ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [407] -- Two Promises Hillary Clinton Should Make

[ Posted Friday, September 9th, 2016 – 17:29 PDT ]

Before we begin, we promise we'll get to that rather-provocative subtitle later, as we turn this week's talking points section over to an attempt at providing campaign advice for Team Clinton. We've been long wondering why Hillary hasn't made some sort of effort to put these two large issues behind her on the campaign trail, and our frustration has led us to offering up what she should say in order to achieve this goal.

But we'll get to all of that in a moment. First, let's take a look at this week's political news. Conservative anti-feminist hero Phyllis Schlafly died this week, guaranteeing nobody will ever have to type her name again (we are always respectful of those with difficult last names to type, personally, since our own gets misspelled so often). Schlafly rose to prominence fighting the Equal Rights Amendment and was an unreconstructed "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" type of gal (being an anti-feminist, we're sure she wouldn't take offense to being called a "gal"). Think this is exaggeration? Salon helpfully put together a list of her most cringeworthy quotes on the role of women in society, in case anyone's liable to forget just how odious her views were.

Speaking of odious views, the Vast Right-Wing Anti-Clinton Conspiracy is now operating at full steam, pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton is liable to drop dead before she can even take office, because she is so ill. How do they know this? They don't. But how do they think they know this? Because Clinton has coughing fits every so often. You see, if someone travels around the country breathing airplane air for weeks and weeks on end, shaking the hands of thousands of people in dozens of cities, they are not allowed to cough even once. Clinton herself blamed allergies -- she's allergic to mentions of Donald Trump. Heh. Nice one.

But the conspiracy kind of had the rug yanked out from under it this week when lil' Newtie Gingrich (remember him?) tried to launch into his own doctorly diagnosis of what was so obviously wrong with Clinton having a coughing fit, but then had to stop -- because he had a coughing fit. No really -- you just can't make this stuff up, folks! Gingrich blamed airplane air for his dry throat, but in doing so undermined the entire conspiracy theory altogether. Note to other conservatives pushing the "Hillary so sick" meme: take a drink of water before you do. Ask Marco Rubio about the importance of staying hydrated, perhaps.

Enough of the minor stuff, though, Last week's political news was clearly dominated by one event: the non-debate debate orchestrated by NBC News. NBC thought they'd scored a real coup by setting this event up, since it was the first time Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were on the same stage for the same event in the general election season. They weren't simultaneously on the same stage, which is what made it a "non-debate debate." But it was supposed to be a big preview of the real debate season, scheduled for kickoff later this month. What it turned into, in the words of one anonymous NBC News executive afterwards, was a "disaster."

It's not like anyone couldn't see the disaster coming. It was akin to the Titanic seeing an iceberg in broad daylight -- with plenty of time to maneuver the ship -- and then inexplicably turning directly towards the iceberg and ordering: "Full speed ahead!" Seriously, what network genius was it who looked over the entire roster of NBC News and MSNBC and decided: "Matt Lauer is the obvious choice"? Was it the same genius who kept David Gregory as the host of Meet The Press long after his due date had expired? Inquiring minds want to know.

Matt Lauer? I mean, seriously, Matt Lauer?!? The guy who just interviewed Ryan Lochte? That guy? That's who you think can handle Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton best? Really?

Sigh. The results were predictable, although the scorn heaped on Lauer was a lot more scathing and widespread than we had expected. NBC "Lauered the bar," there is no doubt about that. But we choose to remain optimistic, which is why we are hopeful that all of the ridicule will have a big silver lining. Lauer's disaster might be the most effective warning for all the real debates' moderators, in fact, beginning with NBC's own Lester Holt. Lauer was a very good bad example, to be blunt. He showed in painful detail what not to do.

This whole episode should put the debate moderators on notice: don't make the same mistakes Lauer made. Be prepared to ask followup questions. Know when to ask followup questions. Do some fact-checking on the spot when bald-faced lies are uttered. Press for details when none are forthcoming. And let the candidate answer the question before jumping all over them.

One can only hope that the four official debate moderators (three presidential debates, one for the veep candidates) learn the lesson that Lauer just painfully taught. Being entrusted with hosting a candidate debate (or forum) is serious business (which should not be handed to political lightweights, of course). Don't embarrass yourself -- instead, do your homework!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This week, the government issued a record fine on a big bank, for essentially running a scam operation at the expense of its own customers. Just like cops writing lots of traffic tickets at the end of the month to fill their quota, employees of the bank were found to have created thousands of customer accounts that the customer never actually applied for. They were judged on how many new accounts were opened, which is why the employees had such a strong incentive to create them.

This widespread gross chicanery was brought to the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who just levied the record $100 million fine against Wells Fargo (you can read their own press release for all the details). The Bureau, which was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, is now headed by Richard Cordray, who is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

Republicans have fought the very idea of the C.F.P.B. from the very beginning. They still fight tooth and nail to either defund or disband altogether this government agency whose sole purpose is to stand up for the little guy against Wall Street. Nothing could further define the parties' stance towards the big banks than support for this department, in fact. Democrats, on the side of the consumer; Republicans on the side of the banks. It's a wonder more Democrats don't make this a campaign issue, in fact, because it seems like "consumers don't deserve protection against getting screwed by their banks" should be a losing position for a politician to take, these days. Hint to Democrats running for Congress: "My opponent stands firmly against consumers having any advocate against the big banks on Wall Street running roughshod over them and their rights. How can anyone support that position with their vote?"

Politics aside, Richard Cordray is the obvious MIDOTW choice this week, not just for exposing Wells Fargo's bogus account scheme and for levying such a hefty fine, but for his ongoing work heading the agency Elizabeth Warren created. Without doubt, Richard Cordray is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray doesn't have direct contact information on his official webpage, but the White House does have a link stating he wants to hear from you, if you'd like to congratulate him and let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have no Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, because nobody disappointed us all that much. Instead, we have to heap some scorn on the media.

Gary Johnson was finally -- finally! -- in the national political news this week. Despite polling higher than any third-party presidential candidate since H. Ross Perot, Johnson has been almost completely absent from the political news. Until this week, when he made a gaffe.

The gaffe was indeed a doozy, but what was more repellant was the way the media treated it. All of a sudden Johnson's in the news, because: "Hey look, this third-party guy just disqualified himself!"

The media's had a pretty bad week, all around. First, there was Matt Lauer. Everyone in the punditocracy jumped all over Lauer for not fact-checking Donald Trump. What was left unsaid was that none of the people heaping scorn on Lauer has done a much better job at prying facts (or admissions of error or untruthfulness) out of The Donald, so far. It certainly had a pot-kettle-black odor about it, at least to us.

But Aleppogate was even worse, at least for the venerable New York Times. Right after Johnson gave his deer-in-the-headlights admission that he was unclear on what Aleppo even was, everyone in the media universe began writing articles gleefully pointing out his ignorance. The only problem was that in doing so, a whole lot of media ignorance was uncovered as well.

Now, to be fair, Syria is a complicated mess. It is not "us versus them." There are no clearly defined black hats and white hats. There are (at the least, mind you, just by our count) eight major groups warring in Syria. There is the United States and Russia, of course. Recently, Turkey actively entered the fight, too. There is the Assad government's forces. There are the Kurds, who are fighting the Islamic State both in Syria and in Iraq. There are rebels that we have backed which are not Islamist in nature. There are also rebels that are Islamist in nature, but are not part of the Islamic State. And then there is the Islamic State itself.

In other words, it's complicated. Much much too complicated for the average American -- and the average American journalist -- to even comprehend. Such complexity might excuse minor errors in determining who is fighting whom in each city or region.

But none of that excuses the mistakes the New York Times made, in their article sneering at Gary Johnson's ignorance of what Aleppo was. Their story, in fact, had to go through five public revisions before they got it right, and their whoppers were a lot more embarrassing than Johnson just admitting he didn't immediately recognize the city's name. The facts: Aleppo is a large city in Syria, where the government forces of Assad have been fighting rebel forces -- completely unaffiliated with the Islamic State -- for years, now. The city is a disaster zone because the fight has been so fierce. Those are the facts about Aleppo.

The Times, however, got it badly wrong. Here was their first correction notice:

An earlier version of this article misidentified the de facto capital of the Islamic State. It is Raqqa, in northern Syria, not Aleppo.

Got that? The first thing written was that Aleppo was the Islamic State's capital. Then the article was updated to call Aleppo "a stronghold of the Islamic State." This wasn't even remotely true, either. This is why the article had to go through five revisions, because they kept getting their facts wrong in an article making fun of a politician's ignorance on the issue.

The icing on the cake, however, was that that correction notice above also had to be corrected. So not only was the author of the article and their initial editor at fault, the first time it was fact-checked, the author made a further mistake, and so did the editor. This necessitated a further correction notice:

An earlier version of the above correction misidentified the Syrian capital as Aleppo. It is Damascus.

They weren't the only ones with egg on their face, merely the most embarrassing example. Christopher Hill, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, was quoted on MSNBC also identifying Aleppo as the "capital of ISIS."

Let this be a lesson to all who gleefully point out the ignorance of politicians: when writing a story poking fun at some hapless politician getting his facts wrong, it certainly would behoove you to make damn sure that your facts are correct before publishing it. The ten minutes you spend on Wikipedia looking up some basic facts will be well-spent.

So while we don't actually have an award category for it, the New York Times certainly deserves some sort of Razzie-type award for trying to ride a high horse and instead winding up face-down in the mud of the very ignorance they're denouncing. Five times in a row.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 407 (9/9/16)

Hillary Clinton gave a press conference this week. This was big news, because it was the first one she'd given since December.

We personally don't understand Clinton's reluctance to appear in press conferences. It's as mystifying as her apparent reluctance to debate Bernie Sanders in the primary season. The reason both of these are mystifying is that Clinton's actually pretty good in either format. She's a confident debater, and she's pretty good at answering questions from the press, as well. Clinton participated in a non-debate debate this week, and she gave a press conference. This is good news, because both these prepare her for the upcoming first real debate. She should use press conferences to sharpen up her answers -- it's really the best debate prep there is, in fact.

There's another big reason why Clinton should hold more press conferences. She's allowed to give a short introduction to these events, and if she's smart she can thus drive the entire day's media cycle. This is something every other candidate (in the primaries) almost universally failed to do when facing Donald Trump. Trump is the media cycle, or at least he was up until he started reading everything off a TelePrompTer. No matter what anyone else said that day, the big question on every reporter's mind was: "What is your reaction to what Donald Trump just said/tweeted?"

Hillary needs to get out in front of that, and one way to do it is to use an opening statement at a press conference to introduce her own game-changing ideas. What follows is a proposal for how she could easily do so in the next few days. Hillary's got baggage, we all know that. She has struggled to get by this baggage for months. She's got to find a way of putting it behind her, and fast. So she should directly address two outstanding issues that she's so far been fairly timid about. Here are our suggestions for two big promises Clinton should make to utterly change the conversation about two of her biggest pieces of political baggage. Both have a finality to them: "this will be the last word on the subject, period." Which is precisely what Clinton really needs right now.

 

Proposed Hillary Clinton statement

I want to address the American people today about what I will do if I become president. I have two promises to make today so that voters will know exactly what I'll do if they entrust me with the highest office in the land.

My first promise is on the subject of email. Now, you may have heard a story or two in the media with my name and the word "email" in the headline [pause for laughter]. Because this has been such an obsession for so many for so long -- I've lost count of the times I've been investigated over my emails, in fact -- that I feel it is time to now make the following iron-clad promise: I will not send anyone an official email, as president. I just won't use email at all for official business. There are plenty of ways to contact people in today's world, and forswearing the use of one of these will in no way impact my ability to do the job or communicate with anyone I wish.

If an issue is raised over email that I need to respond to, I will either pick up the phone and call that person to tell him or her what I think, I will write a letter on a piece of paper and send it to them, or if it is a more minor issue I will direct one of my aides to answer via their own official email. But I will send no official emails myself. Records will be properly preserved -- whether phone records, physical copies of a paper letter, or email records of my staff.

I made a mistake when I became Secretary of State. I admit that mistake, but what's more important than admitting a mistake -- something my opponent has yet to do on any subject, I might point out -- is making sure it never happens again. I feel the best way to do this is by promising I will never use email for official business as President of the United States. Problem solved -- no one will ever have to worry about my emails ever again. Period.

My second promise concerns the Clinton Foundation. This charitable organization was set up by my husband after he left office, and has performed good works that have positively affected millions upon millions of lives. Both Bill and I are proud of the Foundation, and the works that it does. We just received the highest rating possible from an independent organization that rates charities, and we're proud that over 80 cents of every dollar donated goes to charitable good works. We try to keep the overhead to an absolute minimum to ensure that the Foundation is able to do the most good for the most people, all over the world.

Some have suggested that, should I become president, it would be best to just shut the Clinton Foundation's doors. They say that's the only way to avoid any hint of any conflict of interest. The problem with that is that many of the good works the Foundation does are ongoing, and to just pull the plug would mean great hardship for too many people.

One solution suggested would be to hand the foundation over to some third party to run, if I am elected. But anyone even slightly connected to our family would still be suspected of somehow having undue influence. So Bill and I have decided that there is a perfect steward out there which we can trust to continue the Clinton Foundation's good works -- because they do such a great job on their own. If I am elected, I will immediately direct the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to take full control and have full oversight of the Clinton Foundation for the duration of my presidency.

Until I leave office, neither I nor Bill nor Chelsea nor anyone else in my family or circle of close advisors will have anything whatsoever to do with Bill's namesake charitable organization. We will not run it, we will not be on the board, and we will relinquish full control to Bill and Melinda Gates. What happens after I leave office, should I be elected, is a subject for another day. Perhaps Bill and I will want to get involved with the Clinton Foundation again, or perhaps we'll just let it permanently be absorbed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation forever. Either way, all Americans can be confident that nothing that happens to the Foundation will have the slightest influence on my presidency in any way, shape, or form. Period.

Both of the promises I've made today are hard for me to make, on a personal level. I love the convenience of email, for one [pause for laughter]. Perhaps the most famous photo of me is one where I'm checking my Blackberry, in fact. It'll be hard, but I will quit -- cold-turkey -- using email for anything with even a hint of official business in it. There are other ways to communicate, and I will use them instead. No American will have to wonder what might be contained in my presidential emails, because they will not exist.

Secondly, I personally love the Clinton Foundation, first and foremost because it is a big part of Bill's legacy. I also love all the good we've been able to do for so many people all over the world. I would love to continue doing such good while president, but I fully understand the conflict of interest that would set up. Even handing it off to Bill or Chelsea wouldn't solve that problem, and neither would (as the Foundation has already promised to do) merely refusing donations from corporations and foreign governments. But what would be the most painful for me would be to just shut the doors of the Foundation, instead of making good on programs already in place or promises for more good works that have already been made.

I trust Bill and Melinda Gates to continue these good works. I trust them so fully that I promise that neither I nor anyone close to me will have anything to do with the Clinton Foundation for the entire time I am in office.

I think that both of these issues are distractions from the issues that most American voters care most about in this election. People want good jobs, a decent future, and America to be kept safe. People want the real problems this country faces addressed, and not just used as political footballs. People want things to happen in Washington rather than the absolute gridlock that reigns supreme these days.

