right?" You've got to love that last term: "an ever-wonderful God," which was obviously included in a pathetic attempt to make all of this sound like something Trump would spontaneously say. Now that the prepared script has been leaked, it will be interesting to see how far Trump actually strays from the words he's been told to say, that's for sure.

Trump's campaign did go into some frenetic damage control after the New York Times exposed all their careful preparation. They now say they will refrain from editing the interview themselves (awfully big of them, don't you think?). They also have promised that Trump will actually speak to more than just one person, and "would indeed address the congregation for a few minutes and would spend a half-hour casually speaking with church members individually." So it looks like there will still be plenty of room for a few monstrous gaffes after all....

At the very least, though, Donald Trump is putting himself out there. Hillary Clinton seems to have largely disappeared in the meantime, which has coincided with a noticeable drop in the polls for her. She's still beating Trump, mind you, just by a thinner margin. But the trendline should be worrisome for Democrats. Hillary has slipped a point or two from the bounce she got after the Democratic National Convention, but is still in relatively healthy shape. Donald Trump hasn't really benefited much from this slip, as most of the restless voters have moved instead to third-party candidates. This is also a worrisome trend, since up until now the Libertarian and Green candidates seem to have drained votes from both major candidates in equal proportion. Hillary Clinton is doing a much better job than Trump of running ads and setting up her ground game, but it is time for her to stop appearing only in front of well-heeled donors and return to campaigning in earnest. Especially after the F.B.I. released another document dump on the subject of her email server today.

In other amusing news from the Republican campaign trail (down-ballot), John McCain and Marco Rubio handily won their respective GOP primaries this Tuesday. McCain wasted no time in running very quickly away from Donald Trump afterwards, releasing a web video where he warns of the dangers of the upcoming Hillary Clinton presidency.

It was revealed this week that Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, also running for re-election, would cut his own children off from receiving their inheritance if they committed more than one felony, or had (or sired) more than one child out of wedlock. Nothing like family values, eh? I mean, it's not like Republicans are usually big fans of providing incentives for family members to get abortions or anything, right?

What else... Sarah Palin did a face-plant it on a rock-running trail, causing herself a head injury. From what she posted afterwards, it's really kind of hard to tell the difference between Palin ranting with a concussion and all of Palin's previous mangling of the English language. Oh, and Iowa Republicans running for Senate all seem to be using exactly the same kids in all their campaign ads. That should be interesting, when their television ads run right after each other!

And finally, we conclude this introductory section with a plug for an election information site that caught our eye. It's called "ProCon" and it lists in detail all the candidates' positions on all kinds of specific issues. Complete with quotes and history, it is a valuable resource to compare all the presidential candidates (even some from primary season who didn't make the cut) on whatever issue matters most to you. So check it out!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Three Democrats were mildly impressive this week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz won the primary for her House seat, Joe Biden compassionately dealt with a heckler at a campaign speech, and Hillary Clinton actually reacted quickly to a news story and introduced a new policy idea to combat rampant greed and price-gouging among drug companies with monopolies on common medications. That last one, in particular, is worth at least an Honorable Mention because it showed leadership and showed Team Clinton could react quicker than they usually do to a big news story. Is her plan workable? Hard to tell, but it's notable for being just about the only plan out there to directly attack companies who jack up the price of medication by hundreds of percent just because they can.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to President Obama, for setting a record that will forever be part of his legacy. Last week, Obama commuted the sentences of 111 offenders, some of them serving life in prison for heinous crimes such as selling LSD at a Grateful Dead show. Obama is using the power of the pen to bring relief to people who were sentenced at the height of the "mandatory minimum" Drug War craze -- people who would get far less punishment for the same crimes today.

Obama's total for August alone was 325 commutations -- the most of any U.S. president in a single month, ever. His overall record is equally impressive, now standing at 673 commutations, which is more than the previous 10 presidents combined.

With Obama entering his final months in office, we can probably expect to see hundreds more federal prisoners obtain either commutations of their sentences or outright pardons. This is normal for the end of any president's term, in fact (although Obama's numbers are a lot higher).

Now, even 673 commutations is nowhere near enough. Tens of thousands of people were sentenced under Draconian drug laws in the 1990s and 2000s who should also have a chance to be freed or fully pardoned. But Obama has made great strides towards dismantling the worst excesses of the era, as the Drug War slowly winds down after roughly a century of political exploitation.

For doing what he can -- more than any previous president in a single month, in fact -- President Obama has certainly earned another Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

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

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

To use a baseball metaphor, Anthony Weiner just got his third strike and is now out -- of his marriage.

Yes, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than "Carlos Danger" himself, Anthony "Let Me Show You My" Weiner.

Weiner's first foray into getting publicly caught sexting pictures of his... um... last name, to women he was not actually married to, cost him his House seat. His second public humiliation for doing exactly the same stupid thing cost him any slim chance he might have had at becoming mayor of New York City.

His third boneheaded sexting adventure is already proving to be the costliest one for Weiner yet, as it has already cost him his marriage (to Hillary Clinton's closest advisor), and put him under investigation from the local child welfare agency. This was because he actually (shudder) sent one of his sexts to yet another woman who was not actually his wife, which included his young son on the bed with him.

That's really about all that needs to be said about that. Hopefully, three strikes means he will forever be out of the public eye, and we'll never have to give him another MDDOTW award ever again. Hopefully, at any rate.

For being a serial peter-tweeter, Anthony Weiner is easily (we were going to say "hands down" but then we reconsidered that imagery) this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Three strikes, you're out... as Carlos Danger rides sadly off into the sunset.

[Anthony Weiner is actually a private citizen, and our blanket policy is not to provide contact information for such persons.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 406 (9/2/16)

Today's talking points have a theme. The theme is: "When reaching out to minority voters, it's best if you don't then smack them in the face." Three of these come straight from prominent Latinos who previously (right up until he gave his Phoenix speech) supported Donald Trump. The first two deal with Trump's much-ballyhooed African-American outreach. As always, enjoy and use these talking points responsibly (heh).

 

1
   Not funny at all

It is 2016, but apparently some people's sense of humor is stuck in about the 1950s, it seems.

"I see the Trump campaign's outreach to minority voters is going about as well as anyone really should have expected. While much attention was paid to Trump's speech about immigration, Team Trump was also out there trying to woo the African-American vote. By tweeting a cartoon depicting Hillary Clinton in blackface. No really -- that's their idea of what constitutes acceptable humor in this day and age. And I guess that's their idea of how to reach out to minority voters, too. Seems more like a smack in the face than any definition of 'outreach' I've seen."

 

2
   What is Trump scared of?

This one is just too, too funny.

"Donald Trump is heading to the wilderness known as 'Detroit,' but don't worry, he'll have Ben Carson there to explain stuff to him. Trump will also grant an interview to a second actual African-American, a pastor at a church there. But it seems Team Trump is absolutely terrified by the prospect. First they decided that Trump wouldn't actually be speaking to the congregation. Then they demanded that all the questions be submitted in advance. The original plan was also that 'aides would... edit the taped interview so that the final version reflected the campaign's wishes.' Even that wasn't enough cotton padding, they also decided to write out Trump's answers in advance, in the hopes that he wouldn't say something outrageous. When this all was exposed by the media, Trump's campaign quickly backtracked and said they wouldn't actually be editing the interview themselves, and that Trump will speak for 'at least 10 minutes' to the congregation. Gee, I wonder why they're worried? Donald Trump speaking in front of the biggest African-American audience he's ever faced, about his supposed deep religious feelings? What could possibly go wrong?"

 

3
   Beautiful outreach

Trump apparently has his own convenient place to shop for new wives. No surprise, really.

"Donald Trump, among his other business enterprises, runs Trump Model Management, an agency for foreign models to work through in New York. But to listen to actual models who used to work for Trump's agency, the place was nothing more than a multi-layered scam. The biggest revelation was, according to more than one model, that Trump was 'bringing in all of these girls from all over the world and they’re working illegally.' No work permits were ever even applied for, and the models were told precisely how to lie to immigration agents when entering the country. I guess it's not all that surprising that Trump would completely ignore immigration law to his own profit, since we're still waiting to find out exactly how his current wife entered the country. What she described, in fact, was precisely what a model in New York would have to do to fool the immigration folks by working here on a tourist visa, stating: 'Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa.' Trump promised there'd be a press conference to explain Melania's immigration history, but I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for that to happen. If Trump were truly serious about cracking down on employers for immigration violations, he'd have to start with his own company, and what are the chances of that happening?"

 

4
   A big fight

These next three are all from prominent Latinos who used to support Trump but now can't anymore (from two separate articles about Latinos fleeing the Trump campaign). The first is from "leading Latino conservative" and "prominent surrogate for Trump" Alfonso Aguilar, on hoping for a Trump pivot, and on why he can no longer support Trump:

Last week, you could tell, there was the real possibility of a pivot. I think there was a big fight within the campaign, and I think the restrictionist forces won.

 

5
   No time for being scammed

The next two are from former members of Trump's "National Hispanic Advisory Council" who can no longer live with supporting Trump (there are others who have fled the council, it's worth mentioning, but due to space limitations we're only going to quote two of them). The first is from Ramiro Pena, a pastor at Waco's Christ the King Church.

I am so sorry but I believe Mr. Trump lost the election tonight. The "National Hispanic Advisory Council" seems to be simply for optics and I do not have the time or energy for a scam.

 

6
   Coming soon -- Trump TV?

Texas lawyer Jacob Monty was telling anyone who would listen what his reaction to the speech was, as he also exited Trump's Latino outreach council.

The speech was just an utter disappointment. We were out there defending him. And then to be just lied to like that -- it doesn't feel good. It's not okay.

. . .

Maybe this is part of a media play where he wants to create a media empire that will focus on the millions of nativists that believe that the country needs to control immigration. And if that's his play, it will be good and he'll have millions of followers. But he won't win the presidency.

 

7
   Foul play?

This last one comes from David Kochel, former campaign strategist for Jeb Bush, on the subject of who exactly Trump's speech was supposed to impress.

It has to be [the Trump campaign's] calculation that they can drive up turnout in white working-class areas of battleground states to dizzying heights. Otherwise this move makes no sense 69 days from the election. The "softening" of Trump's immigration policy died tragically on Wednesday night in Phoenix. Foul play is suspected.

-- 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

 

250 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [406] -- Deportation Clarification”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    I sometimes wonder, Chris, if, by not being on Facebook, you miss out on some things. I clicked "yes" or "like" or whatever the mechanism was months ago, to receive HRC updates in Facebook, and there is a steady stream of communications every day. Sometimes they are her comments on something, sometimes reports about appearances somewhere, sometimes a notice about a new release, like the proposal about Pharma companies cranking up prices of drugs, sometimes links to videos of her speeches, Tim Kaine's appearances, Joe Bidens appearances,etc. So I don't have the sense you describe of Hillary being in hiding or not campaigning. Right now I think she's prepping for the debates but there's still a lot going on. I suspect they are also staying out of the way so that Donald's debacles get a ton of coverage.

    I think the polls tightening to an extent isn't a big deal, as Donald cannot seem to break past about 40% and there's talk his Arizona speech will cause a drop in the next round of polls. We'll see.

    Now, since I'm for HRC and am tapped in, maybe I'm getting more info than the average person. Probably. But I really think her campaign is doing a great job with social media and I think those channels are reaching the people who care the most -- they, in turn, communicate with their friends/family who don't care as much. I know this is anecdotal, but at social events I get asked what I think all the time by people who know I pay close attention. They have other interests, they aren't political junkies, but they'll vote, and they want to know what I think. I think political junkies play that role in other people's lives.

    Also of note, a study was recently reported that determined GOTV efforts result in about 7% of additional turnout. In the last few elections, Repubs and Dems were fairly closely matched in GOTV -- Dems had about a 2% advantage. This year we have Dem GOTV going gangbusters and Repub GOTV almost non-existent. If we can reap that 7%, or 6% or 5%, we're there.

    As a separate matter, the attempts at new scandals that keep getting floated are generating a whole lot of pushback. There's a lot of discussion about "the Clinton Rules" and about the really questionable ways stories get slanted by the New York Times and the AP -- stories where the headlines imply negative things that are then countered in the story itself. Hopefully the pushback will help, preemptivly as we enter the homestretch and the despicable David Bossie starts shoveling out anti-Clinton garbage through the Trump campaign.

    So, while I'm not complacent, I also think the signs are encouraging and I don't think her campaign folks are taking anything for granted. I think they have their reasons for choices they are making, and, all things considered, are doing pretty well.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange One's trip to Mexico didn't look presidential unless you define presidential as "making a very public demonstration for the benefit of all foreign leaders that you're a poisonous liar who can't be trusted".

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump's christianity is transparently fake, but you would think that somebody as self-absorbed and greedy as him could see how that Joel Osteen Mega Pyramid Prosperity Gospel might be something he could work with.

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    [2] John: Yep! I guess his followers think anything Trump does is just fabulous but I think the rest of us thought the event itself in Mexico was basically a snore, followed by his incendiary speech in AZ, which totally overshadowed everything else. The fact that New York Times had to re-do their coverage because the day ended so differently than it began also had the effect of shining a light on how scripted so much of the reporting is. Had Trump just quietly read off the TelePrompter without turning red and throwing in his nonsense about Mexico did TOO say they would pay for the wall the Press would have produced a round of "Trump has softened" articles (as though that's some kind of achievement, as opposed to orchestrated faking) and kudos to Trump for successfully maintaining his faking for a whole day!

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    MDDOTW is Carlos Danger? Really? Are you disappointed with his timing? He's an attention-seeking self-promoter and another round seemed like a good bet. Trump would probably be doing the same if not for the small hands.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MDDOTW is Carlos Danger? Really? Are you disappointed with his timing?

    Hah!

    As of today, Hillary is low single digits ahead of Trump. Which is, you know, within the margin of error.

    And, her campaign doesn't seem too intent on changing course with anything resembling a bold new strategy for winning this thing.

    If that doesn't define most disappointing Democrat, I don't know what does.

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    [6] Elizabeth: Can't agree. There are useful polls and a lot of junk. State by state she's looking very strong and Trump is looking very weak. Methinks you are looking for reasons to be pessimistic.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'm with liz on this. thanks to donald's inability to avoid gaffes, things are not bad, but cruise control won't cut it. the epipen thing is a good start. hillary mostly needs to stay positive and upbeat. if a hit job is needed that's what surrogates are for, but for the most part donald's negatives always seem to take care of themselves.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Methinks you are looking for reasons to be pessimistic.

