ChrisWeigant.com

Debating The Debates

[ Posted Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 – 17:11 UTC ]

Are the presidential debates a valuable tool for voters to become informed about the candidates, or have they morphed into something which has no real bearing on how anyone would perform the job of president? That was the provocative subject of a Washington Post opinion piece today, and the author mostly came down on the side of the debates having outlived their usefulness.

One main point the author made was that debates are now more entertainment than an exploration of political policy, and more about who has the better comedic timing than how either of them would do the job they're running for. That's all true to a certain extent -- nobody's expecting the spirit of Lincoln/Douglas to appear on the stage next Monday night (this would still be true even if Donald Trump weren't one of the debaters, it's worth pointing out). Modern televised debates are different, and might be more akin to a Roman gladiator battle than Abraham Lincoln discussing slavery with his opponent. The first televised debates ever aired, back in the 1960s and 1970s, might have been a little closer to formal debates (such as those you might see at a high school or college debating team competition), but they have now indisputably changed into a contest to see who can utter the most clever soundbite -- one that will then be replayed endlessly over the networks for the next few weeks.

That, however, is the nature of both politics today and the media's short attention span. Dueling soundbites already play an overlarge role in national campaigns, in other words, and this would be true even if no debates were held at all. That genie is simply not going back into the bottle, unless all the broadcast and cable networks suddenly had an epiphany and started doing long pieces on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each candidate's policy positions -- which, to be blunt, just isn't going to happen any time soon. Personally, I feel just as frustrated as the Post author about the sad state of affairs in both our politics and our media. But tilting at that particular windmill is a thankless and futile task, for the most part.

But I do feel that presidential debates still have a valid purpose, even if it is much more limited than they once had. Some features of modern debates have even improved over time. It's been relatively recently that average American voters get to ask the candidates questions, for one. The "town hall style" debate means questions will be asked that real people actually care about, rather than what the media thinks is important. This provides some unexpected originality and freshness to what the candidates are asked. Of course, even this isn't perfect, since usually these questions have to be submitted in advance and selected by the moderators -- meaning a whole lot of spontaneous issues get rejected. Maybe at some point the audience questions will be truly random ("I'm going to pick a seat number out of a fishbowl, and the person sitting in that seat will ask the next question," perhaps). But we haven't gotten there yet, meaning the media still performs their "gatekeeper" function in weeding out issues deemed not serious enough for the candidates to answer. But I bet a lot of people would be interested to see how a candidate reacts to some lunatic ranting about government conspiracies, because being president means constantly being petitioned by a whole bunch of lunatics on many different subjects. So even a question about Martians invading would have a certain degree of value to it (and a whole bunch of entertainment value, to boot).

Amusement aside, the real value of the debates to me is seeing how the candidates manage to think on their feet. The presidential debates are the only time during the entire campaign that the candidates have to face truly adverse situations, where they have to spontaneously react to unexpected attacks. And it's the only time the candidates have to face each other, as well.

Being a major party candidate for president means, among other things, surrounding yourself with people who deeply, deeply believe in your cause and yourself. Even the most trusted advisors -- those who can say "no" to the candidate or tell them they're screwing up, in other words -- still couch their criticisms in awfully gentle language. Being a candidate means living for over a year among not just yes-men (and yes-women), but actual True Believers. It's great for the ego, of course, but it also means you never experience the depth of the opposition that is out there among many of the voters. Policies that your advisors tell you are poll-tested and focus-group-approved become a different thing when someone stands up and says: "What you are proposing will make my life harder and more difficult, and here's why...."

Even primary debates don't provide this level of adversity. In the primaries, candidates from both parties debate candidates that largely agree on almost all the major political issues. Easily three-fourths of the platform of any given Democratic candidate are identical with all the other Democrats on the stage -- and the same is true for the Republicans. The differences are usually pretty marginal, and all the candidates are trying to appeal to voters who largely already agree with everything they have to say. Which means a lot of hair-splitting and magnification of awfully small differences between them. The same is not true for general election debates. There, the candidates have rather large chasms between their respective positions, meaning the differences on display are more stark.

A big question this particular year is whether third-party candidates should be on the debate stage alongside the Republican and Democratic candidates. Actually, this is a recurring issue, as fairly strong third-party candidates appear more often than most people remember. The current bar is set pretty high -- polling at 15 percent or better in national polls previous to the debates. This is intended to weed out the fringe candidates who would just waste time during the debates, without adding much to the conversation. That's the intent, at any rate, but I would certainly be in favor of lowering that bar to 10 percent, or perhaps even as low as five percent. If one in ten American voters supports you (or even one in twenty), then you should probably be given the chance to be heard by all. Or they could change the criteria completely, and invite any candidate who has managed to get on all 50 state ballots (which is an incredibly daunting task for any minor party to achieve).

Third-party candidates can completely change the entire election's focus. In 1992, neither George H.W. Bush nor Bill Clinton really wanted to talk about the federal budget all that much, but H. Ross Perot's campaign put it front and center. He wound up with an astounding 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide -- a feat no other third-party candidate has matched since. This is the value of third parties to our two-party system. When both major parties want to essentially sweep an issue under the rug (because neither side has any good answer to fix the problem), it takes an outsider to even bring the subject up. Having Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on the debate stage would change the entire debate, and it might even change the focus of the whole campaign.

As things stand, though, it appears neither of them will be invited to any of the three debates, which is somewhat of a shame. They don't even get "undercard" debates, as happened in the Republican primaries this time around. I'd watch Johnson debating Stein for an hour as a preliminary to the main event, and I bet plenty of others would watch too. But for now, we're only going to see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on stage together, and I doubt that will change for any of the three debates.

The most interesting aspect of general election presidential debates is that it is the only time during the entire campaign when the two candidates have to stand next to each other and launch their attacks right to each other's faces. There's a very human element to this. You can call your opponent nasty names during a rally, and you'll get big cheers from adoring supporters. But it's a lot different saying the same thing to a person standing a few feet from you.

The real power of the debates, though, happens when candidates are forced off their rehearsed scripts. This can either happen with a relentless moderator or through back-and-forth interchanges between the candidates. No matter how long and hard you rehearse for the debates, there are always questions you never though would come up (and that you don't have a snappy prepared answer for). What happens next is why the debates are still important. In fact, these moments often become the soundbites that will be endlessly replayed afterwards.

Modern televised debates still have value for two reasons. The first is seeing how the candidates interact with people who don't agree with them politically. No matter who wins, they'll have to do this when they get to Washington. Dealing with Congress means winning over political enemies, at times, at least if you want to get any of your agenda passed. So voters watch how the candidates deal with each other's wildly divergent political viewpoints with this in mind.

The second big value of modern debates is seeing whether the candidates can think on their feet. When faced with the unexpected, how do they react? Do they timidly hem and haw in confusion, or do they confidently stake out a brand-new position on an issue they haven't even thought about yet? Even on issues they have thought about, having their policies challenged by either moderator or opponent means having to defend them and discredit attacks against them. This also rarely happens at any other point during the campaign, which is why people love the "gotcha" moments during the debates. Presidents don't often have to make such snap decisions in the course of their jobs -- normally they have time to consult with a wide range of opinions before having to make up their minds (a point also made in that Post article). So it's somewhat unfair to the candidates. But only somewhat. Because seeing whether a candidate can think fast enough to come up with an answer to an unexpected question (or attack) is definitely a measure of their mental adaptability and speed.

Sure, the debate formats are flawed. Abraham Lincoln would probably be horrified to see what they've become. They certainly could be improved in a number of ways, not least of which would be allowing third-party candidates onto the stage. But even in their limited state, presidential debates are still definitely worth having. Even if half the audience is tuning in just to be entertained -- because those voters cast ballots, too. Next Monday's debate will almost certainly be the most-watched presidential debate of all time, no matter what the reasons each viewer has for tuning in. This is the biggest megaphone of the entire election for that very reason -- more people will watch the two major candidates than at any other time during the race. So I leave it to others to debate the debates' flaws. They are what they are, at least for the time being. However flawed they might be, they are still the biggest events of the entire campaign. So let the debates begin!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

141 Comments on “Debating The Debates”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Good column Chris!

    Spent Mon, Tues, Weds night at the local HRC campaign office. So did my husband. I made phone calls, he did data-entry. The office was bustling, nice mix of age, gender, race in the volunteers. It felt great to do and will be as active as I can manage up to election day.