But at the same time, people need to be able to trust the candidate they vote for. I realize that. This is why I am making these two promises today -- because I want the American people to trust that neither my emails nor the Clinton Foundation will be a part of my presidency. There will be no email problems if I am elected president, and there will be no questions about my husband's namesake Foundation. Instead, let people cast their votes based on more important issues, without these distractions.

Thank you. I will now take your questions.

-- 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

 

297 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [407] -- Two Promises Hillary Clinton Should Make”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Chris, your advice to Hillary would be a lot easier than a mega two-day event but, certainly just as bold and, perhaps, equally effective.

    Do you think she'll do it?

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Bill Gates? Really?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You'd rather shut it down?

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Your first suggestion for Hillary Clinton is asking her to plead guilty to every accusation ever leveled at her regarding emails, regardless of whether those accusations are true or not. You are asking her to admit to the utmost level of complete incompetence when handling any official -- or indeed unofficial -- communication, so much so that she would be severely limited in all communication as president. Though I doubt you'd have to worry about her becoming president. Such a confession would invite the US media and the GOP to totally eviscerate her and her political career would be over.

    I know why she decided against giving press conferences. When the dogs are baying for your blood, you don't climb down out of the trees and stand patiently while they tear you apart. I know that many people would love to see that happen however.

    The sustained propaganda attack on Clinton has inevitably succeeded all too well. Much like the sustained attack against marijuana for the last 50 years or so. Makes it very hard to turn it around and there will always be people who are convinced that mj is a gateway drug, that it has caused countless deaths, brain damage etc.

    While your second suggestion for Clinton seems reasonable enough, it would inevitably be treated by the media and Republicans as yet another full confession. They would hold it up as proof that she used her SoS position to sell meetings with her in exchange for donations to the Foundation. Once that sinks into the national consciousness, there's nothing that will remove it. There is no stain remover strong enough.

    I'm also wondering what other 'statements' (ie confessions) people here would like to see her make. Is she to take full responsibility for the deaths of all those who died at Benghazi, just to put that 'scandal' to rest (which, by the way, started off as an Obama scandal and only became a Clinton scandal when it was evident she would run for the presidency)? Do you want her to apologise for the state of the Middle East and the rise of ISIS? How about the Iran Deal? Should she take some kind of blame for that too in an effort to placate Republicans?

    I'm sure there are others who will enthusiastically add to the list. Except for Paula, she has no supporters here.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I do hope that Blingrich hasn't coughed up a lung. I hope he makes it. He could be Family Values Czar!

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Except for Paula, she has no supporters here.

    Completely and utterly false. And, indicative of an inability to shoot for the stars.

    Not only are there many Hillary supporters here, they are all more loyal to her than you and Paula put together!

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    [2] nypoet22: seconded.

    I don't think she needs to do either of these things. The email thing has been grossly overblown and there is no scandal whatsoever attached to The Clinton Foundation -- notwithstanding efforts by some media and the rightwing to create the appearance of scandal). I think Bill Clinton has already announced their plans for stepping away from CF while Hillary is in office -- I'm sure he can get all the legal guidance he needs to be in compliance with anything they need to comply with. Jeebus, Trump is running around basically planning to treat the presidency like a part-time job intended to increase the profits of his other businesses.

    I liked Liz's idea (previous thread?) about Hillary doing some kind of lengthy televised (assuming anyone would carry it) introduction to the world explaining what CF does, and then let reporters ask her whatever they want. I think they'd run out of steam long before she would.

    Re the emails: I think she could also do a long presser about it and let them ask questions until they're blue in the face. She might take that opportunity to talk about needing to modernize federal computer systems and inter-agency standards for record-keeping, classifying info., etc.

    Her problem is she's never given enough time to tell her story on either topic. Let her make her case. Let reporters ask questions. Maybe it wouldn't be televised live but it could be filmed and offered online and news shows would show bits of it and she could then say she won't take any more questions on the topic because it's been fully hashed out, here's the tapes.

    But she won't. I'm sure her team has considered a number of approaches to dealing with both topics and have their reasons for the approaches they've chosen to take. Probably it boils down to the debates, the ground game, and Donald's ultimate self-destruction. The emails may cause lingering distrust among some people but email-fatigue has set in and CF was a nothingburger in the first place. So I suspect they'll do their best to move on.

    And Matt Lauer has been hammered for spending so much time on email questions in the event -- I think the moderators of the debates aren't going to repeat that mistake.

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's about time to give those zany off-brand contestants the gong. One is Aleppo the Stoner Clown and the other is getting arrested with eco-terrists. Disqualified!

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I'm also wondering what other 'statements' (ie confessions) people here would like to see her make."

    I think it's high time that she got real about that lesbian thing.

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] Mopshell: it has certainly been MY impression there's minimal Hillary support here. There's a few absolute haters and the rest of the gang seem pretty grudging to me. Lesser of two evils, flawed candidate, why not Biden? Bernie was better, etc.

    I was writing while you posted -- agree with your points. Chris's approach is essentially: "I'm guilty!" -- and she doesn't need to plead guilty to things she's not guilty of.

    Elizabeth -- I guess you have a different perspective re: Hillary supporters here.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    But she won't. I'm sure her team has considered a number of approaches to dealing with both topics and have their reasons for the approaches they've chosen to take.

    I'm sure they have their reasons, too. They're just not sound reason and they need to seriously rethink them.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth -- I guess you have a different perspective re: Hillary supporters here.

    Yep.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Allow me to try to explain, Paula ...

    I, for one, have never been a "Hillary fan" but, I have gained quite a lot of respect for her over the course of her tenure as Secretary of State and during the these years of campaigning for president again.

    I don't see her as the lesser of two evils. Not even close. I want her to be a better candidate and demolish Trump in November.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Chris's idea for a Clinton address Re. email and foundations has nothing to do with admitting guilt. It has everything to do with the highest level of transparency with respect to these two issues which continue to distract from her campaign.

    Chris's advice is rather akin to the type of advice Jack Ryan might provide a sitting president.

    Here's an analogy: a friend of the president has gotten himself into some trouble that could reflect upon the actions the president has taken in the wake of that trouble.

    A reporter finds out about this friendship and yells a question at the president as he's boarding Air Force One ... "Is it true you are good friends with this person!?"

    Says the president, shouting back at the reporter, "No, not good friends, we're life-long friends!"

    You see what the president has done? He has left the reporter with nowhere to go. End of story. After all, no sense in trying to diffuse a bomb after it has ... already gone off.

    You see where I'm going with this?

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    [13] I will allow you -- (don't see how I could stop you! :-)

    Glad you're on board -- which I have been aware of. I still think we're in the minority here. As for Hillary's reasons, since you don't know what they are you probably can't make an accurate judgement about their soundness.

    One thing I read today was someone's conclusion that the email scandal has actually been a plus for Hillary because it used up a lot of Republican energy. The repubs were going to create reasons to demonize her -- as they've been trying to do with CF. It's what they do. There doesn't have to be any merit to it. So instead of throwing 50 other things against the wall to see what stuck they focused their energies on the emails. Yes it did some damage, but their scandal-mongering always does damage. And, in the end, she isn't indicted, everyone's tired of it, and there's not a lot of enthusiasm left for new scandals. I think there's some validity to this idea.

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    [14] I just think it's a pretty dead horse at this point, especially after Matt Lauer got hammered about it.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As for Hillary's reasons, since you don't know what they are you probably can't make an accurate judgement about their soundness.

    Well, I can sure as Hell make an accurate judgement about their effectiveness, given the current state of the race.

  18. [18] 
    Paula wrote:

    [17] Given how polarized the electorate is and how ineffective -- in some cases malicious -- the media is, a close race was baked in. And Bernie did not help. I think she's doing well under the conditions she is faced with. The current state of the race is that she's ahead and has been ahead. We'll see new polls next week which will include response to the Town Hall and I bet she'll nudge up a bit more. Then the debates.

    I think Donald peaked too early. And the AP and NYTimes overreached and there's a pretty good backlash going on about their terrible Clinton coverage and their failures to go after Trump for what looks like some pretty bad stuff. All that right as we enter the final 60 days. I sweated it out for Obama both times -- we'll sweat it out here, but I think we'll prevail.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just think it's a pretty dead horse at this point, especially after Matt Lauer got hammered about it.

    Hillary could have begun to put this issue to rest if her answers on this topic weren't so lame. She needs to up her game ... and, fast!

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Chris ...

    When you release your next issue of banned words and phrases, "baked into the cake" had better be one of them!

    :-)

    Sorry, Paula ... :)

  21. [21] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [10] Paula

    it has certainly been MY impression there's minimal Hillary support here. There's a few absolute haters and the rest of the gang seem pretty grudging to me. Lesser of two evils, flawed candidate, why not Biden? Bernie was better, etc.

    Yes, that's my impression too. The constant references to her being "flawed" and having loads of baggage etc certainly make any faint support appear very grudging indeed. It couldn't be clearer that she is not the candidate they wanted.

    Chris's approach is essentially: "I'm guilty!" -- and she doesn't need to plead guilty to things she's not guilty of.

    Chris certainly gives the impression that he believes she's guilty, not only from this 'advice' but also such statements as:

    Hillary's got baggage, we all know that. She has struggled to get by this baggage for months.

    The only 'baggage' she has is the luggage packed for her by the Republican propaganda machine and a complicit US media. She's struggled with that for years, not months.

    What Chris -- and others -- are neglecting to consider is how such statements would be handled by the Republicans and US media. If anyone thinks for one second that they would be fair-minded about this and not portray such statements as out-and-out confessions, they're wilfully ignoring the consequences. Perhaps some part of them subconsciously wants HRC to crash and burn. I've certainly seen suggestions elsewhere that Bernie or, more likely, Biden could then step in and make them so much happier.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Make no mistake about this, no one is going to step in for Hillary.

    It's Hillary or Trump and her "supporters" should not be so quick to settle for a mediocre campaign. The consequences are too grave.

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: an issue doesn't get put to rest if reporters want to continue to ask about it. And they ask about it because of agendas that have nothing to do with the events themselves. She either needs a marathon session or she needs to refuse to discuss it further. My inclination would be to say, if asked, that the matter has been thoroughly hashed out and she isn't going to waste any further time on it. Next question? But that's me.

    However, IF she doesn't get asked about it anymore then we're done. And, after Matt Lauer's outing and subsequent firestorm of criticism, she may not!

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    [21] Mopshell: The only 'baggage' she has is the luggage packed for her by the Republican propaganda machine and a complicit US media. She's struggled with that for years, not months.

    Yes, yes, yes! Exactly!

    And I agree that if she did what Chris suggests it would be painted as an admission of "carelessness" re: the emails, and "guilt" re: the Clinton Foundation.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's another analogy, since Michale is missing in action ...

    We're in the bottom of the ninth and we've got a one run lead at home. Our closer comes in with one man on and the winning run at the plate with two out.

    What does our pitcher do? Give the hitter the best pitch he's got to strike him out? Or, cower at the hitter and pitch around him, putting him on and having to face the best hitter on the team?

    You have to give the best you've got! And, so far, Hillary hasn't done that.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, so nix the "at home" part, or it doesn't make any sense. Heh.

    Oh, wait ...

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: please don't do analogies. It's bad enough when Michale does them! :-)

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    At least there is some sort of point to my analogies but, I do hear ya! :)

  29. [29] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Are you kidding? Hillary has been coveting Obama's blackberry for two terms. Now not only can she not be told no, but with Apple products recently being approved by the Defense dept., she will get a NSA version iphone 7 to email to her heart's content. Probably wants it more than airforce one...

  30. [30] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [18] Paula

    I would argue that the US mainstream media has been incredibly effective. Hand in hand with the GOP, they have conducted a vendetta against Clinton for years, accusing her of everything from murder to treason. This sustained and malicious attack has inevitably damaged her reputation; it's a wonder there's anybody left in the country who has a good opinion of her.

    You only have to look at how mainstream media are handling the "Clinton Foundation affair" while ignoring the Trump Foundation, to figure out which candidate they favor.

    I don't know what the polls will be like next week. Since there are those who think her answers were "lame" and we already know there's many who want to see her fail, it's possible she may drop in the polls.

    As for the debates, if the "sympathy for the underdog" meme grows, Trump may do unexpectedly well. After all, if bloggers like CW consider Matt Lauer's forum performance to be competent and fair to both candidates, and Trump to look presidential in the speech he gave in Texas after meeting with the Mexican president, then support for Trump is evidently growing.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Bashi,

    Are you a lesser of two evils kind of voter or do you think it is imperative that Hillary Clinton is the next POTUS?

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You only have to look at how mainstream media are handling the "Clinton Foundation affair" while ignoring the Trump Foundation, to figure out which candidate they favor.

    Obviously, you haven't been reading the mainstream media editorials that I have about who the next president should be.

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    [30] Mopshell: totally agree with your assessment re: media and the long-running anti-Clinton bias. Re: vendetta -- that's mostly NYTimes and Republicans. The Repubs have played the media very effectively for years, but I don't think all media hates the Clintons so much as they're caught up in a syndrome they're unaware of. They are being made aware of it now and that is a good thing.

    I doon't think Trump will get any underdog sympathy -- he's too utterly arrogant for that. He will continue to have a bunch of looney followers and I very much doubt any reasonable people will shift to him. I think he's going to bleed people. Normal republicans are going to vote for HRC or stay home. And Gary Johnson was hurt by the Aleppo thing, although I think that was a tempest in a teacup. But I'll take it as I don't like libertarianism and don't want him to attract Dem Hillary-on-the-fencers.

    Chris was in the minority of the media re: Lauer. I actually agree to an extent. Not so much that Lauer wasn't bad, more that Lauer wasn't worse than most of the media to date. I think he became the scapegoat for media malfeasance across the board and as a result some good is happening. So cheer up!

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Why are "Dem Hillary-on-the-fencers" on the fence? I mean, what are the issues that are keeping them on the fence and what should Hillary do to get them off the fence?

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    [34] Elizabeth: There are Democrats who have absorbed the anti-Hillary stuff that's been pumped out for the last 30 years. And younger voters know nothing about the ins and outs of Bill Clinton's presidency and the incredible lengths repubs went to to try to bring him down. They don't know about the Arkansas Project, Richard Mellon Scaife and all the rest. They just know that the conventional wisdom is Hillary is "untrustworthy". Bernie fans include a lot of those folks (and Bernie didn't help).

    Some Dems (mostly male, some female) really are uncomfortable with the idea of a female POTUS. Sigh.

    Some Dems won't forgive her for the Iraq vote. I don't know if they'd forgive Biden, if he ran. Maybe not.

    Since most people are not motivated to figure out why they think the way they do I would say there's little HRC can do to change some of those people's minds right now. Many of them will vote for her, grudgingly, because they can't stomach Trump. Some won't.

    Anecdotally, however, in comments at DailyKOS, for instance, and on FB, I've read people saying they weren't that fired up about her before the Convention, but liked what they learned about her there and also people who loved her "Donald is a loon" speech, and her performance with Matt Lauer -- that those events impressed them and warmed them up to her. So I do think the debates will help capture some waverers.

