Ahhhhhh :D

Michale

I just did. "Cool As Hell"... :D

You have forgotten already?

Most likely. At my age the memory is the second thing to go.. :D

Michale

Cool As Hell

:D

Michale

Gesundheit.... :D

Michale

Michale

You COULD have just admitted that you were wrong and I would have had NOTHING to post about..

So, thanks.. :D

Michale

Except that you are the only one here who has been WRONG about Trump's campaign....

I have been dead on ballz accurate EVERY TIME with regards to Trump's campaign...

So, I guess it sucks to be you.. :D

Michale

WHY should anyone trust what you say now?

I could just repeat WRONG back to you, but then neither of us would have any credibility.

Yea.... Trump is "imploding"... :D

You just CAN'T admit you frak'ed up.. Yer WRONG, Balthy.... That is all there is to it...

Michale

I'll repeat, since it hasn't sunk in..

You have been **WRONG** at every turn with regards to Trump..

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

EPIC'LY WRONG

WHY should anyone trust what you say now???

Michale

Yes, exactly like either.. That explains perfectly your fanaticism...

Michale

Or rather, a religious fanatic trying to convince me that there is one..

Well I was alive to see George Wallace get a sizeable percentage of the vote once, and recently watched the Tea Party win several elections, but nevertheless, I do generally agree with that statement.

hahahahaha!

But to a normal patriotic American who actually LIKES this country?

..and describes it as a nightmarish hellhole overrun by gangs of illegal immigrants and lawless BLM supporters, thinks the system is rigged, and thinks it could be better run by a former KGB spymaster. Right.

No erratic-ness at all.

So the violent outbursts and contradictory statements and unprovoked attacks are just tactical confusion: fizzbin. We're about to discover that he's actually a quiet, thoughtful fellow who likes chess and historical novels, right? Not banging his friends' imported european teenagers (and maybe his own).

You just CAN'T stop, can you?? :D

This slow motion "implosion" you are talking about has seen Trump *CLOSING* the gap with Hillary...

How exactly does that work..

You claim his campaign is imploding, yet he is overtaking Hillary in many key states....

You just CAN'T admit the facts, can you..

Your slavery to Party dogma won't let you....

Keep in mind ya'all went thru this *EXACT* process during the GOP primary...

And you were *WRONG* at every turn....

But *THIS* time yer right, right?? :^/

I wish you could take a step back and see how pathetic ya'all sound.. :D

Michale

Why am I the only one here (Nod to JL and STIG) who is willing to admit when they are wrong???

Let me help ya out, Balthy...

Here is what a normal patriotic American would say...

Ya know, Michale. You're right.. Trump holding on like this is really astounding.. I wouldn't have thought such a crass jerk would have a message that would resonate so well...
Maybe there IS something to his message that Americans are drawn to....

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

DEMOCRAT=Pure As The Driven Snow

REPUBLICAN=Evil Incarnate

Trying to convince you that Trump might be right is like trying to convince a religious fanatic that there is no god...

It's impossible due to the fanaticism...

Michale

Now ya'all are trying to backtrack it, rather than coming right out and admit that you were wrong..

Because I'm not. If you ask, what's cooking? I'll say, "toast", not 'toasting whitebread'.

As for the Trump campaign imploding, let's see, he's on his third campaign manager and fifth press secretary, and having to wage a back-fill campaign in deep red states he should have been able to ignore by now. He still, by all reports, has no ground game save for the support provided by the RNC. He just hired on two of the most vociferous political hit men in the business, whose reputations alone are bad enough to cost him votes, and has now brought on Ailes, who won't win him any women's votes anytime soon.

So yes, it's an implosion in slow-motion. Kinda fascinating to watch, actually.

JFC says he is orange.. YOu don't correct him...

His erratic behavior, including his self-described (lack of) sleep schedule and lack of impulse control suggest a chemical imbalance of some sort.

There is no evidence of erratic behavior..

Perhaps to a Left Winger who needs "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", the behavior would appear "erratic"...