    That goes against my nature. Which should, at the very least, concern you.

  10. [10] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hmmm. Was kinda hoping for a taco truck on every corner talking point. Oh well. Anyone?

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    By tweeting a cartoon depicting Hillary Clinton in blackface.

    Of course, Hillary in a skit with DeBlasio talking about CT ("Colored Time") is perfectly acceptable, right??

    As of today, Hillary is low single digits ahead of Trump. Which is, you know, within the margin of error.

    And, her campaign doesn't seem too intent on changing course with anything resembling a bold new strategy for winning this thing.

    If that doesn't define most disappointing Democrat, I don't know what does.

    Exactly...

    That is my overall point with regards to Hillary and Trump...

    If Trump is so god awful as ya'all claim, then Hillary shouldn't be so down in her numbers...

    And, what with the full FBI Investigation being released, Hillary's numbers are going to plummet and Trump's numbers are going to rise..

    Here is the logic and there is just NO spin'ing it away...

    Trump may or may not be a good President...

    We KNOW Hillary will be incompetent....

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And don't forget..

    This is an election between an ESTABLISHMENT candidate and an OUTSIDER candidate..

    And upwards of 80% of the American people **DON'T WANT** an ESTABLISHMENT President...

    There really is no way Hillary can win...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    At first, Trump was supposed to address the congregation at a Great Faith Ministries International service. This was then changed to just an interview with the pastor, held in private, to be broadcast publicly a week later. Just to be certain there wouldn't be any surprises, the Trump campaign demanded all questions be submitted in advance, in writing. Then Team Trump carefully wrote out answers for Trump to parrot back. No word on whether a TelePrompTer would be allowed, or if Trump would be allowed to just read from prepared notes. And the icing on the cake: Trump's campaign would be allowed to edit the interview after it happened, "so that the final version reflected the campaign's wishes." You can see what we mean about that cat nervously eying all the rocking chairs, right?

    You seem to be knocking Trump for highly scripting his events..

    REALLY!???

    *NOW* ya'all have a problem with a Presidential Candidate scripting their events....

    When was the last time Hillary *DIDN'T* script and control an event??

    When was the last time Hillary held a press conference??

    It's funny how scripted and controlled events are ONLY a "problem" when the guy with the '-R' after his name does it....

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Hillary Clinton seems to have largely disappeared in the meantime"

    Who is this Hillary Clinton person anyway? The only time her name comes up is when the media shoots another fake boring email "scandal" tranquilizer dart. Are we really going to have to choose between an orange racist misogynist and a mysterious phantom woman that nobody knows anything about?

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    . There are useful polls and a lot of junk.

    The "useful" polls being the ones that show Hillary is winning..

    The "lot of junk" being the ones that show Trump is clobbering Hillary... :D

    Yer right, though.. There is a LOT of "junk" and not much "useful".... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    but it is time for her to stop appearing only in front of well-heeled donors and return to campaigning in earnest

    She can't.. Her heart can't take the stress....

    She is having more and more down time and less and less face time...

    There is a reason for that....

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale, kindly restrict your wishful thinking to things that might realistically be true. in spite of yet another foot in mouth moment, donald's campaign has been gaining some ground. that's factual. repeating conspiracy theories about hillary's health is based not on fact but innuendo and speculation. furthermore, it's morbid, baseless an insult to your own intelligence.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    michale, kindly restrict your wishful thinking to things that might realistically be true.

    Considering all the facts, it IS realistically possible that Hillary will croak before the election..

    Look at the facts.. What are you basing Hillary's "good health" on?? A letter from a family friend who happens to be just an intern that was written a year ago..

    Stack that up against ALL the issues that Hillary has had the last year that have been DOCUMENTED... The coughing fits, the lack of stamina and motor control... The downtime when she is out of sight of the people for DAYS at a time... And so on and so on...

    The weight of evidence is clearly on the side that she is a very sick person...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry Weigantians..

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/video-donald-trump-receives-standing-ovation-detroit-great-faith-ministries-church/

    Your hope of a Trump catastrophe in Detroit was just washed away by a standing ovation...

    Worried yet??? :D Ya'all should be...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Also, consider this.. The upcoming debates will be NINETY minutes...

    *WITHOUT* any breaks to go to the bathroom or anything..

    What are the chances that Hillary can go ninety straight minutes without coughing up a lung???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And finally, consider this..

    Considering all of Hillary's KNOWN and DOCUMENTED health issues and considering the stresses of a normal presidential campaign and considering that this is Hillary's LAST shot at something she has geared her entire life towards....

    Hillary croaking from the stress is an extremely logical and well-supported possibility..

    You can't deny the logic simply because you don't personally want to see it happen...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Look at the facts.. What are you basing Hillary's "good health" on?

    At least Hillary supporters have more to go on than the obvious piece of fiction that the fellow who looks like the area 51 scientist from Independence Day provided.

    Truth is, we have no better idea of Trump's physical health than we do of his financial health, since the financial statements that he's provided also appear to be fiction.

    Why is he so afraid to have us see his tax returns?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least Hillary supporters have more to go on than the obvious piece of fiction that the fellow who looks like the area 51 scientist from Independence Day provided.

    Such as....?????

    The ONLY thing you have is a year old letter from a family friend that happens to be an intern...

    That doesn't seem much...

    Truth is, we have no better idea of Trump's physical health

    We know he doesn't suffer from congenital diseases.. We know he doesn't have coughing fits.. We know he doesn't need help going up stairs. We know he doesn't need help standing at a podium.. We know he doesn't need naps.. We know he doesn't disappear from public eye for days...

    You can't say the same for Hillary...

    Why is he so afraid to have us see his tax returns?

    For the same reason Hillary is afraid to release her complete medical records..

    The show things that would likely disqualify them from the Presidency....

    But you don't get to complain about Trump not releasing his records unless you ALSO hold Clinton accountable...

    Michale....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    My fingers got ahead of my brain...

    The show things that would likely disqualify them from the Presidency....

    That should read:

    They show things that would likely disqualify them from the Presidency....

    My bust....

    MIchale

  25. [25] 
    dsws wrote:

    Tens of thousands of people were sentenced under Draconian drug laws in the

    Draconian, with a capital D.

    To most speakers of English, there's just a word: draconian. They neither know nor care whether its etymology refers to dragons generically, or to some historical individual, or to the constellation Draco, or to Draco Malfoy. Regardless of the proper name in its etymology, it's just a word. Not capitalized.

    To our fearless blogger, it refers to the Greek statesman responsible for the law code so described. Proper name, capital letter.

    It's charming, because it reflects a consistent attitude steeped in knowledge of history. At least to me. YMMV

    Writing teleprompter as TelePrompTer, not so much. Brand names go generic. When they do, they lose the trademark-holder's claim on capitalization, spacing, etc., and become ordinary words of the language. Tough luck, erstwhile trademark-holder. When a politician is said to read from a teleprompter, an ordinary hearer doesn't know nor care whether they're using a TelePrompTer brand device, a purpose-made device of some other brand, a PowerPoint presentation projected on a translucent screen from a generic laptop, or a set of hand-lettered note-cards held up by an unpaid intern: when text is presented for a politician to read their speech, whatever does it is called a teleprompter in English, regardless of brand.

  26. [26] 
    dsws wrote:

    Yes, Hillary is teetering on the edge of the grave. Guaranteed not to survive inauguration day. Sure to be replaced by someone, anyone, who's not one of the current pair of candidates.

    (cricket starts to chirp, for about three tenths of a second)

    (stampede)

    (Hillary elected, 538-0)

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Hillary is teetering on the edge of the grave. Guaranteed not to survive inauguration day. Sure to be replaced by someone, anyone, who's not one of the current pair of candidates.

    Hillary suffers from a serious disease that is severely exacerbated by stress..

    You can do the math I am sure..

    "But!! But!!! Hillary has a year old letter from a family friend who says Hillary is in perfect health!!"

    Oh, well, why didn't ya say so... :^/

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Hillary elected, 538-0)

    Keep dreaming, sunshine.. :D Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day.. :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    This is an election between an ESTABLISHMENT candidate and an OUTSIDER candidate..

    Puulease.... let's just stop with this whole little trope that you have bought into.

    Take a look at his "Economic" team most of them are the leading bundlers and fundraisers for the "eastablishment". If you think that when one guy raises 34 million from 4 donors there will not be something expected in return you got another thing coming.

    Or how about Paul Manafort....the creator of the status quo...

    What about David Bossie? you know that little thing "citizen united"?

    Those right there alone put him firmly in the grasp of the "Establishment" no matter how much moral yoga you do face the fact he is the "establishment".

    Not to mention he certainly has mastered the art of behaving like a politician....which was a prime qualifier for being "establishment"

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there is no medical problem, then Hillary has absolutely NO REASON not to release her full medical records, including MRIs, etc etc etc...

    Right??

    The fact that Hillary WON'T release these records indicates there is something there...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    But you don't get to complain about Trump not releasing his records unless you ALSO hold Clinton accountable...

    Are you drinking spoiled beer? don't look now but your websites are showing....glad to see you have picked up on the latest conflation to give cover to TRUMP records NOT being released...

    To breakout some vintage Michale.

    You have no moral leg to stand on... NONE...NADA...ZILCH ...NO LEGS WHAT SO EVER!!!!!

    FACT Both CLINTON and KANE have released their tax returns. Last time I checked trump had not...unless of course there is some super secret Trump supporters only website you have access to that has them...

    So lets see CLINTON and KAINE information available check, Clinton held accountable check, TRUMP and PENCE information not available, Ok...whatever Clinton still held accountable.

    FACT CLINTON/KAINE release fundraiser information disclosing donations and attendance as well as hosts. TRUMP/PENCE do not.

    So, Hmmm. Let's see here again C/K information available and released, check. Clinton held accountable check. T/P info not available, again ok, whatever...Clinton still held accountable.

    FACT BOTH candidates have letters declaring their fitness for office. NEITHER has released their medical records.

    So both candidates are on par and both have potentially damaging information in them. So both camps seem to be on equal footing.

    Since you like to repeat the whole medical records conspiracy ad nausem...I would remind you that there are public records out there that call into doubt that Trump ever had bone spurs....his medical record could confirm that and if it did you would be voting for a draft dodging criminal but hay it's Trump he will fix everything so it is ok...

    Now moving right along, perhaps I am just to simple to get it...

    TRUMP NO records released..as in none...nada...natch...zilch...zero

    CLINTON records released as in more than Trump.

    So please explain this again why don't we get to see the Trump stuff?

  32. [32] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [25] dsws:


    Bart: Otto-Man? You're living in a dumpster?
    Otto: Ho, man, I wish! Dumpster-brand trash bins are top-of-the-line. This is just a Trash-Co waste disposal unit.

    - The Simpsons

  33. [33] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    "This is not a Democrat vs Republican election. This is about an insider versus an outsider"

    Hilarious responses to this slogan and accompanying picture of the Young Trumps (minus Tiffany, of course!) can be found on twitter #millenialsfortrump.

    Some fine examples at:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-kids-outside-tweets_us_57ca72d8e4b0e60d31df4a38?section=us_politics

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    goodtrickle [31] yup.

    chazzbrown [33]: thank you. Good laugh!

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Life is a cabaret, old chum!
    So come to the cabaret!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    So please explain this again why don't we get to see the Trump stuff?

    For the same reason that we don't get to see Hillary's medical records..

    For the same reason that we didn't get to see Obama's school transcripts...

    Because there is something in those records that would likely lose the election for the particular people..

    I have gone over all this before..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    How come no one wants to talk about Trump's awesome speech at the church and his standing ovation by black Americans?? :D

    heh

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Puulease.... let's just stop with this whole little trope that you have bought into.

    And yet, the facts are the facts..

    In this election, Trump is seen as the outsider candidate...

    You can't just change reality simply because you don't like the facts...

    I think it's a rule or something.. :D

    Hillary is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate..

    Trump is the OUTSIDER CANDIDATE...

    In this election, upwards of 80%+ of Americans want an OUTSIDER President... A president who will change the direction of this country...

    These are the facts whether you want to admit them or not..

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Because there is something in those records that would likely lose the election for the particular people..

    You mean like Trump not having bone spurs????

    I have gone over all this before..

    Yes , yes you have, to the point of ...What?

    Please do enlighten all of us about why HRC has to release her medical records before the TUMP does , or perhaps why the TRUMP does not need to release his tax records before HRC releases her medical records, or why the TRUM doesn't release his campaign contributions from his big spending buddies, before HRC releases her medical records.

    We are "all ears" as you like to quote....Just sayin'

  40. [40] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Because there is something in those records that would likely lose the election for the particular people..

    You mean like Trump not having bone spurs????

    I have gone over all this before..

    Yes , yes you have, to the point of ...What?

    Please do enlighten all of us about why HRC has to release her medical records before the TUMP does , or perhaps why the TRUMP does not need to release his tax records before HRC releases her medical records, or why the TRUM doesn't release his campaign contributions from his big spending buddies, before HRC releases her medical records.

    We are "all ears" as you like to quote....Just sayin'

  41. [41] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    In this election, upwards of 80%+ of Americans want an OUTSIDER President... A president who will change the direction of this country...

    These are the facts whether you want to admit them or not..

    OK...I guess I am just to simple to find the fact in your statements...and by your own rules polls don't count.

    Trump is the furthest from an outsider cadidate, if you want outsider then you need to look to the Greens or the Libertarians...

    A simple, plain, irrefutable fact is that TRUMP is raising YUGE amounts of money from fundraisers and has brought on board the leading super PACers....sounds just like someone you love to spend and inordinate amount of time bombarding...

    I won't even bother to mention the revolving door from his campaign to his PAC's...

    BUT, BUT, BUT, it is different it is TRUMP....gotcha, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more, ....

    The simple fact of the matter is that the choices offered up to us are between two competing corporate interest blocks that only have the goal of figuring out how to squeeze us the "normal person" out of more money while continuing to collect huge government subsidies.