    Her real hope lies in how she handles the presidency once in. She is always unpopular, relatively, when running, and very popular once in office. I think that will happen here. She might flip the normal schema and be more popular running for her second term than her first, if she surprises her naysayers by not being as hawkish as they expect, etc.

    I think she should keep giving press conferences, kick ass in the debates and, if possible, let the email topic fade away. Donald has a really villainous, vile crew working for him now and they're going to try to replay all the old scandals. Fortunately, the Donald can't keep out of the way and, I think, will stomp all over their efforts simply by being himself. And if they can't get their sleaze to work they've got nothing.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Some Dems won't forgive her for the Iraq vote. I don't know if they'd forgive Biden, if he ran. Maybe not.

    You don't want to get me started on that. Believe me.

    No one who has attempted a run for the presidency since that Iraq vote has ever or will ever understand the first thing about what that vote was all about or the context within which that vote was taken with the single unmistakable exception of Joe Biden.

    Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate for president since that vote was taken who has not been either disingenuous or prone to political expediency or just plain confused with respect to that vote, whether they cast one or not.

    Suffice to say that Joe Biden never has and never will apologize for that vote, in and of itself (which, by the way, was not a "vote for war") but rather has admitted his mistake in putting too much faith in the belief that the Bush administration would properly exercise the authority it was given in the form of that vote.

    Had he been president, he would have wanted the authorization from Congress for the use of military force in Iraq but he would have used that authority to avoid war, not rush into it.

    I could go on, ad Bidenitum, on this but I will spare everyone and decline to do so. :)

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the debates will be critical and decisive.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, at least, they should be with Hillary coming out of them with a huge advantage, if she plays her cards right.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Make no mistake, she will be questioned about her email situation and about the Clinton Foundation ... it is my fervent hope that, by then, she will have figured out how to turn both of those issues - and anything else that's thrown her way - into a presidential primer on how to be an up-wing leader with a progressive vision and the courage to carry out it out.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: Lauer

    Let's face reality. The *ONLY* reason the Left Wingery is in a snit over Lauer is that he did not play the role of Clinton attack dog that the Left expects and demands of ALL media...

    As far as the email questions go, it was the AUDIENCE that spent a lot of time on the email issues. Why?? Because Americans, especially military Americans CARE about things like honor, integrity, trust and honesty... Those who claim that the emails issue is a non-scandal are living in a fantasy world.. One only has to point to the FACT that Hillary's trust and honesty numbers are in the toilet to PROVE that Americans care...

    Having said that, I find myself in the unique position of totally agreeing with Paula & Mopshell..

    If Clinton were to follow CW's advice, it WOULD be admitting guilt.. That's because the reality is that Clinton *IS* guilty...

    She is guilty of ignoring federal records laws, she is guilty of using the foundation as a slush fund, she is guilty of pay for play and she is guilty of endangering national security..

    And ya'all would be in COMPLETE, UNEQUIVOCAL and 1000% agreement with me if Hillary had a -R after her name..

    I also agree with CW.. Hillary COULD turn her campaign around if she did come clean and did what CW suggested... If Hillary followed CW's advice, she could totally decimate Trump and actually create a 50-State landslide of monumental proportions..

    But I ain't worried.. :D

    It would require a monumental shift in Hillary's character (or in her case, lack thereof) to take such a principled stand.. She is incapable of being anything other than she is. An unprincipled, greedy, selfish, unfeeling and uncaring rhymes-with-witch who would sell her own flesh and blood for a chance at the brass ring...

    And, as I said above.... If Hillary had a '-R' after her name, ya'all would be in complete, unequivocal and 1000% agreement with me...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    To the earlier threads:

    I support Hillary Clinton. I supported her over Sanders in the primary. I am someone who is "here" and has been for years.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    I support Hillary Clinton.

    Saying "I support Hillary Clinton" is like saying "I support Bernie Madoff" or "I support Charles Manson"....

    It boggles the mind.....

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Interesting. Seems like a higher bar we are expecting of HRC. I'd also be more than interested in reading a proposed statement to separate Poor Donald from his vast interests and the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

    Regarding the "Proposed Hillary Clinton statement," in addition to the comments already made about the political optics of such an action, I would consider an additional angle regarding the following excerpt:

    Because this has been such an obsession for so many for so long -- I've lost count of the times I've been investigated over my emails, in fact -- that I feel it is time to now make the following iron-clad promise: I will not send anyone an official email, as president. I just won't use email at all for official business. There are plenty of ways to contact people in today's world, and forswearing the use of one of these will in no way impact my ability to do the job or communicate with anyone I wish.

    Obviously Benghazi has had many and multiple investigations, but has there been more than one investigation into the "damn emails"? In addition to that, no leader I have known would ever declare to ANYONE that he/she was self-limiting merely to quell anyone's long-held "obsession." No way, no how.

    Communication is a 2-way street, and making an "iron-clad promise" such as above requires that you neither send nor receive email communication in your capacity as "Leader of the Free World" (LOTFW) and "Commander in Chief" (CIC). I personally do not believe it is logistically possible under the current federal system to shut down your email use without impacting your ability to effectively carry out your duties as LOTFW and CIC, and at the same time you'd be impacting the ability of many and multiple federal officials and staff in the way they handled communications up the chain. I believe you'd also be getting into semantics too because as CIC you are required to view communications on JWICS and SIPRNet (many more), but since you have promised not to "use email" you're merely changing the way you handle what you've got to see to carry out your duties. So any communications up the chain that might eventually need to be seen by the POTUS must be in the form of a viewable "report" but can in no way, shape, or form resemble an email communication... merely SEMANTICS.

    So IMHO, if HRC wants to "up her game," rather than make any self-limiting promises about email use, she would be better served by continuing to answer questions about the damn emails as the opposition spins their overblown conspiracy narrative (if it wasn't about the emails, it'd be something else) but change the narrative to future policy regarding her administration and the United States government moving into the 21st Century by implementing improvements in handling/logistics of federal communication systems and overhauling of federal cybersecurity and federal IT systems.

    "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." - Walt Disney

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Gates? Really?

    I would have thought that the Jimmy Carter foundation would have been a better choice myself...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Saying "I support Hillary Clinton" is like saying "I support Bernie Madoff" or "I support Charles Manson"....

    perhaps in the same sense that saying "I support Donald Trump" is like saying, "I support Adolf Hitler," or "I support Benito Mussolini."

    i support hillary clinton.

    sure, any characterization of a candidate can be taken to its logical extreme based on that candidate's worst attributes.

    factually speaking, there's more to back up trump/mussolini than clinton/madoff. a master showman with a promise to return his humbled superpower to its former glory through the force of his own will, while demonizing cultural outsiders, is not exactly a brand new script.

    is donald ACTUALLY another hitler? probably not, but considering the potential damage, hillary is a substantially better risk.

    JL

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." - Walt Disney

    Except new paths that veer right-wards cuz gods know we would NEVER want to be exposed to ANYTHING from the Right....

    Hence our lame powder-puff wimpish demands for "save spaces" and "trigger warnings" :^/

    <"Jesus, what a bunch of pussies!!"
    -Tommy Lee Jones, UNDER SIEGE

    :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to bill gates, his foundation (unlike clinton's) has in many respects done more harm than good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/02/gates-foundation-chief-admits-common-core-mistakes/

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    perhaps in the same sense that saying "I support Donald Trump" is like saying, "I support Adolf Hitler," or "I support Benito Mussolini."

    Except for the teensy weensy little *FACT* that Donald Trump has never done ANYTHING to warrant the comparison.

    You cannot factually or accurately make the same claim about Clinton...

    factually speaking, there's more to back up trump/mussolini than clinton/madoff.

    Really??? Can you do so without the use of campaign hyperbole??

    No, you cannot..

    while demonizing cultural outsiders

    As opposed to Hillary demonizing fellow Americans?? Funny how no one wants to address that fact, eh?? :D

    Good ta see ya again, JL... I was getting worried.. :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." - Walt Disney

    walt disney was ACTUALLY pro-nazi.

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Really??? Can you do so without the use of campaign hyperbole??
    No, you cannot..

    i can and have, with video evidence. i'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit.

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Good ta see ya again, JL... I was getting worried.. :D

    thanks michale. the start of school is always a challenge, so expect my participation to be somewhat quiet until election day nears.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    i can and have, with video evidence. i'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit.

    Perhaps just a link, then.. :D

    But I stand by my position. You cannot find any ACTIONS by Trump that would be comparable to Hitler or Mussolini...

    I, on the other hand, can find PLENTY of actions from Hillary that are more and less comparable to that of Madoff and Manson...

    thanks michale. the start of school is always a challenge, so expect my participation to be somewhat quiet

    Yea, I figured as much...

    until election day nears.

    It's going to be wild, iddn't it! :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats wonder and worry: Why isn’t Clinton far ahead of Trump?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-wonder-and-worry-why-isnt-clinton-far-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/09/543f3342-7693-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

    That's been my point all along...

    If Trump is so bad, why is the race so tight???

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Vlad to the bone
    Older than the Rolling Stones
    Personality disorder
    Commit those war crimes on my orders
    Won’t release my tax returns
    Fire some generals for no good reason
    Lock her up
    Shoot her for treason
    Lie like a rug
    Give Kim Jong Un a great big hug
    Dogwhistle for the Talabangelical crowd
    Yarkii, bigoted, know-nothing and loud

  55. [55] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "is donald ACTUALLY another hitler?"

    Clearly not. He's a Putin.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    walt disney was ACTUALLY pro-nazi.

    Hehehehehehehehe :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Perhaps just a link, then.. :D

    there are some more visual links comparing mussolini, but this interview with a professor of fascism demonstrates some of the factual parallels. the moderator is clearly biased in the direction she takes the interview, but the professor himself is much more measured.

    https://youtu.be/LWvVKTxTCAA

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vlad to the bone
    Older than the Rolling Stones
    Personality disorder
    Commit those war crimes on my orders
    Won’t release my tax returns
    Fire some generals for no good reason
    Lock her up
    Shoot her for treason
    Lie like a rug
    Give Kim Jong Un a great big hug
    Dogwhistle for the Talabangelical crowd
    Yarkii, bigoted, know-nothing and loud

    "Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella"
    -Jumpin' Jack Flash

    :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are some more visual links comparing mussolini, but this interview with a professor of fascism demonstrates some of the factual parallels. the moderator is clearly biased in the direction she takes the interview, but the professor himself is much more measured.

    https://youtu.be/LWvVKTxTCAA

    I was more gearing towards TRUMP's actions that are comparable to Hitler or Mussolini rather than some one CLAIMING Trump is comparable to Hitler or Mussolini...

    Do you have anything from Trump's ACTIONS that compare to Hitler or Mussolini...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Phyllis Schlafly died this week at the age of 92 and I have to say that, even though she was a hateful old Republican creep, I'm glad she lived to such an old age. She lived long enough to see the total collapse and failure of her homophobic crusade. I'm happy for her.

    JFC, member Grave Dancers Union Local 420

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Phyllis Schlafly died this week at the age of 92 and I have to say that, even though she was a hateful old Republican creep, I'm glad she lived to such an old age. She lived long enough to see the total collapse and failure of her homophobic crusade. I'm happy for her.

    I plan on being JUST as respectful as you when Crooked Hillary keels over... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you take away the Republican's toys (email-gate and foundation-gate) they'll just make up new ones (cough-gate, deplorable-gate, etc., etc.).

    I looked at the candidates last year and concluded that Hillary was easily the best qualified for my vote. I don't expect to like politicians, although Obama has grown on me. I don't expect politicians to tell the truth all the time, but fact checkers prove that Hillary is one of the most honest. I don't expect to agree with every position a politician holds, but Hillary is closest to my position on most issues. I was lucky, my candidate also won her primary. If I'd preferred Bernie, I'd re-evaluate and would have switched to Hillary.

    What I really look for in a politician who is going to run the country (and anybody who wants to run for office is a politician) is smarts, the ability to adjust to the situation, and a grounding in reality.

    It is the last part, a grounding in reality, that lost the Republicans any chance of my vote over the last 20 years. The anti-science, anti-reality quotients of the Republican Party outweighs anything the Democrats are currently adopting (anti-GMO, anti-Wall St., etc. is a far cry from rejecting evolution, denying anthropomorphic climate change, believing in trickle down economics, and wanting yet more tax cuts for the already rich and perpetually greedy).

    So even an adult Republican candidate faces headwinds for my vote. Trump isn't an adult. His own campaign staff admit that the ones that rise to the top are those who can baby him. He exhibits a cluelessness about important issues, and values 'looks' over capability. He has emboldened some deplorable (there, I used the word) people in the alt-right such as David Duke who can't believe they have been handed a renaissance by a major party after it looked like they were already in the trashcan of history.

    So my advice to Hillary isn't to capitulate but to delegate. The spotlight will be on both candidates for the rest of the election. She needs to stick to issues that matter after November 8th, and let Donald and some of her more distant surrogates fling poo at each other.

    If I were to advise Hillary, I'd tell her to repeat the following every time she gets in front of a camera: "This election is too important to focus on distractions that will mean nothing on November 9th and mean little to anybody but partisan politicians even today. Let's talk about (your kids education / our economy / good jobs for the future / etc.)."

    Then she can talk about her plans, and ask, "Where are Trumps plans?

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If I were to advise Hillary, I'd tell her to repeat the following every time she gets in front of a camera: "This election is too important to focus on distractions that will mean nothing on November 9th and mean little to anybody but partisan politicians even today. Let's talk about (your kids education/ our economy / good jobs for the future / etc.)."

    Very sage advice, I believe.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I plan on being JUST as respectful as you when Crooked Hillary keels over... :D

    And I expect and demand ALL the deference and tolerance that ya'all gave JFC and ya'all gave Paula when Justice Scalia died..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The anti-science, anti-reality quotients of the Republican Party

    You want to talk about science??

    71% of doctors feel that Hillary's medical issues could disqualify her from the presidency...

    STILL want to talk about "science"??

    {{chhiirrrrrppppp}} {{chirrrrppppp}}}

    It's well documented... Demcorats ONLY care about the science that furthers their agenda... Any science that DOESN'T serve the agenda??? Demcorats are as anti-science as they accuse Republicans of being...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [40] Michale

    The reality is that Trump is guilty.

    He's guilty of ignoring federal tax and campaign laws. He's guilty of using the Trump Foundation as a slush fund to buy himself sports memorabilia and bribe politicians like Florida AG Pam Bondi. He's guilty of pay for play -- and openly admits that he's only given donations to politicians so that they will kiss his ass when he wants something from them. He's guilty of endangering national and domestic security but supporting policies that advocate racism and violence.

    And you, Michale, would be the first one to list all Trump's criminal activities from rape to bribery and fraud, if he had a D after his name. Oh yeah, if Donald J Trump had a '-D' after his name, you would be in complete, unequivocal and 1000% agreement with the above.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    "This election is too important to focus on distractions that will mean nothing on November 9th and mean little to anybody but partisan politicians even today. Let's talk about (your kids education/ our economy / good jobs for the future / etc.)."

    It IS very good advice..

