ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [414] -- Special Election Edition

[ Posted Friday, November 4th, 2016 – 17:06 PDT ]

Welcome back to Friday Talking Points. We went on our annual hiatus last Friday, to bring everyone two chilling Hallowe'en nightmares, but we found that it was actually quite hard this year to come up with anything more terrifying than "the other candidate wins" -- for either side of the aisle. Such has been the 2016 election season.

However, regular readers of this column are going to have to wait yet another week for a standard Friday Talking Points offering. This week we are throwing out our format entirely, and instead providing an explanation of who we're voting for, followed by a call for reform in an effort to inject a possible silver lining to what promises to be a very contentious Election Day (no matter who wins). Yes, there will be optimism at the end of this column, specifically provided for people who are tired of the apocalyptic tone of the final pre-election week. So there's that to look forward to.

As we sat down today to write our usual talking points, we realized that it would be an almost pointless exercise. By this point, Democrats already know what to say about Donald Trump -- and they've been loudly saying so to anyone who will listen. Our attempts to add to this cacophony would be virtually meaningless now. So too would rehashing the past two weeks, since America has been breathlessly following this storyline on an almost hourly basis.

Instead, we're going to first explain who we're personally voting for, and then we're going to attempt to interject a little optimism for the near future at the end. We promise that next week we'll return to our usual format (either in triumph or in sorrow), after the election is over. And we didn't want to disappoint regular readers, so we have managed to fill roughly the same amount of pages as we normally do on Fridays (translation: get ready for an insanely long column, as always).

 

Why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton

This column has always had a rather obvious partisan bias. It's not actually in the title, but it has always been understood that these are weekly Democratic talking points, to put it another way. So it should come to no surprise to anyone that I'm voting for Hillary Clinton next Tuesday.

[Editor's note: we are eschewing our traditional use (abuse?) of the editorial "we" for the rest of this particular section, because it solely concerns one man's vote, and is not an editorial endorsement or anything.]

The choice seems pretty obvious, and can be summed up as: Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump. No matter what you think of Hillary, she is not a dangerously unstable individual with a propensity for obsessing about her enemies and wreaking vengeance. That right there is all I really needed to contemplate in order to make my choice.

Hillary Clinton might disappoint, but she probably won't launch nuclear weapons if some other country's leader personally insults her. The same cannot be said with any degree of confidence about her opponent.

Eight years ago, I voted for Barack Obama knowing full well he was going to disappoint me on at least a few issues. His craven vote on government surveillance during the 2008 campaign was an omen for how he'd govern, I thought at the time. Since then, the Obama administration has brought more criminal cases using the Espionage Act (passed during World War I) than all other presidents combined, so it looks like that was a fair assumption.

Obama has disappointed me in plenty of other ways as well, some of them quite shocking. Who would have ever expected that Obama's biggest weakness would have been his inability to communicate well -- with either the public or with members of Congress (including those from his own party)? And yet, that's exactly what happened. Obama hasn't played the Washington game very well when it comes to relations with Capitol Hill, and he has never used the "bully pulpit" anywhere near as well as some people expected him to (me included). His negotiating skills with Republicans in Congress were also atrocious, and consisted of giving away half the store before the bargaining even began. Thankfully, the radical Right shot down his most egregious giveaways to the GOP, because they wanted 100 percent of their agenda and were perfectly content to hold out on any compromise the GOP leadership came up with which fell short of their absolutist goal. This saved Social Security from drastic cuts, so it is no small thing. Obama's close ties to Wall Street were also evident from the moment he announced his economic team, and his disdain for the Left was vocally expressed by Rahm Emanuel for years. However, having said all of that, I'm pretty satisfied overall with what he's managed to accomplish. On a scale of ten, I'd give his presidency an eight or nine, personally.

My eyes are even wider open with Hillary Clinton. I know she's going to disappoint me in a number of ways. I can pretty much guarantee that her foreign policy will lead to a big disappointment, although I couldn't say where this will take place. I could easily see Clinton marching America off to a new war somewhere, just to prove she's as tough as Maggie Thatcher, for instance.

I think Hillary Clinton will be even more disappointing than Barack Obama in two big areas. I think she'll also be way too close to Wall Street -- even more so than Obama. So if she's elected, I am already prepared to cringe when I hear who her economic team will consist of. To put this another way, I don't expect Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to have a whole lot of influence on Clinton's economic agenda. The other area I fully expect Hillary to disappoint me on is bargaining with Congress. Bill Clinton had the same problem, which is where we got "end welfare as we know it" and all the rest of his dealmaking with Newt Gingrich and company. Hillary even campaigned on being "pragmatic," which I read as: "willing to give Republicans a whole lot more than they deserve when negotiating on the budget," for example.

All of that I fully expect. I suspect I am not alone in these concerns, either. Ask any Bernie Sanders primary voter, and they'll probably echo the same worries. But what may be more surprising (to a whole lot of folks) is that I also fully expect Clinton to pretty much ignore (or just give the most minimal lip service) to a long list of her campaign promises -- specifically the ones where Bernie forced her to a more progressive position.

Hillary bills herself as a politician who can "get things done," but I just don't see her fighting very hard for (to name just one) free college for all. Or doing anything more than slapping a Band-Aid on the problem of income inequality. I'd be willing to bet that at the end of her term, Warren Buffett's secretary will still pay a higher income tax rate than he does, to put this another way.

In short, I expect Hillary Clinton to become very good at explaining why the progressive agenda just isn't possible at the moment, and that she fought as hard as she knew how but it just isn't going to happen. She will toss some breadcrumbs to the Left, but they will likely be very small and miserly indeed. I also fully expect Hillary Clinton to do not much of anything that improves the lives of the millions of average Joes who voted for her. She'll become an expert at explaining why their needs are impossible to fill at the present time, because she will get so much practice at doing so.

I just re-read all of that, and it sounds a heck of a lot more like a list of reasons why not to vote for Clinton. Except, you know, for that whole "President Trump" nightmare scenario. I should really attempt to be more positive, so the following are the real reasons I am voting for Clinton (and not throwing my vote away on a write-in candidate).

The Supreme Court is first and foremost on this list. The next president (unless the Senate confirms Merrick Garland in the lame-duck session) will get to nominate a Supreme Court justice on their first day in office. I fully trust Hillary Clinton to make a much better choice than Donald Trump ever would. I even trust her to make a better choice than Obama's Merrick Garland nomination. I trust she'll nominate someone a lot younger, for one, which will bode well for the next few decades. It has already been decades since liberals had a clear majority on the Supreme Court, and I for one am ready for that to change for the better. Of course, in order to do this, Democrats also will need to win control of the Senate, otherwise Republicans will block any Clinton nominee for the next four years. But assuming Democrats do take back control, Hillary could shift the court to a 5-4 or even a 6-3 liberal majority. The older I get, the more I see the importance of the Supreme Court in actually bringing about concrete change to average Americans' lives. The power of Congress and the president actually pales in comparison to what the court can accomplish, with just one test case. Look no further than marriage equality, if you need proof of this. How long would it have realistically taken to get to where we are now, if gay marriage had been left up to the states? Twenty more years? Thirty?

So that's the biggest reason I will have to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. In a normal election cycle, it's always sort of a background issue, but not a pressing one -- because nobody knows when Supreme Court justices are going to either die or retire. This time around it is different, because not only is there an open seat, but the open seat will change the balance of power on the court -- for the first time in a very long time. I want a future with a liberal Supreme Court, and I would vote for just about any Democrat to make it a reality.

The second big reason I'm willingly voting for Hillary Clinton is that she will preserve, protect, and improve upon Barack Obama's legacy. Clinton is not going to stand for repealing Obamacare, just to state the most obvious. Clinton will not roll back any of Obama's major achievements, and she will actively seek to build upon Obama's legacy in multiple ways. In fact, I could even see Clinton being more forceful on her use of the power of the pen to reform the executive branch than Obama was. Also, I don't think Clinton will have the unrealistic expectations for bipartisanship which so hobbled Obama for his entire first term in office. Clinton knows what she can expect, and I think she'll act more decisively as a direct result.

I also trust Hillary Clinton will do the right thing in all sorts of policy areas, for the most part. Obama disappointed me, but at the same time I knew that in general he was genuinely on the right side of history (with a few very notable exceptions). I also trust Hillary in the same limited way. I think she will be an absolute champion on issues she has cared deeply about for her whole adult life (women's rights, to name the most obvious), and I think she'll be persuadable on a number of issues she has only recently gotten behind, as well. I expect incremental progress, at best (a minimum wage hike far short of $15 an hour, for instance), but progress in the right direction, at least.

Part of this is trusting that Progressives will not make the same mistake they made with Obama. The Left is not going to give Hillary Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt. They're going to bring all the pressure they are able to bear to keep her campaign promises -- even the ones Bernie forced her to make. They won't always be successful at doing so, but the Left is not just going to take a big vacation after the election's over (the way they kind of did with Obama).

While both Clintons have been living with a sort of "bunker mentality" for decades, I truly think the whole email episode has taught Hillary a lesson. I sincerely hope she's learned from her mistake. I think if the email scandal hadn't happened she would have been a lot less transparent in the White House than she will now be forced to be. All in all, I think that's a good thing.

Do I think Hillary Clinton will make mistakes as president? Yes, I do. But then I'd say that about anyone, really. Nobody's perfect. Will Hillary be hounded from her first day in office by Republicans in Congress? Yes, she will. But perhaps if both she and her husband work hard to open better lines of communication with Congress, in the end she'll be able to accomplish some things. Nowhere near what she is now promising, but a lot more than total and absolute gridlock.

If Obama's presidency rated an eight or nine from me, I think I'd be happy if Hillary Clinton left office only scoring a six or a seven. If she does the right thing more times than not, then I will not wind up regretting my vote, to put it another way. Actually, to be honest, I don't foresee anything (short of World War III breaking out over Ukraine) that could cause me to have second thoughts about voting for Clinton over the alternative. So I end where I began -- Hillary Clinton is a sane and intelligent individual. She is, in fact, the only sane and intelligent choice for president. And that's enough reason right there to vote for her. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, at the end of the day she is not Donald Trump. Case closed.

 

A bit of optimism

As promised, today we'd like to end on a somewhat positive note. It's a wonky idea, but no matter how the election comes out, we fully believe it is a possibility. So if you're tired of all the steaming piles of negativity from this election cycle, here's something to (possibly) look forward to.

Without a doubt, 2016 will go down in American history as one of the ugliest election years we've ever had. After eight years of Barack Obama, most people will be voting this time against a candidate, rather than wholeheartedly for their candidate of choice. It's impossible to even count how many traditions and norms have been tossed out the window in the wake of Donald Trump's candidacy. Will America revert back to these norms the next time around, or will the Trumpian campaign truly become he new normal? It's impossible to predict.

No matter who wins on Tuesday night, roughly half the country is going to be enraged (or just terrified) by the result. The normal feelings of defeat will be amplified beyond anything the country's seen, at least since Bush v. Gore. The invective directed towards both candidates has been downright apocalyptic, and nobody has any idea how the endgame is going to play out. Will there be violence at the polls? It's a real possibility, this time around. Will the loser graciously concede? Hard to tell. The most frightening nightmare scenario yet is that several states (enough to flip the race in the Electoral College) are so close that recounts are demanded, court cases are filed, and two such cases both make it to the Supreme Court -- which is divided 4-4, meaning they cannot issue a ruling which is binding on the entire country. It'll depend on what the appellate courts have ruled -- even if there are two rulings which contradict each other. If even the Supreme Court is powerless to step in and adjudicate the election (as they did in 2000), what happens next? Pitchforks and torches in the streets? "Nightmare scenario" doesn't adequately describe what could happen.

It's incredibly hard to paint a more optimistic outcome, but we're going to make the attempt. Because we can see a possible silver lining to how the 2016 election plays out. And this scenario could even happen no matter who wins -- which is why it's even a possibility to begin with.

This election could -- in much the same way as happened in 2000 -- put a spotlight on how antediluvian some of our election process has become. This has been exacerbated by the Supreme Court's decision a few years ago which nullified large sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's an astonishing fact, but while many rights are given an iron-clad guarantee by the United States Constitution, the right to vote is not actually among them. This is the foundation upon which a new voting rights act can be built, in a bipartisan way. Whichever party wins the White House and whichever party wins control of the houses of Congress should join together in a call to modernize and update our voting process, in every state. First and foremost among the reforms would be a clear statement in federal law that each citizen has the right to vote in federal elections. Period.

Upon this foundation, both parties could address their concerns with the voting process. Minimum federal elections standards should be clearly spelled out, forcing every state to come into compliance before the 2020 election (at the very least). The first and foremost of these should be a requirement that a paper trail be generated for each and every vote. Currently, there are still several states who cannot perform any sort of accurate recount because there simply is no paper trail for each vote. Pennsylvania is one of these. The entire election could come down to who wins in Pennsylvania. If this is the case, and if the vote is very close, there is sure to be a good deal of outrage when everyone realizes that a "recount" just means reading the totals off all the voting machines, and trusting that they're right. This is, in a word, unacceptable.