    Will be watching Monday's debate with other volunteers -- looking forward to it.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Congrats Paula. Respect.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    OK. I'll buy that maybe there's some value there, but do we have to call these thingies "debates"? They're not that. I expect even less so this Monday.

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I have no stomach for either of these establishment clowns.

    I'll be reading a book like the guy killed by police in Charlotte.

    Congrats on mentioning the third party angle.
    Now that would be a real debate worth watching.

    A

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    Way to walk your talk! It is refreshing to hear about people getting involved in campaigns.

    -Russ

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be reading a book like the guy killed by police in Charlotte.

    You mean that "book" that was shaped like a gun and fired bullets??? :^/

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I have to agree with Listen. You are really the only one here who walks the walk..... So, for that you deserve credit..

    Unfortunately it doesn't look like your efforts in Ohio are going to pay off...

    Trump apparently has Ohio sewn up....

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I don't think I will be able to do any live blogging on debate night. It's way past my bedtime. :( But, we'll see...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Over at 538, Nate Silver projects that Trump has a 59% chance of winning Ohio...

    The thug/scumbag/cop killer segment is pushing NC into Trump's team as well..

    Nate said that if the polls don't get any better by today, then Democrats should start panicking...

    Time ta panic, people.. :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-year-of-the-reticent-voter-1474586866

    This is what ya'all don't get about this election...

    People will be voting for Trump but will DENY that they are voting for Trump...

    While it's obvious that I am the only Trump supporter here, I would wager a million quatloos that I am not the only Trump VOTER here... I bet that more than a few Weigantians will vote Trump, even though they will deny it to their dying breath....

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why polls that show Clinton ahead don't really mean much..

    Because you just HAVE to know that there is a good percentage of those saying they are going to vote Clinton that are actually going to vote Trump..

    I have a feeling that this reticent majority is going to make this election, an election to remember..

    And, I will also predict that when the vote goes overwhelmingly for Trump, it's going to be the LEFT who is screaming "FRAUD" and "STOLEN ELECTION" etc etc etc...

    I have been right about everything TRUMP so far and ya'all have been wrong about everything TRUMP so far, so...... :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, the more I mull this over, the more I believe it's what's going to happen.

    I mean, think about it.

    We're in an election where the supporters of Trump are viciously attack, figuratively and *LITERALLY* by supporters of Clinton....

    Who would want to run the risk of being literally beaten up for professing support for Trump?

    I bet we're going to see a massive shift towards Trump inside the polling booths...

    I am so sure of my position that I am willing to wager that, not only will Trump win, but he will win by a larger margin than any on the Left thought possible..

    Anyone here sure enough of THEIR position that they would want to wager??? :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Hillary's latest hysterical message (not delivered in person because she is too ill to campaign), she whined, "Why am I not 50 points ahead!!???"

    Here's her answer..

    Dear Hillary: Here's Why You Aren't 50 Points Ahead
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/23/dear_hillary_heres_why_you_arent_50_points_ahead_131866.html

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 weren't debates in the modern sense - they were more like dueling stump speeches.

    One candidate spoke for one hr.

    The opposing candidate spoke for one and one half hrs in rebuttal.

    The lead off candidate responded to the rebuttal for one half hr.

    There were no moderators, and the speeches were not moderate! No questions from the crowd were taken, although they may well have been offered.

    All off this was taken down by newspaper reporters, and published in an edited, less gritty form. I seriously doubt any spectators past the first few rows could hear anything from the stage, those close to the stage passed snippets back to the less fortunately positioned, which would have added still more noise to the event.

    The general public received a corrupted version of the debate by reading the newspaper accounts. These are what come down to us in the 21st century.

    All in all, I think a TV version of the original format would probably be more informative than the pasteurized debates we get today. The time would have to be parred down to account for modern attention spans.

    Modern high school Lincoln/Douglas have nothing in common with the 1858 debates and should drop the name to avoid confusion.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure, the debate formats are flawed. Abraham Lincoln would probably be horrified to see what they've become. They certainly could be improved in a number of ways, not least of which would be allowing third-party candidates onto the stage. But even in their limited state, presidential debates are still definitely worth having. Even if half the audience is tuning in just to be entertained -- because those voters cast ballots, too. Next Monday's debate will almost certainly be the most-watched presidential debate of all time, no matter what the reasons each viewer has for tuning in. This is the biggest megaphone of the entire election for that very reason -- more people will watch the two major candidates than at any other time during the race. So I leave it to others to debate the debates' flaws. They are what they are, at least for the time being. However flawed they might be, they are still the biggest events of the entire campaign. So let the debates begin!

    Seems like Karl Rove agrees with you, CW... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rioting May Tip Presidential Scales in Crucial North Carolina
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-22/rioting-may-tip-presidential-scales-in-crucial-north-carolina

    Camp Clinton can kiss North Carolina good-bye..

    Especially since Hillary has condemned the cops and sided with the thugs, the looters, the cop-killers and the scumbags...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    All in all, I pretty much agree with the WP assessment.

    I reject the notion that "the real value of the debates ... is seeing how the candidates manage to think on their feet." The thinking involved in a TV debate is basically just suite of canned evasive maneuvers with an occasional sucker punch against an opponent that commits a gaffe (i.e actually speaks his/her mind). Is this thinking a test of political leadership? I don't think so, unless you set the bar to something a little above "not yet in an advanced state of dementia."

    I'll watch the debates. To demonstrate to myself that I'm not yet in an advanced state of dementia. Others around here can make their own call on that.

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll be working/traveling when the debate is on, so I'll have to get a second hand opinion. One of the things I like about CW is that he is openly democratic but is realistic, so I'll be leaning on his take. The Economist is released on Thursdays, and that is another reliable source, even if it is a few days to wait.

    The other news organizations are likely to play up the sports metaphors and trivia but will be far more influential because of the reach of their medium (e.g. TV).

    The ability to choose your media 'team' (or 'party') will strongly influence how most people perceive the debates. If you are a Fox supporter, Trump will be an outright winner, for the HuffPo fans, Hillary will slay the Orange Dragon, etc. Social media bots only mirror and amplify our biases making them more ingrained.

    The older generation seem to fall for this trap more than the younger ones. My kids have had the Internet all their lives, with easy access to porn (there isn't a nanny filter built than can stop a horny teenager, even if it only means they access it at a friend's house), very dubious claims, outright lies, etc.

    The older generation (such as myself) need the BS filter that kids have.

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    Off topic, sorry.

    I bought a 32" 'tube' TV just as flat screens were coming in. The 32" brute was $700 or so, and flat screens were in the $2,000 range at the time. If I had to do it again, I'd hold out for a couple of years and make do with the old 27" monster until the flat screens had come down.

    I'm not making the same mistake again with cars. Self-driving on-demand cars will probably be available within 5 years, well within the lifetime of a new car. I'm at the point where I'm going to get the last out of my 2002 minivan rather than buy a replacement.

    I almost never rent a car on business trips any longer, I just Uber instead.

    The impact of self-driving on-demand cars may cast a bigger future shadow than the car companies are anticipating.

    I drive 9,000 miles/year at a cost (including depreciation) of 57.6c / mile. An Uber with a live driver costs about $3/mile. A new car's depreciation would be about $1.25/mile based on current blue book depreciation. But future depreciation is likely to be much more - I had to give my 32" TV away when I bought the flat screen, and it wasn't easy to unload.

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Correction:

    A new car's cost including depreciation would be about $1.25/mile

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Three comments in a row from the guy who complains when others post 3 comments in a row.. :^/

    Wish I could say I was surprised at the hypocrisy. But it must be a standard qualification trait for Democrats... :^/

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    An interesting article pertinent to my comment above on 'teams':

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religion-and-education-explain-the-white-vote/

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

    Hard to argue with the logic....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    This isn't just taking the gloves off, this is putting the knuckle dusters on too:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-ad-trump-girls-mirror-113402916.html

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTT ADAMS' BLOG

    How to Know an Election is Over

    In the 2D world in which most people live, Clinton and Trump are polling about evenly, and either one could win. The 2D world is all about facts and policies and common sense. In other words – all the stuff we think we care about but really don’t.

    In the 3D world of persuasion, however, the election is already over. There is still some mystery about how large the margin will be, but Trump is already the President of the United States unless something big happens in the next few weeks. How do I know that?

    Listen to this clip in which Clinton asks why she isn’t leading by 50 points. Ignore the content of what she says, because no one cares about content. Just feel it.

    And see the future.

    Yep.......