    While I am not a big fan for socialism...I do find it very offensive that BOTH parties are spending BILLIONS to win a job that pays only MILLIONS...therefore both of the parties that have the highest chance of success are guilty and therefore are the "establishment".

  42. [42] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    While I am not a big fan for socialism...I do find it very offensive that BOTH parties are spending BILLIONS to win a job that pays only MILLIONS...therefore both of the parties that have the highest chance of success are guilty and therefore are the "establishment"

    I would add as I should have in the previous comment...If i am going to be forced into picking one of two dicks....I want the FULL details on both so I can make a decision. go #sackofdicks2016.

    Which I might point out, TRUMP is failing at miserably.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please do enlighten all of us about why HRC has to release her medical records before the TUMP does ,

    Because there is ample evidence that Hillary has some major health issues that would preclude her from being an effective POTUS...

    Simple logic..

    Trump is the furthest from an outsider cadidate,

    That's your opinion... But it's a very VERY minority opinion.. Even here in Weigantia...

    if you want outsider then you need to look to the Greens or the Libertarians...

    Yea, and if 3rd Party candidates had a snowballs chance in hell of actually being elected, you would have a point. But they don't, so you don't..

    We're talking viable candidates. Which means Dem and GOP.. Which means Hillary and Trump...

    And of those two candidates, Trump is clearly the outsider candidate and Hillary is clearly the ESTABLISHMENT candidate..

    Now, you can argue that point all you want.. But it IS a fact and your arguments won't change the fact...

    A simple, plain, irrefutable fact is that TRUMP is raising YUGE amounts of money from fundraisers and has brought on board the leading super PACers....sounds just like someone you love to spend and inordinate amount of time bombarding...

    Yes and that bothers me a little... But, as ya'all point out ad nasuem, things are different in a General than in the Primary..

    Or are ya changing that tune because it doesn't fit your agenda and your narrative now??

    While I am not a big fan for socialism...I do find it very offensive that BOTH parties are spending BILLIONS to win a job that pays only MILLIONS.

    Yet, you still support Hillary... So, apparently, you are not THAT offended.. :D

    .therefore both of the parties that have the highest chance of success are guilty and therefore are the "establishment".

    Yes, if you want to change the definition of "ESTABLISHMENT" t mean one who spends a LOT of other people's money in a General Presidential Election..

    Then yes.. Under your newly created definition, BOTH candidates are "establishment"...

    Happy?? :D

    Look, you can argue what the definition of "IS" is til the cows come home..

    But you cannot change these 3 simple facts..

    FACT #1
    Hillary Clinton is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate..

    FACT #2
    Donald Trump is the OUTSIDER candidate...

    FACT #3
    Upwards of 80%+ of Americans are sick and tired of the ESTABLISHMENT and the STATUS QUO and want a change in the direction this country is heading...

    These are FACTS that no amount of equivocation, mitigation or supplication will change...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I am not a big fan for socialism...I do find it very offensive that BOTH parties are spending BILLIONS to win a job that pays only MILLIONS.

    Let's face reality..

    Hillary could be filmed shooting some guy on Fifth Ave and the vast majority of Left Wingers, including all of Weigantia, would still vote for her...

    It's called "Partisan Ideologically Enslaved" or PIE for short.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would add as I should have in the previous comment...If i am going to be forced into picking one of two dicks....I want the FULL details on both so I can make a decision. go #sackofdicks2016.

    OK.. So you think that my demand for FULL disclosure of Hillary's full and complete medical history is as logical and rational as your demand for FULL disclosure of Trump's full and complete tax history...

    Right???

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    go #sackofdicks2016.

    Someone's been reading Gabriel's twits... :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would add as I should have in the previous comment...If i am going to be forced into picking one of two dicks....I want the FULL details on both so I can make a decision.

    And if you don't get "FULL details" what are you going to do?? You're going to vote Hillary because that's what your Party affiliation demands......

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's not party affiliation that drives any critical thinking person's decision about who to support in a national election.

    It's what the party and candidate is offering in terms of what they are likely to do once in office and how their actions as national leader will affect the well-being of the country and what the impacts will be at the local and personal level.

    To continue accusing your fellow Weigantians of being slaves to party doctrine reflects poorly on you and does nothing to diminish us.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not party affiliation that drives any critical thinking person's decision about who to support in a national election.

    I completely agree...

    To continue accusing your fellow Weigantians of being slaves to party doctrine reflects poorly on you and does nothing to diminish us.

    I am not trying to diminish anyone. I am simply putting ya'all's support of Hillary in it's proper perspective..

    If Hillary was the EXACT same person with the EXACT same baggage, but had a '-R' after her name, ya'all would be making the EXACT same arguments that I am making...

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way..

    Given all of Hillary's negatives and baggage, the ONLY thing that explains her support *IS* partisan ideology...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm afraid you have a very closed mind if that's what you really believe, Michale ... :(

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, my mind is wide open...

    But it's only open to FACTS and not partisan propaganda...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    TRUMP 45.0
    CLINTON 42.4

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/

    In uber-liberal Los Angeles.... :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Hillary was the EXACT same person with the EXACT same baggage, but had a '-R' after her name, ya'all would be making the EXACT same arguments that I am making...

    And if Trump was running with a '-D' after his name, ya'all would be supporting Trump for the EXACT same reasons I would be...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, my mind is wide open... But it's only open to FACTS and not partisan propaganda...

    You are not fooling anyone but yourself, Michale.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did that poll only involve polling people living in LA?

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Invisible Hillary

    I agree that as a supporter of Hillary, I see more Facebook posts and get plenty of emails from her, but she isn't making news. This might be quite deliberate on her part for three reasons:

    1. Trump can't stop himself from prat falling when an issue comes to the fore (lately immigration - a weak point for Trump, earlier trashing Gold Star families - a weak point for anybody frankly, even if you are running for dog catcher), so why take any attention away from that.

    2. If the election descends into radio silence, it is even more likely that Trump will be unable to sit a silence out so will do something that demands attention, and so it is wise to see what he tees up next, how he manages to turn it into some "shoot yourself in the foot" moment, and then act like the only adult in the room. Take the latest "scandal", Hillary's health - all that did was highlight Trump's bizarre medical note, the unusual doctor who wrote it, and that he hasn't shown us if his bone spurs (and excuse for not going to Vietnam) are still there - oh and that if you cull snippets from multiple videos you can make anybody look ill - something that everybody under 35 knows because of social media and isn't convincing anybody over 35 except the gullible (who are already voting for the most unqualified person in recent history).

    3. Hillary probably has a few "conversation changers" ready (if not, she should be having some pointed discussions with her campaign manager) in case (when) another manufactured "scandal" appears from the Alex Jones/Breitbarts of this world that isn't instantly laughable. Why use those up when you don't have to?

    My conclusion:
    Trump wants the election to be about him because he is a narcissist. Hillary wants the election to be about Trump because she wants to win it.

  58. [58] 
    apophis wrote:

    [56]
    Elizabeth Miller;

    The LA Times poll is a focus group of about 3200 people that they poll every week. It is not a random poll and is useless for statistics, unless you want to see which way those people are moving on a weekly basis.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    For a donation of $2,700, the children (under 16) of donors at an event last month at the Sag Harbor, N.Y., estate of the hedge fund magnate Adam Sender could ask Mrs. Clinton a question. A family photo with Mrs. Clinton cost $10,000, according to attendees.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html?_r=0

    And THIS is who ya'all want for POTUS??

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    The LA Times poll is a focus group of about 3200 people that they poll every week. It is not a random poll and is useless for statistics, unless you want to see which way those people are moving on a weekly basis.

    But if the poll said that Hillary was winning, you would be all over it.. THEN, it would be a legitimate poll.. :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are not fooling anyone but yourself, Michale.

    Once again, my goal is not to fool anyone.. My bona fides are clear.... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Trump can't stop himself from prat falling when an issue comes to the fore (lately immigration - a weak point for Trump, earlier trashing Gold Star families - a weak point for anybody frankly, even if you are running for dog catcher), so why take any attention away from that.

    There is your partisan driven fantasy...

    VIDEO=> DONALD TRUMP RECEIVES STANDING OVATION at Detroit Great Faith Ministries Church
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/video-donald-trump-receives-standing-ovation-detroit-great-faith-ministries-church/

    ..... and then there is the reality......

    Sucks ta be you... :D heh

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    While I am not a big fan for socialism...I do find it very offensive that BOTH parties are spending BILLIONS to win a job that pays only MILLIONS...therefore both of the parties that have the highest chance of success are guilty and therefore are the "establishment"

    It is obvious that there will be financial implications for the winners and losers of this election otherwise why pay all that money into Super PACs, etc.). The smart companies want to bet on both sides, so they win regardless and get the ear of power for another four years. The more desperate, like the coal industry, are now limited to one party. This is not a R/D thing - there are groups that depend on D's a lot more than R's (teachers' unions for example).

    The question is, what is the payback for this money? It can't be too obvious - the FBI are good at their job, and you never know if a whistleblower will prompt an investigation. So it has to be more subtle - "advice" (i.e. writing legislation) from "interested third parties" is the easiest.

    I listened to a podcast a couple of years ago when walking the dog about the amount of money in our political system (national, state and local) and the conclusion of the economists was that the ratio of political spending to the size of our economy was so small that there was very little "corruption" (in the loosest sense of the word).

    A more optimistic, yet equally venal viewpoint, is that it is a pay-to-play - i.e. if you don't pony up your issue will be at the end of the list, so lobbyists and big money are actually competing with each other for attention, rather than actively putting their finger on the scales.

    I'm sure the real answer is a mixture of the two.

    I'd be interested if anybody knows a non-partisan analysis (a book preferably) of the "influence" of money in politics that is current.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Invisible Hillary

    But, by all means...

    Let Hillary cede the playing field to Trump....

    Let Hillary try to run out the clock.....

    It's worked SO WELL to date.... For Trump... :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Trump can't stop himself from prat falling when an issue comes to the fore (lately immigration - a weak point for Trump,

    And yet, Trump's Immigration Speech mirrored Bill Clinton's 1995 Immigration Speech...

    You see what I mean, Liz???

    Trump has been saying MANY things that Democrats themselves have said...

    Trump is to the LEFT of Hillary on many issues...

    But ya'all refuse to acknowledge that SOLELY because of the '-R' after Trump's name...

    It's *ALL* about partisan ideology.. NO OTHER CONSIDERATION is in play here..

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    secure our borders, deport twice as many criminal aliens as ever before and cut off the magnets that draw illegal immigrants to the U.S. by cracking down on illegal hiring [and] by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
    -Donald Trump...

    What American could POSSIBLY have any problem with this???

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser-skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
    Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.

    -Donald Trump

    Again, what is the issue with this???

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Jigging in Church

    So Trump visited a black church - good idea. Trump made himself look human and, while it is deemed unlikely he made many new converts in the black community, this was probably never his goal. Rather it was the "look college educated white paper, I'm not a racist because blacks like me" card that we discussed earlier.

    I'm guessing the Democrats are not too concerned with this, as they are only responding with his "no coloreds allowed" housing policy in the 1970's. They are probably keeping the most egregious of Trump's racist initiatives in reserve in case Trump actually starts to move the dial with white voters - #1 being the birther nonsense.

    There is little doubt in many people's minds that the prosecution of the birther issue, with the subsequent boasting about forcing Obama to release his long form, the imaginary private eyes scouring Hawaii, and the final claims that the long form was a fake, was racist in nature. The right wing know this is an Achilles Heel for them and are trying to make out that this was a Hillary thing first (not even slightly plausible).

    The problem for Trump is that the target is educated white voters, who aren't easily going to buy the Alex Jones version of history. So if Obama steps in and reminds the back community, the outrage that is whipped up at Trump for the birther conspiracy will eliminate any impact of church visits, all the “And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce” malarky, and everything else except the indignant howls from the black community.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    paper -> people

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The LA Times poll is a focus group of about 3200 people that they poll every week. It is not a random poll and is useless for statistics, unless you want to see which way those people are moving on a weekly basis.

    Fine...

    TRUMP 40.3
    CLINTON 38.1

    http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160710-20160830/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

    You'll probably find something wrong with that one too, right??

    :D

    You see my point, Liz??

    It's ALL about the '-D' or the '-R'......

    Nothing else matters.. :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    while it is deemed unlikely he made many new converts in the black community,

    "deemed" by who????

    Yea... That's what I thought...

    Yer really getting worried, Neal... :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all want to elect this witch who charges children almost 3 thousand dollars to ask a question.. :^/

    I can see Grandma Hillary...

    "Yes, little Aidan... I'll change your diaper.. For a $5K "donation" to my slush fund..."

    Yea, THAT's the.... uh.... "person" I would want as my President... :^/

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    The LA Times poll is a focus group of about 3200 people that they poll every week. It is not a random poll and is useless for statistics, unless you want to see which way those people are moving on a weekly basis.

    Shh. Don't tell the R's that the polls aren't "skewed" and that the only real polls are those that show Trump ahead. They fell for this the last time up to the highest levels - Romney was stunned when he lost in 2012, and he is a lot smarter than Trump or most of his acolytes (or me for that matter).

    The polls are of value when they are taken seriously - it isn't just the results, it is the trends and impact. Smart campaigns try A/B testing of positions and messaging. There was a recent podcast on the 538 with an interview of Frank Luntz. He is an expert at this (his proudest ones are "the death tax" and "parental choice").

    Luntz was asked how much it would take him to work for Trump. His answer was "even if Trump was worth $10B that wouldn't be enough". I recommend searching out this podcast (it was from yesterday - Sat Sep 3rd) as he has some good points to make. He also has promised to leave the political arena forever if he gets $1M from crowdsourcing - I think he might be able to get that.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was a recent podcast on the 538 with an interview of Frank Luntz. He is an expert at this (his proudest ones are "the death tax" and "parental choice").

    You see my point, Liz??

    Hillary's support is unequivocally and 1000% ideologically based...

    Trump's support is NOT based on ideology at all...

    Neal's comments PROVE it... :D

    Thanx Neal... Yer a peach... :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:
  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shh. Don't tell the R's that the polls aren't "skewed" and that the only real polls are those that show Trump ahead.

    How is that any different than ya'all ignoring any poll that show Hillary is losing and only accept polls that show Hillary is winning???