Start with a requirement that every vote be recorded on paper in some fashion, and build from there. We are halfway through the second decade of the twenty-first century, and technology exists which can solve all sorts of problems, both real and perceived. So mandate the use of such technology! Republicans have only themselves to blame for Trump's insistence that the vote will be "rigged," because they've been chasing the phantom fear of "voter fraud" for a long time now. They've instituted "voter ID" laws to counter this supposed rampant cheating, and it is sure to be a big item on the Republicans' wish list, if a new federal voting rights act is drawn up. So go one step further -- mandate some sort of biological record for registration. When you register, a thumbprint should be provided (using an electronic thumbprint reader -- this is the twenty-first century, after all), and then require thumbprints at the polls or a thumbprint on an absentee ballot. This not only removes all question of voting multiple times, it also means non-citizens will not even attempt to vote (thumbprints are already on file for all legal immigrants -- and any undocumented immigrant would be told that they would never be allowed to apply for legal residence if they ever attempt to vote illegally).

All voters should be registered automatically every time they interact with their state's motor vehicles department, unless they specifically state they don't want to be registered to vote. A few states have already passed such laws, and they have been working wonderfully. Registration rolls are up, and people's information is updated automatically (when most people move house, they'll usually update their drivers' license or vehicle registration but many forget to update their voter registration too). Tie in the voter registration rolls to death records as well -- so that anyone who dies is automatically removed from the voter rolls. This stuff ain't rocket science, it just involves modernizing each state's computer networks.

Speaking of computers, federal law should dictate that no voting machine anywhere be plugged into the internet at any time. None. Ever. Votes from each machine should be recorded locally, and then phoned in to the state capitol. This precludes any and all attempts to hack voting machines via the internet, permanently. It's a pathetically easy fix to make, in fact.

A new federal voting right act should also mandate that absentee ballots are each citizen's right, if they choose to vote this way -- for any reason under the sun. All they should have to do is request a mail-in ballot, and they should be automatically provided with one. It's a little-known fact (outside of such states) that many states tightly restrict who may use an absentee or mail-in ballot. In some states, the voter must actually prove they will be physically absent from their precinct on Election Day in order to qualify for an absentee ballot. This is ridiculous. It should be each and every citizen's right to make their own mind up about how they want to cast their ballot -- in person on Election Day, or sitting at home in their pajamas, a week earlier. The state should have no say in this decision whatsoever. Period.

Likewise, there should be federal standards for provisional ballots. If you show up to vote and your name (for some reason) isn't on the voter rolls, you should be able to cast a provisional ballot and then prove later on that you have indeed registered to vote. Such rules should be uniform, across all states.

Election Day needs to become Election Days. The reason we vote on Tuesdays is a historical hangover we have long since outgrown. Back in the eighteenth century, when the date was set in stone, America was rural and the fastest transportation available was the horse. Instant communications did not exist. Time have changed. The workweek has changed. There simply is no problem with farmers getting to market anymore (one big reason Tuesday was chosen). All states should be required to open polling sites on both the Saturday and the Sunday immediately preceding the traditional Tuesday. There is no reason not to expand the election in such a fashion except to make it harder for many citizens to vote. States could continue to have early voting on other days before the election, but the weekend before the traditional date would also be set in stone -- everyone should be able to vote on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday.

Polling sites should be convenient, as well. Federal minimum standards should be set which dictate the number of polling stations for all population densities. If there are X many people per square mile, then there need to be Y polling sites in that precinct. This requirement should even dictate how many polling booths are available at each site, based on population density. Take the decision for where to locate polling stations out of the hands of partisan election officials, and we will never again see 4-hour lines in precincts full of the opposite party's voters.

The right to vote should be absolute. States should be forbidden from permanently barring anyone from voting unless that person is currently in prison or on parole -- in other words, still serving out a sentence for a crime. Once the sentence is over, they should automatically be allowed to vote once again. When their debt to society has been paid, it should be paid in full. The only people who deserve to have their voting rights taken away from them forever should be people serving life sentences. Period. When a felon's time is served, they should become a full member of society again, with a vested interest in who represents them in government, and not relegated to some permanent non-represented underclass for the rest of their lives.

Some of these ideas (that last one, in particular) will generate some partisan opposition. But most of them shouldn't. Voting should be every citizen's right, and that should be guaranteed in an iron-clad federal law. State-level hanky-panky with polling sites or absentee ballots or early voting should be done away with forever. Every citizen should also be fully confident that their vote will be accurately counted, and documented on paper. They should also be confident that nobody who isn't a citizen in good standing will be able to vote, and that each citizen will only have one vote counted.

These are basic guarantees that really should already exist. For the most part, building confidence in the election process and the election's result should be wholeheartedly supported by both parties. The voting process should be easy and convenient, with as few hoops to jump through as possible. Everyone should be confident that the process is in no way "rigged" at all.

This is probably too optimistic to hope for. Partisanship will undoubtedly rear its ugly head. But it really shouldn't. If half the country is outraged over the result of an election, the obvious answer is to reform the election process so that in the future everyone will at least be confident the process is fair and transparent. The impetus for proposing legislation to guarantee this will probably come from whichever party loses next Tuesday. But even the winning party should have valid concerns over how creaky and outdated our election process as been allowed to become. If both parties come together with a list of problems they want to see fixed forever, then perhaps compromise legislation could actually be possible.

No matter which half of America is outraged at the result next Tuesday, Congress should immediately begin work on reforming the election system so that, in the future, the only outrage even possible will be over who won and who lost. There simply should not be any concerns over the voting process at all. No candidate should ever again be able to plausibly warn of a "rigged" election, period.

Ironically, the messier the results next Tuesday, the easier it might be to pass such legislation. If there are recounts and court challenges, it will only serve to expose how outdated and insufficient federal election laws have become. Government is always the last to adopt technology (because it's expensive, and often easier to use older machines), but in this case reform should be mandated by Washington no matter what the cost (the federal government should help defray such costs, it almost goes without saying). We went through a spate of such reforms after the 2000 election, and many states got rid of voting systems that didn't work very well. Unfortunately, many of them turned to paperless electronic voting as a result -- and some of these haven't changed since.

Having another close election -- one guaranteed to outrage millions -- would open the door for enacting a new voting rights act for the twenty-first century. It would be the silver lining on a very contentious race, and it would allow the losers to at least be convinced that any problems -- real or perceived -- are being addressed and dealt with before the next presidential election happens. Such an outcome would at the very least provide even the losers with some optimism for the future. No matter who wins, bipartisan legislation is going to be very tough to put together on all sorts of pressing issues. Passions are still going to run very high in Congress. But fixing the flaws in our voting system should be an opportunity for Congress to actually do some good. If both parties' concerns are addressed, it could be the biggest bipartisan reform effort undertaken in a very long time. After such a vicious election, it could indeed be the only thing that the parties could possibly agree upon. Which is why we're cautiously optimistic that some good could actually come out of the 2016 election.

-- 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

 

241 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [414] -- Special Election Edition”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    If Hillary is elected POTUS next week, then you are probably quite right that she will disappoint you on any number of very important issues - domestically and internationally - maybe more so than did President Obama.

    But, your disappointment will be misdirected if you blame her. Because it will be the congressional Republicans who prove time and time again that they care nothing about the well-being of America and Americans and everything about imposing their dangerously ill-conceived will on anyone or anything that gets in their way.

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Speaking of Obama giving away half the store when negotiating...

    "if a new federal voting rights act is drawn up. So go one step further -- mandate some sort of biological record for registration. When you register, a thumbprint should be provided (using an electronic thumbprint reader -- this is the twenty-first century, after all), and then require thumbprints at the polls or a thumbprint on an absentee ballot"

    ... here you are giving away the whole thing.

    No.
    No.
    No.

    Another layer of unnecessary complication to solve a basically nonexistent problem in a right wing authoritarian way is not an acceptable position for any sane person... even a liberal Democrat... and particularly one who claims to have a libertarian streak.

    "Some of these ideas (that last one, in particular) will generate some partisan opposition."

    Ya think?

    "But most of them shouldn't."

    The thumb print idea should.

    From an article titled "Five Disturbing Things You Didn't Know About Forensic "Science""
    by Jordan Smith 4/24/15

    "In a landmark 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, aside from DNA, there was little, if any, meaningful scientific underpinning to many of the forensic disciplines. “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis … no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” reads the report."

    It continues

    "Perhaps no area of forensics is more familiar to people — or outside DNA, more believed to be infallible — than fingerprint examination. The practice has been around for more than a century, and its ubiquity and repetition, combined with the mere passage of time, has helped to cement fingerprint matching’s reputation. The problem is that this practice, too, is an entirely subjective endeavor — and it is only recently that there has been any serious scientific inquiry into its validity. “No two prints are alike,” experts will say, but there’s no actual proof that is true.

    Importantly, fingerprints collected from crime scenes are often only partial prints, distorted, smudged, or generally “noisy,” as one group of investigators, seeking to formulate error rates for fingerprint examination, wrote last year. And that’s where problems can happen: Consider the case of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon lawyer who was falsely accused of participation in the 2004 Madrid, Spain train bombings based on a fingerprint collected from a bag containing detonation devices. The FBI later admitted it bungled the print match."

    Setting aside the fact that it's an unnecessary "fix" for a problem that doesn't occur in election outcome influencing numbers, and setting aside the problems with the unproven "science" behind the method, and setting aside the technological costs, and setting aside the technological problems that will occur in implementation by the primarily seniors who serve as volunteers at polling places, and setting aside the accuracy and technological problems for thumbprints at home on absentee or mail in ballots that would then need to be scanned and matched, and setting aside that the errors in the process will disenfranchise a further percentage of voters every election...

    ... the morality of embracing a mentality where voters are presumed guilty and need to prove their identity using a process developed to track criminals by matching to a database of every citizen's thumbprints (since the goal is to have everyone registered to vote) is not a position anybody should adopt. Left or right.

    Expanding the proof of identity requirements is a step in the wrong direction... the authoritarian direction.

    And even if all the many problems I listed could be resolved (which certainly could not happen in four years) that last barrier remains.
    99.999999% of Americans DO NOT lie about who they are in order to vote. We shouldn't treat the vast majority of our fellow citizens as lying cheaters.

    I urge you to reconsider and rescind that suggestion.

    A

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    1

    Nonsense.
    Hillary will, among other reasons, disappoint Dems by doing things Repubs want her to do... just like Obama.

    Blaming Repubs for that would be misdirection.

    A

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf

    The above is a link to a letter signed by no less than 370 economists, including eight Nobel prize winners penned in a strong effort to highlight Trump's dangerous denial of economic reality and confirm the Republicans' grip, so to speak, on their cult of economic failure.

    These economists outline why they are not voting for Trump and why no sane American should do so, either ...

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, lest anyone think that [4] misses the whole point of the Trump candidacy, that notion has become tiresome and is as ludicrous and dangerous as it was when he first announced that he was running for president.

    He has misled a lot of easily led people who want change for all the wrong reasons and who have been conned into believing that only Trump can provide what they believe the country needs.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it will be the congressional Republicans who prove time and time again that they care nothing about the well-being of America and Americans and everything about imposing their dangerously ill-conceived will on anyone or anything that gets in their way.

    Actually, Liz...

    It's ANYONE who votes for Hillary Clinton who are proving that they care nothing about the well-being of America and Americans and everything about imposing their dangerously ill-conceived will on anyone or anything that gets in their way..

    Hillary has FAILED at everything she has tried to accomplish, save one..

    Making herself filthy rich at the expense of others..

    The list is long and well documented of her crimes against the American people and the people of the world...

    Trump is by no means perfect and he might very well bring great harm to this country.

    But we KNOW that Hillary will screw this country over twenty times worse..

    And, considering all that has happened in the last week or so and all the momentum upward that Trump has and downward that Hillary has....

    The American people are coming to the same realization..

    A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the same lame economic stagnation and the same war-mongering and the same domestic surveillance abuses and the same foreign policy incompetence that has become the hallmark legacy of the Obama Administration...

    A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a CHANCE to turn this country around and to bring back morning to America...

    That is why myself and my extended family are all packing into our cars and going to vote today for Donald Trump...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    strong effort to highlight Trump's dangerous denial of economic reality

    A man who is "in dangerous denial of economic reality" would NOT be such a successful businessman..

    You see, that's the ONE thing your economists can't explain..

    If Trump is the man they want us to believe he is, how could he have been so successful??

    The answer?? Trump is NOT they man that they want us to believe he is and they are using fear-mongering to push their own agenda..

    "Simple logic"
    -Captain Spock

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al,

    ... the morality of embracing a mentality where voters are presumed guilty and need to prove their identity using a process developed to track criminals by matching to a database of every citizen's thumbprints (since the goal is to have everyone registered to vote) is not a position anybody should adopt. Left or right.

    If that's how you want to look at it, that says more about you than it does about it, eh? :D

    DNA is used to track criminals..

    It's also used to establish paternity...

    Are you saying that we should discard such a useful tool, simply because ONE use of said took involves catching criminals??

    But moving down deeper into your position, it seems that you have a problem with establishing identity..

    Why??

    Only certain people in this country are allowed to vote... What is wrong with ensuring that ONLY those certain people ARE the ones voting??

    To put your concept into a different arena, it would be as if you had a bank where you could just walk in and say, "I have a million dollars in my account. I shouldn't have to PROVE to you that I am who I say I am just to have access to MY money. My name is John Smith, here is my account number. Please give me my million dollars"

    Proof of identity is a staple of civilized life in this country...