But to a normal patriotic American who actually LIKES this country??

No erratic-ness at all....

The man is nearly seventy, overweight, and apparently extremely stressed.

He's running a presidential campaign.. Stress is normal...

He is not coughing up a lung or needing help up and down stairs, or needing help standing at a podium or needing naps...

Unlike your chosen candidate...

But thank you for proving my point.. You make up shit about Trump and ignore Hillary's many ailments....

Complete Political Bigotry.....

Michale

I wouldn't say that. His deep red color indicates a serious blood pressure problem. His erratic behavior, including his self-described (lack of) sleep schedule and lack of impulse control suggest a chemical imbalance of some sort. I know nothing about medicine and I can see that much. The man is nearly seventy, overweight, and apparently extremely stressed. And why is he seeing a gastroenterologist in the first place?

That's not what you said..

Ya'all didn't say, "Trump is in the process of becoming toast and will be toast eventually"...

Ya'all said "TRUMP IS TOAST" and "TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN IS IMPLODING"..

Now ya'all are trying to backtrack it, rather than coming right out and admit that you were wrong....

Why am I the only one here (Nod to JL and STIG) who is willing to admit when they are wrong???

Michale

There is a toasting process that must be allowed to play out, otherwise all you get is warm white bread.

But I can see Trump's color deepening by the day (wonder what his blood pressure is?) - I wonder if his color usually changes in the fall, like the leaves.

Your problem is you have no credibility..

Ya'all have been saying TRUMP IS TOAST for a year now...

And yet, you have been wrong EVERY TIME..

Why should anyone believe you now???

Michale

..which you explicitly imply is the result of the email investigation. Re-read your post at [48], in which you absurdly compare the mini-scandal to 911.

There's a 'sell-by' date on bullshit. It lasts only as long as the truth remains obscured by it. We all know that it's easier for ideological operatives to distract the press than for a Magician at a child's party to get the audience to look away from a trick.

I don't agree with you about the reason for, or importance of, those numbers, by the way.

For one thing, all of Trump's 'likeability' numbers are worse.

If you break it down, Republicans have (inexplicably) fallen in line with Trump, and Democrats have done the same for Clinton. That leaves about 30% in the middle, about half of whom lean toward either party at any given time. A percentage of those won't vote for either candidate, and the remainder will decide while standing in the voting booth.

Which means that the difference between them in the polls is actually a measure of all those swingy folks in the middle plus anyone new that each candidate can pull into the process, minus any of their own followers who lose faith and decide not to vote at all, or switch sides.

Keeping these constituencies in mind, it's easy to see what the candidates are up to: Hillary is on offense, embarked on a campaign to alienate Trump from some of his base by highlighting his bromance with Putin. In the meantime, she's rhetorically handcuffing him to the worst of his base (the alt-right, white supremacists) to alienate him from the swingy middle.

Trump has been playing mostly defense, defending his own statements. His supporters have been trying valiantly to get the press to focus on a smorgasbord of Clinton mini-scandals, but that's beginning to backfire, as the press knows a story 'with legs' from one that goes nowhere. Yesterday's Washington Post editorial put a stake in the heart of the email controversy.

Not really, since Trump hasn't manifested any symptoms of health issues..

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

But why let facts and reality interfere with a good ideological rant.. :D

Michale

However, credit where credit is due...

That was a pretty impressive straw-man....

Actually, no it wasn't.. I was just trying to soothe your wounds from the vicious beating you just got.. :D

Michale

Yeah, that's a valid question. Too bad we have no medical record to look at, save a 'letter' from a Gastroenterologist who attempts to prove therein that it's possible to shoot rainbows and unicorns out of one's ass.

But, thanx for trying... :D

Michale

I thought the Washington Post did a fine job of explaining that just yesterday.

That "extreme carelessness" quote, for example, that you use is hilarious to me because it's all that the Hillary chasers could get after spending years of staff time and millions of dollars. And that was an opinion thrown in by a Republican who, at the time, was presenting a report that cleared her of all charges.