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Calling Trump names won't stop him becoming US President
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/calling-trump-names-wont-stop-him-becoming-us-president/

    A lesson that Weigantians need to learn... And quickly....

    Remember how sure ya'all were about Brexit?? :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jigging in Church

    Yea... NOTHING racist about that.. :^/

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Shh. Don't tell the R's that the polls aren't "skewed" and that the only real polls are those that show Trump ahead.

    How is that any different than ya'all ignoring any poll that show Hillary is losing and only accept polls that show Hillary is winning?

    It wouldn't be any different if that was what was happening. You see, democrats tend to accept scientific opinion whereas parts of the right are actually famous for denying even the most obvious of scientific facts, if it happens to be in opposition to their ideology.

    Like Guliani's absurd claim this morning that he made New York safer by lowering taxes. Two lies in one!

    So which party is more at home in Wonderland? Those who believe that the CDC should be allowed to study any subject that they feel is relevant to their mission without being restricted by politicians, or those who take their children to see the dinosaurs in Noah's Ark?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wouldn't be any different if that was what was happening. You see, democrats tend to accept scientific opinion

    Bullshit....

    Demcorats only accept scientific opinions that supports their political agenda...

    Like Guliani's absurd claim this morning that he made New York safer by lowering taxes. Two lies in one!

    Actually, it's well documented that Guiliani's policies (not necessarily tax policies) did cause a reduction in crime..

    But why let facts interfere with a good partisan rant... :D

    So which party is more at home in Wonderland? Those who believe that the CDC should be allowed to study any subject that they feel is relevant to their mission without being restricted by politicians

    How is firearms relevant to a center for the study of DISEASES???

    Just another way Demcorats push their unpopular anti-gun agenda...

    Bypass the law, bypass the American people, bypass Congress, by hook or by crook.... It's the Demcorat way....

    :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    or those who take their children to see the dinosaurs in Noah's Ark?

    As opposed to teaching kindergarten kids sex ed and "gender identity" etc etc??

    As agnostic as I am, I would much rather let small children hold onto their innocence and their fantasies than chuck them into the deep end of society's muck and mire and yell, "SINK OR SWIM, BITCH!!!" like the Left Wingery does...

    But I am a father and a grandfather so I might view things differently...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    TRUMP 40.3
    CLINTON 38.1
    http://polling.reuters.com

    You'll probably find something wrong with that one too, right??

    I certainly can. Firstly, that poll does not include Gary Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, or Jill Stein who will appear on the ballot in enough states to affect the election.

    Secondly, the results you cite are filtered. If you go down the page and click: clear all filters, the poll changes to:

    CLINTON 37.4%
    TRUMP 33.5%

    But I've decided to take Nate Silver's advice, and stick closely to two premises: 1} polls that don't include at least Johnson are less accurate, and 2) watching polls are a bit like watching a ballet lit only by strobe light.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I've decided to take Nate Silver's advice, and stick closely to two premises: 1} polls that don't include at least Johnson are less accurate, and 2) watching polls are a bit like watching a ballet lit only by strobe light.

    OK, fine.. So, we can agree that NO SINGLE POLLS have any real meaning....

    Right??

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Secondly, the results you cite are filtered. If you go down the page and click: clear all filters, the poll changes to:

    And if we clear all the NOAA/Left Winger "filters" from the temp records, we prove that Global Warming is a big con...

    OK, so we get rid of all "filters"... :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if we clear all the NOAA/Left Winger "filters" from the temp records, we prove that Global Warming is a big con...

    OK, so we get rid of all "filters"... :D

    Let me help you out..

    Balthasar: "Well... That's different..."

    Michale: "Of course it is..."

    There... Yer covered.... :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1-nzxzzug

    Jesse Jackson loved Donald Trump and thanked him for his help to the black communities of America....

    Like I said... It's *ONLY* because Trump has the '-R' after his name that he is the "villain" to those who are enslaved by Party ideology and dogma.....

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats only accept scientific opinions that support their political agenda...

    Really? Describe a scientific opinion held today by a majority of the world's scientists that a majority (or even sizable percentage) of Democrats deny.

    Actually, it's well documented that Guiliani's policies (not necessarily tax policies) did cause a reduction in crime..
    But why let facts interfere with a good partisan rant... :D

    Actually, it's well documented that the policies that began the drop in crime in New York City were promulgated by David Dinkins, who, for instance, was responsible for cleaning up Times Square, not Rudy.

    But Guiliani not only included taxes in the list of ways he 'made NY safer', he made the preposterous boast that if it weren't for him, the city would now 'be Detroit'. You can see the flaws in that argument from space. I'm sure Dinkins, Bloomburg and DeBlasio would have a word or two to interject into that argument as well.

    But why let facts interfere with a good partisan rant?

    How is firearms relevant to a center for the study of DISEASES?

    Good Question. Somebody should study that. Oop. Can't, by political decree.

    Just another way Democrats push their unpopular anti-gun agenda

    It is actually a very popular pro-life agenda that is opposed by a very vocal minority that includes shills for Gun manufacturers. Would you like to see those polls? Again?

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a documented fact that things are worse for black Americans under Obama and the Demcorats...

    And, since it is widely acknowledged that Clinton is nothing more than Obama's 3rd term, it makes absolutely NO LOGICAL SENSE for black Americans to vote for Clinton....

    "Simple logic.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Describe a scientific opinion held today by a majority of the world's scientists that a majority (or even sizable percentage) of Democrats deny.

    Tens of thousands of scientific peer-reviewed reports that dispute the Global Warming theory..

    Do Demcorats accept those reports??

    No, they do not....

    Good Question. Somebody should study that.

    No study necessary... It's COMMON SENSE that firearms are not diseases... But leave it to the Left Wingery to not understand that common sense... SOLELY because it violates the Leftist agenda...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And if we clear all the NOAA/Left Winger "filters" from the temp records, we prove that Global Warming is a big con.

    Firstly, that's Global Climate Change, mister. Secondly, you're trying to say that every environmental scientist in the world that isn't working for an oil company (a ratio of 100:2) is viewing the subject through a leftie/NOAA filter that makes it all disappear when not applied? I hope Miami has heard about that.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    You spout off about how Demcorats are all about science and then you have to have a "study" to see if guns are a disease...

    Do you comprehend how utterly ridiculous that sounds?? :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's COMMON SENSE that firearms are not diseases.

    It's also common sense that lightning strikes and falls in the tub are not diseases, yet the CDC has studied those phenomena. Why? Because if your mission is to discover what kills people, you have to study EVERYTHING that kills people, otherwise you have no reliable comparables to measure your disease studies against.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Firstly, that's Global Climate Change, mister.

    That's just marketing.. It's "Global Warming".. Or is it Climate Change?? Or maybe Climate Disruption??

    It's all marketing.. If you have to "market" science, then it ain't science...

    Secondly, you're trying to say that every environmental scientist in the world that isn't working for an oil company

    Ahhhhh So any scientist who disputes the Global Warming theory MUST be "working for the oil company"... Regardless of ANY other consideration..

    And you call that "science"!??? :D Sounds like ideological slavery and dogma to me.. :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Because if your mission is to discover what kills people, you have to study EVERYTHING that kills people

    Do they study war casualties??

    No... Because it would be stoopid....

    It's nothing but partisan and ideological agenda at work.. Nothing more...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ahhhhh So any scientist who disputes the Global Warming theory MUST be "working for the oil company"... Regardless of ANY other consideration.

    Let's say, it's a strong predictor of opinion.

    The fact of the matter is that, for the vast majority of the scientific community, the dispute about Climate Change is long over, and the focus now is all about trying to mitigate the ecological disaster that humans have caused.

    What, Republicans don't like clean air, water? No wonder they're hemorrhaging white educated women.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's also common sense that lightning strikes and falls in the tub are not diseases, yet the CDC has studied those phenomena.

    Those are acts of nature.. While still not diseases, it DOES make a modicum of sense...

    Do you know what "vehicle" you could "drive" that WON'T get you a DUI if you "drive" drunk??

    Same concept...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's say, it's a strong predictor of opinion.

    Of course it is.. :D As long as the "opinion" is Left Wingery opinion..

    The fact of the matter is that, for the vast majority of the scientific community, the dispute about Climate Change is long over

    That's what the Left Wingery wants people to believe...

    But the facts clearly show differently..

    What, Republicans don't like clean air, water?

    Which has nothing to do with Global Warming..

    But thank you for proving my point. The Left Wingery throws up ANY argument to push the Global Warming con... :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact of the matter is that, for the vast majority of the scientific community, the dispute about Climate Change is long over

    AND there you go, moving the goal posts.. I didn't catch that at first...

    *NO ONE* denies that the climate is changing... Another strawman argument...

    The climate has been changing for a billion years.. The climate will continue to change once human kind has gone the way of the dodo...

    What's yer point???

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, the thing you don't get is that science.. REAL science is never "settled"... And, when it comes to climate science, we don't even know enough to know what we don't even know..

    It's only the most arrogant and ignorant amongst us who would say that climate science is "settled"...

    Global Warming is a POLITICAL issue.. Pure and simple...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    To sum up...

    Demcorats ONLY accept "science" that is compatible with their ideological agenda...

    REAL science that is NOT confluent with the Demcorat Agenda is ignored..

    These are the facts, whether you acknowledge them or not..

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    See, the thing you don't get is that science.. REAL science is never "settled".

    But that doesn't make it purely a matter of opinion or conjecture. There is data. Most scientists, looking at that data, have concluded that the Climate change that we see occurring today is a result of human activity - primarily from spewing millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the sky daily.

    Global Warming is a POLITICAL issue.. Pure and simple...

    Trying to move the ball back to your side of the field? Look, they caught Exxon red-handed with an internal memo from the '70's that described the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow would have on the future and its predictions pretty much mirrored the situation that we find ourselves in today.
    What did Exxon do with that extraordinarily prescient report? Buried it, and began funding 'studies' that said otherwise.
    Then they started donating to politicians who would keep a lid on the truth about fossil fuels for them. So of course it's become a political, rather than scientific issue. They paid big money to insure that it would.

    Pretty despicable, even for a heartless, soulless corporation, don't you think?

    By the way, did you hear about the big earthquake in Oklahoma? Not at all caused by fracking, I'm sure.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moving the goal posts once again, eh??

    "environmental impact" is not climate...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Since fracking began in Oklahoma, the state has experienced so many earthquakes that it now averages more earthquakes a year than any other place in the world. In fact, they now experience more 3.0 tremors than S. Cal. does every year! Oklahoma went from 2 earthquakes a year in 2009 to 2 a day in 2015!

    Global Warming is a POLITICAL issue.. Pure and simple...

    Only for your kind. I love how Democrats supposedly invented global warming as a scheme to make money. The conservatives actually believe that this issue is solely discussed here in the US. Why would all of these other countries fall for this liberal Ponzi scheme? The U.S. just happens to be the one country left that has doubters in such large numbers. Of course, Pence still doubts that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, so we shouldn't be that shocked. The GOP voting base refuses to admit that they have been lied to by their party on every issue imaginable, and I don't know if it is just pride that keeps them in denial or what!

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has the Demcorat Party ever changed their platform to accommodate changing science??

    Not once..

    Ergo.. Their political agenda is ALWAYS 1000% in keeping with science..

    Now, ask yourself..

    What are the odds of that actually happening??

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only for your kind. I love how Democrats supposedly invented global warming as a scheme to make money.

    Actually Global Warming was Margeret Thatcher's ploy to push the Nuclear Energy program...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is what ya'all want me to believe..

    That human kind has MORE impact on the planet than the sun....

    That is the EPITOME of human arrogance...

    Human kind's impact on the planet is like a single man in a dingie in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean who flops out his Weiner (-D) and takes a piss in the middle of the ocean..

    YA'ALL would have us believe that THAT SINGLE WIZZ is responsible for raising the levels of the sea and contaminating the entirety of the ocean...

    And ya'all call that "SCIENCE"...

    Lay off the MJ pipe, people... :^/

    Ya'all are Flat Earthers trying to hold onto the RIDICULOUS theory that the earth is flat...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP voting base refuses to admit that they have been lied to by their party on every issue imaginable

    {{cough}}Bernie Sanders{cough} {{cough}} DNC {{cough}}

    Do you REALLY want to point fingers at a Party that lies to it's constituents?

    Really????

    Do you know the story of glass houses and stones??

    Apparently not...

    Once again, what you accuse the Right of.... The Left is equally guilty of....

    Sucks to be such a slave to Party dogma, eh?? :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    {{cough}}Bernie Sanders{cough} {{cough}} DNC {{cough}}

    Do you REALLY want to point fingers at a Party that lies to it's constituents?

    It would be very mean and unfair of me if I didn't help you out the same way I helped out Balthasar....

    Listen: "Uh...Well.... That's different..."

    Michale: "Of course it is..."

    :D There...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Balthasar missed a comment..

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS NOT CLIMATE.....

    There ya go....

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay....

    If YA'ALL want to support a total scumbag who charges children almost $3K to simply ASK A QUESTION......?????

    Who am I to judge the depravity of such a person, eh?? :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump going to Mexico could have had a certain "Nixon goes to China" flavor about it, and he actually was getting some good reviews

    "Only Nixon could go to China."
    -Old Vulcan Proverb

    :D

    I can't believe it took me THIS long to post that.. :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    So my wife read my comment and tells me that "Jigging" is not an American term. That, as usual, I've put my foot in it. Like the time, in complete innocence, when my 4-year-old son's YMCA kids soccer team was given black T-Shirts and I named them the Black Panthers. Oops.

    So apologies if there was any offense, but in my defense of ignorance:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13185966.Jigging_is_a_science/

    Note the date: 2014. Jigging = Scottish Country Dancing where I'm from.

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What do you think should be done with the statue of liberty ... taken down or left standing as a symbol of hypocrisy?

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, that question is only pertinent if Donald Trump is the next POTUS.

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, there is a fourth reason for Clinton being quiet at the moment (although her mental health proposal was far more worthy of news than it got) is that she is just fundraising in preparation for the key weeks when most undecided engage and make up their minds.

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm,

    So my wife read my comment and tells me that "Jigging" is not an American term.

    "Jigging" verb - to dance a jig. No need for apologizing for this one. While not a term that is used very often these days, it's definitely been used in the South for quite a while.