    The *ONLY* people who object providing said proof are those who have a nefarious agenda...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The *ONLY* people who object providing said proof are those who have a nefarious agenda...

    To put that a little kinder, the only people who object to proof of identity are those with a nefarious agenda or those who live in a rose-colored utopia where everyone is excellent to each other....

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    Will America revert back to these norms the next time around, or will the Trumpian campaign truly become he new normal? It's impossible to predict.

    Somebody please tell me this simply can't be the new normal. The GOP has got to stop their deep dive into the right-wing bubble of insanity, the Trumpian fraud perpetrated by a con artist in a race to the bottom dwellers and feeders of Alex Jones conspiracy and Breitbart propaganda. When did disagreement with political policy become an exercise in demonizing your opponent and wearing clothing emblazoned with "bitch" and "pussy" and calling for your opponent's imprisonment and death?

    All politicians lie. Why so much hate toward one liar while worshipping in lockstep an even bigger liar who tells you "I will never lie to you"? Why so much hate toward a person with millions that they think is proof of corruption while praise toward a person with billions whom they believe is proof of his business acumen? One of the candidates actually is being sued by American citizens because they were screwed out of their money by Trump U, but they don't see that. One of the candidates is such a great businessman that he's filed bankruptcy multiple times, used a billion in losses to avoid paying income taxes for multiple years, and they think that's proof of his greatness. They don't care what's in his tax returns or to whom he is in debt. His opponent has released 25+ years of tax returns but is considered the one who is hiding something. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

    The fact that a television performer and pathological head case like Trump could become the nominee of a major political party in the United States highlights to me that there are either a lot more angry people than I thought or a lot more uneducated and/or gullible people. How did common sense become no longer common and common decency quickly become too PC by the party of "family values"? Why is the whiniest person I have ever seen running for the presidency considered by so many to be a strong leader? I don't see any strength whatsoever in Trump, just a lying coward who constantly complains about how he has been done wrong.

    If Trump is their "voice," then they are a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us... a loud and obnoxious 70-year-old man wearing a fake orange tan with stark white eyes and whatever that thing is on his head covering his bald spot... and whining, constantly... complaining, constantly... and tweeting, constantly like a petulant child.

    I see dead people... walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump is their "voice," then they are a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us... a loud and obnoxious 70-year-old man wearing a fake orange tan with stark white eyes and whatever that thing is on his head covering his bald spot... and whining, constantly... complaining, constantly... and tweeting, constantly like a petulant child.

    And THAT is exactly why Trump is so popular and is going to be President..

    Because the people who are anti-Trump are basically saying, "If you don't think like we do you are 'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us'.."

    It's that elitist, snot-nosed, politically correct attitude that ya'all are the "chosen" ones and those who disagree with ya'all are the un-clean, irredeemable and deplorable masses..

    It's is exactly people like that who will make Trump our next President.

    Congrats.... Ya'all have brought about the VERY thing you wanted to avoid...

    President Trump....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of the candidates actually is being sued by American citizens because they were screwed out of their money by Trump U, but they don't see that.

    No, they see that...

    They just put it in the context of the OTHER candidate who is under TWO DIFFERENT criminal FBI investigations for fraud, corruption and espionage...

    Criminal investigations that YA'ALL refuse to "see"....

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You see, that's the ONE thing your economists can't explain..If Trump is the man they want us to believe he is, how could he have been so successful??

    These economists are basing their warnings on what Trump has said, done and proposed since he announced he was running for president. His life before that doesn't really enter into their thinking and nor should it.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us'.

    And, come Weds morning, we will all see who looks stupid to whom... :D

    I imagine that Weigantia will be a ghost town then.... :^/

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    These economists are basing their warnings on what Trump has said, done and proposed since he announced he was running for president. His life before that doesn't really enter into their thinking and nor should it.

    That's ridiculous... A person's actions prior to the campaign are A HUNDRED TIMES more germane to an assessment than anything said on the campaign trail..

    Going by your guidelines, ALL of Hillary's experience means absolutely nothing in her assessment as to whether or not she will be a good President..

    Do you see wrong that is???

    My position is logical and infallible...

    If Trump were even a tenth as bad as the Left makes him out to be, he would have died in the gutter, a broke nothing a long time ago..

    The mere *fact* that he is one small step away from actually becoming President proves that those economists' assessments are solely and completely Party driven...

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, obviously, you have not had the time to peruse Trump's economic policies.

    The economists have done so and have found them severely lacking.

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Thanks to everyone for the get well wishes. I'll be in rehab for a couple more weeks. My left side is paralyzed, but don't worry about me. I'm told that I'm doing very well and I'm ornery as ever. I may be veering right at present, but I don't feel like a RW nutter yet. I'm wearing my Keep Left T-shirt.

    I normally never watch CNN, but the entertainment options here are limited. They are truly awful. I was bored out of my mind and very happy to get access to my computer again.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love your sense of humour, JFC ... I'll be thinking of you throughout the next few days ... especially as you are having to watch CNN so much.

    I know you'll get through it!

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Americans are truly ignorant. There's entirely too much emphasis on the presidency while they re-elect the same people to congress over and over. People don't really want change. They just want their team to win. USA! USA! USA!

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    And they wandered in from the city of St. John without a dime
    Wearing coats that shined both red and green
    Colors from their sunny island
    From their boats of iron they looked upon the promised land
    Where surely life was sweet

    - Steely Dan

    On Tuesday, the GOP could very well come to regret their reluctance to bail out PR. Telling Spanish-speaking Americans to speak English isn't a very good idea, either.

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Because the people who are anti-Trump are basically saying, "If you don't think like we do you are 'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us'.."

    No, I do see where you're coming from, but you are twisting my words into a straw man argument of your own making. Why would anyone expect you to think like "we do" when you can't even agree amongst yourselves? I see Trump as the imbecile and con artist and Trump's followers as his marks... and not because you don't agree with anyone's political views.

    Congrats.... Ya'all have brought about the VERY thing you wanted to avoid...

    President Trump....

    No, sorry... NOT true. You can't blame Trump on the Left. He's all a product of the right wanting to stick it to the government and their argument amongst themselves inside the GOP.

    Trump is all whine and talk with very little action backing it up. He has little GOTV and ground game... and he really pissed off Hispanics on Day 1. :)

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic Presidential Elector Says He Won't Vote For Hillary Clinton

    A Democratic presidential elector in Washington state says he will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Former Bernie Sanders delegate Robert Satiacum told ABC News Friday night that the Democratic presidential candidate's stance on the environment clashed with his Native American heritage. "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton," he told ABC News. "I will not write her name. I will not. I will not."

    The member of the Puyallup Tribe in the Evergreen State says he believes Clinton lied about using a private email server, calling it a "heinous act of stupidity."

    "She has done nothing remarkable as Secretary of State or as the senator of New York," he continued. "She's bought and paid for ... I just can't get behind her. There's no character there."

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    they look to the rest of us'.."

    No, I do see where you're coming from, but you are twisting my words into a straw man argument of your own making.

    No I am not twisting your words.. I am using your words in the EXACT context you intend..

    You blatantly state that ANYONE who supports Trump are " 'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us' "

    Your exact words, in the exact context...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Michale, obviously, you have not had the time to peruse Trump's economic policies.

    The economists have done so and have found them severely lacking.

    And you, obviously, prefer to ignore Trumps MASSIVE success in business....

    You are looking at what Trump has said..

    I am looking at what Trump has accomplished...

    In other words, I have facts and reality..

    You have theory and prognostication.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    No I am not twisting your words.. I am using your words in the EXACT context you intend..

    You blatantly state that ANYONE who supports Trump are " 'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us' "

    Your exact words, in the exact context...

    ANd, as I said, come Weds, it will be painfully (for ya'all) obvious who looks stupid and who doesn't.. :D

    The only question that remains is will ya'all hang around to concede the stupidity or will ya'all bail in embarrassment.. :D

    I know where my money is... :D

  26. [26] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump fanboy Scott Adams is ruining Dilbert for me. He's predicting an Orange Avalanche. He asserts that "facts don’t matter" (according to Ronnie Raygun "facts are stupid things") and that Donald is a better fear-monger than HilRod (clearly true). So, there you have it - the most persuasive strategy is lies and fear and the short-fingered vulgarian excels at both.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152644376081/the-persuasion-scorecard-update-one-week-out

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    How to buy a seat in congress

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/can_tennessee_s_trey_hollingsworth_buy_a_congressional_seat_in_indiana.html

    I assure you that the number of TV ads for this race is just overwhelming.

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    An insanely long FTP, but one best, as a wrap to a Presidential Election cycle should be.

    I agree almost point by point with CW's assessment of Obama's Presidency - except for the rating on a ten point scale, which I would lower to a 6, for the Charlie Brown/Lucy football effect.

    I also agree on the CW Clinton assessment, although he had me fully on board at "Not Trump."

    Still, if Clinton wins, we can still look forward to at least another 4 years of dysfunctional government. On top of 8 years during Obama's tenure. I really don't see any way any of CW's entirely rational proposals are going to happen. Unless somebody has a collection of magic wands to make up for conspicuous lack of will.

    Dysfunction is the new Federal normal. Dysfunction is not an attribute of greatness. Neither is fascism, so The Donald offers no greatness either, unless you regard fascism as great.

    Either outcome of this election is going to leave the United States deeply divided and unhappy, with a Federal Government that doesn't work. I think it past time We the People started talking about a National Divorce. Is that something we could mostly agree on? Two new North American nations divided on Blue:Red lines which would be roughly along the lines of population density. Red gets more acreage, but Blue gets more people. Federal assets like the Army, Navy, Air Force and the nukes get divided up, along with the National Debt.
    Blue gets custody of Obama Care, Red gets Something Terrific. Red kicks out all it's illegal immigrants, and there is a wave of migration between Red and Blue because there are actually a lot of Democrats in Red states, and Republican in Blue. Hey it worked it eventually worked for India and Pakistan, after a few hiccups and short wars.

    What about D.C. you ask? It becomes the North American Vatican City, housing the Monuments, The Smithsonian and National Zoo (the one with the animals, not the one with Congress People).

    Am kidding? Just barely. The US Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." Does that phrase make any sense these days?

    Maybe an intermediate step We The People should consider is a scaled up version of couples therapy. Liz, do think you could ask Canada to step up to that role.

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Speaking of lies, Trump is accusing BHO of screaming at some protester who showed up at his rally. This is clearly not what happened, but to poorly-educated Trumpthugs who live in Trump's double-bubble, I suppose that the English language can be challenging, so they'll probably believe their dear leader.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Am kidding? Just barely. The US Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." Does that phrase make any sense these days?

    We'll find out once Trump is elected and ya'all accept that...

    Maybe an intermediate step We The People should consider is a scaled up version of couples therapy. Liz, do think you could ask Canada to step up to that role.

    I think a better first step would be that ya'all admit you COULD be wrong....

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    No I am not twisting your words.. I am using your words in the EXACT context you intend..

    You blatantly state that ANYONE who supports Trump are " 'a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us'

    You don't get to decide my context. I said... quote:

    If Trump is their "voice," then they are a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us... a loud and obnoxious 70-year-old man wearing a fake orange tan with stark white eyes and whatever that thing is on his head covering his bald spot... and whining, constantly... complaining, constantly... and tweeting, constantly like a petulant child.

    I don't think Trump represents them at all because I see Trump as that description... Trump is not their voice; he is an imbecile and con artist. He is not the voice of my brother, my grandmother, several uncles, nieces, and nephews, etc., who are all voting for Trump.

    Trump is in this for Trump and no one else. If Trump was really in it for the voters, he would have put together a GOTV and a ground game. He has no ground game, no get out the vote. He's all talk and no action, and he's really pissed off Hispanics on Day 1 and will now reap what he's sown.

    Sorry, pal. He said he would never let you down, but he lied. He said he could not be outspent because he was a billionaire and "really rich" and would fund his own campaign in the general, but he lied. He said he would contribute $100 million of his own money to his campaign, but he lied. He did take donations and made money off goofy hat sales, and then he spent his donors' money on his own properties -- but not before he raised the rates he charged. He didn't spend that donors' money on a ground game; he used it to enrich Trump. I see Trump as an "all talk and no action" type of guy. I don't see his followers that way. I see them as a group of people who believed a guy who lied to them when he said he would never let them down.

    Have a nice weekend. :)

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump is their "voice," then they are a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us... a loud and obnoxious 70-year-old man wearing a fake orange tan with stark white eyes and whatever that thing is on his head covering his bald spot... and whining, constantly... complaining, constantly... and tweeting, constantly like a petulant child.

    Trump IS their voice...

    And because you don't agree with Trump then they are "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us.."

    The elitests, snobbish politically correct types are the ones who are going to look stoopid :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think Trump represents them at all because I see Trump as that description...

    And you can't POSSIBLY concede that you could be wrong..

    And that is where your problem lies.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, pal. He said he would never let you down, but he lied. He said he could not be outspent because he was a billionaire and "really rich" and would fund his own campaign in the general, but he lied. He said he would contribute $100 million of his own money to his campaign, but he lied. He did take donations and made money off goofy hat sales, and then he spent his donors' money on his own properties -- but not before he raised the rates he charged. He didn't spend that donors' money on a ground game; he used it to enrich Trump. I see Trump as an "all talk and no action" type of guy. I don't see his followers that way. I see them as a group of people who believed a guy who lied to them when he said he would never let them down.