    But Hillary would rather attack and demonize fellow Americans as "racists" SOLELY because they support Trump....

    Which is pretty sad and pathetic when one looks at it objectively..

    Which I know ya'all are incapable of doing...

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Trump attacks and demonizes criminals and terrorists...

    Hillary attacks and demonizes fellow Americans...

    The choice for true patriotic Americans is clear...

    Donald Trump for POTUS....

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    apophis wrote:

    "71% of doctors feel that Hillary's medical issues could disqualify her from the presidency"

    This is bullshit...

    "A heavily publicized survey of doctors that showed 7 out of 10 questioning Hillary Clinton's physical readiness to be president was conducted online by a far-right medical group whose fringe beliefs have been widely debunked in the past."

  70. [70] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."
    ~Hillary Clinton

    Clinton is not demonizing anybody; she's simply calling them out for what they are. I'd guess that some 20+% of Australians are racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic. Probably the same percentage in Europe. It's the way it is.

    All Clinton is saying is that America's share of these "deplorables" (good word, very apt) are Trump supporters because he's made it okay for them to express their racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia openly.

    Not that Trump deserves all the blame for this. The Republican Party have been courting this bunch of deplorables at least since the 1950s with Joseph McCarthy's witch hunts, the 1960s with their anti-civil rights stance and 1970s with their anti-equal rights stance.

    In addition to Mexicans and Muslims, Trump most certainly attacks Americans and it is disingenuous of you to ignore this fact. For example: he linked Cruz's father with the murderer of JFK; he said McCain wasn't a war hero because he was captured; he demonized an American-born judge as racist because of a legal decision that went against Trump, then as recently as this week in the forum he called American generals "rubble".

    That's a very short version of his entire list of attacks on Americans but none on that list are criminals or terrorists. They are fellow Americans. Donald Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is no patriot.

  71. [71] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [69] apophis

    "A heavily publicized survey of doctors that showed 7 out of 10 questioning Hillary Clinton's physical readiness to be president was conducted online by a far-right medical group whose fringe beliefs have been widely debunked in the past."

    I very much doubt any of them are actual licensed doctors since they are referred to by the vague term "medical group" rather than "AMA registered doctors". Gee and they could only get 7 out of 10 to agree to their crazy conspiracy theory. Looks like their "medical group" isn't a 100% supportive.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican Donald Trump appears to have carved out a wider path to the White House as a number of states including Florida and Ohio are no longer considered likely wins for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-closes-clintons-projected-electoral-lead-reuters-ipsos-135210513.html

    And here I thought that "Trump was toast" and his campaign had "imploded"...

    That's what I get for listening to ya'all.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton is not demonizing anybody; she's simply calling them out for what they are.

    So, if I call Hillary a twisted, greedy sack-o-shit bitch, I am not demonizing her, I am simply calling her out for what she is, right?? :D

    In addition to Mexicans and Muslims, Trump most certainly attacks Americans and it is disingenuous of you to ignore this fact.

    Trump called into question the actions of specific Americans, not Americans in general...

    Hillary's attacks were textbook bigotry..

    Trump's were not.. Or, more accurately, they were bigotry against terrorists and criminals. That kind of bigotry, the vast majority of Americans don't have any problem with...

    Hillary's bigotry is as bad as racist bigotry....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is bullshit...

    "A heavily publicized survey of doctors that showed 7 out of 10 questioning Hillary Clinton's physical readiness to be president was conducted online by a far-right medical group whose fringe beliefs have been widely debunked in the past."

    I can see why you didn't want to attribute your BS claim..

    It's from a bunch of Left Wingery rags....

    Sorry, you lose.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    he demonized an American-born judge as racist because of a legal decision that went against Trump,

    He was simply repeating near verbatim what Judge Sotomayer claimed she would do if she was confirmed as a SCOTUS Justice...

    But you have a problem with it *ONLY* when it comes from someone with a '-R' after their name..

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    apophis wrote:

    It's from the UK Daily mail. Hardly left wing.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, here's ya'all's problem..

    You keep beating down and beating down on Trump and making him the worst human being ever...

    But what ya don't get is how bad that makes HILLARY look... :D

    Because if Trump can be this most horrible person and STILL keeps the election within the margin of error.....

    Well, that proves that Hillary ain't much better than ya'all accuse Trump of being.. :D

    Ya'all just GOTTA laugh at the irony... :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all just GOTTA laugh at the irony... :D

    I know I am!! :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's from the UK Daily mail. Hardly left wing.

    And they quoted CNN... Imminently and demonstrably Left Wing...

    Again, you lose.. :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you prove my point perfectly..

    Ya'all don't like science that doesn't support your ideology... :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And here I thought that "Trump was toast" and his campaign had "imploded"...

    That's what I get for listening to ya'all.. :D

    Does anyone want to admit they were wrong.. AGAIN???

    {ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp} {chirrrrrpppp}

    Didna think so..

    And *I* am the one who is accused of never admitting being wrong..

    That's funny.... :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [76] apophis

    Hahahahahahaha! You're so right, the UK Daily Mail is totally right wing. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and well-known for pushing conspiracy theories. In the UK they refer to it as the Daily Fail and it doesn't employ any journalists, just a bunch of stenographers and fiction writers.

    You just gotta laugh at the irony of Michale thinking it's a left wing rag!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what do ya'all think of this 9/11-Saudi bill that just passed Congress with near unanimous support..

    A bill that Obama has promised to VETO???

    Anyone??? Anyone???

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [75] Michale

    He was simply repeating near verbatim what Judge Sotomayer claimed she would do if she was confirmed as a SCOTUS Justice...

    That's a flat out lie. But you just have to twist everything because it's the only case you have. How pathetic.

    You have a problem with everything when it comes from someone with a '-D' after their name..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    You just gotta laugh at the irony of Michale thinking it's a left wing rag!

    You obviously missed the fact that UK Daily Mail was quoting CNN...

    . In the UK they refer to it as the Daily Fail and it doesn't employ any journalists, just a bunch of stenographers and fiction writers.

    So, what you are saying is that their claim is utter bullshit???

    :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [85] Michale

    CNN is also right wing, Michale. Do try to keep up.

  87. [87] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [85] Michale

    So, what you are saying is that their claim is utter bullshit???

    YES!

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a flat out lie

    I am sorry, but it's not..

    Sotomayer said she would use her heritage as a "wise latina" in ruling from the high bench..

    Trump simply accused the hispanic judge of doing the same thing...

    If you don't have a beef with what Sotomayer said, you CAN'T have a beef with what Trump said...

    It's really that simple...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    apophis wrote:

    Hillary Clinton is Wrong that Half of Trump Supporters are Deplorable.

    It's two thirds.

    The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

    Two-thirds of voters with a favorable opinion of Donald Trump believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and a quarter of them believe that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, a poll released Tuesday shows.

    Unbelievable

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    o, what you are saying is that their claim is utter bullshit???

    YES!

    I don't think you understand.

    I am saying that the CNN quote is utter bullshit because CNN is a well known Left Wingery news outlet..

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

    Where does the racism accusation come in?

    Answer: It doesn't.. CLinton is full of shit...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN is also right wing, Michale.

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

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, no one wants to admit they were wrong about Trump's campaign??

    No one wants to admit that by slamming Trump, they are also slamming Hillary?? :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's so sad...

    When Romney slammed and attacked a portion of Americans, the Left Wingery vilified him to no end..

    When Hillary slams and attacks a portion of Americans, the Left Wingery cheers her...

    Thereby proving beyond ANY doubt that the ONLY thing in play here is Party ideology.....

    Ya'all aren't even bothering to hide the blatant hypocrisy anymore..... :^/

    Michale

    Michale......

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow...

    That sure cleared the room.. :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [73] Michale

    So, if I call Hillary a ... I am not demonizing her, I am simply calling her out for what she is, right??
    You'd just be as sexist as you ever have been in various of your references to her. As I recall you also called her a "fat ass" not so long ago. You've never called Trump that, even though he is overweight.

    The fact that you do not have a moral compass that tells you the difference between a gross insult and terms that describe those who despise others because of their race, their gender, their religion and/or their sexual orientation says a lot about your lack of understanding and discernment. It's a shame because you seem to be a decent sort of person when it comes to friends and family. I am certainly in no doubt whatsoever of your love and loyalty to your family.

    Trump called into question the actions of specific Americans, not Americans in general...

    Clinton has not "called into question the actions of Americans in general". Again it is disingenuous of you to infer that she did. Meanwhile Trump's attacks on and put-downs of Americans seems to have covered the majority of his fellow citizens. We do however know that he loves the poorly educated.

    Hillary's attacks were textbook bigotry..

    Calling out bigots is not the definition of bigotry. In the same way, insulting HRC as you do does not make you what you call her.

    Trump's were not.. Or, more accurately, they were bigotry against terrorists and criminals.

    So you're saying that Ted Cruz, John McCain, Judge Curiel and all American generals are criminals and
    terrorists.

    That kind of bigotry, the vast majority of Americans don't have any problem with...

    Oh yes they do. Your opinions are not shared by a majority of Americans. They are no doubt shared by your family, friends and colleagues but they are not representative of the majority of Americans.

    Hillary's bigotry is as bad as racist bigotry....

    Since, in the real world, she isn't a bigot, that statement is just another in a long long list of right wing lies.

    I take it you also support Trump's latest foreign affairs policy:

    When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.

  97. [97] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [93] Michale

    So, no one wants to admit they were wrong about Trump's campaign??

    Since I haven't said anything about Trump's campaign, I can hardly have anything to be sorry about.

    No one wants to admit that by slamming Trump, they are also slamming Hillary?? :D

    I don't see you admitting it yet, by your own definition, when you are slamming Hillary you are also slamming Trump.

  98. [98] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [94] Michale -

    Do you truly not know the difference between Romney's comment re the 47% and Clinton's comment re half of Trump's fans? Surely, if you apply your brain to it, even you could work that one out.

  99. [99] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [92] Michale -

    Go ahead and cite your "facts".

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    You'd just be as sexist as you ever have been in various of your references to her. As I recall you also called her a "fat ass" not so long ago. You've never called Trump that, even though he is overweight.

    And you have called Trump a bunch of names that you haven't called Hillary...

    Does that mean your sexist?? :D

    Clinton has not "called into question the actions of Americans in general".

    Bullshit.. She said half of Trump's supporters are racist...

    Calling out bigots is not the definition of bigotry.

    Yes it is, if you ascribe it to a specific group, in this case, Trump supporters...... Bigotry is EXACTLY what it is...

    When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.

    Allow me to answer this by sharing a Facebook post I made on the subject...

    It's like when a father wants to dissuade his daughter from dating.. Shoot the first suitor and word will spread..

    Splash a few.. Word will spread....

    Do you truly not know the difference between Romney's comment re the 47% and Clinton's comment re half of Trump's fans? Surely, if you apply your brain to it, even you could work that one out.

    There is no difference....

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no difference....

    But I can understand why ya'all would be loath to admit that..

    As a rule, ya'all can't admit when you are wrong... :D

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both Presidential candidates disparaged a percentage of Americans to pursue their partisan Party agenda....

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Romney said and what Clinton said..

    And anyone who claims a difference is just showing their political bigotry...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [91] Michale -

    The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

    Where does the racism accusation come in?

    That Michale, is what is know as false equivalence. What that means is that the two things are not specifically related. It's apples and oranges.

    In any case, Clinton did not say that the PPP survey found this result so therefore Trump's fans are racists. It's dishonest of you to infer that this was the connection.

    You also failed to mention that Clinton went on to say:

    "That other basket of people are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures. They are just desperate for change. Doesn't really even matter where it comes from."
    She continued, "They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people who we have to understand and empathize with as well."

    I took that quote from CNN since you're such a fan of their right wing reporters.

  104. [104] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [102] Michale -

    Both Presidential candidates disparaged a percentage of Americans to pursue their partisan Party agenda....

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Romney said and what Clinton said..

    And anyone who claims a difference is just showing their political bigotry...

    So because you are can't admit there's a difference, or to even spend a second on considering what that difference obviously is, you accuse anyone who is aware of the very obvious difference of being a bigot! Oh and a "political" bigot too, whatever the hell that means in your bubble world!

    This is utter BS, Michale. You're getting so desperate you're losing it my friend. :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    That Michale, is what is know as false equivalence. What that means is that the two things are not specifically related. It's apples and oranges.

    And yet, Apophis brought it up in response to Hillary's accusations of racism..

    So, if there is a false equivalency, it's Apophis's issue, not mine..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    o because you are can't admit there's a difference, or to even spend a second on considering what that difference obviously is,

    There IS no difference to consider...

    Oh and a "political" bigot too, whatever the hell that means in your bubble world!

    A political bigot hates people solely because they are of a specific Political Party..

    Does that sound like everyone... er.. I mean anyone you know?? :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    And they quoted CNN... Imminently and demonstrably Left Wing...

    Again, you lose.. :D

    Ah, thank god I wont be around for nice comfy weekend of the Infowars show "Michale, Michale" a show whose only argument is D. vs. R. and populated with declarative statements that somehow are facts....

    AAPS- you know the group that conducted the survey...you should check out the wikipedia

    http://tinyurl.com/poyf44l

    Just sayin'

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    o because you are can't admit there's a difference, or to even spend a second on considering what that difference obviously is,

    There IS no difference to consider...

    But since you believe that the non-existent difference is so "obvious" by all means....

    Enlighten me....

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale" a show whose only argument is D. vs. R.

    Oh yea..

    *I* am the ONLY one who brings up D vs R... :^/

    AAPS- you know the group that conducted the survey...you should check out the wikipedia

    Just like the vast majority of scientists who support the Global Warming con are avowed Leftists.

    What's your point???

    My point is simple..

    You only support science that supports your agenda....

    I have seen NOTHING to dispute that fact...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, thank god I wont be around for nice comfy weekend of the

    In other words, you will spout a bunch of Left Wingery bigotry and then run away...

    Color me surprised.. :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [100] Michale -

    And you have called Trump a bunch of names that you haven't called Hillary...

    No Michale, I have not called Trump "a bunch of names". I know there are people on this blog who have but I am not one of them. Even Chris launched a competition into a "nickname" for Trump but I did not join in.

    Clinton has not "called into question the actions of Americans in general".

    Bullshit.. She said half of Trump's supporters are racist...

    Evidently you do not understand the difference between the terms "in general" and half of a group that would barely be 2% of the population and less than 12% of the adult population. Those figures do not constitute "Americans in general". The term "in general" does not apply to a specific group, especially one that is in the minority.

    Calling out bigots is not the definition of bigotry.

    Yes it is, if you ascribe it to a specific group, in this case, Trump supporters...... Bigotry is EXACTLY what it is...

    No Michale, it isn't. Just as you calling me a "political bigot" [102] does not make you a political bigot.

    When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.

    Allow me to answer this by sharing a Facebook post I made on the subject...

    It's like when a father wants to dissuade his daughter from dating.. Shoot the first suitor and word will spread..

    Splash a few.. Word will spread....

    Bullshit. You are putting words in Trump's mouth that he never said. You're just making up a cover story for him because the fact of what he said -- and what he no doubt meant -- is indefensible.