  117. [117] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Doesn't change the fact that the Republicans lie about everything. For every incident that you accuse the Dems of lying, there are ten incidents of the GOP lying.

    Listen: "Trump just lied about something."

    Michale: "The Dems lied about something that has nothing to do with this conversation once."

    Listen: "Doesn't change the fact that Trump is currently lying."

    Michale: "You refuse to defend a position that I have falsely accused you of supporting. Therefore you aren't interested in the facts and are a hypocrite. I am always right even when I am wrong!"

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If y'all haven't seen the movie 'Cabaret' in a while, you should do yourselves a favour and watch it again or for the first time!

    Life is a cabaret, old chum!
    So, come to the cabaret!

    If ever there was a need for a cabaret, it is now. What would we do without music!? I mean, seriously!?

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If ever there was a need for a cabaret, it is now.

    Actually, I've been trying my best to avoid comparisons with Weimar Germany lately.

    How about something more topical, like "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying?"

  120. [120] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Yet, you still support Hillary... So, apparently, you are not THAT offended.. :D

    OK...Cartman, calm down....wait I am the one who should be Stan or Kyle and pretty much rightfully pissed off...

    Again I will ask why is it that the candidate that has provided information for voters who have questions be compelled to reveal her medical records first vs a candidate who has yet to provide ONE IOTA OF EQUIVALANT INFORMATION?

    No matter whatever Cartmanesque argument you want to re-spin the simple FACT is that TRUMP has done nothing for your position.

    Currently you have no moral ground to stand on...or as you like to say NONE...NADA...ZILCH....ZERO...Once TRUMP/PENCE release the appropriate documents that bring them on par with Clinton/ Kaine, I will be more than happy to give your argument some thought.Until that time you have NONE...NADA...ZILCH...ZERO.

    Since you have had the very Cartman like urge to accuse me of supporting Clinton, I would invite you to find where I have said I am voting for CLINTON... My dislike for the corrupt politicians is well documented in these here parts.

    But, if you are to lazy to go digging...let's refer to #sackofdicks2016, reach into the bag grab one, no matter which one you pick it will not feel good when it is sticking it to you. Really dude, how hard is that to understand?

    I might have one more time to leave a parting shot...the simple fact of this election is that both candidates are running campaigns strictly for their bases and the supporting parties a re doing everything they can to manipulate the vote to ensure their corporate interest block wins. This election is plain and simply the largest disenfranchisement of the majority of the voting populace...and to boot NEITHER candidate is eligible to hold a security clearance.

    I don't know about you, but I find it highly disturbing that neither mainstream candidate that will lead our country can hold a security clearance....

    So... when you can effectively justify TRUMPS withholding of records from the electorate while demanding the the total release of HRC information ( let's assume she bites and releases her medical records, whats next? A demand for the release of her stool sample???? Don't worry Trump will release after HRC releases the stool sample records from Benghazi...), you sir, are quite simply participating in the manipulation of the election and supporting the prevention of free and open examination of BOTH candidates.

    If you were truly NPA you would be condemning TRUMP for not getting on par with CLINTON...but your not, so you haven't, and you won't...

    As a true NPA, I have seen HRC's dirt, now let me see TRUMP's so I can perform my civic duty and make an INFORMED vote.

    To be quite blunt, as a California citizen I am already disenfranchised, we are only used as an ATM for the parties, and our EV will go reliably to one party. So I will probably cast ballots for the so called "down ballot" races and skip casting a vote for the "Big Screw over"...

    Jet Lag Sucks...time to go to the departure lounge quiet area for a short nap to try and get my clock corrected to my destination...

  121. [121] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Yet, you still support Hillary... So, apparently, you are not THAT offended.. :D

    OK...Cartman, calm down....wait I am the one who should be Stan or Kyle and pretty much rightfully pissed off...

    Again I will ask why is it that the candidate that has provided information for voters who have questions be compelled to reveal her medical records first vs a candidate who has yet to provide ONE IOTA OF EQUIVALANT INFORMATION?

    No matter whatever Cartmanesque argument you want to re-spin the simple FACT is that TRUMP has done nothing for your position.

    Currently you have no moral ground to stand on...or as you like to say NONE...NADA...ZILCH....ZERO...Once TRUMP/PENCE release the appropriate documents that bring them on par with Clinton/ Kaine, I will be more than happy to give your argument some thought.Until that time you have NONE...NADA...ZILCH...ZERO.

    Since you have had the very Cartman like urge to accuse me of supporting Clinton, I would invite you to find where I have said I am voting for CLINTON... My dislike for the corrupt politicians is well documented in these here parts.

    But, if you are to lazy to go digging...let's refer to #sackofdicks2016, reach into the bag grab one, no matter which one you pick it will not feel good when it is sticking it to you. Really dude, how hard is that to understand?

    I might have one more time to leave a parting shot...the simple fact of this election is that both candidates are running campaigns strictly for their bases and the supporting parties a re doing everything they can to manipulate the vote to ensure their corporate interest block wins. This election is plain and simply the largest disenfranchisement of the majority of the voting populace...and to boot NEITHER candidate is eligible to hold a security clearance.

    I don't know about you, but I find it highly disturbing that neither mainstream candidate that will lead our country can hold a security clearance....

    So... when you can effectively justify TRUMPS withholding of records from the electorate while demanding the the total release of HRC information ( let's assume she bites and releases her medical records, whats next? A demand for the release of her stool sample???? Don't worry Trump will release after HRC releases the stool sample records from Benghazi...), you sir, are quite simply participating in the manipulation of the election and supporting the prevention of free and open examination of BOTH candidates.

    If you were truly NPA you would be condemning TRUMP for not getting on par with CLINTON...but your not, so you haven't, and you won't...

    As a true NPA, I have seen HRC's dirt, now let me see TRUMP's so I can perform my civic duty and make an INFORMED vote.

    To be quite blunt, as a California citizen I am already disenfranchised, we are only used as an ATM for the parties, and our EV will go reliably to one party. So I will probably cast ballots for the so called "down ballot" races and skip casting a vote for the "Big Screw over"...

    Jet Lag Sucks...time to go to the departure lounge quiet area for a short nap to try and get my clock corrected to my destination...

  122. [122] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Damn...double taps...

  123. [123] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Liz-

    Life without music would B flat...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats

    “She was part of the whole problem that started sending blacks to jail,” a young black man, also from Ohio, observed about Mrs. Clinton.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/young-blacks-voice-skepticism-on-hillary-clinton-worrying-democrats.html?_r=0

    Like I said.. The Left Wingery is getting REALLY worried about Trump's outreach to black Americans..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Doesn't change the fact that the Republicans lie about everything. For every incident that you accuse the Dems of lying, there are ten incidents of the GOP lying.

    Doesn't change the fact that your Hillary and the Demcorats ALSO lie about everything..

    And you give them a pass..

    Which proves you don't really care about lying.. You just want to use it as a partisan club to beat people who don't agree with you over the head with..

    "Jigging" verb - to dance a jig. No need for apologizing for this one. While not a term that is used very often these days, it's definitely been used in the South for quite a while.

    "jigging" is a connotation of the racial slur "jigaboo"..

    Neil has everything to apologize for and I am glad to see he had the integrity to do so..

    "Your stock just rose a few points, Mr Hunter."
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What do you think should be done with the statue of liberty ... taken down or left standing as a symbol of hypocrisy?

    How could it POSSIBLY be a symbol of hypocrisy???

    Of course, that question is only pertinent if Donald Trump is the next POTUS.

    Of course, you IGNORE the fact that ALL of Trump's illegal immigration proposals are carbon-copy of what Clinton and the Democrat's proposals were during Bill Clinton's administration..

    THIS is exactly why I tell you it's NOTHING but partisan agenda...

    You slam Trump's ideas (which were actually Bill Clinton's and the Demcorat's ideas) SOLELY because Trump has a '-R' after his name...

    Ya'all would be *ALL FOR* these ideas if someone with a -D after their name proposed it..

    See comments #66 & #67

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, there is a fourth reason for Clinton being quiet at the moment (although her mental health proposal was far more worthy of news than it got) is that she is just fundraising in preparation for the key weeks when most undecided engage and make up their minds.

    Why does she need so much money if Trump is sure to lose??

    Either Trump is toast or Trump could actually win...

    Ya'all can't have it both ways... ONE of those statements is a lie..

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    OK...Cartman, calm down....wait I am the one who should be Stan or Kyle and pretty much rightfully pissed off...

    Who????

    Since you have had the very Cartman like urge to accuse me of supporting Clinton, I would invite you to find where I have said I am voting for CLINTON... My dislike for the corrupt politicians is well documented in these here parts.

    OK, so you are saying you DON'T support Clinton??

    This election is plain and simply the largest disenfranchisement of the majority of the voting populace...and to boot NEITHER candidate is eligible to hold a security clearance.

    I don't know about you, but I find it highly disturbing that neither mainstream candidate that will lead our country can hold a security clearance....

    And yet, you ONLY slam Trump and you give Hillary a pass..

    Give me an example of a comment of yours that is really really critical of Hillary..

    For example.. Do you think Hillary has lied about her email server??

    You see, that's why I assume your support of Hillary. Because you always slam Trump and always give Hillary a pass.. So, my assumption is logical..

    So... when you can effectively justify TRUMPS withholding of records from the electorate while demanding the the total release of HRC information

    I have never justified Trump's withholding of records.. I have always said that Trump is hiding something... Just like Hillary is.. But YA'ALL only slam Trump for it and give Hillary a pass..

    I'll ask again. Is my demand for Hillary's complete and full medical records as logical as the Left Wingery's demand for Trumps full tax records??

    Yes or no??

    If you were truly NPA you would be condemning TRUMP for not getting on par with CLINTON...but your not,

    Actually, I have proven my NPA status by posting a jpg of my Voter Card...

    So that accusation is demonstrably false..

    As a true NPA, I have seen HRC's dirt, now let me see TRUMP's so I can perform my civic duty and make an INFORMED vote.

    But you haven't seen Hillary's dirt.. Her tax records are clean.. It's her full medical records that will show her dirt.. But you don't want to see those because you are in the bag for Hillary...

    To be quite blunt, as a California citizen I am already disenfranchised, we are only used as an ATM for the parties, and our EV will go reliably to one party. So I will probably cast ballots for the so called "down ballot" races and skip casting a vote for the "Big Screw over"...

    Good for you.. :D I mean that.. And I suspect you are one of millions of Americans who feel the exact same way...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you haven't seen Hillary's dirt.. Her tax records are clean.. It's her full medical records that will show her dirt.. But you don't want to see those because you are in the bag for Hillary...

    Strike that last part.. I have a bad habit of commenting as I read, rather than reading the whole thing and then commenting.. It's an senility/memory issue.. :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Diddy: Black people got shortchanged by Obama
    http://pagesix.com/2016/09/04/diddy-black-people-got-shortchanged-by-obama/

    Why the hell would black Americans vote for Obama's 3rd term when they have been royally screwed over by his first 2 terms???

    Answer: They won't...

    They will either vote for Trump and get a REAL change in their lives..

    Or they will follow GT's example and just stay home...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Life without music would B flat...

    "Don't you get it!!! It's the key!!! They key is the key!!!"
    -Whoopi Goldberg, JUMPIN JACK FLASH

    :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

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

    Hillary's lead in the ONLY relevant national poll continues to shrink...

    Ceding the playing field to Trump is a BIG mistake.. HUGE...

    On the other hand, if Hillary is as frail as reports says she is, it's probably a matter of survival that she is taking many days off for naps and such...

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Actually, I've been trying my best to avoid comparisons with Weimar Germany lately.

    You miss the point(s), completely.

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, you IGNORE the fact that ALL of Trump's illegal immigration proposals are carbon-copy of what Clinton and the Democrat's proposals were during Bill Clinton's administration..

    You miss the point, completely, too. Hopeless.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”
    John Ellison, Dean Of Students University Of Chicago

    FINALLY.. some common sense being displayed at at a college campus..

    If I had to point to a single really REALLY bad concept that the Demcorat Party has given this country, this idea of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" bullcarp would be very near the top...

    It USED to be that kids WENT to college to be exposed to new ideas and new concepts..... They go to college to LEARN...

    NOW, these sniveling and wimp-ified cowards given to us by the Demcorat Party got to college to be exposed to SAFE ideas and SAFE concepts.... NOW, they go to college to be coddled and kept safe from the very world they claim to want to learn about...

    Thanx, Demcorats... Thanx for giving us a generation of wimps and lusers who will have to take days off because they might be emotionally upset about the real world..

    In short, thanx for nothing.....

    I would be very interested in the thoughts of the Wegantian Secretary of Education on this issue... :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ceding the playing field to Trump is a BIG mistake.. HUGE...

    Naw, it's an old game called "give 'em enough rope..".

    The field events part of our program begins later today...

    'Let's go out to the snaaack bar...'

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, if you want to know what is really precious, everyone, it's the tiresome refrain that many here claim, essentially, that they are simply using Michale to hone their debating skills.

    Well, I got some news for you and you'll soon find out it's true ... the debating skills on exhibit around here - not to mention the tedious nonsense that passes for discussion, most of the time - are nothing to write home about.

    It's not even amusing, anymore.

    Yes, I'm having a moment ...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    You miss the point, completely, too. Hopeless.

    Actually, it is YOU who are missing the point.. Or, more accurately, you are not wanting to see the point.

    All of Trump's illegal immigration ideas that you and everyone else here condemn are DEMOCRAT PARTY ideas.

    Which proves beyond any doubt that the *ONLY* reason to hate these ideas is because it's a person with a '-R' after their name who is presenting them..

    It's *ALL* about partisan ideology... Nothing else is in play. Not logic, not rational thinking... Just '-D' vs '-R'

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When did Bill Clinton ever say that he was going to build a big, beautiful border wall and deport every last illegal immigrant, regardless of the natural born US citizens in their families and ban legal immigration and presumably visits to the US based on religion and ethnicity and use a test to determine whether anyone wishing to set foot in the US loves the American people.

    I mean, really, Michale ... give me a freakin' break!

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Naw, it's an old game called "give 'em enough rope..".

    Apparently, it's HILLARY who is getting hanged by that rope... :D

    Her numbers are plummeting....