    And Hillary has never lied to her people???

    You can't see it because you are enslaved by Party ideology but you are actually describing ya'all's relationship with Hillary Clinton...

    It's actually quite hilarious... :D

    So, are you going to stick around Tuesday night when it's clear that Hillary is going to be stomped?? :D

    A simple yes or no is all that is required... :D

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You really should take a look at Trump's economic policies.

    That is a little joke.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we did it..

    As a family, we went and voted for Donald Trump... And, CW, you'll probably never believe it, but I voted for medical marijuana... :D

    I also voted for Betina L. Worley for United States Senator... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really should take a look at Trump's economic policies.

    That is a little joke.

    I get that.. :D

    But seriously, it doesn't matter WHAT Trump's policies are...

    They are NOT Clinton/Obama policies and THAT is the only thing that is important...

    Because over 80% of Americans don't WANT Obama's policies to continue...

    That is really what it all boils down to...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really should take a look at Trump's economic policies.

    That is a little joke.

    I get that.. :D

    But seriously, it doesn't matter WHAT Trump's policies are...

    They are NOT Clinton/Obama policies and THAT is the only thing that is important...

    Because over 80% of Americans don't WANT Obama's policies to continue...

    That is really what it all boils down to...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The rapper repeatedly used the n-word and dropped the f-bomb as he performed “FuckWithMeYouKnowIGotIt” and his hit “Dirt off Your Shoulder” song at a Cleveland rally.

    “You’re tuned into the motherfucking greatest,” a voice said as Jay Z appeared onstage.

    “If you feelin’ like a pimp nigger, go and brush your shoulders off,” Jay Z rapped. “Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off. Nigger is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you. Get that dirt off your shoulders.”

    Jay Z also performed the song “Jigga My Nigger,” in which he boasted that he was “Jay-Z, motherfucker!”
    -JayZ At Hillary Clinton Rally

    "When they go low, we go high"
    -Michelle Obama

    Yea, everyday Americans LOVE what Hillary stands for.. :^/

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump +5
    http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

    Weren't ya'all quotin' the LA TIMES poll when it was all tied up?? :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: #39

    I mean, honestly... How can ANYONE here defend, either by commission or omission, that kind of gross and perverse garbage???

    Is this TRULY the kind of person you want as President???

    It's mind boggling...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why it's always so easy to win debates around here.. Ya'all want to pin every imaginary slight on anyone with a red hat, yet when Hillary supporters do some really evil, nasty and perverse shit, ya'all clam up and no one wants to go on record...

    In short, ya'all want Trump to own every little real or imagined slight no matter how small or irrelevant, but want Hillary held blameless for the fire-bombings and the assaults and the attacks and the violence and all the rest..

    Guess what? AIN'T gonna happen.... :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You like to talk economics... I have a proposal for ya..

    I want to propose a scenario that is somewhat outlandish but it has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat... Left v Right will NOT be debated in any way, shape or form.. As far as this discussion is concerned there is no such person as Trump or Clinton and there is no presidential election in existence..

    To whit, I propose an invention that becomes mainstream and I would like to discuss and debate the socio-economic consequences of this invention...

    This wouldn't be an exclusive discussion/debate.. Anyone can join in as long as the No Politics/No Left V Right/No Democrat V Republican/No Trump V Clinton rule is followed...

    You game??? :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Surge Freakout: More Violence Against Supporters
    As Election Day nears and the GOP nominee rises, attacks on his backers, signs and buildings are escalating

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-surge-freakout-anti-trump-violence-growing-rapidly/

    Ya see the facts???

    Violence and assaults and attacks and vandalism against Trump supporters are perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

    After all, they are only "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of" the snobby politically correct elitists...

    If there is a flaw in my logic, by all means...

    "I am all ears..."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Elections..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale: JayZ is an entertainer, known for his 'blue' lyrics. Holding Hillary responsible for JayZ's songs is like holding Reagan responsible for Don Rickles' jokes. Listen to Limbaugh, because he got it (accidentally) right: the key is consent. JayZ's songs weren't broadcast, and his audience knew what to expect (as Rickles' audiences did).

    CW wrote: "The most frightening nightmare scenario yet is that several states (enough to flip the race in the Electoral College) are so close that recounts are demanded.."

    You're absolutely right. I think that the kicking of feet is a certainty. This is the best argument to give to those Democrats who think that their votes don't matter because they're in states that are 'safe' for Hillary: if she wins, but by only a small margin, the rancor of the election will look like a warm-up act. Do you want four years of THIS? No? Vote.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's your invention, Michale?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let me leave you with one final thought...

    A baby's laughter is one of the most beautiful sounds you will ever hear....

    Unless it's 3am, you're home alone and you don't have a baby...

    :D

    Ni all

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    OK, I caught this as I was putting some of my wife's coupon on my computer as a reminder..

    Give me a sec and I'll lay it out...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: JayZ is an entertainer, known for his 'blue' lyrics. Holding Hillary responsible for JayZ's songs is like holding Reagan responsible for Don Rickles' jokes. Listen to Limbaugh, because he got it (accidentally) right: the key is consent. JayZ's songs weren't broadcast, and his audience knew what to expect (as Rickles' audiences did).

    The fact that Hillary finds JayZ lyrics entertaining is EXACTLY why Hillary would not make a good President...

    ANYONE who would find JayZ's lyrics entertaining is a cretin and is a complete waste of skin...

    Maybe YOU find such misogny and brutality and sexism "entertaining"...

    No decent civilized person would..

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [44]: If there is a flaw in my logic, by all means...

    since you asked nicely..

    Violence and assaults and attacks and vandalism against Trump supporters are perfectly acceptable to ya'all..

    Nope. Wrong. I'm completely against violence and vandalism perpetrated by either side.

    After all, they are only "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of" the snobby politically correct elitists...

    There you go again - demeaning hard working folks who succeeded in the only true meritocracy left in this society: the education system, have been saddled with an insane amount of debt as a result, and who you apparently believe should be derided for having the intelligence and decency to choose science and culture over chaos and superstition. Does having faith in one's cultural and intellectual decisions now qualify someone as 'snobby'?

    The right has a lot of gall to assert that casual misogyny, racism, bigotry and authoritarianism is superior because it's culturally authentic. Now it's unreconstructed white men who should be viewed as 'noble savages'? Bullshit. It's regressive, and should be recognized for what it is.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here is my invention...

    It's a device that plugs into your wall about the size of a wallet....

    Once plugged in, it co-opts the totality of the power connections to your residence or business and creates a subspace link that provides unlimited power. In essence, power from sub-space.. Think ZPM (Zero Point Module) from Stargate Atlantis...

    But this device does more... It links your home to a firmware based "website".... From this website, you can control all aspects of your home up to, and including the type of things around your house..

    You don't want roaches?? CLick the box and all roaches are eliminated..

    You don't like snakes or rodents? Click the box and they are gone...

    A further aspect of this device provides a structural integrity field that strengthens the foundations and supports of your residence/business..

    Finally, within this device are millions of nanites that auto-repair your dwelling.. A baseball thru the window?? Nanites go to work and repair the damage... A hurricane so strong it over comes the afore mentioned SIF and rips off your roof?? Nanites go to work..

    You can also log into the afore mentioned web site and instruct the nanites to create additions.. Need a bigger office??? Want a pool??? Let the nanites do the work...

    I am curious as to what forms of economic upheaval you could postulate...

    Power companies alone would be out of business..

    Construction companies would be decimated...

    I am sincerely interested in what you think...

    As you can guess, the doctor has me on some pretty incredible meds... :D

    I'll touch bases in the morning...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here is my invention...

    It's a device that plugs into your wall about the size of a wallet....

    Once plugged in, it co-opts the totality of the power connections to your residence or business and creates a subspace link that provides unlimited power. In essence, power from sub-space.. Think ZPM (Zero Point Module) from Stargate Atlantis...

    But this device does more... It links your home to a firmware based "website".... From this website, you can control all aspects of your home up to, and including the type of things around your house..

    You don't want roaches?? CLick the box and all roaches are eliminated..

    You don't like snakes or rodents? Click the box and they are gone...

    A further aspect of this device provides a structural integrity field that strengthens the foundations and supports of your residence/business..

    Finally, within this device are millions of nanites that auto-repair your dwelling.. A baseball thru the window?? Nanites go to work and repair the damage... A hurricane so strong it over comes the afore mentioned SIF and rips off your roof?? Nanites go to work..

    You can also log into the afore mentioned web site and instruct the nanites to create additions.. Need a bigger office??? Want a pool??? Let the nanites do the work...

    I am curious as to what forms of economic upheaval you could postulate...

    Power companies alone would be out of business..

    Construction companies would be decimated...

    I am sincerely interested in what you think...

    As you can guess, the doctor has me on some pretty incredible meds... :D

    I'll touch bases in the morning...

  53. [53] 
    TheStig wrote:

    If you are a Democrat and feeling a bit nervous, what with all the polling mumbo jumbo from talking heads and just two days until Tuesday, I suggest reading the following (it's short):

    http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/11/possible-polling-error/

    Nate Silver's methodology is flawed (see point 8).

    2016 is ending a lot like 2012. Very good news for Clinton.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That boggles my mind, Michale ...

  55. [55] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    8

    Banks don't require fingerprints for withdrawals.
    Nobody has robbed any elections through identity fraud.
    And paranoia isn't a good justification for any policy.

    A thumb print may be a tool with other uses, but there's no need for a backhoe when planting a tulip.

    I think you need stronger meds... but that's just for my sake.

    A

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Maybe YOU find such misogny and brutality and sexism "entertaining"...No decent civilized person would..

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-men-are-trained-to-think-sexual-assault-no-big-deal/

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Interesting. Taking off on a comment that Michael Moore just made, that if the Democrats can take back the Senate, then Bernie Sanders would become the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Considering that any proposed budget that originates in the House would be more than likely based on Speaker Ryan's (already written) budget, that would pit an avowed Libertarian (Ryan) against an avowed Socialist (Sanders) for control of the US Budget.

    Imagine that.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Yea, everyday Americans LOVE what Hillary stands for.. :^/

    I promise not to vote for Jay Z or a candidate who uses such language... #hypocrisy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBLv6rmnYf4

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    And you can't POSSIBLY concede that you could be wrong..

    And that is where your problem lies.. :D

    Your peevish neediness is again duly noted. :) *LOL*

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Nope. Wrong. I'm completely against violence and vandalism perpetrated by either side.

    The facts say otherwise..

    here you go again - demeaning hard working folks who succeeded in the only true meritocracy left in this society:

    Those weren't my words......

    Those were the words of a Left Winger...

    Those are the words of the entire Left Wingery...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I promise not to vote for Jay Z or a candidate who uses such language... #hypocrisy

    Yet, you DO support a candidate who DOES support people who use such language..

    Same difference...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Banks don't require fingerprints for withdrawals.

    You haven't been to a bank recently..

    Banks DO, in fact, require thumbprints for certain withdrawals and transactions..

    Nobody has robbed any elections through identity fraud.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

    Plenty of fraud has been uncovered... For every one fraud uncovered, the law of averages assure us that hundreds, if not thousands, go unnoticed...

    A thumb print may be a tool with other uses, but there's no need for a backhoe when planting a tulip.

    Depends on the size or the quantity of the tulips.. :D

    I think you need stronger meds... but that's just for my sake.

    I'll advise my doctor.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    That boggles my mind, Michale ...

    Doesn't it!?

    Imagine the society where such an invention was common place...

    Imagine how far such an invention would reach into the very fabric of our society...

    I just thought it might be a fun aspect to discuss to distract from all the acrimony and name-calling of the POTUS election...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nate Silver's methodology is flawed (see point 8).

    Of course it is. Because NOW Silver is saying things ya'all don't like to hear... :^/

    When Silver was saying what ya wanted to hear, he was the cat's meow... :D

    Just like Comey was the Democrat hero when he chose not to indict Hillary..

    He became Pelligrino-incarnate when he re-opened the criminal case against Hillary..

    It used to be ya'all would try to spin or hide the blatant hypocrisy...

    Now ya'all gleefully wallow in it... :^/

    I miss the good old days....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    here you go again - demeaning hard working folks who succeeded in the only true meritocracy left in this society:

    Those weren't my words......

    Those were the words of a Left Winger...

    Those are the words of the entire Left Wingery...

    You remember, right?? The "deplorables"?? The "irredeemables"??

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let these words sink in..

    Ya'all are supporting a candidate who has TWO Federal Criminal Investigations going on against her.. Criminal investigations ordered by a DEMOCRAT chosen FBI leader..

    And THAT is who you are voting for???

    Boggling.... Simply mind boggling....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Nope. Wrong. I'm completely against violence and vandalism perpetrated by either side.

    The facts say otherwise..

    Another Hillary supporter rushed the stage and tried to attack Trump...

    The condemnation from the Left and Weigantians???

    {{cchhhiiirrrrrrpppppp}} {{chiiirrrrrrpppppp}}

    Non existent...

    So, the facts CLEARLY show that you support, either by omission or commission, attacks and violence against Trump and his supporters....