    <You can't handle the truth!
    Col. Jessep
    A Few Good Men

    There is no difference....

    Yes there is. Just because you refuse to consider it does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means you have shut your mind to even the possibility because you just don't want to know. I respect your position so I won't go on about it.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Michale, I have not called Trump "a bunch of names". I know there are people on this blog who have but I am not one of them. Even Chris launched a competition into a "nickname" for Trump but I did not join in.

    You did not call them out when they called Trump names.. Yet you call me out when I call Hillary names...

    Silence gives assent.. :D

    Yes there is. Just because you refuse to consider it does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means you have shut your mind to even the possibility because you just don't want to know. I respect your position so I won't go on about it.

    If the difference exists, you should share it....

    But as I said, there is no difference..

    Both Presidential candidates disparaged a percentage of Americans to pursue their partisan Party agenda....

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Romney said and what Clinton said..

    This is fact...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [106] Michale -

    A political bigot hates people solely because they are of a specific Political Party..

    There are certainly Republicans that I know and like and I don't hate you, Michale, and you are certainly politically opposite to me. Therefore I'm obviously not a political bigot -- good to know!

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Romney said and what Clinton said..

    I stand corrected...

    There IS a difference...

    In one instance, a person with a '-R' after their name said it..

    In the other instance, a person with a '-D' after their name said it...

    That is the *ONLY* difference...

    The content and the intent is identical...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are certainly Republicans that I know and like and I don't hate you, Michale, and you are certainly politically opposite to me. Therefore I'm obviously not a political bigot -- good to know!

    It is indeed.. :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [80] Michale -

    Ya'all don't like science that doesn't support your ideology...

    So what science do you like that doesn't support your ideology, Michale?

  117. [117] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [116] Michale -

    I'm glad we found something we agree on. (???)

    With that I'm off to bed -- I need sleep!

    Cheers to you and your family.

    M

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what science do you like that doesn't support your ideology, Michale?

    I have no ideology.. I am open to ALL science not dictated by political considerations..

    With that I'm off to bed -- I need sleep!

    Cheers to you and your family.

    And to you and yours.. Be well.... :D

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Color me surprised.. :D

    I wasn't aware that working in a monitored internet access environment that could result in the loss of my security clearance was running away

    I really must apologize Cartman, I really did get carried away there, I forgot you are the only person allowed to use dry sarcastic humor and expect not to be called on it, my apologies.

  120. [120] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Big Orange says that he loves war, so this whole business of shooting people who make hand gestures just sounds like an itchy (short) fingered loon looking for a reason to start a Trump War.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't aware that working in a monitored internet access environment that could result in the loss of my security clearance was running away

    It's considered "running away" when ya seem to have plenty of time to make your points, but "duty calls" when confronted with the rebuttal...

    It's a minor point that I'll try not to hold against ya.. :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Big Orange says that he loves war,

    As opposed to yer BFF Hillary who just wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Syria and give a few billions more to Iran... :D

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really must apologize Cartman, I really did get carried away there, I forgot you are the only person allowed to use dry sarcastic humor and expect not to be called on it, my apologies.

    Apology accepted.. We all make mistakes.. :D

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Except new paths that veer right-wards cuz gods know we would NEVER want to be exposed to ANYTHING from the Right....

    I am guessing most commenters on this website read at least a portion of your numerous rants and are thusly self-exposing to the "Right." Why blame the reader for their limited exposure to "new paths" when your "right-wards" prattling is limited almost entirely to one lane?

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary Clinton is Wrong that Half of Trump Supporters are Deplorable.

    She was wrong to say it out loud.

    Unforced error. Just what she needed.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am guessing most commenters on this website read at least a portion of your numerous rants and are thusly self-exposing to the "Right." Why blame the reader for their limited exposure to "new paths" when your "right-wards" prattling is limited almost entirely to one lane?

    Still smarting from posting that Nazi Lover quote, eh?? :D

    But thank you for pointing out my value here..

    Were it not for me, this would be nothing but a Left Wingery echo chamber where the ONLY debate would be "Is Hillary Awesome Or Is She REALLY Awesome".... :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    She was wrong to say it out loud.

    She was wrong, period..

    Just like Romney was wrong...

    Unforced error. Just what she needed.

    I am assuming that was eye-rolling sarcasm... :D

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unforced error. Just what she needed.

    If her goal was to alienate half of true patriotic Americans, I would say she succeeded admirably.... :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/video-hillary-clinton-steps-behind-pillar-keep-press-filming-coughing/

    Hehehehehehehe

    Hillary's beginning to realize that her health issues are causing real problems..

    Now she is trying to hide it...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-Clinton-Press-Conference-09092016-575x327.jpg

    She looks pretty pathetic....

    Her medical issues are definitely catching up to her... She looks like death warmed over...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:
  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hillary's statement in context:

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case—and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

    The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people—now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket—and I know this because I see friends from all over America here—I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas—as well as, you know, New York and California—but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

    I think if you take Hillary's comments in context they are much more like Obama saying people "clinging to their guns and religion."

    Mitt Romney disparaged the importance of "the 47%," generally lower income Americans whom he called "takers," while Hillary Clinton is disparaging the "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic..." He disparaged the poor while she's disparaging the hate that is being ginned up by Trump and his alt-right supporters. Trump is the host, and his supporters are the parasites.

    From a purely political standpoint, Romney disparaged potential voters while Hillary disparaged Trump supporters.

    So far I've been to three Trump rallies and watched them chant "throw that n***** out" "kill the bitch," "shoot the c***," "lock her up," "Obama's a Muslim," and I could go on. So Hillary is correct. At least half of his followers are exactly what she said, and that is not America.

    So the righties are now whining that she is insulting hard-working American "patriots." Can't you be a hard-working American and still be "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic," some or sometimes all of the above? Of course you can... but I think a true American patriot does not champion or encourage any of those attributes that demonizes other races, cultures, sexual orientation, religion, some of which is actually set out in our Constitution and for those "envangelicals" is set out in their scripture.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary's statement in context:

    TRANSLATION: Total bullshit based on enslavement to Party dogma...

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far I've been to three Trump rallies and watched them chant "throw that n***** out" "kill the bitch," "shoot the c***," "lock her up," "Obama's a Muslim," and I could go on.

    And it would be as much bullshit as this is.

    You haven't gone to any Trump rallies..

    You also fail to mention all the assaults and attacks on Trump supporters and the 3 ASSASSINATION attempts against Trump..

    That is why you simply cannot be believed in your claims...

    Your nose is so far up Hillary's ass, it's impossible to tell where you end and she starts...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    apophis wrote:

    [131]
    Michale;

    It is an interesting idea. Will the networks buy it, I don't know. They like the ratings and the longer they can keep you hanging on the better. From a statistical point of view I don't think it will affect voter turnout. They're only doing it in certain swing states.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Obama has managed to put together the most intensive surveillance state in the history of the world,"
    -Oliver Stone

    And yet, ya'all give Obama a pass for it..

    Thereby proving the complete and utter hypocrisy of those enslaved by Party dogma....

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    apophis wrote:

    Clinton walks back her statement, kinda sorta, maybe.

    Hillary Clinton on Saturday said she regretted denigrating “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters but stood by her characterization that much of his campaign is “deplorable.”

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    apophis ,

    It is an interesting idea. Will the networks buy it, I don't know.

    The networks don't have to buy it..

    That's the beauty of it.. They can post it to the web and let nature take it's course.. :D

    If the networks don't report it, they will be caught flat-footed...

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    apophis wrote:

    [138]
    Michale;

    Agree, lets see what happens...

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton on Saturday said she regretted denigrating “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters

    Which simply proves what I have been saying all day...

    It was a disgusting thing to say, it will be a black mark against Clinton...

    Her own retraction proved me dead on ballz accurate on everything I have said on that issue..

    Thanx, A.....

    but stood by her characterization that much of his campaign is “deplorable.”

    OK, now Clinton moves the goal posts.. *NOW* she is talking about Trump's campaign, *NOT* Trump's supporters...

    Vindication, thy name is Michale...

    I would hope I would see some apologies and acknowledgements from the WPG....

    But I won't hold my breath.. :D

    I know it's there even if it's not articulated.. :D

    Michale

    MIchale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agree, lets see what happens...

    I hope it comes to pass..

    Something needs to shake the media out of their stupor and make them realize that they are no longer the keepers of the scrolls....

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apophis,

    Do you have a link for Hillary's retraction??

    I want to enjoy watching her dine on crow.. :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Still smarting from posting that Nazi Lover quote, eh?? :D

    Walt Disney was a staunch conservative who absolutely hated unionization. I have heard some people say he was a Nazi, just as I have heard others argue against it. Either way, thank you for making yourself look unconditionally ignorant by copying the quote I posted of a staunch conservative and then claiming "gods know we would NEVER want to be exposed to ANYTHING from the Right...."

    Your boneheaded stupidity and frequent contradiction of your own prattling BS is a real time saver for the rest of us.

    Were it not for me, this would be nothing but a Left Wingery echo chamber where the ONLY debate would be "Is Hillary Awesome Or Is She REALLY Awesome".... :D

    More contradicted BS since, as someone pointed out:

    You keep beating down and beating down on Trump and making him the worst human being ever...

    Oh, wait... You pointed that out. So once again and as per usual, your own prattling BS proves to be a real time saver.

  144. [144] 
    apophis wrote:
  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta admit...

    That was Hillary's 47% moment..... :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was more spin than retraction...

    Typical...

    But it's still Hilary's 47% moment...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    "'Basket of deplorables' reminds me of 'binders full of women.' Equally tone deaf statements divorced from reality,"
    -LisSmith, Obama RR Director 2012

    No matter how ya'all wanna spin it, it's as bad as Romney's 47% statement...

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your boneheaded stupidity and frequent contradiction of your own prattling BS is a real time saver for the rest of us.

    Of course, the only contradictions are like your visits to Trump rallies and your lavish pool parties..

    They are all in your head... :D

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Matter o fact, why are you hear, Kick??

    Don't you have a lavish pool party with Victoria Secret Models to go to?? :D

    heh

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/football/fans-threaten-boycott-after-dolphins-discuss-anthe/nsWJ4/

    These anthem protests by scumbag football players is ridiculous..

    They don't want to honor this country and pay it respect, but they have NO PROBLEM raking in millions, tens of millions, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from that same "deplorable" country..

    Frakin' hypocrites....

    Stand and respect or get the frak out....

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Here’s a player honoring those who died on 9/11 with a pair of cleats that he had made up himself — it’s not like he’s kneeling during the national anthem or anything,” Colligan said, a reference to the controversial decision by San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick not to stand during the national anthem.

    Colligan said when he first came across the news about the NFL’s plan to fine Williamson for his plan to wear the cleats he “had to read the story twice.”

    Even more galling, he added, is the realization that Kaepernick was not disciplined when he was spotted recently wearing a pair of socks during a team practice that depicted cops as pigs.

    “Kapernick can wear ‘pig socks’ and not even garner a response from the NFL, but this guy wants to honor those who tragically died on 9-11 and he’s threatened,” he noted.
    http://nypost.com/2016/09/09/police-unions-slam-goodell-promise-to-pay-players-fine-if-he-wears-911-cleats/

    Political Correctness run amok..

    THAT is why Trump's candidacy is drawing so many true patriotic Americans...

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Dr.Fish wrote:

    Excellent article, Mr. Weigant.

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    I very much doubt any of them are actual licensed doctors since they are referred to by the vague term "medical group" rather than "AMA registered doctors"

    I understood that respected Medical professionals followed the "Goldwater Rule" - i.e. that it applied to all fields of (respected) medicine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule).

    Basically it boils down to: don't give a diagnosis unless the person is your patient, and if s/he is it is confidential.

    Thus public 'diagnosis' are probably not from respected medical professionals.

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [125]: unforced error

    Elizabeth is right, this was an unforced error.

    Regardless, perhaps we need to create a safe place on CW.com for all the delicate racists and bigots who have been spiritually and holistically harmed by Hillary's micro-aggression.

  155. [155] 
    apophis wrote:

    [153]
    neilm:

    A online poll of quacks...

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    I want to start this morning by making a few remarks about our Republican Party, the party that’s been my political home since I entered public life. I am proud of that affiliation, for I’ve always been proud of the beliefs of our great party, our belief in personal freedom and personal responsibility, our belief in a strong national defense, and vigorous and capable world leadership, our belief in small but effective government and in fiscal conservatism.

    The last time I was a Republican (also my natural home).

    From a man who used to be a hero of mine.

    Anybody recognize this?

  157. [157] 
    apophis wrote:

    "Regardless, perhaps we need to create a safe place on CW.com for all the delicate racists and bigots who have been spiritually and holistically harmed by Hillary's micro-aggression."

    What the hell does that mean?..

  158. [158] 
    neilm wrote:

    Apophis [157]: It is a joke - playing on the right wing's antipathy to 'micro-aggressions'

    I accept it probably isn't a very good joke, mine usually aren't.

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    And it would be as much bullshit as this is.

    You haven't gone to any Trump rallies..

    You would be correct if you said I haven't gone to any Trump rallies as a supporter, but you again display your ignorance to all if you're assuming everyone at a Trump rally is one of the bleating sheeple who support the big con. Not everyone attending the cult of personality rallies is a sycophant with a sign and a goofy hat, screaming for an autograph. Some people come in through the back door without waiting in line and actually get paid to be there.

    You also fail to mention all the assaults and attacks on Trump supporters and the 3 ASSASSINATION attempts against Trump..

    That is why you simply cannot be believed in your claims...

    Are you really so ignorant that you think a person cannot make a valid point unless they are making both sides of an argument or espousing the political narrative of which you approve? :)

    Your nose is so far up Hillary's ass, it's impossible to tell where you end and she starts...

    Using that logic, please let us all know how the teeny orange prick tastes. Besides, your head is planted so firmly up your own ass, it's not possible for you to view anything except your own BS.

    Of course, the only contradictions are like your visits to Trump rallies and your lavish pool parties..

    They are all in your head... :D

    Matter o fact, why are you hear, Kick??

    Don't you have a lavish pool party with Victoria Secret Models to go to?? :D

    I must have hit a nerve for you to resort to this small chatter. Thanks for letting me know. LOL :D

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What the hell does that mean?..

    Heh.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's what Hillary should have said ... and it ain't rocket science, for Gods sake!!! ...

    I would like to speak directly to Donald Trump's supporters and say that, contrary to popular belief, I do understand where many of you are coming from.

    I haven't been living so secluded a life that I don't see the problems that so many Americans see - with the economy, with the media, with politicians and the policies they put in place, seemingly without any regard to the people those policies affect, negatively in many cases. I understand the frustration with the same old same old status quo and the same old same old politicians that appear so intent on maintaining the status quo.

    Well, here's something that may surprise you ... I'm fed up with the status quo too and I want to see many of the changes, essentially speaking, that you want to see - an economy that works for all Americans, for starters.

    I'd like to start a dialogue with you about all of the ways we can work together to make our country greater that it has ever been. That will entail a very, very difficult journey but it is one that I hope you'll agree is a worthwhile one to make.