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's *ALL* about partisan ideology... Nothing else is in play. Not logic, not rational thinking... Just '-D' vs '-R'

    You can put a fork in that one, Michale. Find a new argument.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can put a fork in that one, Michale. Find a new argument.

    Why?? This one works perfectly..

    NO ONE can address it logically without conceding.. :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Naw, it's an old game called "give 'em enough rope..".

    I wish I had the artistic capability to do a political cartoon on this.. :D

    Picture it..

    In the foreground, a reporter is interviewing Clinton...

    "My absence?? Oh, I am just giving Trump enough rope to hang himself.."

    In the background, you see the White House with a rope hanging down from the Oval Office and Trump is climbing that rope...

    Don'tcha just love it!! :D

    I wish I could put that to picture...

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    When did Bill Clinton ever say that he was going to build a big, beautiful border wall and deport every last illegal immigrant, regardless of the natural born US citizens in their families and ban legal immigration and presumably visits to the US based on religion and ethnicity and use a test to determine whether anyone wishing to set foot in the US loves the American people.

    Trump never said that either...

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    When did Bill Clinton ever say that he was going to build a big, beautiful border wall and deport every last illegal immigrant,

    1995 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...

    All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

    'nuff said...

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process.
    -Barbara Jordan, Democrat, Commission on Immigration Reform

    Shall I go on???

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where's the part about the wall?

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has done EXACTLY what ya'all said he should do back on the 29 Aug commentary...

    And yet, ya'all STILL slam his immigration policies...

    You see what I mean about it being ALL partisan ideology..

    Turmp did EXACTLY what ya'all said he should do and yet, he is STILL attacked for it..

    It's nothing but ideology at work here.. Nothing more..

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, please go on ...

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where's the part about the wall?

    "That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders"

    Why do you have a problem with a wall??

    Do you have walls surrounding your belongings in your house??

    Of course you do...

    Clinton and the rest of the Demcorats live behind HUGE walls...

    The wall cut illegal immigration in Southern California by 92% when California built a wall...

    What's wrong with a wall??

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, please go on ...

    OK, but remember.. YOU asked for it.. :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws."
    -Bill Clinton, 1996

    Everyone remembers that in 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed an "amnesty" law. But what most people don't know is that in 1996 — fresh off the heels of signing welfare reform, and two years after signing the "crime bill" — President Bill Clinton signed a bill that overhauled immigration enforcement in the US and laid the groundwork for the massive deportation machine that exists today.

    Both welfare reform and the crime bills Clinton signed have been relitigated during a contentious Democratic primary, but the 1996 immigration bill — the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act — hasn't.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration

    "We must not tolerate illegal immigration. Since 1992, we have increased our Border Patrol by over 35%; deployed underground sensors, infrared night scopes and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences; and installed massive amounts of new lighting. We have moved forcefully to protect American jobs by calling on Congress to enact increased civil and criminal sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. Since 1993, we have removed 30,000 illegal workers from jobs across the country."
    -Bill Clinton, 1996

    You want more???

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Operation Gatekeeper was a Clinton-era measure implemented by the U.S. Border Patrol, then a part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, aimed at halting illegal immigration at the United States–Mexico border near San Diego, California.[1] According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the goal of Gatekeeper was "to restore integrity and safety to the nation's busiest border."

    Operation Gatekeeper was announced in Los Angeles on September 17, 1994, by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and was launched two weeks later on October 1.

    The United States Congress allocated additional funds to the United States Border Patrol and other agencies. By 1997, the budget of the Immigration and Naturalization Service had doubled to 800 million dollars, the number of Border Patrol agents had nearly doubled, the amount of fencing or other barriers more than doubled, and the number of underground sensors nearly tripled.

    Academic Noam Chomsky has said that Operation Gatekeeper was a "militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border" and alleges it was because NAFTA would have increased illegal immigration into the United States; therefore, Gatekeeper was a precaution to stop future illegal immigration.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gatekeeper

    Apparently, ya'all ONLY have a problem with aggressive border operations designed to curb illegal immigration when it's a person with an '-R' after their name proposes it..

    The facts are clear, the conclusion unequivocal...

    It's ALL about the ideology...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
    -Hillary Clinton, 2014

    No Friend of Immigrants

    Democratic presidents have been responsible for some of the most punitive immigration policies in modern history.

    Over the past few decades, Democratic presidents have implemented some of the most punitive immigration policies and the most draconian enforcement in modern history, as part of a broader push to restructure the US economy and the state’s role in it.
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/immigration-democrats-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/

    "I can do this all day."
    -Captain America

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a story about a forgotten time when a Democratic president sold out our ideals for the sake of...well...something.

    I haven't seen any evidence that Senator Clinton is running away from this record. In fact, at least with reference to immigration she's moving even more to the right.

    At campaign stops Senator Clinton has stated that immigrants who commit crimes should be put on a plane and sent back to where they came from immediately with no legal process.

    Those positions have destroyed numerous lives and are not in any way positions of a Democrat.

    In fact they are a betrayal of what we hold dear as a party.

    If Senator Clinton wants to run on the record of the 1990's then she needs to own it all, good and bad.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/449127/-

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I can do this all day."
    -Captain America

    Interesting side note on this quote..

    Chris Evans uses this line in every Captain America movie.. :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    In this election, Trump is seen as the outsider candidate...

    I agree. Unfortunately for Trump, he is seen as an "outsider" by his own party, and by many across all parties he is viewed as more like an unqualified interloper. The fact is, Trump is the ultimate insider who is merely posing as an outsider. I see Trump very much like a modern day Wendell Willkie, and I think this election parallels in many ways the election of 1940.

    And upwards of 80% of the American people **DON'T WANT** an ESTABLISHMENT President...

    If this BS were actually true, then Trump's poll numbers wouldn't be stuck in the 36% to 43% range, would they? Perhaps you are confusing 80% of Republicans with 80% of the "American people"? Perhaps you think that typing BS out over and over will somehow magically make it come true? Where did you pull this 80% figure from? I have a guess. LOL

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, to sum up...

    Clinton ceding the playing field to Trump will give Trump a rope that he can climb all the way into the Oval Office...

    Democrats LOVED aggressive operations to severely attack the illegal immigrant problem when it was a Democrat who was ordering it..

    Now that a person with an '-R' after his name is proposing similar actions..

    NOW... ALL OF THE SUDDEN, Demcorats hate that idea...

    The ONLY logical conclusion???

    It's ALL about partisan ideology...

    No other possibility fits the facts...

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree. Unfortunately for Trump, he is seen as an "outsider" by his own party,

    EXACTLY!!!!!!!

    Which is why Hillary's support is based on NOTHING but Partisan Ideology....

    Trump's support is based on so much more with very little ideology in play...

    Thank you Kick for proving so perfectly what I have been saying.... :D

    I am sure it was unintentional, but I thank you anyway.. :D

    "Thank you, COB"
    "Than....??? Fuck you! Get it straight Mr Hunter, I'm not on your side. Now you could be wrong! But wrong or right, the Captain can't just replace you at will. That was completely improper! And that's why I did what I did. By the book."
    I thank you anyway..

    -CRIMSON TIDE

    :D

    If this BS were actually true,

    It is actually true.. At last count, 81% of Americans don't like the direction this country is heading..

    But I understand. You question facts that you don't like SOLELY because you don't like them.. :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where did you pull this 80% figure from? I have a guess. LOL

    GALLUP POLL Aug 3-7 2016

    "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

    SATISFIED 17%
    DISSASITIFIED 82%
    UNSURE 2%

    "I guessed wrong."
    -Austin Powers

    :D heh

    Don't you EVER get tired of getting slapped down?? :D

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the point where you try to debate what the definition of "IS" is.... :D

    Or you could man up and just concede the validity of my point...

    ......

    ....... NAAAWWWWWW :D

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apologies, Kick...

    I shouldn't cap on you so much. You DID agree with me on a salient and important point..

    So, forgive me for comment #161... That was unworthy...

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news..

    JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering an offer by Russian President Vladimir Putin to host talks in Moscow between the Israeli leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Netanyahu's office said on Monday.

    It said in a statement Netanyahu, at a meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, "presented Israel's position whereby he is always ready to meet (Abbas) without preconditions and is therefore considering the Russian president's proposal and the timing for a possible meeting".

    With his eye on shifting big-power influence in the Middle East, Netanyahu has visited Russia for talks with Putin three times in the last year, and the two also speak on occasion by phone to discuss regional issues.
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-considering-talks-palestinian-president-moscow-israeli-statement-104552813.html

    Looks like our most staunchest ally in the Middle East may not be so "staunch" in the future...

    Chalk that one up to Hillary's and Obama's "competence"....

    No wonder Obama gave Putin the stink-eye at the G20....

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That Gallup poll number doesn't change very much:

    http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/0br84xfig0g1hxkjrmv28g.png

    Thing is, it includes folks who blame the GOP for everything going wrong in politics, too.

    A far better tracking number is the President's approval numbers, which have been rising steadily all year.

  165. [165] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Looks like our most staunchest ally in the Middle East may not be so "staunch" in the future...

    Oh please! As long as we pump the more than $3 billion of aid money into their economy every year, they aren't going anywhere! And it only keeps getting better: a new ten year plan just announced would give them more than $40 billion over the next decade! Gee, all this money just to keep them safe...is it any surprise that peace is NOT an option Netanyahu would ever consider??? Their economy would be destroyed if we no longer needed to buy them new toys to protect themselves with every year.

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    Which is why Hillary's support is based on NOTHING but Partisan Ideology....

    Trump's support is based on so much more with very little ideology in play...

    Thank you Kick for proving so perfectly what I have been saying.... :D

    Are you mentally deficient? Are you trying to be humorous or are you really that stupid? I belong to no party, and I'm voting for Hillary, nothing to do with partisan ideology whatsoever. My mother-in-law who is a Republican who has never voted for a Democrat in her life is voting for Hillary because she has lady parts, nothing to do with partisan ideology.

    At last count, 81% of Americans don't like the direction this country is heading..

    Okay. So? Must I spoon feed you? That's a fallacy of composition.

    Do you actually believe that every single one of those 81% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction because the POTUS is a member of "the establishment"?

    If per chance the answer is "yes," then I ask again: Are you trying to be humorous or are you really that stupid?

    But I understand. You question facts that you don't like SOLELY because you don't like them.. :D

    I questioned your statement "And upwards of 80% of the American people **DON'T WANT** an ESTABLISHMENT President...

    You keep saying that is a "fact" over and over and over ad nauseam, and so I asked where you pulled it from. Then you spew out polling statistics and claim I disagree with them. You're making an argument I never made, Scarecrow, and your straw men are getting tiresome and lame.

    I happen to be one of the Americans who doesn't like the direction the country is heading. Hint: It's not because I don't want an "establishment" POTUS.

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    You keep saying that is a "fact" over and over and over ad nauseam, and so I asked where you pulled it from. Then you spew out polling statistics and claim I disagree with them. You're making an argument I never made, Scarecrow, and your straw men are getting tiresome and lame.

    This is why I just skip over all Michale's comments - there are no references or sources, consistency or coherence, just a steady stream of more and more and more nonsense. Trust me, this is a great site when you only read 40% of the comments.

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [164]

    A longer timeframe on the question about satisfaction with the direction of the U.S. can be seen here:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx

    It shows that Reagan and Clinton 1 both managed to get the country moving in the right direction from a satisfaction perspective. Bush 2 was a disaster, and Obama has not moved the dial.

  169. [169] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, I got some news for you and you'll soon find out it's true ... the debating skills on exhibit around here - not to mention the tedious nonsense that passes for discussion, most of the time - are nothing to write home about.

    Goodness. You ARE having a moment.

    Well, here's the thing: the GOP base decided long ago that, if they ran a traditional campaign this year that they'd be beat like a toy drum. But then along came Trump - who is the perfect opposite of Barack Obama in nearly every detail (honestly, the only similarity the two men have is that they both wear suits) - and decided to support his run as an 'insurgent' candidacy, designed to harass and annoy, rather than beat, the democrats.

    Much to their own great surprise, much of the GOP rank and file has gotten behind this effort, echoing, perhaps subconsciously, Trump's own appeal to those he perceives as dispossessed: "what have you got to lose?"

    Dignity is not, apparently, on the list.

    To once more echo Norman Lear's brilliant assessment: "Donald Trump is the raised middle finger of the American Right". To discount that is to miss the whole point of this.

    Hence, Bannon. Hence, Bossie. Hence, Ailes.

    These are political terrorists, whose goal is to make us uncomfortable, to make us afraid, to make us turn on each other, to make the whole political structure of our country shudder and break.

    More fun than losing an election, right?

    So how do you push back at an insurgency? The more you push, the faster it grows. It's designed that way. But there is a strategy, or set of strategies that are usually effective -

    So you do what Hillary has done:

    1. Keep doing business as usual. Don't let them disrupt the process; that's one of their main goals.

    2. Chart a moderate, inclusive course that leaves the door open for defections from the other side. That will frustrate your own base, which would rather hang them by their toenails, but will pay off long-term by giving those that they've alienated on their side a place to go.

    3. Stay consistent. The enemy of insurgency is stability; even they say so. So let everyone see that you won't be budged by their antics. Let everyone know that you're the adult in the room.

    4. Play the long game. Building a sturdy coalition is a slow, stay-in-the-trenches enterprise. It's about your ground operation, and requires the sort of support that has to be grown from below, rather than imposed from above.

    5. Stay positive. Insurgencies feed on discontent. Proposing positive solutions, such as higher wages, safer streets and better schools, and then describing how you'd make that happen can undermine the arguments of the other side.

    6. Raise the bar. Ever notice that insurgencies 'get away with' stuff that establishments could never do? You have to get folks to imagine the shoe being on the other foot, and to consider what sort of world the insurgents are actually proposing to create.

    So to your point: yes, this year it's ugly and childish and definitely not a Brookings Institution seminar. But keep in mind (and everybody knows this): this post will not be remembered as well as a one-line 'zinger' would have been. You know that's true. It's a sad fact of life, but also the playing field we're on. We have to play THIS game, right now.

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm [164]: very interesting!

  171. [171] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm: why do you think that is? I have my own opinion, but I've already been long-winded this morning. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar[169]

    Nice.

    So to your point: yes, this year it's ugly and childish and definitely not a Brookings Institution seminar.