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:


    THREE PEOPLE Line Up to See TIM KAINE in Florida (Photos)

    Jim Hoft Nov 5th, 2016 3:47 pm Leave a Comment

    Fired up. Ready to go.
    Three people… One… Two… Three…
    To see Tim Kaine in Fort Myers, Florida.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/three-people-line-see-tim-kaine-florida-photos/

    Hehehehehehehehe

    Florida is Trump's My entire family just made sure of it.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are a Democrat and feeling a bit nervous, what with all the polling mumbo jumbo from talking heads and just two days until Tuesday, I suggest reading the following (it's short):

    TRANSLATION: Here is some propaganda that is total BS, but will help you avoid facing reality and live in denial just a little bit longer....

    :D

    I tell ya, the Weigantian AA reports of this entire campaign is going to last weeks!!!!

    Good thing the fund raiser is just over the horizon!! :D

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's still anybody's ballgame.

    nate silver says the odds are about 66-34 in favor of hillary, which jibes with my (admittedly biased) impression. silver puts the odds for which way nevada, north carolina and florida will turn as all within less than a single percentage point. donald needs all three plus one more state (probably new hampshire) to take the electoral college. it's a big ask, but far from impossible.

    JL

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael

    I'll visit the bubble of reality that you choose to live in and assume Trump is going to be our President. Whoops, the power just went out. Crazy! Anyway, I am curious, just how soon after Trump gets elected do you think it will take before Republicans start impeachment hearings against him? Do you think they ever intended to let him be in charge? Trump University alone will be enough to do the job, but they also have his non-profit paying off his legal fees and also his donating to Florida's Attorney General right before she announced she wouldn't go after Trump University. I guess she knew Trump was well known for not paying people he owes and demanded the gift up front.
    I gotta get out of this bubble, I just saw Barney Fife arresting Otis, so you know it won't be long until Black and White TV Matters members show up to protest!

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, would your invention be able to deliver me a couple or three week vacation in Hawai'i? That's all I need to know.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm very worried about you. I think you're going to be all in for a very, very huge disappointment.

    I mean, I don't think Trump is going to be the president you want him to be ...

    Actually, disappointment is not a strong enough word for it, I'm afraid to warn you.

    I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious, here ...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm very worried about you. I think you're going to be all in for a very, very huge disappointment.

    Actually, I feel the same about most of ya'all.. The vehement hatred that many here have for Trump supporters.. It's going to manifest itself in violent ways when Trump becomes President...

    I mean, I don't think Trump is going to be the president you want him to be ...

    Oh, on that you needn't worry at all... I have no expectations for a Trump presidency beyond the fact that it will be INFINITELY better than a Clinton presidency...

    I readily acknowledge that a Trump presidency might be a disaster of EPIC proportions...

    But even a disaster of EPIC proportions is 20 times better than the kind of Presidency Clinton would have....

    I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious, here ...

    I know you are and it is appreciated.. I also, am being completely serious. Over 80% of Americans want a new direction for this country..

    Hillary Clinton's presidency doesn't provide that..

    Trump's presidency will..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, would your invention be able to deliver me a couple or three week vacation in Hawai'i? That's all I need to know.

    Well, being that we're talking nanites, it WOULD be able to convert the environment of your property TO Hawaii.... :D

    Howz that :D

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That'll do.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, I think Hillary WILL provide enough of a change of direction for most Americans. They just may not realize that ... yet.

    If she is elected, Michale, will you at least give her a chance to demonstrate change, unlike congressional republicans who have doubled down on their pledge originally directed toward President Obama - within the hour of his inauguration, no less.

    Of course, I pledge to do the very same if it's President Trump.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, I pledge to give him a chance ...

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... and, I'll bet that congressional Democrats will as well.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I'll visit the bubble of reality that you choose to live in and assume Trump is going to be our President. Whoops, the power just went out. Crazy!

    hehehehehehe :D

    Anyway, I am curious, just how soon after Trump gets elected do you think it will take before Republicans start impeachment hearings against him?

    For what???

    Do you think they ever intended to let him be in charge? Trump University alone will be enough to do the job,

    Trump University is a civil matter....

    When it comes to criminal matters, Trump is nothing compared to Hillary...

    If you would apply the same standards, that is...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If she is elected, Michale, will you at least give her a chance to demonstrate change,

    Absolutely...

    To be clear, I pledge to give him a chance ...

    I have no doubt you will...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if we believe donald doesn't have a chance to win, we're deluding ourselves. he learned effective propaganda by reading hitler's speeches. he owned and kept a book of hitler's speeches, a fact even donald himself has acknowledged.

    that doesn't make him hitler, any more than it did john gill, the well-meaning copycat in the star trek episode "patterns of force," who tried to save a society by recreating a more benign version of nazi germany. but the tools of fascism by their nature can never be benign, and consume all who attempt to wield them. however well meaning donald's use of those strategies may be, his doing so is dangerous, and will become even more dangerous if he is elected president.

    in all seriousness, i am afraid. and i think i have every reason to be.

    JL

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This pretty much says it all..

    The problem with Donald Trump is: We don’t know which of the characters he has created he would bring to the Oval Office.

    The trouble with Hillary Clinton is: We do know. Nobody gets less paranoid in the White House.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/the-end-is-nigh.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

    Donald Trump MIGHT be a disaster...

    Hillary Clinton WILL be a disaster...

    I would rather roll the dice...

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I disagree.

    Michale, do you think Hillary should be locked up?

  85. [85] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And you, obviously, prefer to ignore Trumps MASSIVE success in business...."

    Again, I have to ask you, what MASSIVE success in business??? Are you really that delusional??? The multiple times he has gone bankrupt?? All of his real estate dealings that have failed?? There is not ONE of his Atlantic City properties or hotel casinos that still exists. All of his branded items that have not survived and disappeared, like Trump steaks and Trump airlines?? Yet this man is a success, really???

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    however well meaning donald's use of those strategies may be, his doing so is dangerous, and will become even more dangerous if he is elected president.

    He MAY become more dangerous, if he is elected president..

    I am sure you would agree that there is a far far HUGE leap from lifting a moving nationalistic speech to overseeing the extermination of 6 million men, women and children...

    That's what causes me to shake my head sadly when Clintonistas say, "Trump is easy to provoke on Twitter so we must keep him away from nuclear launch codes!!!"...

    Obviously, in THEIR world, lashing out with a twit is the EXACT SAME THING as launching nuclear weapons designed to kill millions.. :^/

    This is EXACTLY why it's impossible to take such claims seriously.. They lack ANY semblance of logic or rational thought and are nothing but fear-mongering hysteria....

  87. [87] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I know where my money is... :D"

    Down a rat hole? :-D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    I disagree.

    Michale, do you think Hillary should be locked up?

    It's a bona fide fact that there are HUNDREDS of people who have committed identical offenses of less magnitude that Hillary has who are serving time in prison....

    I think she should be put on trial before a jury of her peers and have all the evidence and facts presented and, if she is found NOT GUILTY, I will accept that...

    So, I would want her locked up ONLY if she is found guilty..

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's the thing, Michale ... Hillary could be a good president if she changes her standard operating procedures.

    Because, I do agree with Dowd when she writes that you don't get less paranoid once you're in the WH, especially given that congressional republicans are going to give her quite a lot to be actually paranoid about ...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I know where my money is... :D"

    Down a rat hole? :-D

    Actually, paying for my surgeon's vacation, but why quibble? :D heh

    To be fair, JohnM, I count you as one of the few who WILL still be around even if Hillary loses....

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you think she might be found guilty of?

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the thing, Michale ... Hillary could be a good president if she changes her standard operating procedures.

    I completely, unequivocally and 10000% agree with that statement...

    Where we (maybe) differ is in the opinion that she CAN change...

    I don't think she can and there is ample evidence to support that conclusion....

    Because, I do agree with Dowd when she writes that you don't get less paranoid once you're in the WH, especially given that congressional republicans are going to give her quite a lot to be actually paranoid about ...

    True, but to be absolutely fair, Hillary has given congressional republicans plenty of ammunition......

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, she certainly has brought a lot of this on herself - of course, her husband hasn't been much of an asset, either.

    But, I still don't understand where all the "lock her up" vitriol comes from??

    What criminal acts do they think she committed?

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you think she might be found guilty of?

    First off I don't think she SHOULD be found guilty unless it's proven she IS guilty in a court of law..

    But she SHOULD be tried for Violations of the Espionage Act as it pertains to responsibility to safeguard classified material for starters... Public Corruption for her Pay For Play actions of the Clinton Foundation...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I still don't understand where all the "lock her up" vitriol comes from??

    The same place that "deplorables", "irredeemables", "racists", comes from...

    Campaign hyperbole...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I thought that the FBI conducted a pretty thorough investigation into her email server and whether or not she acted in a criminal manner with respect to classified information and then, based on that investigation, recommended no charges be filed.

    So, I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't have faith in that FBI investigation and that more investigations should be conducted until charges are recommended so that we can have a verdict one way or the other??? Is that what you're saying?

  97. [97] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Finally, within this device are millions of nanites that auto-repair your dwelling.. A baseball thru the window?? Nanites go to work and repair the damage... A hurricane so strong it over comes the afore mentioned SIF and rips off your roof?? Nanites go to work.."

    But where would the nanites get their raw material from??? They still have to get it from somewhere....

    How about something that's actually happened in the real world? Not exactly an invention per se, but still a real technological advance. Recently a baby was conceived that had three biological parents. DNA from two women and one man. One woman had damaged DNA so some of her DNA was replaced from that of a donor woman. So the baby has in effect, 3 biological parents. What are the implications? For example, using stem cells and DNA, it would be possible for two men to be biological parents of a baby, without any biological DNA contribution from a woman at all. There are any other possible number of scenarios that you can think of...

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Hillary is elected, will you be tirelessly calling for more investigations related to her email server and her "pay for play" CF allegations?

  99. [99] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "To be fair, JohnM, I count you as one of the few who WILL still be around even if Hillary loses...."

    Thank you Michale, I will indeed. But if I really thought Trump had a real chance of winning, I would have said so long ago. He may indeed come close, but sorry, I just don't see Trump winning as happening.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey Michale!

    Have you seen this?
    https://www.bleachbit.org/

    :-)

  101. [101] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW, Altohone

    On Electronic Thumbprint Readers:

    Are any states actually using thumb readers?

    I've experienced signing in and out with 3 different automated thumb print systems. All of them generated a high percentage of false rejections. It often took two or three tries, and not uncommonly, it took some finger cleaning, or cleaning of the sensor window to get a pass. Oils and dirt play havoc with these machines.

    If you want slow moving, long lines, add a thumb print reader to the system.

    Another consideration. It would be a big deal to digitize all the thumbs...which in my experience is not exactly fast and reliable either.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't have faith in that FBI investigation and that more investigations should be conducted until charges are recommended so that we can have a verdict one way or the other??? Is that what you're saying?

    Nearly a three quarters of a million NEW emails from Hillary's server has been discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop....

    The FBI investigation of violations of the Espionage Act is incomplete...

  103. [103] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    100

    Exactly.
    The technological problems would be a nightmare at both the polling locations and even more so for the absentee and mail-in ballots where presumably people would be using ink pads at home (unless millions of scanners are mailed out and installed correctly)... and then every absentee and mail-in ballot would need to be scanned for comparison before being counted.

    Everybody would have to re-register just to create the database...

    Millions of additional problems for a system already plagued with problems to address a crime that isn't occurring makes CW's idea absolutely crazy.

    I suppose the government could guarantee as a right and provide every citizen a computer or phone with a built in scanner and internet access (like the wingnuts would go for that) to vote electronically, but that would create a whole host of new issues in an age where everything can be hacked (and would clearly violate CW's paper trail requirement)... or they could outlaw absentee and mail-in ballots and make participation even more difficult...

    I just don't see any viable method of implementation, there's no evidence of a need for it, and Big Brother is big enough.

    A

  104. [104] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    62

    You've obviously have never planted a tulip.

    And my bank has never required a thumb print for anything.

    A

  105. [105] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    82

    Mussolini said that fascism should actually be called corporatism... a merging of big business and the state.

    The point being, don't let concern about Trump let you miss the reality of our current system... that very merging occurring with the full support of the Democrats too.

    A

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hao Lee had taken his 2-year-old son fishing on what seemed like a beautiful November afternoon. He parked his white Dodge Ram truck along Garden Highway near Elverta Road. The back bumper sporting a pair of Donald Trump stickers.

    "About a couple hours into fishing I heard someone yelling out 'F' Trump," recalled Lee.

    Lee and his son were only about 50 yards from where his truck was parked, near the edge of the river.

    Their peaceful fishing trip was about to take an abrupt and scary turn.
    http://fox40.com/2016/11/03/trump-supporters-truck-torched/

    And the condemnation from the Left??

    {{chhhiiirrrrpppppp}}} {{{ccchhhhiiiirrrrpppp}}}}

    They are only "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us."

    Who cares what happens to them, right??

  107. [107] 
    altohone wrote:

    whoops
    103

    You obviously have never... or you've obviously never.

    One or the other but not both.

    A

  108. [108] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    92

    The better question is-

    Will you be calling for Hillary's prosecution if she commits a war crime in Syria or elsewhere?