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I just heard that Hillary regrets saying 'half' ...

    God help us all ...

  163. [163] 
    dsws wrote:

    the Vast Right-Wing Anti-Clinton Conspiracy is now operating at full steam, pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton is liable to drop dead before she can even take office, because she is so ill.

    That still sounds like a pro-Clinton conspiracy. If either candidate could convince the voters that she or he would drop dead before inauguration day, that candidate would win a landslide. We may not know much about Pence and Kaine, but we know they're not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

    Seriously, what network genius was it who looked over the entire roster of NBC News and MSNBC and decided: "Matt Lauer is the obvious choice"?

    Same one who looked over the entire population of the United States and decided that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the obvious finalists for the presidency.

    I feel it is time to now make the following iron-clad promise: I will not send anyone an official email, as president

    I can't tell: is that supposed to be sarcasm?

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Same one who looked over the entire population of the United States and decided that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the obvious finalists for the presidency.

    What the hell does that mean? :)

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [161]: I'd like to start a dialogue with you ...

    This statement is likely to make Trump supporters reach for the vomit bag even faster than me.

    How about:

    "OK folks, it's adult time. Globalization has changed the world and too many of our friends are paying the price. But we are Americans and we don't sit down and whine, we stand up and kick butt. Tomorrow's World class butt kicking jobs require a butt kicking education system, so if you really want to make American great again it is time to make sure that not just our Universities are the best in the World, but our technical colleges, our High Schools, our Elementary Schools and our pre-Schools.

    We were given the #1 nation on the planet - are we not going to be the generation that hands anything less to our kids - not on my watch. I'm fed up listening to Trump's whining about how bad things are, I'm all about making America better - it isn't going to be easy, so buckle up and get ready to work harder than you ever have - if you want the easy way out vote for Trump and fail. If you want a President that has real plans and real policies you know who has them. FU Trump you loser."

    (Maybe Hillary would drop the last sentence.)

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That would do. :)

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, Neil ...

    She really does need to speak to people who are inclined to support Trump with something that's somewhere between my take and yours ... well, closer to yours ... in order to put this gaffe behind her and run with it!

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, how do we make her change position on the TPP which Obama is right about and she is dead wrong about?

  169. [169] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm so disappointed with her on the TPP. The TPP has been demonized by Trump and Sanders - shame on them. America with out a strong Asian mic community is dreadfully weaker than any amount of defense spending - but try to explain that intricacy to the general public who are worried about their kids, their jobs and their future.

    I can't figure out a way to do it.

    I spend some time in Saigon a couple of years ago - these people look to America - they want to be part of our world and our moronic 'feelings' are turning them away. Let's face it, if they aren't competing with is under our rules they will be competing with us under China's rules.

  170. [170] 
    neilm wrote:

    mic = Economic
    spend = spent
    with is = with us

    Nice evening. Too many Gin and Tonics.

    :)

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know what you mean ...

    And, how the hell do we keep this woman on message??

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It really amazes me how the Vietnamese people have largely been able to put the war behind them and move on. They have much to teach the world!

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    mic = Economic
    spend = spent
    with is = with us

    Heh.

    You're cut off!!!

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    Too funny Elizabeth. I have a policy - no EUI (i.e. no work emails after the first beer or joint).

    I regard CW and GOPLifer are safe places where I'm allowed to spout off when I'm 'relaxed', but you can see the consequences.

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can't figure out a way to do it.

    We'll work on it and put it in the next Advice to Hillary column. :)

  176. [176] 
    neilm wrote:

    are = as

    I'm not helping myself, am I ;)

  177. [177] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It really amazes me how the Vietnamese people have largely been able to put the war behind them and move on.

    When Bill Clinton visited Vietnam years ago, I remember a commentator who pointed out that, because of life expectancy and whatnot, most Vietnamese did not remember the war only something like 25 years later. That must be even more pronounced today.

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'd really like to change the dialog on the TPP and the TTIP, but it is impossible as they have become populist heuristics for other nations kicking our butts.

    The dumb thing is that they are an attempt to set the rules so we can compete on a more level playing field and kick their butts at what we are good at (hint: not low paying manufacturing jobs).

    The rejection of these two deals is far more likely to hurt us than any Trump trade war with Mexico or China - which are likely to hurt us even more. This is why I rally for an investment in education - if every kid in America has to pass advanced Macro Economics to get a high school diploma we will kick everybody's butt for the rest of this century.

  179. [179] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tim Geithner would know how to explain it.

    Actually, Tom Friedman does a pretty darn good job of it, too!

  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    When Bill Clinton visited Vietnam years ago, I remember a commentator who pointed out that, because of life expectancy and whatnot, most Vietnamese did not remember the war only something like 25 years later. That must be even more pronounced today.

    I think there is much more to it than that. It goes to show that the people of Vietnam are top notch. They know the devastation of the long years of war with the French and Americans and they have packed it away - out of plain sight and dealt with but not forgotten.

    I have great respect for them and wish the people of the Middle East could be even half as magnanimous.

  181. [181] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'd really like to change the dialog on the TPP and the TTIP, but it is impossible as they have become populist heuristics for other nations kicking our butts.

    It could be that Hillary's position against the TPP is just what it needs to pass. To wit: the Trump folks don't like it, but there are plenty of GOP senators who do. On top of that are more than a few Dem senators who support it because it means jobs for their states (particularly on the West coast).
    So my guess is that it will be passed in the Lame Duck session.
    McConnell's actions depend on the election. If the Senate stays Red, he'll dig his feet in and demand all sorts of concessions in return. If it doesn't, expect a busy session including TPP and other bills the GOP wants. Hell, they might even confirm Merritt Garland.

  182. [182] 
    John M wrote:

    John and then Michale wrote:

    "Phyllis Schlafly died this week at the age of 92 and I have to say that, even though she was a hateful old Republican creep, I'm glad she lived to such an old age. She lived long enough to see the total collapse and failure of her homophobic crusade. I'm happy for her.

    I plan on being JUST as respectful as you when Crooked Hillary keels over... :D"

    I think the point IS that is speaks volumes as to just how BAD Schlafly's character was as a human being. After all, she had a gay son in real life yet was utterly opposed to equal rights for gay Americans. How bad can you be as a parent to deny the best and want the worst for your own child???

    I also think it ironic that she did indeed live to see that all the things she said the ERA would do and why she was opposed to it being adopted in the first place, I.E. gay marriage, women in combat, unisex bathrooms, etc., all came about even without the ERA anyway.

  183. [183] 
    John M wrote:

    Mopshell wrote:

    "And you, Michale, would be the first one to list all Trump's criminal activities from rape to bribery and fraud, if he had a D after his name. Oh yeah, if Donald J Trump had a '-D' after his name, you would be in complete, unequivocal and 1000% agreement with the above."

    TOUCHE!!! Brilliant!!!

    I hope everybody will forgive my long delay in catching up on everything. But those of us here in Tallahassee had a little storm come through here last week called Hurricane Hermine. You may have heard of it. While me and mine did survive and come through the storm ok, like me, many of us were without electrical power for 3, 4 and even 5 days.

  184. [184] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:
    "
    The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

    Where does the racism accusation come in?"

    The racism accusation comes in because those people would never think the same thing of a white President. They only think that of the first Black President simply because he is Black.

    After all, John McCain and Ted Cruz both actually were not born in the United States, (Cruz having been born in Canada and McCain in Panama.) yet none of those people thought that would disqualify either of them from ever being President, simply because they were both conservative white men. Yet a black man actually born on American soil in Hawaii gets all kind of "he's not really an American" charges brought against him. How is that not racist???

  185. [185] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "Same one who looked over the entire population of the United States and decided that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the obvious finalists for the presidency.

    What the hell does that mean? :)"

    I think it means that given the large population of the USA and the vast talent pool we have to draw upon, we could not find more qualified candidates of better moral character, competency, and intellect than the final choices we have ended up with. Like Joe Biden perhaps? Is it an indictment of our system of choosing leaders, or of ourselves, or both? Or, were they really the best choices after all. We all are only human. I can see making the argument that past choices, such as JFK, for instance, in the modern context... i.e. adultery, womanizing, ties to the Mob, etc. would have been a horrible choice on those grounds, but in reality, turned out to be one of our best Presidents and rose to the challenge when called upon, being the right person at the right time during the Cuban Missile crisis, for instance.

  186. [186] 
    John M wrote:

    Neilm wrote:

    "OK folks, it's adult time. Globalization has changed the world and too many of our friends are paying the price. But we are Americans and we don't sit down and whine, we stand up and kick butt. Tomorrow's World class butt kicking jobs require a butt kicking education system, so if you really want to make American great again it is time to make sure that not just our Universities are the best in the World, but our technical colleges, our High Schools, our Elementary Schools and our pre-Schools.

    The ONE thing I would absolutely add to that is that all such education, re-education, or job training be provided to all absolutely free of any charge whatsoever for an entire lifetime.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    Glad to hear you and your family came through the hurricane alright.

    I think we will all have to get used to extreme forms of weather, regardless of where we live, for the duration.

    Once this election season is over, it might be a good idea for everyone who is concerned about how a president is chosen to take a good hard long look at why and how it is that more impressive people don't even bother thinking about running for president.

    A lot of things will have to change, I think, before a choice will have to be made between two up-wing candidates for president, both in possession of a vision for progressive change and the courage to carry it out leaving the people to decide who is the best of the best.

    Wouldn't that be a good problem to have?

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I spend some time in Saigon a couple of years ago ...

    Wait a second ... Saigon?

    The people of Vietnam have moved on. Why can't you?

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what Hillary should have said..

    But for her to do that she would have to be.. yunno.. a caring and compassionate human being...

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it does indicate that Hillary is unfit to be President..

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think we will all have to get used to extreme forms of weather, regardless of where we live, for the duration.

    Weather is no more extreme than it has been for hundreds of years...

    The only difference between then and now is that more people are in harms way...

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I think the point IS that is speaks volumes as to just how BAD Schlafly's character was as a human being.

    Like I said.. I plan and being EXACTLY as respectful and remorseful when Hillary keels over as ya'all are now..

    I am SURE that ya'all will afford me the exact same tolerance, eh? :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    The racism accusation comes in because those people would never think the same thing of a white President. They only think that of the first Black President simply because he is Black.

    And you can PROVE that, right??

    Of course not. All ya'all's accusations of racism NEVER have anything like factual evidence..

    It's all simply borne of ya'all's bigotry and hatred...

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    You would be correct if you said I haven't gone to any Trump rallies as a supporter, but you again display your ignorance to all if you're assuming everyone at a Trump rally is one of the bleating sheeple who support the big con. Not everyone attending the cult of personality rallies is a sycophant with a sign and a goofy hat, screaming for an autograph. Some people come in through the back door without waiting in line and actually get paid to be there.

    "Pics or it didn't happen"
    -Charlie Bradbury, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    US military: Iranian behavior getting worse in Persian Gulf

    Iran has stepped up its harassment of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, angering the U.S. military and members of Congress.

    Since the international nuclear deal with Iran was implemented in early January, the number of incidents involving U.S. and Iranian ships in the Gulf has approximately doubled.
    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/295256-us-military-iranian-behavior-getting-worse-in-persian-gulf

    So much for the claim that the JCPOA will cool Iran's jets....

    In that light, the JCPOA is an abject failure...

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judging from all the condemnation from the Right *AND* the Left, Hillary's "deplorable" attack on tens of millions of Americans is shaping up to be Hillary's "47%" moment...

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving rhymes-with-witch... :)

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    I must have hit a nerve for you to resort to this small chatter. Thanks for letting me know. LOL :D

    Son, let me clue you in on the dynamic around here.. :D

    I have been here for over a decade, since the beginning of CW.COM... I have seen many like you come and go...

    People like Michy and BigAl and so many others who have nothing but hatred and personal attacks... They always end up leaving while I have endured..

    And do you know why that happens??

    Because I have reality and logic on my side and all you have is political bigotry...

    "And so it goes and so it goes.. And so will you soon I suppose.."
    -Billy Joel

    :D

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Yet a black man actually born on American soil in Hawaii gets all kind of "he's not really an American" charges brought against him. How is that not racist???

    So, you believe that JUST because it's a black man, it MUST be racism??

    Thank you for proving my point so perfectly..

    It's all about race with the Left Wingery...

    If I call a black person a moron, then I, according to you, MUST be racist.. The fact that the black person may actually be a moron is completely irrelevant to yer thought process...

    Facts and reality be damned. It HAS to be racism... :D

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [188] Saigon

    Nobody I worked with called it Ho Chin Minh City, they called it Saigon, plus I stayed downtown in District 1, aka Saigon.

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    Chin = Chi

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    First the serial rapist and sexual harasser, Bill Clinton disparages millions of "coal people" and then Hillary accuses tens of millions of Americans of being racist w/o a shred of reasonable evidence..

    The Clinton campaign is in sheer panic mode because Trump is closing the gap...

    These lame and desperate comments by the horn dog and the rhymes-with-witch will only serve to hasten Trump's rise... :D

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Interesting.

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting.

    Isn't it?? :D

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wasn't talkin' to you. It's interesting about Saigon ...

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Carry on.

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Weren't ya'all fawning over and spooning with Frank Lutz a few days ago???

    Frank Luntz ?@FrankLuntz 19h19 hours ago
    Attacking your opponent is common sense.

    Attacking voters is campaign suicide. #BasketOfDeplorables

    Frank Luntz ?@FrankLuntz Sep 9
    Tonight, Hillary Clinton just had her "47 percent" moment.

    Expect poll numbers to get even tighter after this one. #Deplorables

    Frank Luntz ?@FrankLuntz Sep 9
    Hillary Clinton just insulted millions of hard-working Americans simply because they don't want to vote for her.

    So, I guess ya'all are STILL all in with Luntz today, right???

    :D hehehehehehe

    Michale

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  208. [208] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wasn't laughing at that.

  209. [209] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    :(

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't talkin' to you. It's interesting about Saigon ...

    And I was agreeing with you.. Jeeeze..

    Haven't had yer coffee yet?? :^/

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't laughing at that.

    Of course you weren't.. :D

    That's why it's always better to quote what yer referencing.. Clears up any ambiguity... :D

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just trying to help.. Make yer day just a little bit better. :D

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Haven't had yer coffee yet?? :^/

    NO!!

    I mean, no, I haven't. And, I'm going back to bed ...

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, no, I haven't. And, I'm going back to bed ...

    I am envious... Sweet dreams.. :D

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary collapses at 9/11 ceremony and has to be helped into her van after leaving the ceremony early...

    NYPD dispatched to retrieve her lost shoe...

    Her handlers claim she was "over-heated" yet it was just after 0800 and the temp was around 70F....

    Like I said.. Hillary is at death's door...

    The debate will probably kill her...

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsFY1JuWEAAUGnj.jpg

    My mistake..

    It wasn't Hillary....

    It was Ozzy Osbourne

    :D

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Video shows Hillary collapsing....

    She is REALLY sick....

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign/

    Even WaPo, who has been carrying Hillary's water on the health issue is now saying that Hillary needs to come clean on her health issues and release her full medical records..