    That wasn't my point. I wasn't referring to presidential campaign tactics and strategies. Which are par for the course in any year.

  173. [173] 
    apophis wrote:

    Hillary Clinton gets a new plane for final stretch of campaigning. She will be taking her press corp with her on the trail. The campaign has begun...

  174. [174] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth [172]:

    Nice.

    Thank you.

    That wasn't my point. I wasn't referring to presidential campaign tactics and strategies.

    Nor was I. I was talking about the discourse about the campaign EVERYWHERE, including here.

    I think most folks here dream of being able to write and analyze events as well as CW, and a few come close. Others don't try at all, but are as inevitable as weather. There's no sense letting it upset you, otherwise you will remain perpetually upset.

    And, by the way, I've been meaning to ask, which version of the Cabaret score have you been listening to?

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The original one. Just watched the movie the other night.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    I belong to no party, and I'm voting for Hillary, nothing to do with partisan ideology whatsoever.

    Suuuureeee it doesn't.. :D

    You keep saying that is a "fact" over and over and over ad nauseam, and so I asked where you pulled it from. Then you spew out polling statistics and claim I disagree with them. You're making an argument I never made, Scarecrow, and your straw men are getting tiresome and lame.

    Are you mentally deficient??

    You questioned the source of my fact..

    I gave you the source.

    You can't handle the fact..

    I happen to be one of the Americans who doesn't like the direction the country is heading.

    And yet you are going to vote for the person who is going to continue that direction you CLAIM you don't like..

    Where is the logic in that??

    Answer: There is none. It's ALL partisan ideology and Party enslavement....

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I just skip over all Michale's comments -

    And yet, you caught the comment of mine that pointed out your racist comment..

    Caught in a lie, eh neil?? :D But, of course, lies don't matter one bit when they are told by those with a '-D' after their name... :D

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So I guess you acknowledge the validity of my conclusion that the entire opposition to Trump's immigration plans is SOLELY based on the fact that Trump has a '-R' after his name....

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

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar [169],

    Beautifully stated! (Standing ovation).

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh please! As long as we pump the more than $3 billion of aid money into their economy every year, they aren't going anywhere!

    Unless they can get $4 BILLION from the Russians..

    The simple fact that Netanyahu is smoozing with Putin and giving Obama the finger IS worrisome to those who can look beyond Party ideology (that lets out ya'all) and actually have experience and expertise in the region (ditto)...

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [125]

    "jigging" is a connotation of the racial slur "jigaboo"..

    NO, it really isn't. Jigging refers to a lively dance, usually performed in triple time. Jigging is also a popular form of fishing back home, but it isn't a racial slur.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:
  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO, it really isn't. Jigging refers to a lively dance, usually performed in triple time. Jigging is also a popular form of fishing back home, but it isn't a racial slur.

    That's your opinion and I respect that.

    But both neil and I recognize it as a racial slur... Hence, my pointing it out and his apology...

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have your opinion, Listen..

    Race: Blacks
    Short for Jigaboo.

    http://www.rsdb.org/slur/jig

    And I have the facts...

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can concede the point at any time..

    But I know you won't....

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton Starts Speech With Massive Coughing Fit: "Every Time I Think About Trump I Get Allergic"

    Hillary Clinton had a massive coughing fit as she began a Labor Day campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio. She had trouble speaking and thanking local elected officials and had to stop multiple times to cough and clear her throat.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/05/hillary_clinton_starts_speech_with_massive_coughing_fit_every_time_i_think_about_trump_i_get_allergic.html

    Yea... Crooked Hillary is in "PERFECT" health??

    Riiigggghhhhtttttt....

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary is going to be a RIOT at the debate!!

    Equal odds that she has to be carried out on a stretcher... :D

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not as if any more proof is needed...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqyfM6xcXnI

    Feel free to apologize at any time, Listen.. :D

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an idea, Listen...

    Pretend it was Trump who said "Jigging".....

    There ya go..... NOW you see it as a racial slur... :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Or they will follow GT's example and just stay home...

    If you are going to use something I said to try and support a point get it frigging right... GOT IT????

    I never said I was staying home. I said I may opt out of voting for the top of the ballot while performing my civic duties that will matter by voting down ballot...

    Again you are missing the point I was making ...In terms of my vote having an impact on the national scale, mine does not due to where I live and the fact that no matter how I vote for POTUS, the EV will go reliably to one party. Arguably, I have the luxury of taking the current position I have because of where I live.

    Now if I was in one of the swing or battle ground states I would have a different take on my position and would have to vote for the top of the ticket as my vote would have an impact.

    I have paid to high a price and continue to work making sure we can defend our rights of which voting is one of (or if you are going to be your usual Cartman like self it is a duty). I exercise the rights and duties I have earned and will not tolerate someone indicating otherwise.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/H133cTro1NQ

    This woman can't get thru 30 seconds of a speech before she is coughing up a lung..

    And she expects to LEAD this country!??? :^/

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Interestingly, 'jigaboo' appears to trace back to tshikabo, a Bantu word meaning 'servile' (in a derogatory way).

    Jig, jiggle, jigsaw etc. appear to derive from the romance language's variants of 'gigue', a kind of fiddle, and the associated dancing.

    All this was further muddled by Will Smith's 1990's hit 'Gettin' jiggy wit it." See:

    http://pancocojams.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-jiggy-means-where-that-word-really.html

    Cross over word usages are often confusing without some context. For a while, I wondered whether "calling a spade a spade" had a derogatory history (nope! totally garden-tool related).

  193. [193] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [180]:

    hmm. The right likes Netanyahu, right?

    and the right likes Putin, obviously. Strong guy.

    So what are you alarmed about? Do you think that WE (democrats?) should be alarmed? Don't be silly. The Israelis trust the Russians about as much as they trust Saudi sand snakes, given that they bankrolled a number of attacks against them. It would take a lot more than cash to change that.

    Moreover, Netanyahu's hard-line constituency back home includes a lot of former Russians, Jews who fled from bigoted and inhospitable communities. He'll be constrained from going too far toward the Russians by that alone.

    Then, there's the opinion of the US, where there are more Jews than in all of Israel. That is not insignificant.

    Is Netanyahu giving Obama the finger worrisome? Naw, he's been doing that for years. Helps him politically back home. Privately, he takes our money and exchange programs, allows his military and intelligence services to work closely with ours, and has restrained his own military from finishing off Assad, which it most certainly would love to do (and could, if unleashed), probably at our request. So no, if you know the region as well as you say, you realize that there isn't much to worry about there at all.

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never said I was staying home. I said I may opt out of voting for the top of the ballot while performing my civic duties that will matter by voting down ballot...

    Semantics.. You are "staying home" insofar as the Presidential Election is concerned...

    Now if I was in one of the swing or battle ground states I would have a different take on my position and would have to vote for the top of the ticket as my vote would have an impact.

    So, we're back to you being in the sack with Hillary...

    I have paid to high a price and continue to work making sure we can defend our rights of which voting is one of (or if you are going to be your usual Cartman like self it is a duty). I exercise the rights and duties I have earned and will not tolerate someone indicating otherwise.

    In other words, you get offended when someone calls a spade a spade...

    Gotcha {wink} {wink}

    :D

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Netanyahu giving Obama the finger worrisome? Naw, he's been doing that for years. Helps him politically back home. Privately, he takes our money and exchange programs, allows his military and intelligence services to work closely with ours, and has restrained his own military from finishing off Assad, which it most certainly would love to do (and could, if unleashed), probably at our request. So no, if you know the region as well as you say, you realize that there isn't much to worry about there at all.

    Did I say there is anything to worry about???

    No...

    I merely point it out to show how BADLY Obama and the Demcorats have frak'ed up the region since I was there...

    I am not worried at all because I know once Trump is elected, he will turn around the utter downslide that Odumbo has started...

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    For a while, I wondered whether "calling a spade a spade" had a derogatory history

    Of course you did.. You are a Demcorat after all..

    To anyone NOT ensnared or enslaved by Party ideology, there is NOTHING racially derogatory about "calling a spade a spade.."

    I have provided the FACTS along with examples of usage..

    Ya'all just CAN'T admit that I am correct about this...

    It's OK.. I am used to it... :D

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am not worried at all because I know once Trump is elected, he will turn around the utter downslide that Odumbo has started...

    Sure. By "bombing the hell out of them" and "getting the hell out of there". That's a plan.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    I noticed something interesting today..

    Trump has absolutely NO PROBLEM going to Clinton constituencies and talking to them...

    Hillary doesn't have the ...ahem... testicular fortitude to go to areas that are Pro-Trump...

    Hillary only goes to areas where she knows she is welcome...

    That is why Hillary is going to lose... :D

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. By "bombing the hell out of them" and "getting the hell out of there". That's a plan.

    A helluva lot better than Odumbo's "LEAD FROM BEHIND AKA THE COWARD OF THE COUNTRY" plan...

    Remember Odumbo's "plan" predicated that The Daesch was "the JV"...

    Odumbo's plan "contained" The Daesch....

    Odumbo's plan is shit....

    You just can't admit that because you are enslaved by Party dogma.

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, there's like a half dozen of ya'all and I am wiping the floor with ya'all!!! :D

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    For a while, I wondered whether "calling a spade a spade" had a derogatory history.

    Of course you did.. You are a Demcorat [sic] after all..

    Well, to be honest, not all Democrats are interested in the etymology of words or phrases. But it's nice of you to assume that!

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, to be honest, not all Democrats are interested in the etymology of words or phrases. But it's nice of you to assume that!

    No, but all Demcorats are Politically Correct up the wazzooo and see racism where absolutely NO RACISM exists...

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gods I am ON FIRE!!!!!! :D

    I think I deserve another beer!! :D

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I deserve another beer!! :D

    It is so ordered..

    So say we all..
    -Battlestar Galactica

    Cheers... :D

    Michale

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK OK I'll give ya'all a break and give you time to collect your torn and sundered egos... :D

    It's movie night with the lovely wife.... :D

    See ya'all in the morning...

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But wait..there's more! If you by into Trump's BS in the next 65 days, Donald Trump promises to:

    Weaken the NATO Alliance.

    Deport up to 4 million immigrants "immediately".

    Build a 2,000 mi. long wall. Est. Cost: $25,000,000,000.00 dollars.

    Demand that Mexico be made to pay for the wall, either by direct payment, by trade sanctions, by tariffs, or by other tax or fine against Mexican Government interests. Good thing we're friends!

    Shut down 'sanctuary cities', and strengthen government.

    Start a trade war with China, while simultaneously attempting to re-negotiate, with China and a number of other pacific countries, a version of the TPP that would be weighted more heavily toward US interests than the current version.

    Ban all Muslims from a number of countries from entering the United States. How to tell that they are Muslim if they don't declare it isn't spelled out. This used to be 'all Muslims from every country', but has changed for unspecific reasons.

    Make sure that Russia doesn't invade Ukraine.

    Get the BEST negotiators.

    Reduce Taxes on the rich. Repeal Estate taxes altogether.

    Invest in the largest re-build of infrastructure in American history.

    Make American Great Again. I mean, it's a great country already, with all the barbecues and the hamstrung IRS and SEC, and lower taxes on stocks, and loopholes for friggin' everything, and commercial eminent domain, and now the whole friggin political machine is for sale! Can you f_

    *ahem*

    So, Don't Wait! Buy into it Now!

  207. [207] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    RE [206] -

    first line: "buy"

    sixth paragraph: strengthen Local government.

  208. [208] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [206]

    You forgot:

    "Make Mexico Great Again Also"

    Hats available for a limited time.

  209. [209] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    chazz: ;}

  210. [210] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [184]

    The word being discussed was "jigging", NOT "jig". I was talking about the action verb. How does one "jigaboo"? Once again, you try to claim you have proven something that you haven't. All this does is further demonstrate why you are so drawn to Trump: truth means nothing to your arguments!

  211. [211] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    You questioned the source of my fact..

    I gave you the source.

    So you claimed as "fact":

    (1) "And upwards of 80% of the American people **DON'T WANT** an ESTABLISHMENT President...

    Based on:

    (2) At last count, 81% of Americans don't like the direction this country is heading.

    So your "fact" I labeled (1) assumes that all the 81% that do not like the direction in which the country is going is simply because of the president?

    I can certainly see why you like Trump since you seem equally uninterested in facts versus making up BS to fit your narrative depending on who is in your audience.

    And yet you are going to vote for the person who is going to continue that direction you CLAIM you don't like..

    Where is the logic in that??

    Oh sure, I could blame one person or one party, but that would be shallow and obtuse and what I consider to be intellectual laziness. Why blame one party for the action or inaction of a government made up of many representatives from different parties elected by the many diverse groups of people of the United States? The Constitution divides our government into three branches, etc., cut to the chase... checks and balances.

    I'd like to understand things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass. :)

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The word being discussed was "jigging"

    You can debate what the definition of "IS" is till the cows come home..

    But the simple fact is, I thought it was racist, NEIL thought it was racist and I provided documentation and usage that it's racist...

    You were wrong... I would have hoped you, like neil, would have had the integrity to admit you were wrong..

    But I am not surprised..

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh sure, I could blame one person or one party, but that would be shallow and obtuse and what I consider to be intellectual laziness. Why blame one party for the action or inaction of a government made up of many representatives from different parties elected by the many diverse groups of people of the United States? The Constitution divides our government into three branches, etc., cut to the chase... checks and balances.

    Yet, you have absolutely NO PROBLEM blaming the REPUBLICAN PARTY for everything..

    And YOU got caught in a lie... :D

    Michale

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    So your "fact" I labeled (1) assumes that all the 81% that do not like the direction in which the country is going is simply because of the president?

    It is for ya'all when the POTUS has a '-R' after his name.. :D

    And the floor-wiping continues!! :D

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd like to understand things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass. :)

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz Kreutz ? @ABCLiz
    Clinton made statements about her new book & Russia/hacking, and then took 7 questions from reporters before excusing herself bc of a cough.

    That's two coughing fits in one day...

    And ya'all STILL claim that Hillary has absolutely "NO HEALTH ISSUES" and is in... how did ya'all put it?? "PERFECT HEALTH"...