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crazy
    I'm crazy for feeling so lonely

    I'm crazy
    Crazy for wearing this blue
    I knew I'd love you as long as you delivered
    And then some day
    You'd leave me for somebody new
    Worry
    Why do I let myself worry?
    Wondering
    What in the world will I do?
    Oh, crazy
    For thinking that my lies could hold you
    I'm crazy for screeching
    And crazy for leeching
    And ...
    I'm crazy for trusting Bill and youuuuuuuuu ...

    -Democrats Theme Song, sung to the tune of Patsy Cline's CRAZY

    Credit to Todd Seibt
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-of-lovitz-1474568248

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Crazy
    So crazy he's making us anxious.
    He's crazy -
    and all of the world knows it, too.

    We knew
    His policies sounded erratic,
    But by then
    It was to late to get someone new.

    Worry
    We can't let ourselves start to worry
    Wondering
    If down-ballot races fail too.

    We're crazy
    For thinking his wierdness wouldn't matter

    We're crazy for trying
    To win this by lying,

    And crazy for backing Trump toooo!

    -Trumper's theme, sung to the tune of Patsy Cline's CRAZY

    Wrote it myself, just now.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

    "There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."

    Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.

    Clinton has experienced severe coughing episodes throughout the election year. During a Labor Day campaign stop she suffered a 4-minute choking marathon.

    Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.

    It's over for Clinton.... :D

    She cried to the Debate Committee and demanded a step-stool so Trump wouldn't tower over her..

    Her demand was flatly rejected....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrote it myself, just now.

    Credit where credit is due, B.... That was pretty good.. :D

    Your subject matter is way off, but no one can dispute your imagination.. :D

    But I wonder what you are going to say on Tues when Hillary has collapsed at the first debate... :D

    Will you concede it's all over for Hillary???

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But I wonder what you are going to say on Tues when Hillary has collapsed at the first debate.

    I would say, "Oh my god! Hillary just collapsed! Did'ja see that? Hand me the remote so I can replay that.."

    Dream on. Hope Trump remembers to wear Astronaut Underwear.

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Credit where credit is due, B.... That was pretty good.. :D Your subject matter is way off, but no one can dispute your imagination.. :D

    Thank you.

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe better than random people from the debate audience asking a question would be to post all the submitted questions on line and let people vote for a few questions rather than have the moderators review and choose the questions.
    I have suggested this approach to Ralph Nader for listener questions his Radio Hour and C-Span for veiwer suggestions for topics on Washington Journal with the expected results. It seems that the talk of enabling citizens to have any kind of control over what is discussed is too much of a sacrifice to back up with action.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If they did use the approach of letting people vote on questions, then we could ask Clinton and Trump their position on letting Johnson and Stein in the debates.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    B,

    DREAM ON???

    Yea, ya'all said the same thing when I said Hillary had health problems.. ya'all were wrong then and I was rigbt. Why do u think it's going to be different than this time??

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do u think it's going to be different than this time?

    Because, honestly, her people won't let her step onto that stage unless they think she's up to it.

    It would be far better to suffer a no-show than a no-finish.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, honestly, her people won't let her step onto that stage unless they think she's up to it.

    They probably thought she was up to it on the 9/11 ceremony..

    But OK...

    If Clinton collapses OR CANCELS the debate, will you concede it's all over for her??

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Credit where credit is due, B.... That was pretty good.. :D Your subject matter is way off, but no one can dispute your imagination.. :D

    Thank you.

    Yer welcome...

    Civilized discussion.. It's become FAR too rare around here.. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:
  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    [38] Michale,

    Why would Clinton's TOP aide need immunity if nothing criminal happened???

    I don't know a single lawyer who wouldn't get a limited immunity deal when handing over their computer to the FBI. It was limited immunity that did NOT include the relevant email investigation or her statements or actions while at the State Department. She got immunity for issues unrelated to the FBI investigation... pretty standard stuff actually.

    Republicans trying to make political hay out of the emails again? #Shocker

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know a single lawyer who wouldn't get a limited immunity deal when handing over their computer to the FBI. It was limited immunity that did NOT include the relevant email investigation or her statements or actions while at the State Department. She got immunity for issues unrelated to the FBI investigation... pretty standard stuff actually.

    Not for THE top aide to the Democrat Party candidate..

    In elections, perception is everything, my friend...

    The PERCEPTION makes Mills (and by extension, Hillary) look guilty...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Wanna do a T-Shirt wager on whether Hillary shows up at the debate and makes it thru all 90 mins without a single medical issue, including a cough...???

    :D

    Put yer body where yer ideology is.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally
    The Republican candidate took his case to a shale-industry gathering, and found a welcoming crowd.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/

    If ya'all could get past yer ideology, you would realize why Trump's message, his REAL message, is resonating amongst the vast majority of Americans...

    If you had logic and rationality instead ideological fanaticism, ya'all would be very VERY worried...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, that is where I have the distinct advantage over ya'all...

    Ya'all's support for Clinton is 1000% based on ideology...

    As ya'all have PROVEN beyond *ANY* doubt.. Trump is not ideological....

    Hoisted By Yer Own Picard... :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    [40] Michale,

    In elections, perception is everything, my friend...

    The PERCEPTION makes Mills (and by extension, Hillary) look guilty...

    Only to the uneducated and/or the easily conned. :)

  45. [45] 
    apophis wrote:

    "Only to the uneducated and/or the easily conned."

    Well said, Described you to a TEE..

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If ya'all could get past yer ideology, you would realize why Trump's message, his REAL message, is resonating amongst the vast majority of Americans...

    Trump's message resonates primarily because people love simplistic prescriptions to complicated problems, not really caring much if it's the right medicine or not.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't think I'm going to be much into live blogging the big debate. So, get yer beauty sleep! :)

  48. [48] 
    apophis wrote:

    46]
    Elizabeth Miller;

    Love the you put that...

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Into the scotch and soda cabinet, eh? :)

  50. [50] 
    apophis wrote:

    No, in to the Port..

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That'll do.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Apophis (do we have a real name for you?),

    Do you think that a Trump victory may be baked in to this election? And, it doesn't really matter what he or she does from here on in ... ?

  53. [53] 
    apophis wrote:

    52]
    Elizabeth Miller;

    Of course. my real name is Phil Hansen. The cake is in the oven. What Trump or Clinton does in the debates I don't think will matter.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, are you leaning toward the thinking that Trump is going to win this thing - for reasons that Hillary just can't or isn't able to overcome?

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm going to have to keep a scorecard to remember everyone's real name ... :(

    LWYH = Russ
    Apophis = Phil
    Altohone = Al (that's an easy one ... well, easy name to remember, I mean ... heh)
    akadijan = David (where are you?)
    etc., etc.

  56. [56] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Just passing through,but I really cannot resist...

    Hoisted By Yer Own Picard...

    What? Do you have something against STNG? How will a Captain of a Federation Constitution-class ship enable me to hoist myself? or is it more of a metaphor for a transporter accident where upon I end up on the transporter pad at the completion of transport perched upon Captain Picards shoulders with his head lodged in my, shall we say, rectal cavity?

    I myself prefer the use of the word "petard" or if one wants to go with 'merican'ized "pitard". Which refers to a device of siege warfare that was either a box at the foot of a door, or attached to a long pole that was often lodged into a door or chink in a wall, in an attempt to gain entry. The device was often prone to failure thus resulting in an explosion that resulted often times, for the person lighting or trying to stick the device, being tossed in the air... hence the expression "hoisted by ones own Petard".

    These are the things I worry about while sitting in the departure lounge....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    apophis,

    Well said, Described you to a TEE..

    Hay now.. Kick may be a little touched, but that was uncalled for...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    What? Do you have something against STNG? How will a Captain of a Federation Constitution-class ship enable me to hoist myself? or is it more of a metaphor for a transporter accident where upon I end up on the transporter pad at the completion of transport perched upon Captain Picards shoulders with his head lodged in my, shall we say, rectal cavity?

    Weigantian joke.. :D

    https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x400/67769313.jpg

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Trump's message resonates primarily because people love simplistic prescriptions to complicated problems, not really caring much if it's the right medicine or not.

    But that's just it..

    Trump's "medicine" just might be EXACTLY the right medicine...

    Those who are en....namored by political ideology refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE this fact...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think I'm going to be much into live blogging the big debate. So, get yer beauty sleep! :)

    heh :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Only to the uneducated and/or the easily conned. :)

    Yea, I know... The "deplorables"

    Ya'all have made that perfectly clear.. Ya'all don't like the cops, the soldiers, the doctors, the firefighters that are all voting for Trump...