And add to that an extra layer of irony: we know that FBI files have been hacked, yet the FBI director, while presenting a document that said that no evidence of her server being hacked had been found, calls HER careless, maybe just so that his country club friends wouldn't stop talking to him, I don't know.

In the end, even Comey is sick of the story. As he says in a recent memo to his staff, quoted in the Post article: "At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliffhanger; despite all the chest beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn't a prosecutable case."

What "medical issues" does Trump have??

{{{chirrrpppp}}} {{{{chirrrrppp}}}}

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

[33]: Any evidence to support that?? Of course not.. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of.

Yep.

Exactly.. Glad we agree, Bashi... :D

Michale

One can imagine. :D

But everyone else, the vast majority of Americans, are, as Bernie said; "tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails".

If that were true, how do you explain the *FACT* that Hillary's trust and honesty numbers plummeted, coinciding with the revelations of her lies and her "extreme carelessness" with national security secrets??

She engaged in inappropriate use of e-mail.

Yea.. And Al Qaeda terrorists just made pilot errors.. :^/

I predict that when the post mortem's are in, the impact of her e-mail be be about the same as Mr. Trump's hairstyle.

You have already been proven wrong on that assertion, since it's well documented that Hillary's trust and honesty numbers plummeted with the release of the facts regarding her carelessness and her lack of transparency...

Michale

TRUMP/PUTIN '16

(Spotted at a Clinton rally in Tampa)

BTW: Paula [41] - funny. Thanks.

This is funny: http://25logicalreasonstovotefordonaldtrump.com

Priceless. Thank you :)

Yep. How's it feel? So I guess we both agree that that line of argument goes nowhere. There is also zero evidence that Hillary or her people originated the birther nonsense.

But if she puts herself out there and tries to keep pace with Trump, she will exacerbate her medical issues

You mean that if Trump tries to keep up with Hillary's ramped-up schedule, he could exacerbate his medical issues..

FWIW.

People would pay attention if it was happening on the stage; if the candidates were confronted with their mistakes/misstatements/lies on the spot. Also, people pay attention to what they are trained to pay attention to -- that's why allowing lies to go unchallenged is so damaging. Debates and candidate events are symptoms of that larger problem, not the cause, but you have to start somewhere.

If an issue has a sell-by date of November 8th, then ignore it. Do you think anybody is going to be talking about email servers or anti-Semitic statements on November 9th?

If she tries to run out the clock as she has been, she will cede the battlefield to Trump and Trump will win..

But if she puts herself out there and tries to keep pace with Trump, she will exacerbate her medical issues and runs the very real risk of collapsing in the middle of a speech... Which will cement the idea in the American People's mind that Hillary isn't up to the presidency...

Michale

Yer back!!!! I was afraid these bullies chase you away....

"Carl!!!! Good ta see ya!!!"
-Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

:D

Michale

Any evidence to support that??

Of course not.. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of.. :D

The difference is, I admit it..

You can't...

Michale

Let me know when you've pedaled all the way back, back to the statement that you originally disputed:

"Matthews' word that he couldn't find any evidence that Hillary or her spokespeople started that rumor"

In the absence of further evidence, Matthews' statement stands. The only tingle involved might be a bit of deja vu feeling.

Because this alleged email that was allegedly sent anonymously by alleged Hillary supporters could just as easily have been sent around by righties who, realizing that Obama was about to clinch the nomination, reasoned that it would be easier to repeat this scurrilous lie about Obama if they could "source it" to members of his own party.

Imagine that.

That's the difference between me and ya'all..

With exactly 2 exceptions (in over a decade) NO ONE here can admit when they are wrong...

Michale

While the evidence is NOT conclusive that the Hillary campaign started the Birther rumor, the evidence IS conclusive that the birther rumor was started by Hillary supporters.. Democrats...

In other words, the Demcorat Party was the origins of the birther movement..

Michale

Yes, posted..