    Once again.. Ya'all were COMPLETELY WRONG on the significance of Hillary's health problems...

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ

    There's a different angle. Hillary definitely collapsed and would have face planted if she had not been held up by her handlers...

    If she can't handle a ceremony in 70f, low humidity and light breeze, how is she going to handle being President???

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Kick wrote:

    [197] Michale,

    Son, let me clue you in on the dynamic around here.. :D

    I have been here for over a decade, since the beginning of CW.COM... I have seen many like you come and go...

    People like Michy and BigAl and so many others who have nothing but hatred and personal attacks... They always end up leaving while I have endured..

    Yes, I know. I too can read.

    And do you know why that happens??

    Yes, I know. I too can read.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/02/ftp302/#comment-48095

    Chris Weigant wrote: You come here because you can poke a stick at lefties and you haven't been banned from commenting. I don't ban you because you keep within certain guidelines of not attacking commenters directly and personally (mostly).

    For everyone else -- for the rest of us lefties here, to put it another way -- Michale is also allowed a lot of leeway because he is one of the biggest financial supporters of this site. He pays his dues -- every December. Without him, the site would not now be self-supporting.

    Call me a whore for giving Michale leeway for his donations, and I can accept that. That's why I publicly admit it -- to keep my own conscience clear.

    So... Back to your question... I'm going with the answer: Pay-to-Play... "every December"... Winter is Coming.

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    So... Back to your question... I'm going with the answer: Pay-to-Play... "every December"... Winter is Coming.

    Of course, you cherry pick the quote that best suits your agenda...

    Color me shocked.. :D

    The *OTHER* reason that I am here.... The MAIN reason I am here is because I provide an insight that would be missing if I were not around..

    In other words, I provide a bit (often a LOT more than a bit) of reality amongst all the "Yea!!!"s and "Ditto"s and the "What They Said!!"s and the "YEP"s.....

    In short, were it not for me, this would be a Left Wingery echo chamber where the ONLY "debate" would be, "Is Obama/Hillary/Democrats awesome!!!??? Or are they really REALLY awesome!!"

    And yea... It's fun to see Left Wingers go apoplectic when I bring videos of Hillary collapsing to the table.. :D

    I cannot lie.. It's a hoot.. :D

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I know. I too can read.

    Yea???

    Can you explain why your bretheren like Mitchy, BigAl, etc etc aren't around???

    Because they can't hang with the facts..... :D

    You'll become the same way.. And then you'll fade away like the Johnny Come Lately you are... :D

    And I'll be here.. :D

    "I am as constant as the northern star!!"
    -General Chang, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    :D

    Now, if that's not a softball pitch, NOTHING is... :D

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record...

    When Clinton collapsed at approx 1133hrs, it was 78F, 41% humidity and a breeze at 8mph....

    If Hillary can't handle that without collapsing, how is she going to be President???

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, you cherry pick the quote that best suits your agenda...

    And, also for the record, your cherry picked quote had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the question posed.. Which was, since you obviously have comprehension/retention issues, why people like you can never manage any decent hang time... Why ya'all simply show up, throw out a few insults and then disappear...

    This makes me wonder exactly why you posted that totally irrelevant comment...

    Actually, no.. I don't wonder.. I know exactly why you did and, frankly, I am not surprised... At all...

    Michale

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, doctor says
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-has-pneumonia-doctor-says-228012

    Hillary Clinton *IS* sick....

    Those of you who said Hillary was in "perfect health"...

    Care to admit ya'all were wrong???

    :D

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    neilm wrote:

    After the latest polls from GA and AZ showing a toss up I went and looked at the 538 predictions from 2012 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/?_r=0). Their model gets more certain as we come closer to the election, so if everything remained static, their prediction would gradually rise for Hillary day after day. Thus a 70/30 split with two months to go and the polls moving in Hillary's direction is very encouraging, especially when you look at Obama's percentages and polling gaps. There is more volatility this time around however, which was discussed In a 538 podcast about how volatility plays into their model, increasing how conservative the model is, so if this were 2012 and the numbers were the same we would probably be in the 80/20 range.

  227. [227] 
    neilm wrote:

    Newt Gingrich is off on a rant about how ineffective our anti-terrorism effort has been. Frankly I'm amazed that he has just figured out that invading Iraq based on lies was not a good move. Of course he went off about Iran again, forgetting that on this of all days it isn't Iran that send 19 of its people to kill as many of us as possible, but Saudi Arabia. Thus he really is just trying to blame the Iran deal again, which is especially ironic in a week where the other "axis of evil" power, North Korea, exploded a nuke.

    Gingrich has always been on the sad side of pathetic from an intellectual standpoint, however this seems to be a new low even for him.

  228. [228] 
    dsws wrote:

    If we don't pass TPP, would it really be a disaster? Wouldn't we just keep trading under existing law?

  229. [229] 
    neilm wrote:
  230. [230] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    That may be true if the TPP was just about trade.

    And, for many countries in the TPP, it may be mostly about trade.

    But, for the US, it is about so much more than trade. In fact, the trade-related benefits and detriments are really negligible, relatively speaking.

  231. [231] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, the TPP isn't just about you. :)

  232. [232] 
    Kick wrote:

    [221] Michale,

    Of course, you cherry pick the quote that best suits your agenda...

    You were seriously expecting an answer that suited your agenda? <-- rhetorical question :) You would be well served to accept the FACT that it is not necessary that a response contain both the left and the right political narratives in order to contain a valid point.

    In short, were it not for me, this would be a Left Wingery echo chamber where the ONLY "debate" would be, "Is Obama/Hillary/Democrats awesome!!!??? Or are they really REALLY awesome!!"

    You've made this argument at [126] above as well as many times before where the ONLY "debate" would be a Right Wingery echo chamber.

    And yea... It's fun to see Left Wingers go apoplectic when I bring videos of Hillary collapsing to the table.. :D

    Fun to see? Am I correct in guessing that this involves you imagining other posters actually following ALL the links you post and being overcome with anger? :)

  233. [233] 
    Kick wrote:

    [222] Michale,

    Can you explain why your bretheren like Mitchy, BigAl, etc etc aren't around???

    I do not consider people on the Internet that I don't know as my "bretheren," and were I inclined to do so, I guess I would simply say that I am not my brethren's keeper.

    Because they can't hang with the facts..... :D

    Are you sure about that? Because you left for a bit recently and on your return explained something along the lines of how the entire group was boring you. Perhaps "Mitchy, BigAl, etc etc" simply decided to leave because of that same dynamic... only they never came back because you were infinitely more boring than the entire group... you know, that whole boring thing you went through only in reverse?

    You'll become the same way.. And then you'll fade away like the Johnny Come Lately you are... :D

    And I'll be here.. :D

    That's what Phyllis Schlafly said to her eldest son, and look how that turned out.

  234. [234] 
    Kick wrote:

    [224] Michale,

    And, also for the record, your cherry picked quote had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the question posed..

    I disagree. You asked me why it happens that people like Michy and BigAl and so many others always ended up leaving while you have endured, and I answered truthfully saying "Pay-to-Play."

    This makes me wonder exactly why you posted that totally irrelevant comment...

    I seem to have again hit a nerve. Well, since I really have no idea why others ended up leaving, I could only truthfully answer the part of the question about why you have endured. Then I remembered your recent comment which, funny thing, you didn't seem to mind linking to at ALL when it fit your narrative.

    Actually, no.. I don't wonder.. I know exactly why you did and, frankly, I am not surprised...

    Right... exactly right! Then in the interest of time in order to cut to the chase, I added CW's quote in order to spare all the cutting and pasting from the Right Wingery echo chamber with -- "Ya'all have no FACTS to back it up."

    So many "politically correct" fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!

    Wasn't it neilm who had the great idea to make a "safe place"? So many newly easily offended "deplorables" who can't handle the TRUTH ... or the FACTS. :D

  235. [235] 
    neilm wrote:

    interesting article comparing the driving forces of the R's and the D's

    I felt that Obama won the passion war in 2008, it was a draw in 2012, and Trump is winning in 2016. The mathematical breakdown seems to show that Hillary will need more potential voters to counter the more determined (i.e. likely to vote) Trump supporters. However all 'likely voter' models are probably underestimating the new voters, particularly the Latinos who support Hillary.

    This, for me, is a likely blind spot for 2016 polling companies. I'm sure that they are far more clever than I am and are incorporating this effect, however I'd guess this is one of the more 'hairy' corners of their modeling.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/08/how-different-are-the-democratic-and-republican-parties-too-different-to-compare/

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    You were seriously expecting an answer that suited your agenda? <-- rhetorical question :)

    No, I was expecting an answer that actually addressed the point..

    I know, I know.. Silly me...

    You've made this argument at [126] above as well as many times before where the ONLY "debate" would be a Right Wingery echo chamber.

    This is demonstrably false. Which is par for the course for you..

    I disagree. You asked me why it happens that people like Michy and BigAl and so many others always ended up leaving while you have endured, and I answered truthfully saying "Pay-to-Play."

    YOUR truth.... Which, has NOTHING to do with the facts...

    As I said. Par for the course with..

    Wasn't it neilm who had the great idea to make a "safe place"?

    Yea, "great" idea.. Gods know you wouldn't want to be exposed to alternate ideas, concepts and REAL facts... :^/

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    And no one wants to discuss Hillary near death experience??

    Shocking!! :D

    Y'all just CAN'T admit ya'all were wrong and Hillary does have some very serious health issues...

    Now she is cancelling campaign stops and is on bed rest further ceding the battlefield to Trump...

    :D

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vindication, thy name is Michale....

    Matt Drudge Vindicated By Hillary Fainting Episode
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/11/matt-drudge-vindicated-by-hillary-fainting-episode/

    AND Drudge! :D

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so Hillary is diagnosed with pneumonia..

    So what does she do?? She hugs a child.... :^/

    Good one, Hillary..

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I find myself wishing for artistic skills to turn this situation into a political cartoon..

    Picture a several panel cartoon...

    "Hillary is in perfect health"
    -Hillary Surrogate

    "I am really feeling great. I am not sick.."
    -Hillary Clinton

    "Hillary is NOT sick"
    -Hillary Surrogate

    "Hillary is really not sick. She is in perfect health."
    -Hillary Surrogate

    Final cartoon panel has Hillary collapsed on the ground...

    "OK, she's sick"
    -Hillary Surrogate

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g8XVa8Bk7KY/hqdefault.jpg

    The silence around here is deafening.. :D

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Conspiracy Theory No Longer

    The Clinton campaign must understand that the discussion is no longer about conspiracy theories but about how she’s seemed to wear down amid the stress of the campaign. She may well be fine after some rest and medication, and be ready to serve as president. But unless we are given a complete dossier about her health — including more about her 2012 concussion — voters are now entitled to be cynical about reassurances from her supporters. After weeks of other setbacks related to her credibility, Hillary’s very bad 9/11 was the last thing her camp needed.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/a-conspiracy-theory-no-longer-health-hillary-clinton/

    Spin it all you want, people. As I am sure you will..

    But the facts are clear...

    I was right when I said that Hillary's health issues are a legitimate issue..

    Ya'all were wrong when ya'all said it wasn't...

    These are the facts, whether ya'all want to acknowledge them or not...

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will stick to Clinton because (like Romney’s remark) it illustrates the contempt she has for all those who don’t support her. If, as the tape shows, her audience laughed on cue when she prodded them to agree, it’s because they share her belief that their opponents aren’t merely wrong but unworthy of respect as fellow citizens. If, as liberals keep insisting, they are fighting for a culture of civility against right-wingers spreading hate, it’s hard to see how that cause is advanced when Clinton continues to speak this way.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/clintons-deplorables-gift-to-trump/

    Between her 47% gaffe and her near death experience, Hillary has had a pretty bad week...

    And, from all reports, looks like it's going to get worse...

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    If, as liberals keep insisting, they are fighting for a culture of civility against right-wingers spreading hate, it’s hard to see how that cause is advanced when Clinton continues to speak this way.

    This is a very important point as it gets to the heart of the hypocrisy of the entirety of the Left Wingery including the vast majority of Weigantians..

    The Left goes on and on about the alleged hate that oozes from the Right, but the Left does it with such vehement hatred, that the Left's message of tolerance and respect is completely, unequivocally and totally decimated..

    As I pointed out to Mopshell above, accusing an entire group of people of bigotry IS, in fact, bigotry...

    Saying "Trump supporters are bigots" is posi-loutly and abso-tively as bigoted as saying "Black people are criminals".... Logically, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between those statements, from a bigot-label point of view...

    I saids it befores and I'll says it again...

    If the Left wants tolerance then they need to BE tolerant...

    If the Left wants respect then they need to BE respectful...

    If they aren't, then the Left is no different than they accuse the Right of being...

    It's not brain surgery, people.. It's common sense...

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    However all 'likely voter' models are probably underestimating the new voters, particularly the Latinos who support Hillary.

    That's because it doesn't exist...

    The ONLY hispanics that support Hillary are the ones who are criminals and can't legally vote and the ones who aid and abet the criminals who, unfortunately, can vote..

    Law abiding hispanics who immigrated properly and legally are overwhelmingly for Trump....

    . I'm sure that they are far more clever than I am

    We completely agree on that point. :D

    Michale

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/BrianAbelTV/status/774014917829545984/photo/1

    That right there is Clinton's biggest problem...

    Low Turnout... Low Energy... Low, period..

    Which new voters registering GOP by the millions, voter turnout is definitely going to be on Trump's side...

    Trump is new and exciting and cutting-edge...

    Hillary is a snooze-fest...

    The excitement factor is clearly on Trump's side...

    And it won't be contained by a mythical blue wall....

    Michale

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCx0x0rigeQ&feature=youtu.be

    Holy carp!!

    Another video emerges where Hillary has to, *LITERALLY* be dragged into van after collapsing...

    That is total dead weight, my fellow Weigantians...

    And how she spasms prior to collapse...

    The word on the conspiracy circuit is that Hillary has Parkinsons...

    Judging from that video, that doesn't sound as far-fetched as it initially did.....

    Michale

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what's with those purple-tint Ozzy Osborne sunglasses???

    In all the videos and pictures of the incident, Hillary is the ONLY one wearing sunglasses...

    Even her detail people and the cops, who routinely wear sunglasses are not wearing them.. That's weird..

    Also, if you look closely at the video, right when Hillary collapses, something shiny and metal falls out of her right pants leg...

    This is definitely a weird incident... I have a feeling we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Hillary campaign..

    But, on the other hand, I always have that feeling, so.. :D

    But this time, I might actually be correct... :D

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats In Full Panic-Mode
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN11I0MT

    It's tough being correct all....er.. most of the time.. :D

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    For you bean counters out there, that's 12 comments on Hillary's near death experience...

    Probably going to be quite a few more before the day ends due to new revelations and facts... :D

    Michale

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Political trust is a fragile thing. Once it's gone, it's exceedingly difficult to get back — and without it, there's no basis on which to dismiss conspiracy theories that even normally level-headed observers will begin, for perfectly understandable reasons, to entertain.