    There's a word for that..

    It's called "bigotry"...

    Like them or not, they are going to be choosing our next President...

    And that would be President Trump...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Those who are en....namored by political ideology refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE this fact...

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

    I would be willing to wager a buttload of quatloos that you would have no problem acknowledging the possibility that Trump COULD possibly be the greatest President since Abraham Lincoln... :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of wager....

    Balthasar,

    Wanna do a T-Shirt wager on whether Hillary shows up at the debate and makes it thru all 90 mins without a single medical issue, including a cough...???

    :D

    Put yer body where yer ideology is.. :D

    Not too sure?? :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Just passing through,but I really cannot resist...

    Hoisted By Yer Own Picard...

    But, apparently, you COULD resist addressing the actual point that I made...

    Positively shocking...... :^)

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wanna do a T-Shirt wager on whether Hillary shows up at the debate and makes it thru all 90 mins without a single medical issue, including a cough...?

    It would have to be more than a single cough. I mean, everybody coughs from time to time, especially when speaking for a long time, especially while recovering from a bout with walking pneumonia...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I was proven right about the Charlotte shooting.. Scumbag had a gun and an arrest record a mile long....

    One of these days, my expertise and my dead-on-ballz-accurate assessments in police shootings will be acknowledged...

    Yea, when Monkees fly outta my arse.... :^/

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again, I was proven right about the Charlotte shooting.. Scumbag had a gun and an arrest record a mile long.

    And was shot for no reason at all. He had committed no crime, and the police had him surrounded. He never discharged his weapon, and made no aggressive moves toward the officers.

    Compare this to the many white men who drew weapons on the police during the Bundy Ranch stand-off not long ago. Not only weren't they (justifiably) gunned down by the cops, they were allowed to go on their way after the stand-off ended.

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    And was shot for no reason at all. He had committed no crime, and the police had him surrounded. He never discharged his weapon, and made no aggressive moves toward the officers.

    All completely irrelevant to the circumstances..

    He was armed. He refused to follow the orders of police.

    He was shot...

    Good shoot..

    Compare this to the many white men who drew weapons on the police during the Bundy Ranch stand-off not long ago.

    Bullshit...

    You can proselytize and rationalize until the cows come home...

    It won't change the one simple fact that this was a good shoot and the scumbag thugs and lowlifes used the shooting as an excuse to do early christmas shopping..

    OK, well that's two facts...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    And was shot for no reason at all. He had committed no crime, and the police had him surrounded. He never discharged his weapon, and made no aggressive moves toward the officers.

    So, what you are saying is that the officers should have LET the scumbag shoot first before they considered him a threat???

    Please don't ever become a cop... You would put your fellow officer's lives and innocent civilian lives in danger....

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides... Your Left Wingery even DENIED that the scumbag HAD a gun..

    Now, it's "Well, he wasn't threatening anyone with it!!!"

    Do you even hear yerself??? :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could wait and let LISTEN chime in as he is married to a cop...

    But I honestly doubt he would debase himself to actually agree with me on any point.. :D

    Even though he knows that my assessment is dead on ballz accurate...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    'Sides... Your Left Wingery even DENIED that the scumbag HAD a gun..

    I believe that's still an open question. Video released today was inconclusive. It is certainly true that a gun that was seen later wasn't evident in the wife's video.

    And, while calling this man a scumbag may make you feel better about his being gunned down by the police state, it doesn't change the fact that he'd committed no crime, and was simply sitting in his car before being accosted by plainclothes cops.

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that the officers should have LET the scumbag shoot first before they considered him a threat?

    Yes, I do. I can't shoot someone just because I think they MIGHT shoot me, so why is that true for cops? It used to be called Return Fire.

    Such a rule would have saved the lives of how many innocent men this year? The job of the police is supposed to be to 'protect the innocent', not 'assume the worst'.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe that's still an open question. Video released today was inconclusive. It is certainly true that a gun that was seen later wasn't evident in the wife's video.

    It's NOT an open question..

    Your Left Wingery denied that the scumbag had a gun..

    This is fact...

    And, while calling this man a scumbag may make you feel better about his being gunned down by the police state, it doesn't change the fact that he'd committed no crime,

    Failure to obey lawful orders of a police officer IS a crime.. Doing it while armed is a felony.. Being a convicted felon in possession of a gun is also a felony..

    This scumbag committed numerous crimes..

    that he'd committed no crime, and was simply sitting in his car before being accosted by plainclothes cops.

    Sitting in a car with a gun in his hand... Which is a crime..

    being gunned down by the police state

    Wow... How positively beatnik of you.. :D

    Yes, I do.

    And like I said.. Please don't ever become a cop.. You would put lives in danger..

    I can't shoot someone just because I think they MIGHT shoot me, so why is that true for cops

    Uh... yes, you can.. Now you may not WANT to defend your own life, but the law says you can..

    Such a rule would have saved the lives of how many innocent men this year?

    At the cost of many dead cops.. But, of course, that doesn't matter to the Left Wingery...

    The job of the police is supposed to be to 'protect the innocent', not 'assume the worst'.

    Assuming the worst is what keeps MANY cops alive, including your's truly....

    Assuming the best, which is what you are advocating, is what get's cops and innocent people killed...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    And like I said.. Please don't ever become a cop.. You would put lives in danger..

    I don't mean that in an insulting way.. Well, not much anyways. :D

    Seriously, not many people are cut out to be cops... You are simply one of those types....

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Failure to obey lawful orders of a police officer IS a crime.

    A Capital crime, punishable by execution on the spot? Sounds more like Judge Dredd than American justice.

    Now you may not WANT to defend your own life, but the law says you can..

    Self-defense laws are more complicated than most folks assume. Most of the time, you have to prove that you couldn't flee rather than shoot. Hence, the right wingery's insistence on "stand your ground" laws that still haven't been tested in the Supreme Court.

    Sitting in a car with a gun in his hand... Which is a crime..

    Depends who you are, doesn't it? Apparently the right believes that George Zimmerman could prowl a neighborhood looking to shoot someone, and has no problem with it, because he was looking for black guys.

    And you still haven't addressed the Bundy stand-off.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Capital crime, punishable by execution on the spot? Sounds more like Judge Dredd than American justice.

    What part of the man was armed do you not understand??

    Self-defense laws are more complicated than most folks assume. Most of the time, you have to prove that you couldn't flee rather than shoot.

    Not anymore.. In most states, if you are in a place that you have a legal right to be and are confronted with a threat, you DO NOT have an obligation to attempt to flee...

    All you have to do is have a reasonable belief that your life or the life of someone else is in danger..

    Depends who you are, doesn't it?

    No, it doesn't, as much as you would like to believe otherwise..

    Apparently the right believes that George Zimmerman could prowl a neighborhood looking to shoot someone,

    If that was even close to what had happened, you would have a point..

    But it's pure Left Wingery fantasy so you don't...

    and has no problem with it, because he was looking for black guys.

    The cop who shot the scumbag in Charlotte was black..

    Race had nothing to do with this shooting, as much as you would like to believe otherwise..

    And you still haven't addressed the Bundy stand-off.

    Sure, I did.. I said you were full of shit.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask you this, Balthasar...

    In your world, is it possible for a police officer to shoot a black person and it be justified??

    It would save us a lot of commenting if we first established that base line...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further establishing a baseline..

    Would you have cared one bit if this scumbag who got shot was white???

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What part of the man was armed do you not understand?

    Then you're saying that all of those guys with rifles on their shoulders at the GOP convention were subject to immediate execution? And I return to Bundy, in which the participants were actually pointing their rifles at federal officers..

    And, as I said, there is an open debate as to whether the Charlotte victim was actually armed, or whether the cops planted the gun. A gun wasn't seen in the video released today, and only appears in still shots taken later...

    The cop who shot the scumbag in Charlotte was black..

    There were a number of shots fired in Charlotte (none by the victim), apparently by more than one officer. The race of the cop isn't the issue - the issue is a built-in bias that assumes that white men with guns are law-abiding and black men with guns aren't.

    The question is: how many unarmed White men were shot this year by police, by accident or otherwise?

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then you're saying that all of those guys with rifles on their shoulders at the GOP convention were subject to immediate execution?

    Key point being ON THEIR SHOULDERS, not in their hands...

    And, as I said, there is an open debate as to whether the Charlotte victim was actually armed, or whether the cops planted the gun.