As I said, Matthews lost ALL credibility with his leg tingle...

But, OF COURSE you would take his word for it... He is saying what you want to hear..

You are on record as accepting the word of REPUBLICANS vis a vis Trump.... SOLELY because they say what you want to hear...

Yeah, that's probably the case with anyone who says they 'read' someone's body language...

At least you admit your bias.. That's an important first step. Kudos..

I'll have you ripped into shape in no time.. :D

Michale

As noted elsewhere, you can pony up those Quatloos now...

Heh.

Consider them pony'ed :D

Michale

Apparently, Matthews is still recovering from his leg tingle..

Birther row began with Hillary Clinton

The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html

Matthews has completely discredited himself as a serious journalist.. He's more of THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER now...

Michale

I'll take Matthews' word that he couldn't find any evidence that Hillary or her spokespeople started that rumor. Have you got any evidence to the contrary?

And processed it thru your ideologically enslaved filters and came up with a fantasy that is politically acceptable to you but far removed from reality..

Yeah, that's probably the case with anyone who says they 'read' someone's body language...

YOu mean "HILLARY'S Birtherism"...

It was Hillary Clinton who brought the idea of Obama's birth into the public eye...

You see, this is EXACTLY what I am talking about.. Ya'all's ideological slavery COMPLETELY blinds you to the facts and reality...

Okay, I took some liberty with that last remark. But that's what he wanted to say: I read his body language.

And processed it thru your ideologically enslaved filters and came up with a fantasy that is politically acceptable to you but far removed from reality..

Like I said... Textbook case...

Michale

I think I saw evidence of that last night on Chris Matthews' show. Chris had Trump supporter Rudy Guliani in the hotseat, and grilled him about Trump's Birtherism. Paraphrasing:

CM: When is Trump going to apologize for asking Barack Obama for his birth certificate?

RG: He already did. I think Obama was born in Hawaii.

CM: No, Trump never apologized for that. I looked it up.

RG: He must have at some point.

CM: No, never. Are you authorized to apologize on his behalf?

RG: Well you know, Hillary raised that first, in 2007 -

CM: Nope. I had my staff look that up too, since I knew you'd bring it up. Neither Hillary or anyone speaking for her ever said anything like that.

RG: ARRRG! Snarl! Damn you Matthews!

Okay, I took some liberty with that last remark. But that's what he wanted to say: I read his body language.

Both Matthews and O'Donnell presented defenses of Lauer in the course of their programs. And both showed signs that they had done a bit more research than usual to prepare for their interviews and panels.

A 'Lauer effect' might not last long, but if it hangs around through November, then Matt might own the surprising distinction of 'most influential newsman' of this most unusual election year.

Explains perfectly why Hillary got the hard questions...

And I am constrained to point out that it was more the audience who steered the hard questions to Hillary.

It was like I said..

The military is overwhelmingly PRO-Trump and ANTI-Hillary...

Michale

NO ONE here (sans one person) has ANY moral or ethical foundation to attack Trump for lying....

NO... MORAL... FOUNDATION....

Michale

The Left's attitude can be summed up by SF Bear's ignorance..

That was not a slam or personal attack..

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything.."
-SubCommander T'al

Michale

That's because there is a LOT more to hit Clinton hard about..

But the Left can't see thru the ideological blinders to recognize the..

The Left's attitude can be summed up by SF Bear's ignorance..

"The American people don't care about Hillary's emails."

The American people DO care.. That is why Hillary's trust, honesty and integrity numbers are in the toilet...

But the Left can't acknowledge the seriousness of the issue...

Michale

There was a previous "Rorschach candidate":

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101185160

Yep. Obama in 2008.

I've been thinking for most of the night about what could account for this unexpected similarity between the two men.

I finally discarded the premise that there is some innate quality that these men have in common that causes this. The only pertinent similarity the two might have in this regard is probably that each, in his own way, might cause cognitive dissonance within a part of the electorate that might find it hard to accept, or process as a candidate for president, a sophisticated, brilliant black family man, or a billionaire 'champion of the common man'.