    Personally, I think her evasion of government transparency laws was criminal, and I think her pay to play corruption is criminal too, but I suspect neither can be successfully prosecuted due to the corrupted nature of our judicial system.

    So, violations of international laws from treaties duly signed and ratified... will you speak out?

    A one way ticket to the Hague?

    A

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    And my bank has never required a thumb print for anything.

    And if YOU were the entirety of the country, then you would have a point... :D

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I have spoken out when the US government has engaged in war crimes and had hoped that there would be some accountability.

    I would speak similarly if that happened again.

  111. [111] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- "Speaking of computers, federal law should dictate that no voting machine anywhere be plugged into the internet at any time."

    I'm not all that familiar with the ins and outs of computer hardware and software (Like automobiles, I just use 'em, don't fix 'em), but I think that:

    federal law should dictate that all voting machine architecture only incorporate firmware. No other computer should be able to access the memory of the voting machine, because you can never be sure where that computer has been, and what malware it might be carrying.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you Michale, I will indeed. But if I really thought Trump had a real chance of winning, I would have said so long ago. He may indeed come close, but sorry, I just don't see Trump winning as happening.

    I'll be around as well and we can celebrate the winner and the loser together.. :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A one way ticket to the Hague?

    Only if GWB administration officials lead the way. :)

  114. [114] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Pop Quiz: Between Hillary's server, the FBI, the State Dept and the Defense Department, which was never hacked by the Russians?

    Answer: Hillary. Had she been hacked, we'd have seen ALL of her emails by now.

    Q: Of Hillary, Dick Cheney and Jason Chaffetz, which has not been called out for publicly disclosing classified information?

    A: Hillary again. Cheney leaked the secret identity of a CIA officer, and Chaffetz revealed classified information about the CIA in open hearings - twice.

    The hypocrisy of the right has no limitation.

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think hypocrisy is the wrong word for it.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Answer: Hillary. Had she been hacked, we'd have seen ALL of her emails by now.

    illogical fallacy...

    You want to believe it, so it's true..

    That's the problem with how the majority of ya'all think..

    You THINK, therefore it is....

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    The NICE thing about all of this is it will all be over in about 72 hours...

    And then the REAL fun begins :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-death-of-elitism/article/2606518

    I find it fascinating that it's ya'all that are on the side of elitism....

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    illogical fallacy..

    Actually, it's quite logical to assume, based on their past actions and present motivations, that if either Putin or Wikileaks had her emails, they'd have dumped them by now, or have you not noticed the tsunami of John Podesta's shopping lists that we've been reading lately?

    In fact, the most revealing part of Comey's "We've got Nuthin'" press conference was the part where he said that no evidence could be found that her email server had been hacked at all. Given that they're openly hostile to her, I'll take their word on that.

    Of course, the Right has plowed right along as if, instead of her having been cleared of all charges by multiple congressional committees and the top law enforcement officials in the country, she was instead staring into the abyss, facing a life of orange pantsuits. Bret Baier said as much the other night, then had to take it back, because it's Nonsense.

    The emails found on HA's laptop aren't likely to yield anything, and even Comey went out of his way to say so in his letter. Most were cc'd to her account, and landed there, so exist on the State Department server. Emails between her and Hillary would have been found on Hillary's server, or of a personal nature, and therefore void of anything related to work. Titillating, but not classified.

    And the kicker: even if classified document was ever found among Huma's email stash, you'd have to then prove intent, which the FBI has already said it can not do.

    So face it, Hillary's emails don't mean shit.

    The smart guys in DC know this: they're jerking your chain, trying to make folks like you care enough about it to go out and vote for them or their sponsors, so that they can stick around in DC for a few years more. It's a mirage they've conjured to keep you crawling forward in the desert, and that's all it is.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the kicker: even if classified document was ever found among Huma's email stash, you'd have to then prove intent, which the FBI has already said it can not do.

    No you don't..

    NOTHING in the relevant statutes says ANYTHING about intent...

    I know I won't convince you so I won't even bother trying..

    Come Weds morning, I'll have a completely irrefutable argument (hillary's loss) and that STILL won't convince you.... :D

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's still not too late for T-Shirt wagers if ya'all are really so sure of ya'all's positions.. :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    109

    Good.
    It will be nice to have the company.

    Did I miss you speaking out on Obama?

    112

    Uh, no.
    While I would still like to see prosecutions of Buchco and Obama for their war crimes, insisting that Hillary can't be prosecuted unless they are too is not legally or morally sound.
    Two (or ten) wrongs don't make a right.

    A

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    They are only "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us."

    You clearly are hung up on those words I wrote. Again, those words are how I see Trump, not his supporters.

    Enjoy repeating those words over and over and twisting them around to suit your agenda. They were meant as an insult to Trump, but it's kind of gratifying to know that I inadvertently seemed to have tweaked you... through absolutely no effort on my part whatsoever. :D

    Seriously, though. I hope that's just your meds talking and you're not really getting all wrapped up in whether Trump wins or loses. Trump is not your voice; he's a con artist and a scared whiney imbecile who has somehow convinced people he's on their side. He's not. He's in it for Trump.

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    [115] Michale,

    You want to believe it, so it's true..

    That's the problem with how the majority of ya'all think..

    You THINK, therefore it is....

    Delicious projection coming from you, snowflake. :D

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    You clearly are hung up on those words I wrote. Again, those words are how I see Trump, not his supporters.

    Nice try at back-pedaling, but how can you reconcile talking about ONE person (Trump) while using the words "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us."

    You were talking about Trump supporters. You know it. I know it.
    Everyone here knows it...

    If you want to say you were wrong to attack Trump supporters like that, fine.... Man up and say that...

    But to try and claim you were just talking about Trump is a ridiculously transparent dodge....

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    [61] Michale,

    Yet, you DO support a candidate who DOES support people who use such language..

    Same difference...

    Oh, good grief. Trump uses "such language."

    Besides, ANY candidate who supports our troops "DOES support people who use such language." :D *LOL*

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, good grief. Trump uses "such language."

    Yea???

    Prove it??

    You can't because it simply isn't factual...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, ANY candidate who supports our troops "DOES support people who use such language." :D *LOL*

    Again, prove it..

    You can't because it's 1000% self-serving bullshit...

    I know of NO US troops who would use such language talking about women or black people.....

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, in YOUR world, it's wrong for a person with an '-R' after their name to talk about grabbing pussy, but perfectly acceptable for a person with a '-D' after their name to talk about bitch-slapping ho's and pimpin' ho's and being a motherfucker, etc etc ect at a political rally...

    Your world really sucks.... :^/

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    [77-78-79] EM,

    Actually, I think Hillary WILL provide enough of a change of direction for most Americans. They just may not realize that ... yet.

    I'm one of those 80% who want change, and I totally agree. Congressional Republicans have been the majority of the problem recently, in my opinion. Congress needs to get busy doing the work of the people. Additional tax cuts for the wealthy is not exactly a top priority for the majority of Americans. :)

    I think people have no idea the damage that would follow were Trump's economic policies allowed to be implemented.

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Al ... you want to have a serious discussion about war crimes committed by the Obama administration?

    Well, then, by all means, do go ahead and outline each and every one of them for me, in detail and I will engage you in that serious discussion.

    You don't go around here dropping war crimes allegations like the falling autumn leaves and expect me to take that for a serious attempt to discuss a very serious topic. I don't have time for that.

  132. [132] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Congressional Republicans have been the majority of the problem recently, in my opinion.

    That's not an opinion, Kick. That is a fact and it began on January 20, 2009. It looks to continue for longer still.

    Frankly, it is difficult to understand how the American people have not had their fill of divided government. It is nothing short of hilarious to hear people talk about electing a Republican congress to put a "check" on a HRC administration.

    The real change will only happen when Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, given the sad state of affairs that is Republican governance.

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    [124] Michale,

    You were talking about Trump supporters. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it...

    Oh, please insult me personally some more.
    Encourage "everyone here" to weigh in too.

    Apparently, in YOUR world, it's wrong for a person with an '-R' after their name to talk about grabbing pussy, but perfectly acceptable for a person with a '-D' after their name to talk about bitch-slapping ho's and pimpin' ho's and being a motherfucker, etc etc ect at a political rally...

    Your world really sucks.... :^/

    Oh, it's simply horrendous, a real tragedy. :D

    You feel better now? :D *LOL*

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    Comey says FBI won’t recommend charges over Clinton email

    FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing all of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-won%E2%80%99t-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/ar-AAjYuAg?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That's not an opinion, Kick. That is a fact and it began on January 20, 2009. It looks to continue for longer still.

    No, it's an opinion..

    Oh, please insult me personally some more.

    Are you insulted by the fact that you attacked Trump supporters as "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us." ????

    If you are, then apologize for it..

    Oh, it's simply horrendous, a real tragedy. :D

    I agree.. A man who has THAT kind of total contempt for black Americans and women?? I agree..

    It IS horrendous...

    FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing all of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.

    Doesn't matter... It won't help Hillary's poll numbers or her chances of winning on Tuesday...

    The vast majority of Americans are simply sick and tired of her shit and they aren't going to deal with it or her anymore....

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM,

    The real change will only happen when Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, given the sad state of affairs that is Republican governance.

    Oh, I completely agree. The 2020 census is approaching, and the redistricting war is already on. Change is slow but coming... slow and steady wins the race. :D

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you talkin' to me!?

    You better revise your last comment ... and., fast!

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [136] is directed to Michale.

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Obama's close ties to Wall Street were also evident from the moment he announced his economic team, and his disdain for the Left was vocally expressed by Rahm Emanuel for years. However, having said all of that, I'm pretty satisfied overall with what he's managed to accomplish. On a scale of ten, I'd give his presidency an eight or nine, personally.

    I would suggest that the most pertinent factor here that allowed you to grade the Obama presidency with such a high mark is none other than his brilliant selection of Tim Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, the most consequential member - by far - of Obama's initial economic team.

    I wonder what would have occurred if Obama had opted for an economic team far less removed from Wall Street, given the economic situation he was handed as he entered office in January 2009.

    As for the "professional left" - a derogatory term for a group of whiney individuals that never included you - deserved a lot of the scorn they received from Obama from the moment, early in his first term, when they began their preposterous refrain that "Obama is just like Bush".

  140. [140] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Comey does a political Immelman Turn and in perfect form too! Having failed to shoot Clinton down on the first pass, he decides to reverse direction and head for safety. His big worry now is to avoid "friendly" flak on his way back to the FBI aerodrome. "Curse you Red Clinton!" he mutters.

  141. [141] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    130

    Well, I've mentioned enough here before.
    I thought you would remember.
    Whatever.

    The war in Libya that used a UN resolution for a no-fly zone to initiate a regime change war the resolution did not authorize is a war crime.

    US targeting, supplying and mid-air refueling for the Saudi led war in Yemen makes the US complicit in the war crimes that have been committed there... namely intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure.

    The US attack on the hospital in Kunduz Afghanistan was a war crime.

    US drone strikes on weddings and funerals in Pakistan are war crimes.

    Using proxy forces for an illegal regime change war in Syria is a war crime.

    The failure to prosecute those who authorized torture as US policy is abetting war crimes.

    Do you believe none of that qualifies?

    A

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you talkin' to me!?

    You better revise your last comment ... and., fast!

    Sorry, it wasn't clearer...

    Liz,

    That's not an opinion, Kick. That is a fact and it began on January 20, 2009. It looks to continue for longer still.

    No, it's an opinion..

    Kick,

    Oh, please insult me personally some more.

    Are you insulted by the fact that you attacked Trump supporters as "a bunch of scared whiney imbeciles who are completely oblivious to how stupid they look to the rest of us." ????

    If you are, then apologize for it..

    Oh, it's simply horrendous, a real tragedy. :D

    I agree.. A man who has THAT kind of total contempt for black Americans and women?? I agree..

    It IS horrendous...

    FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing all of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.

    Doesn't matter... It won't help Hillary's poll numbers or her chances of winning on Tuesday...

    The vast majority of Americans are simply sick and tired of her shit and they aren't going to deal with it or her anymore....

    Again, Liz, my apologies.. I should have been clearer...

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just don't attribute other peoples' comments to me, okay? I have enough of my own messes to clean up, after all. :)

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Next time, don't put replies to me in the same comment as replies to someone else ... it's confusing, especially when you just use my name for all of the replies ... :(

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It STILL wasn't clear...

    Liz,

    That's not an opinion, Kick. That is a fact and it began on January 20, 2009. It looks to continue for longer still.

    No, Liz. It IS an opinion..

    OK, I'm done for the night... :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Next time, don't put replies to me in the same comment as replies to someone else ... it's confusing, especially when you just use my name for all of the replies ... :(

    Normally, I don't for this exact reason..

    My sincerest apologies....

    Crashin' now...

  147. [147] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    138

    "I wonder what would have occurred if Obama had opted for an economic team far less removed from Wall Street, given the economic situation he was handed as he entered office in January 2009"

    Hundreds of bankers and hedge funders guilty of fraud would have been prosecuted and incarcerated, the guilty would not have been rewarded, several of the major financial institutions whose business models were reliant on fraud would have gone bankrupt and their valid and necessary functions would have been taken over by banking institutions who were not involved in the fraud, billions from the bailout would have allowed millions of Americans to refinance and avoid foreclosure and halted the economic collapse and massive job losses, and a massive groundswell of support for Obama the non-crony capitalist who enforces the rule of law would have prevented the Republican takeover of Congress and ensured an easy reelection victory and the passage of strict reregulation of Wall Street and the end of Too Big To Jail.