    So, ALL the cops there are dirty, is that what you are saying??

    And, of course, you have FACTS that suggest that, right??

    No, it's NOT an open debate.. That question has been answered..

    There were a number of shots fired in Charlotte (none by the victim), apparently by more than one officer.

    Actually, only one cop fired.. The black cop...

    The race of the cop isn't the issue -

    Of course not.. Because the cop is black.. If the cop was white, it would be a huge issue....

    - the issue is a built-in bias that assumes that white men with guns are law-abiding and black men with guns aren't.

    That's your assumption based SOLELY on your partisan ideology and is not supported by ANY facts whatsoever...

    The question is: how many unarmed White men were shot this year by police, by accident or otherwise?

    Of the 760 persons shot by LEOs in 2016 to date, 214 of them were black...

    I am sure you can do the math....

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I return to Bundy, in which the participants were actually pointing their rifles at federal officers..

    And I return to the fact that you are full of shit.... :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I return to Bundy, in which the participants were actually pointing their rifles at federal officers..

    Even if what you say is accurate (which I can practically guarantee it's not), the fact that you believe in the ONE SIZE FITS ALL scenario shows your ignorance of the LEO career field...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In your world, is it possible for a police officer to shoot a black person and it be justified? Would you have cared one bit if this scumbag who got shot was white???

    Yes and yes, but with reservations. It used to be that American cops could spend their whole careers without discharging their weapons in the line of duty. Many still do.

    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. Police are only equipped with firearms in special circumstances.

    I don't think that it's an accident that an increase in these 'accidental' shootings of unarmed citizens has coincided with the militarization of the police in this country. Perhaps it's time that law enforcement in this country takes another look at non-lethal strategies, and that laws to that effect be drafted if this carnage continues.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's just lay the question out there..

    Do you have ANY facts to support your conclusion that this scumbag was shot because he was black??

    Any facts at all??

    No, you don't...

    That is ALWAYS how it is with you people and incidents such as this..

    LONG on hysterical innuendo...

    Not a SINGLE fact to be found.....

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps it's time that law enforcement in this country takes another look at non-lethal strategies, and that laws to that effect be drafted if this carnage continues.

    "Carnage"????

    Really?? You think this is "carnage"??? .08% of blacks killed in a year are killed by cops...

    And yet, almost TENS OF THOUSANDS of blacks killed by other blacks...

    THAT is acceptable to you.....

    Wow...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps it's time that law enforcement in this country takes another look at non-lethal strategies,

    And your vast LEO experience tells you this??? :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even if what you say [about the Bundy Stand-off] is accurate (which I can practically guarantee it's not)

    I take it, then, that you missed this famous photo of a protester at the Bundy event with Federal officials in his sights?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, almost TENS OF THOUSANDS of blacks killed by other blacks...

    THAT is acceptable to you.....

    Let's face reality here..

    Your ONLY concern is pushing a Left Wing anti-cop agenda.. Black lives don't matter to you whatsoever.. If they did you concern yourself with the root cause that kills almost 10 thousand blacks a year..

    But Noooooooo... Your ideology demands that you fight for the 8 blacks that are justifiably killed a year...

    :^/

    If this Charlotte scumbag had been white, you wouldn't give a carp about him because you never would have even HEARD about it...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And your vast LEO experience tells you this?

    No, my (equally valid) vast experience as a law-abiding citizen of the US tells me this.

    And yet, almost TENS OF THOUSANDS of blacks killed by other blacks... THAT is acceptable to you...

    No, it isn't. And that, too, is a failure of our system of Law enforcement, and probably exacerbated by efforts by the right to get in the way of laws designed to get guns off of city streets. Still, violent crime has been declining for quite some time.

    Your effort to paint me as anti-cop won't work either. Police chiefs across this country have supported community policing and stricter gun laws.

  91. [91] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Really?? You think this is "carnage"??? .08% of blacks killed in a year are killed by cops

    And an even smaller percentage are killed by terrorists in this country, but that doesn't stop Trump from suggesting that we close our borders to a third of the world's population in response.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, you ignore the FACT that this scumbag had a long list of assaults, ADWs, DUIs etc etc etc...

    To you, he was a good christian man who was just ===> <===== this close to going to college and turning his life around..

    Remember Michael Brown???

    Good boy who was going to college blaa blaaa blaaa.. Before we found out he was a druggie, a thief, a bully and a coward...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    And an even smaller percentage are killed by terrorists in this country, but that doesn't stop Trump from suggesting that we close our borders to a third of the world's population in response.

    Tell ya what..

    Let's finish THIS discussion and then I'll help you dig up the goalposts and move them to a new location..

    K? :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, my (equally valid) vast experience as a law-abiding citizen of the US tells me this.

    So, because you are law-abiding, that gives you insight into LEO procedures, tactics and expertise???

    On what planet??

    No, it isn't. And that, too, is a failure of our system of Law enforcement, and probably exacerbated by efforts by the right to get in the way of laws designed to get guns off of city streets. Still, violent crime has been declining for quite some time.

    So, no matter what, it's ALL the cops' fault...

    Your effort to paint me as anti-cop won't work either.

    Looks like yer painting yerself just fine... :D

    Police chiefs across this country have supported community policing and stricter gun laws.

    Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion...

    Yer gonna hurt yerself if you keep trying to move the goalposts..

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, of course, you ignore the FACT that this scumbag had a long list of assaults, ADWs, DUIs etc etc etc. Remember Michael Brown? Good boy who was going to college blaa blaaa blaaa.. Before we found out he was a druggie, a thief, a bully and a coward.

    None of which carries the death penalty, which can only be imposed by a jury under our system of law. None of that justifies being gunned down in the street by an official of the United States of America. The constitution applies to both sides, here.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... I'll throw you a bone..

    Community policing is a good thing..

    But it doesn't change the fact that THIS shooting is a good shoot....

    The FACTS overwhelmingly support that conclusion...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, because you are law-abiding, that gives you insight into LEO procedures, tactics and expertise? On what planet?

    On the planet, and in the country that declared me to be (like it or not) the equal of any other man and to have an equal vote to any other man. I am a citizen.

    Let's finish THIS discussion and then I'll help you dig up the goalposts and move them to a new location.

    Oh, by all means let's open this game up to the whole field, because we've been playing here between the 40's:

    This is all part and parcel of the racist, xenophobic, nationalist, authoritarian, elitist, proto-fascist philosophy of those who have hijacked the right lately. Everyone else is a criminal scumbag who doesn't even deserve food.

    It's terribly embarrassing, because I don't think most Americans are like that. I don't think the constitution was crafted with that result in mind.

    Still, I understand it. I have a brother who makes you sound like Noam Chomsky. I've been dealing with his bloody-mindedness since childhood.

    On the other hand, the rest of my once-military family have become Democrats over the course of the last decade, as the alternatives moved further and further to the right, finally, lately, falling right into incoherent bigot-stroking.

    The irony is that the GOP might have won this election had they fielded a smart, moderate conservative.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the planet, and in the country that declared me to be (like it or not) the equal of any other man and to have an equal vote to any other man. I am a citizen.

    But you are ignorant of what it takes to be a cop...

    So, when it comes to discussions on LEO activities, you are NOT the equal of a cop...

    No one is saying you can't have an opinion..

    But YOU can't say it is an INFORMED opinion. A RELEVANT opinion...

    This is all part and parcel of the racist, xenophobic, nationalist, authoritarian, elitist, proto-fascist philosophy of those who have hijacked the right lately. Everyone else is a criminal scumbag who doesn't even deserve food.

    That's your opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

    It's terribly embarrassing, because I don't think most Americans are like that.

    You are wrong...

    Most Americans DON'T think like you do..

    On the other hand, the rest of my once-military family have become Democrats over the course of the last decade,

    Which explains the "once military" part.. :D

    The irony is that the GOP might have won this election had they fielded a smart, moderate conservative.

    You mean an ESTABLISHMENT conservative.. :D

    Hillary would have wiped the floor with him/her because NO ONE can out ESTABLISHMENT Hillary..

    Which is why Hillary is going to lose...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    And lets make one thing perfectly clear..

    You don't have to point a gun at a cop to get shot...

    If you have a gun in your hand and are refusing orders to drop the gun, you WILL get shot..

    That exact circumstance happened to me one time. We rolled up on a guy who was just leaning against a building with a .38 in his hand.. He was just standing there... My partner and I approached him and ordered him several times to drop the weapon and put his hands up.. He refused.. When he started to cock and uncock the hammer, he was shot.. Several times..