But as I've said, I finally discarded that because it leans heavily on perceptions of the candidates by those who dislike them. The "Rorschach" phenomena, on the other hand, seems to affect mostly the followers of these candidates, folks who become so enamored of their chosen candidate that they project their own hopes and beliefs upon them.

But, aha! There could be a simple explanation for this that doesn't require a masters degree to figure: in both cases, the candidate comes along after his party had been out of the presidency for eight years. If this is true, then I should be able to find....this:

http://prospect.org/article/rorschach-candidate

Yep. Bushlet was also called a rorschach candidate!

So I'll offer my own non-scientific opinion that what appears at first to be a mysterious quality of the candidates is probably just the desire of partisans to return their party to power, which apparently triggers pronounced rationalization/projection behavior.

Reality is better than fiction: We now have a real thing. A Latino-American GOTV effort called Guac the Vote.

Way cool.

Trump: the Rorschach candidate!

People see what they want to when they look at him and nothing else.

I'd never heard that one before, but I like it.

IMO Lauer was the only choice. Can you imagine if Maddow or Reid would have been chosen. Trump would have hit the roof. So lauer took a hit for the team, picked up his check and went back to his job as an entertainer and cooking show host. We'll see if others take note of his performance and improve on his moderating skills in future encounters with Trump. I hope to see very little Lauering at the debates..

One of the most shocking statements that I ever heard during an election came from Mitt Romney's campaign pollster Neil Newhouse when he said,

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

From that point on, every time Romney gave a speech my brain replayed that comment over and over; before, during, and after he spoke! If you tell me that you aren't going to be honest with me, I am going to take you at your word. I miss the days when liars weren't tolerated or trusted.

True, and that is what makes Trump's debt to foreign interests such a risk. Trump said he was so good at business that he would be the first candidate to make a profit from running. We should definitely take him at his word!

Although, Chris, I think Lauer DID actually question Trump on the "we should have taken the oil" statement. He pushed back once for sure, maybe twice. Trump just babbled in response and Matt didn't nail him with the fact that "taking the oil" would have been a monstrous crime, etc. But he did say something like: "how would we have taken the oil?" -- I remember that, and Trump said something about leaving troops there.

Josh Marshall agrees, btw, too.

What Lauer's performance did was highlight a number of problems we suffer from re: media coverage, presidential campaigns, etc. I linked in a previous thread to MIchael Tomasky's column today (http://paulawriter.com/should-moderators-fact-check-candidates/%22http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/08/it-s-time-for-the-media-to-step-up-and-call-out-donald-trump-s-many-lies.html) that got into fact-checking by debate moderators. He threw out an idea my husband and I have been kicking around for the last few years: the notion of having fact-checkers right there, on-stage or next to the stage, with online access, doing fact-checking in real time. I think the idea, while undoubtedly tricky to implement, has a lot of merit. And I think it would take some rather unfair pressure off the moderators, who really can't be expected to know everything about everything.

I don't know if you're a lone, but he's openly admitted donating money to politicians with the expectation that they would do his bidding.

I'm with you in that I didn't expect much from Lauer, so I wasn't that surprised when he failed to deliver...although I was disappointed by his letting Trump continue to say things that have been documented as being untrue.

Question: Am I alone in thinking that whether or not Trump supported the invasion of Iraq is a moot point as that support carried no actual weight to it? It is pathetic that this guy is so dishonest that we just accept that he's going to be lying and move on to the next lie. Clinton was a senator, so her support carried political weight. Granted, I also think that this whole part of history should always have the footnote that we were being lied to by Cheney and team about Iraq having the WMD's. I think that made a lot of people support the invasion, especially since we knew iraq was willing to use chemical weapons.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/06/playing-hooky/#comment-83759

-CW

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/07/my-snap-reactions-to-nbc-candidate-forum/#comment-83757

You're right, LizM, it was better than I thought it was going to be...

:-)

-CW

-CW