    Like so many of the scandals and pseudo-scandals that have dogged Hillary Clinton and her husband through the years, this one needs to be recognized as entirely self-inflicted. The campaign now has to live with the consequences of having chosen to lie to get out of a problem.
    http://theweek.com/articles/648141/why-did-hillary-clinton-lie-about-health

    Yep.....

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It takes a village.... to get into a van..."
    -Hillary Clinton

    heh :D

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of odious views, the Vast Right-Wing Anti-Clinton Conspiracy is now operating at full steam, pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton is liable to drop dead before she can even take office, because she is so ill. How do they know this?

    Because there is a buttload of FACTS that support this.... :D

    Sorry, CW.. But that was just too good to pass up.. :D

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton’s cover story for her pneumonia diagnosis further proves her first instinct is to lie

    Hillary Clinton will beat pneumonia. But she won't beat a condition far more fatal: untrustworthiness.

    In the hours after the Clinton campaign finally came clean (or did it?) Sunday about the candidate's pneumonia diagnosis two days earlier, the only question that mattered was, as NBCNews.com put it, "Clinton's core vulnerability is that most Americans don't find her honest or trustworthy. Will voters now feel like they've been misled about her health?"

    Why is this even a question? Of course it raises trust issues. Worse, it plays into the hands of Clinton foes who assume everything she says is already a lie.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-pneumonia-cover-story-proves-instinct-lie-article-1.2788402

    And THAT is Hillary's problem in a nutshell..

    Her first instinct is to LIE about anything and everything...

    It's impossible to trust someone like that...

    Michale

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/09/12/UPICVoter-poll-Donald-Trump-widens-lead-over-Hillary-Clinton-to-3-points/1571473691414/

    And the polls are beginning to show that the American people don't want a sickly at-death's-door liar as President....

    Michale

  255. [255] 
    Paula wrote:

    On the right every kind of nonsense and ugliness re: HRC/pneumonia reigns.

    On the left people are comparing Hillary to their "Mom" -- the woman who gets up and takes care of kids/husband even when sick, the woman supporting her family who goes to work sick (because her crappy company doesn't offer sick-leave). Also being noted, HRC did about major things over the weekend WITH pneumonia. She's got amazing stamina and determination.

    Oh our partisan country.

    I like the "Mom" comparison and believe the rightwing remains, as ever, deplorable.

  256. [256] 
    Paula wrote:

    And to start off our new week: Pollster releases new poll. Kevin Drum comments:

    The real story is that we've had a Republican convention, a Democratic convention, and tons of news about email, foundations, pneumonia, Russia, bribery attempts, and more—and we're pretty much at the same place we were three months ago. On June 1st, Clinton led by 5.5 points. Today she leads by 4.9 points.

    Obviously this could change, and neither side can afford complacency. But the big picture is pretty simple: Trump has been stuck at a maximum of 40-42 percent for the entire past year. It appears that there's a limit to how much support you can gin up with nothing but bluster and appeals to white resentment.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/presidential-race-nothing-much-has-changed-past-year

    Now he wants unmoderated debates because those darn moderators will have it in for him. A giant orange baby.

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Also being noted, HRC did about major things over the weekend WITH pneumonia. She's got amazing stamina and determination.

    You DO realize that pneumonia is highly contagious right??

    So, in a selfish bid to make sure she stayed to script, she possibly infected dozens and dozens of people including a small child in that staged photo op....

    Someone who puts their own selfish needs above the health and welfare of Americans??

    That is not a someone that deserves to be President...

    Hillary is very sick... This is fact...

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    'sides...

    Just last week ya'all were saying that Hillary is in "perfect health"...

    Were you wrong???

    Michale

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if Hillary does have Parkinsons which is appearing more and more likely, then this election is over...

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton allies criticize campaign over health secrecy

    A lack of transparency about her health turned what might have been a non-issue into a hugely problematic storyline for Hillary Clinton that could plague the Democratic presidential nominee into November, say allies and confidants.

    One ally described the string of events that culminated in Clinton leaving a Sept. 11 memorial early as a “self-inflicted f---ing nightmare.”

    Clinton’s campaign sought to deal with the fallout on Monday of damaging video that showed Clinton’s knees buckling and Secret Service agents helping her into a van. Clinton later revealed that she was suffering from pneumonia.

    David Axelrod, who served as a senior adviser to President Obama, slapped Clinton and the campaign for unnecessarily withholding information from the public.
    “Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia,” Axelrod wrote on Twitter. “What’s the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/295441-clinton-allies-criticize-campaign-over-health-secrecy

    It's not just a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" storyline or the new "Alt Right Wing Conspiracy" storyline that's in play people..

    Democrats are ALSO slamming Hillary for her lies and deceit...

    Let's face reality here, people...

    Hillary scrooed da pooch....

    Michale

  261. [261] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What is the process involved with replacing a nominee for president?

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.What is the process involved with replacing a nominee for president?

    It's up to the individual Partys..

    The GOP does have a system of rules in place that govern the process...

    The Democrat Party only has a series of guidelines which, in essence, gives the Party elite total control over the decision...

    Michale

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny you should mention that, Liz..

    There is open talk amongst the Democrat Pary elites that Kaine is ready to step up in necessary..

    Many on the Left are laying the ground work for Hillary to bow out...

    Michale

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    {VICTORY LAP}

    White House Weighs In on ‘Entirely Legitimate Questions’ About Candidates’ Health
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-weighs-in-on-entirely-legitimate-questions-about-candidates-health/

    After being resoundingly ridiculed for the last week or so, even the WHITE HOUSE has now come around to my way of thinking... :D

    If anyone wants to render a sincere and heartfelt "You were right, Michale.. We were wrong".....

    .....Now would probably be a good time.... :D

    {/VICTORY LAP}

  265. [265] 
    Paula wrote:

    Gosh, how did I miss this? I'm thinking Trump wants to avoid moderators coz they might ask him tough questions. But as someone noted elsewhere, it's the fact-checking he wants to avoid! Duh! Assuming there is any -- but after Matt Lauer the pressure is on for fact-checking.

    Gonna be interesting.

  266. [266] 
    Paula wrote:

    How desperate are the Trumpies: HRC and Parkinsons! So sad. Deplorable.

  267. [267] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Michale, what is the process or is their one. And, it doesn't have to be Kaine, does it?

  268. [268] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... or is THERE one ...

  269. [269] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    sorry ... just saw [262] ...

  270. [270] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Democrat Party only has a series of guidelines which, in essence, gives the Party elite total control over the decision...

    ... interesting ...

  271. [271] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It certainly won't be Kaine, then.

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    How desperate are the Trumpies: HRC and Parkinsons! So sad. Deplorable.

    And yet, that is what the symptoms indicate...

    Put another way, you denied she was even sick..

    Liz,

    It certainly won't be Kaine, then.

    Probably not...

    You can bet that the millions who supported Bernie will tear the Party apart if Clinton falls by the way side and Bernie is not the one to take her place...

    Michale

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:
  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gosh, how did I miss this? I'm thinking Trump wants to avoid moderators coz they might ask him tough questions. But as someone noted elsewhere, it's the fact-checking he wants to avoid! Duh! Assuming there is any -- but after Matt Lauer the pressure is on for fact-checking.

    Gonna be interesting.

    It's a moot point. Hillary is not even going to be able to make the debates....

    Michale

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way, you denied she was even sick..

    More importantly, the Clinton CAMPAIGN denied she was even sick..

    It was only when absolute video PROOF came out of her collapse did they come up with the pneumonia story....

    You can bet that it's a LOT serious than pneumonia...

    But even if it IS pneumonia, that's a very black mark against Clinton that should would continue business as usual and endanger the health of everyone she came into contact with for two days after the diagnosis...

    The simple fact is, Hillary being very sick is now mainstream news....

    Michale

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    But even if it IS pneumonia, that's a very black mark against Clinton that should would continue business as usual and endanger the health of everyone she came into contact with for two days after the diagnosis...

    But even if it IS pneumonia, that's a very black mark against Clinton that SHE would continue business as usual and endanger the health of everyone she came into contact with for two days after the diagnosis...

    My bust :D

    Michale

  277. [277] 
    Michale wrote:

    'ATTACKING AMERICANS': Trump denounces Hillary's 'deplorables' comment, demands she 'retract' it

    Awwww, com'on Trump, that's just despicable!!!

    The woman is knocking at death's door..

    Let her die in peace..... jeeezus, how callous....

    Michale

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    FORMER DNC CHAIR CALLS FOR CONTINGENCY PLAN
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-health-replace-contingency-228037

    And so it begins......

    Michale

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tim Kaine's radical roots

    According to the media, Tim Kaine took a life transforming "mission" trip to Latin America in 1980. Conveniently left out of these stories, are the radical reality of the Cold War in Latin America and Tim Kaine's Soviet sympathizing mentors. In fact, whatever Kaine's intentions, he more likely met Karl Marx than Jesus Christ while there.

    Connect the dots with a little history, and an alarming picture emerges of Kaine's adventures with radicals and revolutionaries in 1980s Latin America.

    Reports indicate that in Honduras, “Mr. Kaine embraced an interpretation of the gospel, known as liberation theology...”

    This wasn't mainstream “Catholic thought” at the time. It was a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/295229-tim-kaines-radical-roots

    I have to agree with you, Liz.. It's unlikely that Kaine will get the nod..

    I am sure you will appreciate this, but the ONLY logical choice is Biden..

    But if the DNC tries to push Biden on the Party, Bernie supporters will lose their collective frakin' minds....

    It's an all around bad situation for the Demcorat Party...

    Michale

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton campaign manager dodges on pneumonia timeline
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295493-clinton-campaign-manager-dodges-on-pneumonia-timeline

    Team Clinton doesn't want to fess up that they totally scroo'ed da pooch...

    Michale

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how the WPG really clams up when a Democrat does something really REALLY stoopid... :D

    At least Paula made an effort!! :D

    Michale

  282. [282] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's great Trump story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottom

    Man he is a cheap, swindling swine.

    He goes to one foundation, says he's raising money for a charity, turns around and gives the money he's solicited TO the charity claiming it as HIS donation, then charges the charity for using his Florida estate for their annual dinner, during which they honor HIM for his charitable giving. 75% of the world's children getting medicines for Aides get it via The Clinton Foundation. Trumps penne ante foundation has 4 board members -- his children -- and runs through a couple million dollars a year, NONE of it donated by Trump since 2008. He gets donations and turns around and spends it in all sorts of ways either directly on himself (buying portraits of himself with foundation dollars) or by having charities pay him for use of facilities, golf courses etc. in exchange for donations.

    There appears to be no limit to his greed. His greatest gift is his ability to steal from people and use his ill-gotten gains to bolster his -- totally constructed, fake to the core -- image.

  283. [283] 
    Paula wrote:

    AIDS

  284. [284] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oh yeah, one of the ways he's laundered donations was his $25,000 contribution to Pam Bondi. Forgot that one.

  285. [285] 
    Kick wrote:

    [266] Paula wrote:

    How desperate are the Trumpies: HRC and Parkinsons! So sad. Deplorable.

    Your post made me wonder if you have seen the newest HRC video. I wish I could find a link to it online, but I just saw it on Twitter. It's called "Low Opinion." In the video, they include footage of Trump saying:

    "How stupid are the people of this country"

    Priceless :)

  286. [286] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kick: I haven't seen that! I'll look for it!

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Hillary has survived another day... :)

    Your post made me wonder if you have seen the newest HRC video.

    You mean, the one where she spasms and almost does a face-plant before her SS detail catches her???

    Yea, I saw that one.. It was pure and unadulterated vindication..

    No wonder the WPG is silent about it.. :D

    Michale

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we learn that Hillary has passed out and collapsed so many times, she can't remember them all...

    And THIS is the person ya'all claim is fit for the presidency???

    On what planet???

    Michale

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Hillary's collapse was really serious...

    Hillary Clinton was headed to an emergency room following her frightening collapse at the Sept. 11 memorial ceremony — but detoured to daughter Chelsea Clinton’s apartment to keep details of her medical treatment under wraps, The Post has learned.

    Secret Service protocol called for the Democratic presidential nominee to be rushed to a state-designated Level I Trauma Center in the wake of her Sunday-morning health crisis, sources said. In Manhattan, that would be Bellevue Hospital.
    http://nypost.com/2016/09/12/clinton-skips-out-on-emergency-room-during-health-episode/

    Her SS Detail made the call to take Hillary to the ER.. He was overruled by a campaign operative..

    That bonehead decision could have cost Hillary her life..

    Michale

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:
  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?”
    -Obama Bot David Axelrod

    You see, Weigantians?

    It's NOT the Right or the Alt Right (whatever THAT is??) that is taking Hillary down..

    It's Demcorats...

    Michale

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gosh, how did I miss this? I'm thinking Trump wants to avoid moderators coz they might ask him tough questions.

    Is Hillary afraid to face Trump mano a mano??

    Is Hillary a frail helpless female that has to be protected by a referee???

    Can't Hillary fact-check Trump herself?? Why does she need someone else to do it?

    I would have thought that YOU would think Hillary is tough enough to face Trump without having to be protected like a helpless woman..

    Apparently, I was wrong to think that... My bad...

    Michale

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:
  294. [294] 
    Michale wrote:

    “She’s been well, if it is it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors, because frequently, not frequently, rarely, but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her where she got severely dehydrated.”
    -Bill Clinton

    Bubba inadvertently reveals that Hillary has these types of collapses "frequently"...

    And THIS is who ya'all want for President!???

    Mind-boggling...

    Michale

  295. [295] 
    Michale wrote:

    For much of the summer, Hillary Clinton deliberately kept a low public profile, fund-raising in private and pursuing a hands-off campaign strategy: If Donald J. Trump wanted to seize center stage by picking unpopular fights — with a Gold Star father, a federal judge, the leaders of his own party — she would not stand in his way.

    Now, sidelined with pneumonia just as she hoped to reintroduce herself with a series of more personal policy speeches, Mrs. Clinton has left herself uniquely vulnerable to an unplanned absence.

    Her dismal public standing on questions of candor, combined with decades of conspiracy theories about her health, had already produced an uncommon challenge for aides and supporters seeking to tamp down speculation about her physical condition.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0

    Like Hillary Clinton herself, the Clinton campaign is on life-support......

    Michale

  296. [296] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/12/iran-threatened-to-shoot-down-us-navy-spy-planes-near-persian-gulf.html

    Well, I am glad the JCPOA has chillax'ed Iran and made them ready to join the world community...

    {/snark}

    Remind me again why this agreement was a good thing???

    Michale

  297. [297] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "There are rebels that we have backed which are not Islamist in nature"?

    Ughh.

    I can't believe you would write that while criticizing others for their mistakes.

    The "good" "rebels" we are backing are most certainly Islamists who are driven to enforce the Sunni version of sharia on the formerly secular state of Syria.

    You also left out Saudi Arabia and Qatar on your list... they are the ones who were willing to cough up the cash to bring in and arm all the foreign Sunni jihadis who started the illegal regime change war in Syria with covert CIA assistance.

    And, whether intentional or accidental, it is undeniable that many of the weapons we have delivered are also now in the hands of both IS and al Qaida in Syria... so your use of the word "backed" could stand some clarification.

    A

Comments for this article are closed.