    It was a good shoot...

    In your hollywood/fantasy world, the good guy always lets the bad guy shoot first because the bad guy always misses...

    In the REAL world, it's suicide to let someone with a gun shoot first...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, when it comes to discussions on LEO activities, you are NOT the equal of a cop..

    And yet, through my vote, I am that cop's boss. Yep, my opinion is not only relevant, it matters.

    Most Americans DON'T think like you do.

    That's the issue at hand, isn't it? I guess we're about to find that out.

    You mean an ESTABLISHMENT conservative..Hillary would have wiped the floor with him/her because NO ONE can out ESTABLISHMENT Hillary..

    That fits right in with my theory that the GOP base chose Trump over his competition BECAUSE they expected to lose to Hillary - more than democrats ever did, the right has painted Hillary as bigger than life, smarter, more treacherous, more conniving - a true puppet-master. As a result, the right went with a Berserker, reasoning that a vociferous attack had a better chance than a standard campaign.

    As I said, it's ironic. The left had no such confidence in Hillary. But she's better than that guy by a mile.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    A black protester was killed on the second night of the protests..

    Doesn't his life "matter"???

    Of course not..

    Because he was killed by another black person who WASN'T a cop...

    For the Left Wingery, black lives only "matter" when they can use their deaths to further an Left Wing anti-cop agenda...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In your hollywood/fantasy world, the good guy always lets the bad guy shoot first because the bad guy always misses...In the REAL world, it's suicide to let someone with a gun shoot first

    Perhaps. But the reason that that is still a movie trope is that it lends Moral Authority to the hero. It's harder to view the unprovoked ambush in Charlotte as heroic.

    But Morality has always been a problem for the right. Bushlet, for example, thought that not only was America's tradition of waiting to be attacked before attacking a foe was outdated (in Iraq), but that our long-standing policy of not using torture was equally quaint. Many Americans still believe that he caused us a significant loss of moral authority in the world as a result.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the issue at hand, isn't it? I guess we're about to find that out.

    On THAT, we can completely agree..

    And, when Trump wins, will you come on here and say, "You were right, Michale.. I was wrong.."

    Of course you won't.. Because NO ONE here can admit when they are wrong...

    As I said, it's ironic. The left had no such confidence in Hillary. But she's better than that guy by a mile.

    And yet, she is barely ahead by micro-inches...

    So, it would seem that you are wrong.. :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps.

    No.. No 'perhaps' about it..

    And the fact that you think there is proves your ignorance regarding the field..

    It's harder to view the unprovoked ambush in Charlotte as heroic.

    The Dallas assassinations of cops was an "unprovoked ambush"...

    The Baton Rogue assassinations of cops was an "unprovoked ambush"...

    The fact that you equate this good shoot, this good police work, with those heinous acts proves how far off the reservation you have gone...

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    you equate this good shoot, this good police work, with those heinous acts

    I do not, but I'm not going to disguise my concern with both Charlotte and Tulsa.

    In Charlotte, this guy is sitting peacefully in his car, PERHAPS examining his own legally registered gun. If this guy were White, you'd be defending him to this point with your last breath.

    Then a group of plain clothes cops surrounds and draws on him, and begins issuing orders. They might have been shouting the wrong name at him initially, as they admit they thought he was someone else. That may not fit your definition of 'ambush' but it has alarming similarities.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Charlotte, this guy is sitting peacefully in his car, PERHAPS examining his own legally registered gun. If this guy were White, you'd be defending him to this point with your last breath.

    No he was not... And no I wouldn't... He was a scumbag thug with an arrest record for violence and thuggery and he had a gun in his hand...

    If I were a responding officer, *I* would have shot him....

    Then a group of plain clothes cops surrounds and draws on him, and begins issuing orders. They might have been shouting the wrong name at him initially, as they admit they thought he was someone else. That may not fit your definition of 'ambush' but it has alarming similarities.

    Marked officers giving lawful orders is no where on the same planet as the definition of "ambush"...

    The fact that you think so is exactly why no one who knows LEO activities and procedures can take your rants seriously....

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    No he was not... And no I wouldn't... He was a scumbag thug with an arrest record for violence and thuggery and he had a gun in his hand...

    If I were a responding officer, *I* would have shot him....

    DOesn't matter if he was black, white, red, green, blue or pink with purple polka-dots..

    He was holding a gun and refused orders to drop it...

    Good Shoot...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    If this guy were White, you'd be defending him to this point with your last breath.

    And if this guy were white, you wouldn't give two shits about him... YOU wouldn't even know he ever existed...

    Tell me the last time you got so hysterical when a WHITE person was killed by cops..

    Tell me the last time **ANYONE** here go so hysterical when a WHITE person was killed by cops..

    {{cccchhhirrrrrrppppp}} {{{{ccchhhhhiiiirrrrrrppppp}}}}}

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

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell me the last time you got so hysterical when a WHITE person was killed by cops..

    Tell me the last time **ANYONE** here go so hysterical when a WHITE person was killed by cops..

    It's *NEVER* happened..

    And WHY hasn't it ever happened??

    Because it's only an issue when black people get killed by cops..

    And WHY is it only an issue when black people get killed by cops??

    Because the goal is not actually saving lives or anything like that..

    The goal is using their deaths as a political bludgeon with which to beat political opponents over the head with...

    That is the *ONLY* conclusion the facts support.....

    Go ahead.. TRY and prove me wrong... I double dog dare you....

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Tell me the last time you got so hysterical when a WHITE person was killed by cops..

    Well, that's my point: white people aren't being gunned down by cops, at least not alot, because I'm not hearing about it. Am I to assume that every white person accosted by police in this country is on their best behavior, or that the cops are just quicker on the trigger when it comes to black men lately? Why is it turning out that so many of these men are unarmed? What are we to do with that? Your answers are too easy.

    Police Officers in this country have a hard enough job without being tarred by the actions of a few bad actors. I can imagine most cops being just as outraged as the rest of us, because those cops who shoot first and ask questions later make their jobs that much harder the next day.

    Maybe we ought to look at the examples of Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and others who have police forces that keep their guns locked up until needed. A young, unarmed man was shot by a Campus cop at the U of Cincinnati last year. Does a campus cop have to carry lethal force? We ought to think about that, seriously.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, that's my point: white people aren't being gunned down by cops, at least not alot, because I'm not hearing about it.

    And THAT is the point..

    White people ARE getting gunned down by cops 3 times more than black people..

    But YOU don't notice it because there is no political stake in it..

    THAT is exactly the point..

    Police Officers in this country have a hard enough job without being tarred by the actions of a few bad actors.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what your Left Wingery does....

    I can imagine most cops being just as outraged as the rest of us, because those cops who shoot first and ask questions later make their jobs that much harder the next day.

    You "imagine" quite wrong.. 99.9% of cops would agree with EVERY THING I have said... If LISTEN had even a smidgen of integrity, he would chime in and tell you EXACTLY what I have been telling you.. But he won't, because he would rather swallow molten lead then agree with me on anything...

    A young, unarmed man was shot by a Campus cop at the U of Cincinnati last year. Does a campus cop have to carry lethal force? We ought to think about that, seriously.

    Once again, your complete IGNORANCE shines thru..

    UofC shared what is called "concurrent jurisdiction" on bordering roads with Cincinnati PD... Ergo UofC cops responded to incidents, domestics, traffic issues, etc etc..

    Ergo, they did the jobs of Cinninnati cops...

    They ALSO attend the EXACT same Police Academy that city cops attend and have to pass the EXACT same tests that city cops have to pass...

    And YOU want them to do that job unarmed???

    And yet have the audacity that you are NOT anti-cop???

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    A young, unarmed man was shot by a Campus cop at the U of Cincinnati last year. Does a campus cop have to carry lethal force? We ought to think about that, seriously.

    And in that particular incident the UofC cop, Officer Ray Tesing was FULLY and COMPLETELY justified in his actions. The video evidence from his cam PROVED that beyond any doubt....

    I am VERY familiar with that particular case...

    Which, apparently, puts me WAY above you... Knowledge/fact wise...

    No big surprise there....

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    That last was WAY too snooty and uncalled for.. My apologies..

    But the truth is, I have studied the Ray Tensing case and it is DEFINITELY a good shoot.. Six ways from Sunday....