    I can see it now.. The very first debate, when Trump is wiping the floor with Hillary (much as I do here with ya'all.. :D) there is going to be a huge coughing fit from Hillary and she will have to cancel the debate... :D

    That will do WONDERS for Hillary's numbers, eh? :D

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The word being discussed was "jigging"

    Race: Native Americans

    In Canada, they do a dance called a jig or jigging.
    http://www.rsdb.org/slur/jig

    No matter HOW you try and spin it.. It's STILL a racist slur...

    Neil has admitted it..

    I have proven it..

    You have absolutely NO MORAL OR RATIONAL argument to stand on....

    Give it up...

    You.... are.... wrong.... I.... am..... correct.....

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tomorrow, Trump is apparently planning the same sort of minority outreach to African-Americans. That should be interesting, to put it mildly.

    So....????

    WAS it interesting???

    Or was it stupendously awesome for Trump!!!

    It was indeed, very awesome for Trump. In fact, it was so frabjously awesome for Trump that the Leftist MSM had to shut down the video feed for fear that Americans would see an entire room full of black Americans rallying around Trump..

    THAT is how awesome it was for Trump...

    And it's only going to get better and better for Trump and worse and worse for Clinton...

    I sense T-SHIRT bets in Weigantia's future.. :D

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even the propaganda arm of the Demcorat Party is starting to report Hillary's health issues..

    Hillary Clinton Fights Back Coughing Attack
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-struggles-fight-back-coughing-attack-n643026

    Ya'all just HAVE to know it's bad for Hillary when her standard water-carriers start reporting on the fact of her ill health... :D

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Trump is going to release his complete medical records...

    Of course, ya'all being the un-biased and completely objective people ya'all claim to be, you will demand that Hillary reciprocate and release her full medical records..

    Right?? :D

    "In a pigs eye!!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Amok Time..

    :D

    Michale

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apuA5CACTfs

    Yea... Hillary is in PERFECT health.. NO medical issues whatsoever..

    Do ya'all REALLY believe that???

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    10 PROMINENT DOCTORS QUESTION HILLARY'S HEALTH
    'I can look at the video. You can look.' To not have questions is 'reckless'

    wnd.com/2016/08/10-prominent-doctors-question-hillarys-health/

    Hacking Hillary: A complete timeline of 2016 coughing fits
    theamericanmirror.com/hacking-hillary-complete-timeline-2016-coughing-fits/

    To claim that there is nothing to Hillary's health concerns is to deny reality...

    Remember, ya'all believed Bill Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman..

    Ya'all believed Hussein Odumbo when he said if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan...

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Hillary is NOT in "perfect health" despite all ya'all's claims to the contrary...

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting thing about that video in #221...

    Hillary goes into a coughing fit and asks for water, even though she is holding a bottle of water in her hand..

    Dementia?? Early onset of Alzheimers??

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thyroid problems linked to sudden cardiac death...
    http://www.everydayhealth.com/atrial-fibrillation/living-with/how-much-thyroid-hormone-affects-your-heart/

    Someone want to tell me again that Hillary is in "perfect health"...

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the *FACTS* to the contrary....

    Michale

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    Everyone always claims I have no facts..

    And yet, when I *PROVE* that I have NOTHING BUT facts, everyone runs away..... :D

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/05/politics/obama-putin-duterte-xi-erdogan-g20-reception/index.html

    Proof positive on how bad Odumbo's foreign policy has been...

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yet, you have absolutely NO PROBLEM blaming the REPUBLICAN PARTY for everything..

    Didn't you mean to say "ya'll" instead of "you" and shouldn't you have capitalized the word "EVERYTHING"?

    Oh, sure... you betcha. I probably would think that too if it wasn't for Obama's magic time machine and how I keep hearing how everything is Odumbo's fault. SIMPLE FACTS!

    And YOU got caught in a lie... :D

    I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe.

    It is for ya'all when the POTUS has a '-R' after his name.. :D

    But the discussion was about the current POTUS and your spinning of an actual fact into BS on your part. So basically, you get your jollies online by making up straw man arguments for posters but usually the group as a whole? Rather than having a rational discussion based on actual facts, you prefer to live in an alternate reality, drooling in your own little corner, making up your own set of facts for people you really know nothing about? Sad.

    And the floor-wiping continues!! :D

    So stop drooling.

  228. [228] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    So stop drooling.

    That made me laugh.

  229. [229] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [217]

    No matter HOW you try and spin it.. It's STILL a racist slur...

    Neil has admitted it..

    I have proven it..

    You have absolutely NO MORAL OR RATIONAL argument to stand on...

    Give it up...

    You.... are.... wrong.... I.... am..... correct.....

    Your link goes to a website called the Racial Slur Database. There are no citations to provide any historical references of "jigging" being a racial slur. What's most pathetic is that the site is a joke! The button to submit a slur is labeled, "SPREAD HATE"! This is what you offer as a source to defend your argument???

    By your logic, anyone who uses the word "lesson" is being homophobic since it contains the slur "les". Your assessment of the whole thing is sorely lacking. (Oh, if you think I was calling you an "ass" since it is in the word "assessment".... Well, I won't try to convince you otherwise!)

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, sure... you betcha. I probably would think that too if it wasn't for Obama's magic time machine and how I keep hearing how everything is Odumbo's fault. SIMPLE FACTS!

    It's funny how *I* get accused of ignoring facts and issues and points yet YOU post drivel like this.. :D

    I will never lie to you.

    And yet, you did when you claimed you don't hold a single Party responsible, yet you are on record as blaming the Republican Party..

    But the discussion was about the current POTUS and your spinning of an actual fact into BS on your part.

    There are many discussions going on here right now.. I can multi-task.. Apparently, you can't.. :D

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You can hem and haw all you want..

    But the fact is, I thought it was racist and provided documented proof..

    NEIL thought it was racist and he apologized for it.

    YOU are the *ONLY* one who thinks it wasn't racist and provide NO FACTS to support your claim...

    I have NO DOUBT that there are examples of "jigging" in the connotation of "dancing a jig"...

    But that doesn't change the fact that there is documented etymology that shows the word is racist..

    All you have to do is pretend that Donald Trump or anyone with an -R after their name said it.

    THEN you would be in complete agreement with me that it is racist...

    Everything you say and do and think is totally and 1000% based on Party ideology and dogma...

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:
  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

    Looks like Hillary is in REAL trouble.. :D

    I guess Trump is NOT toast and his campaign is NOT imploding, eh chums??? :D

    Michale

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.rexsl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Funny-Minion-Quotes-1-38.png

    It's funny cuz it's true"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:
  236. [236] 
    Kick wrote:

    It's funny how *I* get accused of ignoring facts and issues and points yet YOU post drivel like this.. :D

    It is long established here that you're an incurable victim... poor you... boo hoo.

    "Drivel" is not a surprising choice of words on your part. I suggest strapping on the drool cup... or you could just continue wiping the floor of your gushing spittle.

    And yet, you did when you claimed you don't hold a single Party responsible, yet you are on record as blaming the Republican Party..

    I'm from Missouri... show me. Where did I blame the "Republican Party" for everything?

    What WOULD you have if you didn't have your straw man arguments? Oh, right... your prattling victimhood and your prolific drooling.

    I can multi-task..

    You need not boast about your abilities in that regard, what with all that incessant blaming, whining, salivating, and wiping. You, sir, are an inveterate multitasker. :)

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is long established here that you're an incurable victim.

    You can't have anything "established" without ANY facts to back it up.. :D

    I'm from Missouri... show me. Where did I blame the "Republican Party" for everything?

    You blame the Republican Party...

    This is documented...

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    How, exactly, does one obtain the etymological evidence needed to prove that a word is NOT now, nor has it ever been used as a slur? I can cite sources all night long where jigging is NOT used as a racial slur. You are correct that I offer no evidence to prove that it isn't a slur, but that is only because I can only cite references where it was used as a slur in the past to prove it IS a slur. So, once again, you are wrong. Talk about a losing streak!

    You decided to prove me wrong for a comment that I made that was not directed at you, probably because you couldn't do so with the topic that we were discussing. I get it. You were grasping at straws to save face. You challenged me -- therefore it is your job to provide the evidence that verifies YOUR argument. You failed to do so. I am well aware that "jig" has been used as a slur, but the word we were discussing was "jigging". Slurs are not verbs, which should have been your first clue that you were not correct.

    I don't expect you to admit when you are wrong. History has taught me me that isn't likely to happen with you.
    .

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    How, exactly, does one obtain the etymological evidence needed to prove that a word is NOT now, nor has it ever been used as a slur? I can cite sources all night long where jigging is NOT used as a racial slur.

    Apparently, you can't...

    Don't tell me, let me guess.. You have a lot of support in email... :D

    I don't expect you to admit when you are wrong. History has taught me me that isn't likely to happen with you.

    Talk about revisionist history...

    I am the ONLY one here who CAN admit when they are wrong... You NEVER have.. The only other two that have before is NYpoet (2) and Stig (1)...

    NO ONE else, sans yours truly, has admitted when they were wrong..

    You continue to ignore one salient point..

    Neil apologized for the racial slur...

    You are the *ONLY* one who doesn't think it's a slur...

    I don't expect you to admit when you are wrong. History has taught me me that isn't likely to happen with you. :D

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're right.. I misspoke..
    -Michale, chrisweigant.com/2016/07/12/unified-mostly/#comment-79382

    Yes, my mistake..
    My sincerest apologies..

    -Michale, chrisweigant.com/2016/06/17/ftp396/#comment-77447

    And yes, I know I was wrong about the Clinton emails vis a vis the FBI...
    Michale, chrisweigant.com/2016/08/24/clinton-emails/#comment-82978

    And there was that time I posted about the viability of the Clinton Foundation only to retract it w few minutes later when I discovered the facts didn't support the claim...

    So, you see.. *I* have absolutely NO PROBLEM admitting when I am wrong..

    Apparently when you were talking about someone who has a history of NOT admitting when they are wrong.....

    You were actually talking about yourself.. :D

    You were wrong about me never admitting I am wrong..

    I don't expect you to admit when you are wrong. History has taught me me that isn't likely to happen with you. :D

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe the phrase you are searching for is "HOISTED BY YER OWN PICARD"... :D

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yooooo Hooooooooo???

    Listen??? You still out there???

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess I chalk that up as another win.... :D

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You have apologized in the past to other people. That does not negate my comments by any means, as I did not state that you had NEVER apologized, only that I shouldn't expect one. Historically, you've been proven wrong time after time without you ever admitting it. The fact that you have saved the dates of those rare occasions when you do apologize is also very telling. Kinda like when you posted one link to an article that was critical of the GOP, and then spent the next few days telling the rest of us how you were the only one here that is truly independent and unbiased in your criticism.

    Michale, you apologizing that you posted the wrong link isn't really the same as admitting that you were wrong on a position you were defending; but hey, you knew that already. I cannot prove a word is not used as a slur. There is no way to do that. You, still, have yet to provide any proof that I was wrong. You provided a link to called racial slurs.org or .com that did not have the word "jigging" in its database. You chose to call me out for saying "jigging" is not a racial slur, and you have yet to prove that it has ever been used as a slur. I have attempted to explain basic principles of grammar that make using the word as a slur impossible, but again, you maintain that I was incorrect.

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have apologized in the past to other people. That does not negate my comments by any means, as I did not state that you had NEVER apologized, only that I shouldn't expect one.

    Actually, you stated I don't expect you to admit when you are wrong. History has taught me me that isn't likely to happen with you. which has absolutely NOTHING to do with apology....

    You accused me of not admitting when I was wrong.

    I proved that it's YOU who are wrong. And, since you won't admit it, it's obvious that it is YOU who can never admit when they are wrong...

    Historically, you've been proven wrong time after time without you ever admitting it.

    For example....??????

    Kinda like when you posted one link to an article that was critical of the GOP, and then spent the next few days telling the rest of us how you were the only one here that is truly independent and unbiased in your criticism.

    Actually, I have posted MANY links and comments that were critical of the GOP.. So much so that my NPA status was acknowledged by the ULTIMATE authority of Weigantia...

    So, you are wrong again. Not that I expect you to admit it.. Because you never do...

    I cannot prove a word is not used as a slur.

    I know, that's what I have been saying all along...

    Like I said, you can argue what the definition of "IS" is until the cows come home..

    But the simple fact is, I have two pieces of factual evidence that it's a slur...

    By your own admission, you have none...

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

    :D

    Michale

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you have saved the dates of those rare occasions when you do apologize is also very telling.

    Actually, I don't "save the dates"... I simply did a very basic GOOGLE search to locate the facts..

    So, you were wrong. AGAIN...

    Will you concede it??

    Of course you won't..

    Michale...

  247. [247] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yes, my mistake..
    My sincerest apologies..

    Admitting/apologizing for being wrong, it's all the same to me. I apologize that you did not know that is how I see it.

    You continue to ignore one salient point..

    Neil apologized for the racial slur...

    Really? Let's review what was said:

    So my wife read my comment and tells me that "Jigging" is not an American term. That, as usual, I've put my foot in it. Like the time, in complete innocence, when my 4-year-old son's YMCA kids soccer team was given black T-Shirts and I named them the Black Panthers. Oops.

    So apologies if there was any offense, but in my defense of ignorance:

    Where does he say that "jigging" is a slur? "Black Panthers" isn't a slur. It might have some racial and political connotations to it in this country, but it isn't a slur.

    I apologize for not accepting the fact that your claiming a word is used as a racial slur as being evidence. The comment was directed to Neil as he was afraid that some might take offense to the use of "jigging". You chose to jump in and call me out for being wrong. I wasn't. I admit it.

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where does he say that "jigging" is a slur?

    So apologies if there was any offense, but in my defense of ignorance:

    The comment was directed to Neil as he was afraid that some might take offense to the use of "jigging".

    Yes, he was afraid that some might think it's a slur..

    You chose to jump in and call me out for being wrong. I wasn't.

    Of course you were wrong.. You just can't admit it...

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    So apologies if there was any offense, but in my defense of ignorance:

    Neil was ignorant of the fact that jigging is a slur...

    Ergo, Neil admits that it's a slur...

    Sure, it could be other things, depending on the region...

    But it's ALSO a slur...

    And you can't admit that...

    Michale

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another one bites the dust... And another one gone and another one gone... Another one bites the dust...
    -Queen

    :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.