    I'm guessing you think differently?

    A

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, I do. That should be crystal clear by now after my endless comments on the subject.

  149. [149] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [139]: Best laugh I've had all day! Thank you.

    Al [146]: 2010. Yeah, I remember. The left wasn't so specific before about why they stayed home that election. Some thought it was the way the Obamacare debate was handled, and the inability to get the Democrats (particularly Obama) to stand firm on the public option.

    In any case, the result was a Tea Party landslide. This stopped the progressive agenda right in its tracks, as the House was lost to the GOP. Worse, state legislatures turned bright red at just the same moment that states were re-drawing their voting districts, and the result was a republican-gerrymandered map that led, for instance, to Democrats getting the majority of votes cast, and still losing elections in some states. Since gerrymandering affects local races the most, the group most adversely affected were left-leaning candidates, since in many districts the only path to victory for a Democrat was to move to the right.

    So I implore you and your fellow travelers to keep in mind that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that the success of the progressive movement now relies in no small part on progressives themselves not inadvertently causing the election of their own worst enemies by "making a statement" that could quickly get lost in the noise of all the skinheads, nazis, klanners, seperatists, shysters, hucksters, oil executives, coal mine companies, and Russian oligarchs partying like its New Year's and St. Patrick's on the Fourth of July.

  150. [150] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    148

    It's safe to assume that with a less Wall Street dominated admin Obama wouldn't have been so easily able to abandon the progressive policies he claimed to support, and that Obamacare wouldn't have been such a corporatist sellout too... thus adding to that groundswell of support for Dems on the path not taken.

    I implore you to push Hillary and other Dem enemies of the left hard to advance progressive causes and fight for the working class.
    Lip service and broken promises "makes a statement" that is perfectly clear to average Americans and hurts the Democratic party all the way down-ticket.

    With the upcoming census and redistricting, it's vital that Hillary abandon her corporatist and warmongering tendencies and rally the Dem party by stopping the blaming of the left for the dearth of enthusiasm their right wing polices create.

    That truth gets lost in all the noise created by the jubilation from the Wall Street crooks, oil executives, defense contractors, lobbyists and other one percenters partying like it's 1999 because they know that both Hillary and Trump will maintain the corrupt status quo.

    A

  151. [151] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    147

    Was I supposed to remember those comments?
    A bit of a double standard wouldn't you say?
    (are you working on a reply to my comment on the serious issue of war crimes or was that a dodge?)

    Anyway, it's too bad we can't find out what might have been.

    The maintenance of the failed status quo with Too Big To Jail banks even bigger, economic inequality ever worsening, millions of Americans fleeced of their wealth, the weakest recovery from a recession on record, Republican obstructionism and the rise of Trump is what we got.

    Thanks Timmy and Barack!!!

    And thank you Liz for defending the idea it would have turned out worse by standing up for the little guys and gals instead of coddling the rich!!!

    I'm sure it would be a convincing argument if you made it.

    A

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have a news flash for you, Al ... Geithner and Obama stood up for the little guys and gals and everyone who resides on main street.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  153. [153] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    151

    I must have missed the news that day.

    I don't have time to accept unsubstantiated assertions "dropping like autumn leaves".

    Are you talking about Timmy and Barack standing up for the millions who lost their homes, retirement savings and jobs?

    Or are we back on the "it would have been worse" assertion angle?

    A

  154. [154] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz

    Still waiting for your reply on Obama's war crimes too.

    A

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your strategy inhibits discussion. I'm done here.

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Oh, good grief. Trump uses "such language."

    Yea??? Prove it?? You can't because it simply isn't factual...

    I already posted a link in my comment at [58] which contains Trump using "such language" you take issue with. Your own candidate talks that way in public, but you've got an issue with Hillary because of Jay Z? Hypocrite much?

    Yet, you DO support a candidate who DOES support people who use such language..

    Same difference...

    Well, if it's the "same difference," then I've got some really bad news for you. In addition to Trump using "such language" like "f***," "f***ing," and "motherf******" right out of his own orange blowhole, he also supports the rapist Mike Tyson and the 2-time murderer Don King. So you too "DO support a candidate who DOES support people who use such language." Trump hocks a soft core porn book at the Trump Tower gift shop:

    "The red room of pain in "Fifty Shades of Grey" would fit right into "Trump Tower," a new novel by Jeffrey Robinson that reads like a male version of Danielle Steel on steroids... a fun read about the depths of degradation residents go to in order to live in the Midtown building -- like a supermodel who suffers through bondage routines with a movie star and gets compensated with real estate and offshore bank accounts for dalliances with an Italian count and a Kuwaiti prince. Sounds like a TV series or film might be next." -- The New York Post

    "Jeffrey Robinson's novel Trump Tower bares it all. Here is the drama of the Ultra Rich, the Ultra Powerful, and the Ultra Beautiful who call the most glamorous address in the country their home. I can’t wait to see it on television!" -— Donald Trump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/235072054423085056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Try not to hurt yourself getting down off your soapbox. :)

  157. [157] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I love Al Franken. He called the Orange One's new alt-right final solution TV ad a "German Shepherd whistle".

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    154

    My strategy?
    No.
    Your strategy.
    Your words exactly.

    Very weak and disappointing misdirection.
    I don't blame you though.
    Facing the truth about Obama's war crimes is difficult for his supporters.
    Providing proof that using taxpayer dollars to bail out and line the pockets of the criminals whose fraud harmed millions and caused the Great Recession and that letting them avoid prosecution was somehow good for the working class Americans who they victimized and somehow qualifies as standing up for the little guy was an impossible task.
    The proof doesn't exist.
    All there ever was to such claims was empty assertion by people with severe conflicts of interests.

    They spun their PR campaign well enough to dupe good people... and nobody wants to admit it.

    But blaming me for turning your own words back on you in order to justify non-engagement is still weak.

    "I'm done here"?
    You never started.

  159. [159] 
    neilm wrote:

    This may have been addressed already, and if so, apologies for duplicating.

    Hillary seems to have handled the Comey issue very well. She let others raise the issues without her saying anything (that I can find).

    This means that she is not on record as praising Comey in July, then trashing him in October, only to praise him again in November.

    That legal conservativeness can be really valuable to Hillary. The problem is that it is also her greatest weakness - she is perceived as being over calculating, and people don't like that.

  160. [160] 
    neilm wrote:
  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    Breaking down the outcomes.

    About 1/3 chance D's wins the Presidency and Senate - yippee says he left, the right are inconsolable

    About 1/3 chance D's win the Presidency and lose the Senate - Hmm says the left as they realize that the Senate is going to block everything, including Supreme Court nominees for 4 years. The right are pretty bummed.

    About 1/3 chance Trump wins and keeps the Senate - D's desolate. Yippee says the right.

    My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate.

  162. [162] 
    John M wrote:

    Neilm wrote:

    "My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate."

    My gut tells me that Hillary will win with an electoral vote total that is greater than the narrow win that the polls now indicate and that the Senate will flip with a Democratic majority somewhere in the 52 to 48 range.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    I already posted a link in my comment at [58] which contains Trump using "such language" you take issue with. Your own candidate talks that way in public, but you've got an issue with Hillary because of Jay Z? Hypocrite much?

    I hear a lot of "hell"s and "damn"s and "shit"s...

    Don't hear a SINGLE "motherfucking" or "ho"s or "slut"s or "cunt"s or "nigger"s or any demeaning of women..

    Nice try, but you lose...

    Try not to hurt yourself getting down off your soapbox. :)

    Why should I bother getting down??

    I am unassailable...

    You're wrong. I'm right.. :D

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    GOOD NEWS FOR PA GOTV

    Transit strike in Philadelphia solved in time for voting. :)

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Don't hear a SINGLE "motherfucking"

    So you need a hearing aid. *LOL*

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    My gut tells me that Hillary will win with an electoral vote

    "Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut"
    -Jeff Daniels, SPEED

    :D

    Trump has the momentum upwards and Hillary has the downward trajectory. My gut (which outrank's Mac) tells me that that is going to carry for the next 36 hours..

    I think we're going to see another Reagan/Carter result...

    Carter was ahead the entirety of the election and, in the last week, Reagan's momentum carried him past Carter and Reagan became POTUS...

    That's what's going to happen here...

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!!

    My gut tells me that Hillary will win with an electoral vote

    "Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut"
    -Jeff Daniels, SPEED

    :D

    Trump has the momentum upwards and Hillary has the downward trajectory. My gut (which outrank's Mac) tells me that that is going to carry for the next 36 hours..

    I think we're going to see another Reagan/Carter result...

    Carter was ahead the entirety of the election and, in the last week, Reagan's momentum carried him past Carter and Reagan became POTUS...

    That's what's going to happen here...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have got to be KIDDING me!!!???

    Fine.. Whatever... Ya'all get the point.. :^/

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sobering analysis from Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/

    Ahhhhhh Someone new who actually looks at FACTS rather than just cherry-picked polls....

    Kudos..

    That brings the count to 4..... :D

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Still waiting for you to show me the Early Vote totals from Clark County, Neveda..

    It's my understanding that early vote totals are NEVER released before the election... I could be wrong on that.. If I am, I am sure someone will chime in and point it out.. :D

    But if I am right, if early vote totals are NEVER released then your claim is total BS... :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhh Someone new who actually looks at FACTS rather than just cherry-picked polls....

    Kudos..

    But don't get too cocky, Neil.. You still were dead wrong about Trump being able to sue those women who falsely accused him... :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhh Someone new who actually looks at FACTS rather than just cherry-picked polls....

    Kudos..

    But don't get too cocky, Neil.. You still were dead wrong about Trump being able to sue those women who falsely accused him... :D

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump: 'Now it's up to the American people to deliver justice'
    http://www.kake.com/story/33643370/trump-now-its-up-to-the-american-people-to-deliver-justice

    That's a very good theme for Trump to hammer home.

    They American people are fed up with elites getting away with crimes that ordinary people go to jail for..

    If the justice system won't mete out justice, than the American people will..

    Very good theme for Trump....

  174. [174] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    It's my understanding that early vote totals are NEVER released before the election... I could be wrong on that.. If I am, I am sure someone will chime in and point it out.. :D

    "NEVER"........ Duh!

    You are wrong.... bigly wrong. You can Google this yourself, you know. Why must you be spoon fed like a toddler? :)

    You need a hearing aid because you're deaf. You keeping asking for stuff over and over that anybody can search for on Google.

    http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    For the toddler who can't Google for himself but expects everything spoon fed, I've got literally hundreds of links with information. I'm not going to post them all, but here's a page I found that has a lot of information with links to SOS pages.

    Do your own research and stop whining. :) *LOL*

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/early-voting-results-2016-florida-nevada-north-carolina-latest-statistics-clinton-vs-trump-who-leads-is-winning-ahead-ohio-battleground-states-hillary/

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Sorry, sweet cheeks... That's TURNOUT...

    I want voting RESULTS....

    Do you have any???

    No, you don't.

    And the reason you don't is because early vote results are NOT released until the polls are closed on election day...

    So, I was right.. BIGLY right...

    You have no vote results.. All you have is turnout..

  177. [177] 
    BigGuy wrote:

    Today Cologne, tomorrow Amsterdam. If things should go horribly wrong on Tuesday, perhaps we could get asylum from the Dutch.

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    We know one thing for a FACT

    SCOTT ADAMS' BLOG

    Unhypnotizing a Clinton Supporter
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter

    Dilbert is a TRUMP supporter!!! :D

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Have I mentioned that Hispanics are being underpolled? I believe I have. :)

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    Does it surprise anyone here that Michale moves the goalposts again?

    Anyone at all?

    You said:

    It's my understanding that early vote totals are NEVER released before the election... I could be wrong on that.. If I am, I am sure someone will chime in and point it out.. :D

    I gave you "early vote totals," and YOU. MOVE. THE GOALPOSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/06/the_rebellion_of_2016_132266.html

    VERY interesting commentary....

    Liz, I think you would especially like it as it engenders the kind of deep thought you like so much..

  182. [182] 
    Kick wrote:

    I gave you "early vote totals," and YOU. MOVE. THE GOALPOSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

    If you know anything about ground game and get out the vote, you know how to read between the lines and see who is winning. I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about it based on our prior conversations about........ Vegas! :)

    Have I mentioned that Hispanics are being underpolled? I believe I have. I have been dropping hints about this election for 4 days now. :)

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's my understanding that early vote totals are NEVER released before the election... I could be wrong on that.. If I am, I am sure someone will chime in and point it out.. :D

    I gave you "early vote totals," and YOU. MOVE. THE GOALPOSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

    I can see how you would think that so you DO have my apologies for the misunderstanding..

    But vote turnout totals don't address the point I was making, so it should have been clear to you that my meaning was vote results, not vote turnout..

    But, as I said, I can see where you might misconstrue my meaning, so I'll withdraw comment #175...

    Have I mentioned that Hispanics are being underpolled? I believe I have. :)

    Have I mentioned that LEGAL Hispanics tip overwhelmingly towards Trump?? I know this from well documented reports AND personal experience...