    DuBoes tox levels were thru the roof.. He was driving drunk and knew he was going to go to jail... He had motive, opportunity and capability..

    All the requirements necessary for the use of deadly force...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    UofC shared what is called "concurrent jurisdiction" on bordering roads with Cincinnati PD... Ergo UofC cops responded to incidents, domestics, traffic issues, etc etc..

    Ergo, they did the jobs of Cinninnati cops...

    I am also constrained to point out that many of your larger Universities have their own SWAT/TNT teams, K-9 units, HAZMAT and even EOD teams...

    I realize in the sheltered "safe space" rainbows and unicorns dominated world of the Left Wingery these types of things are unheard of...

    But in the REAL world they not only exist, but they are important and necessary...

    LEOs don't have the luxury of living in the fantasy-infused world of the Left Wingery

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ah, enough of this. There are too many other things in the air.

    - good chance that ISIS could be defeated by the end of the year (if Russia doesn't get in the way).

    - good chance that Hillary could get elected (if Russia doesn't get in the way).

    - good chance that McConnell will let Obama's SCOTUS pick go through after the election, probably in return for a deal on the debt whether Trump is elected or not.

    - good chance that Trump will have another campaign manager/spokesperson/wife before the election. ;}

    - I'm laying even odds that Trump slips and calls Hillary a bitch during the debate.

    - even odds that visitors from outer space will land again in New Mexico and be arrested by ICE for being illegal aliens.

    - even odds that Christie will be sharing a cell next year with Trump at a minimum security golf course, and that Guiliani won't visit them.

    - 99% chance that Ted Cruz will run for president four years from now, and not be nominated again.

    - 80% chance that we'll ALL miss Obama by a year from now.

    - 60% chance that Britain won't actually leave the European Union, bowing instead to business interests that consider the whole idea insane.
    -

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    - good chance that ISIS could be defeated by the end of the year (if Russia doesn't get in the way).

    Word is that Obama is waiting for just before the election to actually DO something about the Daesch...

    - good chance that Hillary could get elected (if Russia doesn't get in the way).

    Ya'all were warned about Russia in 2012.....

    "You thought it was more fun to insult me. Well, now it is my turn, wiseass."
    -Walter Peck, GHOSTBUSTERS

    - good chance that McConnell will let Obama's SCOTUS pick go through after the election, probably in return for a deal on the debt whether Trump is elected or not.

    Change "good chance" to "wishful thinking" and you would be dead on ballz accurate...

    - good chance that Trump will have another campaign manager/spokesperson/wife before the election. ;}

    ditto....

    - I'm laying even odds that Trump slips and calls Hillary a bitch during the debate.

    I am laying greater than even odds that Hillary won't make or finish the debate...

    - 60% chance that Britain won't actually leave the European Union, bowing instead to business interests that consider the whole idea insane.

    Once again, you are enamored with wishful thinking..

    Still hurting from TOTALLY blowing the BREXIT call, eh?? :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, you are enamored with wishful thinking..

    Still hurting from TOTALLY blowing the BREXIT call, eh?? :D

    Don't worry too much about it..

    I have blown some major calls myself..

    The difference between me and ya'all is I don't insist I was right, even after facts and reality show that I was wrong...

    :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The difference between me and ya'all is I don't insist I was right, even after facts and reality show that I was wrong.

    Oh, I was wrong about the BREXIT vote alright. I can guarantee you that I won't be as blasé about our own election. Whether you're wrong about the ultimate effect that BREXIT could have on the British economy remains to be seen, as they haven't implemented it at all, yet.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I was wrong about the BREXIT vote alright.

    Yes, you were.. :D You're the only one to date who has admitted that.. :D

    Whether you're wrong about the ultimate effect that BREXIT could have on the British economy remains to be seen, as they haven't implemented it at all, yet.

    Like I said... You refuse to admit you were wrong... :D

    We have seen the full effect of the BREXIT vote and it was NOTHING like ya'all said it would be...

    I can guarantee you that I won't be as blasé about our own election.

    You mean you will refuse to admit you were wrong when Trump is POTUS?? :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [115] Balthasar

    - good chance that McConnell will let Obama's SCOTUS pick go through after the election, probably in return for a deal on the debt whether Trump is elected or not.

    Okay, I'll bite. What's your thinking?

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html

    There ya go....

    Feel free to admit you were wrong.. :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    [115] Balthasar

    - good chance that McConnell will let Obama's SCOTUS pick go through after the election, probably in return for a deal on the debt whether Trump is elected or not.

    Okay, I'll bite. What's your thinking?

    HA!!!

    Shirley, you jest... :D

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the footage, from a police dashboard camera and one body camera, captures the confrontation Tuesday in which an officer repeatedly orders Scott to drop his gun.

    Scott drew the attention of officers who were trying to serve an arrest warrant on an unrelated suspect at the Village at College Downs apartment complex in University City because he had marijuana in his vehicle, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Saturday.

    Officers were going to continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.

    “It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm,” Putney said. “There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.”
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html#storylink=cpy

    Like I said..

    A Good Shoot..

    I don't expect you to admit that you were wrong and I was right.. :^/

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a common theme in all instances where there are police shootings or deaths at the hands of the police..

    NOT obeying the lawful orders of police...

    If the subjects had just did what they were told, they would still be alive today..

    The subjects made a conscious decision to fight the law and the law won...

    It's really that simple...

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:


    Name Them and Shame Them=> Charlotte Police Post Photos, Mugshots of Looters Online

    Violent Charlotte “protesters” rioted, injured police officers, hurled rocks at reporters and cars, looted and torched trucks on the interstate, looted Walmart and trashed a police cruiser on Tuesday night.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/name-shame-charlotte-police-post-photos-mugshots-looters-online/

    Nice....

    Hopefully these Hillary supporters will be in jail a long long time...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [71]


    We could wait and let LISTEN chime in as he is married to a cop...

    But I honestly doubt he would debase himself to actually agree with me on any point.. :D

    Even though he knows that my assessment is dead on ballz accurate...

    I agree that it was a good shoot, I do not agree with your assessment that the guy was shot for being a "scumbag". That sort of thinking had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.

    Russ

  127. [127] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar


    Yes and yes, but with reservations. It used to be that American cops could spend their whole careers without discharging their weapons in the line of duty. Many still do.

    The vast majority still do. Do you realize that less than 4% of the police departments in this country had even a single officer related shooting in 2013?


    Self-defense laws are more complicated than most folks assume. Most of the time, you have to prove that you couldn't flee rather than shoot. Hence, the right wingery's insistence on "stand your ground" laws that still haven't been tested in the Supreme Court.

    Sitting in a car with a gun in his hand... Which is a crime..

    Depends who you are, doesn't it? Apparently the right believes that George Zimmerman could prowl a neighborhood looking to shoot someone, and has no problem with it, because he was looking for black guys.

    And you still haven't addressed the Bundy stand-off.

    Self-defense laws do not require you to try to get away from a threat to your life. The moment that you reasonably believe that your own life is in danger, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself. "Reasonably" is the key word! If someone pulls a gun on you, having to run before you can shoot in self defense would get people killed.

    There is more transparency in law enforcement today than at any other time in history! We have a media that has realized that the police are an easy target to get people riled up, especially if it has to do with the black community. I have been shocked at how our press have turned their nose up at reporting stories in an unbiased fashion. Journalistic integrity has been tossed in favor of higher ratings.

    Trayvon Martin's death was the first time that I realized just how the press was manipulating stories to fit the narrative that they want to tell. When you look at all of the evidence and listen to the testimonies offered during the trial, it became very obvious that the story that we had all been told had been completely fictional. I found one local news website that reported the shooting as it had occurred: Martin was killed after he physically attacked George Zimmerman, pinning him down and bashing his skull into the asphalt. It had police photos showing the injuries to GZ's face and head and explained that he wasn't charged because the evidence was consistent with his claim of shooting Martin in self-defense. After the story "Black child shot and killed for walking through a white neighborhood" started taking off, the station pulled the article from their site.

    Don't get me wrong, Zimmerman is as scummy as they come, and he made for an easy target to turn him into a "bad guy"! But he didn't deserve to be killed by Martin and had every right to save his own life. You have the national press that created it's own account of what occurred based loosely on the actual events. Like NBC's editing of the 911 call George Zimmerman made so that you don't hear him being asked direct questions. The result is a recording that makes it seem like GZ was saying that the person he was reporting was suspicious because he was brown skinned and wearing a hoodie; never realizing that GZ is actually answering questions.

    The reporting of Eric Garner's death and Michael Brown's shooting were just as bad. The fact is that our police in this country are extremely well trained in when the use of deadly force is necessary and when it is not. People who claim that the prosecutors let them off easy simply ignore the fact that officers have been prosecuted when the shooting was not deemed to be "justified."

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    [61] Michale,

    Yea, I know... The "deplorables"

    No, Scarecrow, you really don't know. Your brainless straw man arguments are really all you've got. You have to twist around what everybody says to get your jollies and argue stupid shit

    Ya'all have made that perfectly clear.. Ya'all don't like the cops, the soldiers, the doctors, the firefighters that are all voting for Trump...

    There's a word for that..

    It's called "bigotry"...

    Like them or not, they are going to be choosing our next President...

    And that would be President Trump...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    [66] Michale,

    Once again, I was proven right about the Charlotte shooting.. Scumbag had a gun and an arrest record a mile long....

    One of these days, my expertise and my dead-on-ballz-accurate assessments in police shootings will be acknowledged...

    Your woeful persistent neediness for attention, commendation, and deference is evident in almost every post and by nearly every measure.

    Yea, when Monkees fly outta my arse.... :^/

    As long as your head is planted firmly up in it, you are ironically your own impediment. Sad. :(

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    I agree that it was a good shoot, I do not agree with your assessment that the guy was shot for being a "scumbag". That sort of thinking had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.

    Thank you.. I am honestly surprised you chimed in and I retract and apologize my early claim that you wouldn't..

    But, to clear the record, I never claimed that Scott was shot FOR being a scumbag. He was shot because he was armed and refused to follow lawful orders...

    He's a scumbag because he is a druggie with a long history of assaults, ADWs, DUIs, etc etc..

    THAT's what makes him a scumbag...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your woeful persistent neediness for attention, commendation, and deference is evident in almost every post and by nearly every measure.

    My woeful persistent neediness for attention is far FAR surpassed by ya'all's woeful persistent neediness for dragging me down and trying to convince me (and yerselves) that I am wrong when the facts clearly show that I am right..

    Quit saying I am wrong all the time when I am right and I won't have to point out all the time why ya'all are always wrong...

    PA must really be buggin ya :D hehehehe

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Scarecrow, you really don't know. Your brainless straw man arguments are really all you've got. You have to twist around what everybody says to get your jollies and argue stupid shit

    And yet, more often than not, I am right and ya'all are wrong...

    Ya'all were wrong about Trump being the nominee and I was right..

    Ya'all were wrong about Brexit and I was right...

    So, you see, yer just pissy because you CONSTANTLY lose in our debates....

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Scarecrow, you really don't know. Your brainless straw man arguments are really all you've got. You have to twist around what everybody says to get your jollies and argue stupid shit

    And yet, more often than not, I am right and ya'all are wrong...

    Ya'all were wrong about Trump being the nominee and I was right..

    Ya'all were wrong about Brexit and I was right...

    So, you see, yer just pissy because you CONSTANTLY lose in our debates....

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Self-defense laws do not require you to try to get away from a threat to your life. The moment that you reasonably believe that your own life is in danger, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself. "Reasonably" is the key word! If someone pulls a gun on you, having to run before you can shoot in self defense would get people killed.

    There is more transparency in law enforcement today than at any other time in history! We have a media that has realized that the police are an easy target to get people riled up, especially if it has to do with the black community. I have been shocked at how our press have turned their nose up at reporting stories in an unbiased fashion. Journalistic integrity has been tossed in favor of higher ratings.

    EXACTLY....

    Ya know what's so hilarious about all this??

    I say something and get argued and debated and attacked about it for dozens of comments..

    Someone with a '-D' after their name comes along and says THE EXACT SAME THING and no one says dick about it....

    Bigotry at it's finest... :D

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wanna do a T-Shirt wager on whether Hillary shows up at the debate and makes it thru all 90 mins without a single medical issue, including a cough...?

    It would have to be more than a single cough. I mean, everybody coughs from time to time, especially when speaking for a long time, especially while recovering from a bout with walking pneumonia...

    Dunno how I missed this before..

    I agree, it would have to be more than a single cough..

    How about a coughing fit lasting more than 15secs... Granted, 15secs doesn't seem like a long time, but it's an eternity when you are having a coughing fit while trying NOT to cough...

    Trust me, I been there... :D

    In the alternative, we could set a number.. Say more than 2 instances of a 4-cough binge...

    Personally, I don't think such subtly will be required.. I think it will be completely and unequivocally obvious that Hillary has a health "episode" or incident...

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    If someone pulls a gun on you, having to run before you can shoot in self defense would get people killed.

    Word....

    That's my biggest beef with the anti-cop Weigantians we have here...

    They have absolutely NO foundation or basis in reality...

    The idea that you should let the bad guy shoot first and HOPE he misses???

    That is so far outside the realm of reality as to be in a different dimension...

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/LibertarianQn/status/779164349441175553/video/1

    And ya'all wonder why I call the ONLY Black Lives Matter thugs, 'scumbags'.... :^/

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, more often than not, I am right and ya'all are wrong...

    Ya'all were wrong about Trump being the nominee and I was right..

    Ya'all were wrong about Brexit and I was right...

    So, you see, yer just pissy because you CONSTANTLY lose in our debates....

    And ya'all were wrong about Hillary being "in perfect health"....

    Ya'all were wrong about EVERY cop shooting....

    So, when one looks objectively at the last year or so....

    Ya'all don't have a whole helluva lot of predictive credibility logged... do ya??

    But, I have to say, I admire ya'all's.... spunk......

    "I admire Klingon women.... They have such.... spunk..."
    -Mrs Q

    .....in denying what is plainly obvious and ya'all's defense of such an undeniably piss poor prediction record... :D

    "You said we did a bad job putting it together....."
    "No, I said you did a piss poor job putting it together!"

    -ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    And yet, more often than not, I am right and ya'all are wrong...

    Ya'all were wrong about Trump being the nominee and I was right..

    Ya'all were wrong about Brexit and I was right...

    So, you see, yer just pissy because you CONSTANTLY lose in our debates....

    "Pissy"? :) *big smile*

    "Our debates"? *wide grin* *LOL*

    It's extremely instructive that you think what you do here rises to the level of "debates." *LOL* You basically lump nearly everyone into the same category of "ya'all" and assign words to them that they usually never said and/or positions to them that they more often than not had never held... rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

    And you... you ACTUALLY think that this straw man routine you've got down and your cherry-picking of polls bullshit somehow qualifies as "DEBATES"?

    *LOL*

    Ya'all don't have a whole helluva lot of predictive credibility logged... do ya??

    But, I have to say, I admire ya'all's.... spunk......

    While I see no immediate need to rehash your pay-to-play role here or to repost that link of yours outlining its terms, I think it's instructive to inform you that people do at least expect a modicum of entertainment value and variety in such an arrangement versus the painfully one-note and tiresome spunk you spew daily... all your cutting and pasting and the jerking monotony.

    So mop up the floor of your drivel and spew, remove your head you have firmly planted up your own ass, let those monkeys fly out of your safe space, and call Sean Hannity!

    https://twitter.com/i/moments/780597674483576833

    Troll harder and expand your limited repertoire or I too will be inclined to ignore your soporific psycho soundalike shit. Change your channel and experiment with some new programming for heaven's sake because fall is here and winter is coming. $$$$$

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's extremely instructive that you think what you do here rises to the level of "debates.

    And it's extremely instructive that you don't..

    I get.. You get your ass kicked so often, that it's easier to take if you don't think of them as debates.. :D

    While I see no immediate need to rehash your pay-to-play role here or to repost that link of yours outlining its terms,

    But obviously you DO see the need to insult our host again...

    versus the painfully one-note and tiresome spunk you spew daily..

    And yet.. Here you are.. :D

    I get it. Yer pissy because you were wrong about Pennsylvania and now you are putting up a brave facade..

    I get it. I really do..

    I almost feel sorry for you that you have been WRONG at each and every turn.. :D

    Almost...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Troll harder and expand your limited repertoire or I too will be inclined to ignore your soporific psycho soundalike shit.

    Yea, like Neal "ignores" me, but mentions me in every other comment he makes.. :D

    Face it, Kick. You CAN'T ignore me. You know I am right and you simply HAVE to try and tear me down...

    You could no more ignore me than you could stop being a Party drone who has no individual thought and who's nose is firmly planted up Hillary's keister.... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.