    But you are correct. ILLEGAL Hispanics overwhelmingly tip towards Hillary and the Democrats...

    Criminals ALWAYS do....

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I believe you are an aficionado of Investors Business Daily...

    Trump Lead Widens To 2, His Biggest Yet, Despite 'November Surprise': IBD/TIPP Poll
    http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-lead-widens-to-2-his-biggest-yet-despite-november-surprise-ibdtipp-poll/

    I am also constrained to point out that the IBD/TIPP poll has correctly predicted the race in the last 4 POTUS elections...

    Ya'all will be OK with saying PRESIDENT TRUMP, right?? :D

  185. [185] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Have I mentioned that LEGAL Hispanics tip overwhelmingly towards Trump?? I know this from well documented reports AND personal experience...

    Personal anecdotes are always the best way to analyze data. ;) /sarcasm off

    But you are correct. ILLEGAL Hispanics overwhelmingly tip towards Hillary and the Democrats...

    I didn't say that... so how could I be correct? Duh!

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can see how you would think that so you DO have my apologies for the misunderstanding..

    But vote turnout totals don't address the point I was making, so it should have been clear to you that my meaning was vote results, not vote turnout..

    I am also constrained to point out that Voter TURNOUT totals don't support the claim of the Clark County Firewall that you were making..

    So, I didn't move the goal posts. I left the goal posts RIGHT WHERE *YOU* put them...

    I simply pointed out that the data YOU put forth doesn't make the goal at the posts where YOU placed them...

    So there!! :D

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personal anecdotes are always the best way to analyze data. ;) /sarcasm off

    They are if they are supported by numerous factual and documented reports.. :D

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhh CW???? :D

    Remember how you took me to task about illegal immigrants voting??

    You said something along the lines of that it's impossible that illegals will vote because it's against the law or something to that effect..

    VIDEO: OBAMA 'ENCOURAGES ILLEGALS TO VOTE'
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

    Obama has given tacit approval for illegals immigrants to vote, telling them they will not be pursued if they illegally vote...

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

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    I am also constrained to point out that Voter TURNOUT totals don't support the claim of the Clark County Firewall that you were making..

    :D

    If you knew what to look for, you wouldn't say that. You have to know how to read the data and interpret it. That's all I will say.

    Oh, wait. One more thing.... Have I mentioned that Hispanics are being underpolled? Why, yes I have.... for at least 4 days now. :)

    I have to go now. Later!

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    RECORD ENDORSEMENT: Trump our best bet for a return to core relevance
    http://staugustine.com/local-news-opinion/2016-11-06/record-endorsement-trump-our-best-bet-return-core-relevance

    We Floridians have got it going on! :D We know what's what... :D

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you knew what to look for, you wouldn't say that. You have to know how to read the data and interpret it. That's all I will say.

    Oh I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. You "interpret" the data based on your Party ideology..

    I bet I could find some comparable rapid right-winger who could "interpret" the exact same data to support HIS or HER Party ideology...

    But that is exactly my point.

    The data doesn't PROVE the existence of your Clark County firewall...

    The data can be INTERPRETED to support a Hillary firewall.

    It can also be INTERPRETED to support a Trump firewall

    That's all I was saying...

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump Draws Big Crowd In Moon Twp. Days Before Election
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/11/06/donald-trump-draws-big-crowd-in-moon-twp-days-before-election

    Trump has rallies with tens of thousands of patriotic Americans in attendance...

    Hillary has rallies with tens *or* hundreds in attendance..

    It's clear where which candidate has the excitement and enthusiasm on their side. :D

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    They are if they are supported by numerous factual and documented reports.. :D

    You followed that statement right there by posting a link from WND...

    ...

    ...

    *LOL* You were kidding, right? <-- That's a rhetorical question that requires absolutely no answer whatsoever! Later! :)

  194. [194] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    The data can be INTERPRETED to support a Hillary firewall.

    It can also be INTERPRETED to support a Trump firewall
    That's all I was saying...

    Nope, nope, nope... Not if you know what you're doing.

    I'm out the door this time.... for really. :)

    Hispanics..... underpolled.... have I mentioned? ................... ------>

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking for me, personally...

    My business simply cannot survive another 4 years of a Democrat administration...

    My business absolutely requires that the lower to middle class have a modicum of disposable income...

    Under the Democrats, that disposable income has all but disappeared...

    So, for me, this election is a matter of survival. If Hillary wins, my business is history...

    And likely hundreds of thousands of small businesses just like mine...

  196. [196] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Reince Priebus: "A Clinton Presidency Would Be Tainted."

    Why?

    "'cause it 't ain't Republican." *

    * Hat tip to Mark Twain for the idea.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, nope, nope... Not if you know what you're doing.

    In other words, what you are saying is, "Trust me. I can't prove it with any facts or anything like that, but trust me.. I am right and you are wrong"..

    That's why I like you, K...

    Yer always good for a laugh.. :D

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reince Priebus: "A Clinton Presidency Would Be Tainted."

    Why?

    It would be a LOT easier and a lot faster to explain to you why a Clinton Presidency WON'T be tainted...

    ....

    See?? Much easier and faster....

  199. [199] 
    dsws wrote:

    Groundswell. I look to see whether this is a comments thread where I've posted anything, by searching for "dsw". And this time I get two occurrences of "groundswell". Well, now it will be four, at least.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.rt.com/news/365576-wikileaks-servers-dos-attack/

    Looks like the Obama Administration has unleashed the US Cyber Squad on WikiLeaks...

    Yesterday, Clinton was saying, "Anything you read from Wikileaks coming out today will be forged"

    Something's up... :D

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Groundswell. I look to see whether this is a comments thread where I've posted anything, by searching for "dsw". And this time I get two occurrences of "groundswell". Well, now it will be four, at least.

    Look at the bright side.. After tomorrow night, it's going to be EASY to pick out your posted comments.. :D

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOJ Mole for Camp Clinton busted!!!

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793831278382428164

    Can't wait for President Trump to drain the swamp!!

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Honest question here..

    Forget ideological makeup or Party loyalty, if possible...

    Is anyone here worried at all that Trump will win???

    John M is already on record on this question.. (Thanx, JM :D)

    Anyone else??

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    For me and tens of millions of other Americans, it's a simple choice..

    Hillary is the candidate of Jay I-Am-A-Motherfucker-And-I-Pimp-And-Bitch-Slap-My-Hos Z...

    Donald Trump is the candidate of Joe and Jane We're-Barely-Surviving-Hanging-On-Paycheck-To-Paycheck Public....

    The choice simply could NOT be easier...

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Get ready for war with Russia. This election, we are not only deciding what kind of world we will have, but whether we will have a world or not going forward. Hillary Clinton’s trigger-happy militarism is a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.”
    -Jill Stein

    Even Jill Stein gets it...

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Hillary Clinton might disappoint, but she probably won't launch nuclear weapons if some other country's leader personally insults her. The same cannot be said with any degree of confidence about her opponent.

    Oh, come on.. Let's be real here....

    That's like saying that James Earl Jones is an evil maniacal maniac killer because he is the voice of Darth Vader...

    It's like saying that the guy who plays the TERRORIST level in CALL OF DUTY 3 will go out and kill innocent people by the hundreds...

    Claiming that Trump will react with nuclear weapons EXACTLY like he reacts on Twitter is fear-mongering of epic proportions....

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Claiming that Trump will react with nuclear weapons EXACTLY like he reacts on Twitter is fear-mongering of epic proportions....

    Respectfully stated, of course :D

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops...

    New Mexico turns from Leans Hillary to TOSS UP...

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    As I predicted, the Left is WAY underestimating the LEGAL hispanic support for Trump... :D

    Just like with the Reagan/Carter election, all the momentum is with Trump....

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it looks like Hillary is ALREADY realizing she will lose the election...

    Hillary Clinton will NOT light up the sky over NYC if she wins the Presidency -- her campaign is calling off a planned fireworks show ... TMZ has learned.
    The Clinton campaign had contacted the Coast Guard for permission to pull off a 2 minute long fireworks display over the Hudson River when the election results went final. The fireworks would be visible from the Jacob Javits Center, where she's holding her election night party.
    But the Coast Guard tells TMZ ... Clinton's camp reached out on Thursday -- 2 days after her fireworks plan went public -- to say it wouldn't be shooting off the 10" aerial shells, after all.
    The Coast Guard says the campaign offered no explanation for the about-face. We've reached out to the Clinton campaign ... no word back yet.

    http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/07/hillary-clinton-cancels-fireworks-election-night/

    Bad omen for Hillary....

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    If we're equating turnout with actual vote results (which it appears we are....)

    FLORIDA SHOCK: TRUMP OUTPERFORMS ROMNEY BY 130,000 IN EARLY VOTING!

    Talk about yer firewalls!!! :D

    Florida belongs to Trump.... :D

  211. [211] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Haha. Ted Nugent just wrecked that Jay Z talking point.

  212. [212] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I can see why Trump is feeling down in the dumps. He loves to measure his self-worth by the company he keeps. He has Nugent and Joe Piscopo. HilRod has Bruce, Jay Z, and Beyonce to help her GOTV.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haha. Ted Nugent just wrecked that Jay Z talking point.

    Only if you AGREE with the Jay Z talking point..

    Which, up until now, you haven't... So, if you agree NOW, then that makes you a hypocrite...

    Irregardless, I doubt Nugent has made a career and MILLIONS of dollars by talking about "pimping hos" and "bitch slapping hos" as JA-Z has....

    He has Nugent and Joe Piscopo. HilRod has Bruce, Jay Z, and Beyonce to help her GOTV.

    Anyone that goes to vote because of cretins and scum lick Jay-Z and Beyonce is not a person worthy of being actually considered a person...

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can see why Trump is feeling down in the dumps.

    Trump, in the dumps???

    He is less than 48-hours from being President Elect...

    Apparently, it's WEIGANTIANS that are down in the dumps...

    As evidenced by their scarcity.... :D

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    NORTH CAROLINA: TRUMP +142,000 OVER ROMNEY EARLY VOTING
    Mon Nov 07 2016 13:01:41 ET
    **World Exclusive**

    Another dramatic turn of events is being reported out of North Carolina this afternoon: Donald Trump has jumped past all expectations in early voting!

    Yea... TRUMP is down in the dumps...

    Yet it's Hillary who is cancelling the "victory" fireworks display... hehehehehehehehehe

    Oh my gods, it's gonna be grand... :D

  216. [216] 
    altohone wrote:

    dsws
    198

    Unfortunately, groundswell was being used in a discussion of a fictional alternate universe where Obama had held Wall Street criminals accountable.

    A

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Purple State Memo: Republicans hold lead in early voting entering Election Day
    A weekly newsletter that looks at the Colorado election in 2016

    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/07/purple-state-memo-republicans-hold-lead-in-early-voting-entering-election-day/

    And for Hillary Clinton (and Weigantians) the hits just keep on coming... :D

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    The economic stagnancy of the Obama years is to blame for plummeting life expectancy rates among white, working-class Americans, according to former president Bill Clinton, who privately told Democratic donors that lower-income whites “don’t have anything to look forward to when they get up in the morning.”

    Clinton made the remarks while speaking to at a November 2015 closed-door fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Canton, Ohio.

    Echoing a theme of Republican nominee Donald Trump’s campaign, the former president expressed his concern that white, working-class Americans have been left behind over the last eight years.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/leaked-bill-clinton-speech-obama-years-left-no-hope-for-white-working-class/#ixzz4PM411X00

    It's funny what the Clintons say about Obama publicly compared to what they say about Obama privately.... :D

  219. [219] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange One is onstage right now and he's delivering the Mother of all Word Salads, tossing all his greatest troll hits in random sentence fragments with lots of lies and delusion on the side. I think he's off his TelePrompTer and his meds.

  220. [220] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed!

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Orange One is onstage right now and he's delivering the Mother of all Word Salads, tossing all his greatest troll hits in random sentence fragments with lots of lies and delusion on the side. I think he's off his TelePrompTer and his meds.

    And he is going to be President... :D

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Indeed!

    I love it when you channel yer inner Teal'c

    :D

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    KILL YOUR LOCAL TRUMP SUPPORTER
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwmWsIzXcAEOqNX.jpg

    Ahhhh yes... The peace and tolerance of Hillary supporters.... :^/

    And the condemnation from Weigantians...???

    {{chhhiiirrrrrrpppppppp}} {{{chhhiiiiiiiirrrrrpppppp}}}}

    :^/

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    TROUBLE FOR HILLARY IN THE TARHEEL STATE

    But a CNN analysis of early voting paints a very different picture and suggests that Clinton has under-performed President Obama's 2012 performance in the Tar Heel State and Trump has outperformed Mitt Romney.

    It might seem that Democrats have built up a big early lead. More than 1.3 million Democrats have already voted compared to 990,000 Republicans.

    But the raw numbers don't account for the 2012 results. President Barack Obama built an early lead then but got trounced by Mitt Romney on Election Day.

    As of Saturday, the final day of early voting, slightly fewer Democrats had cast ballots while 125,000 more Republicans have voted this time. If this election shapes up like the last, Donald Trump would win North Carolina.

    There is one key difference that complicates the data: Independent voters came out this time in droves. They cast nearly 810,000 votes, up a whopping 42% from 2012.

    This group broke heavily for Romney in 2012. However, he was a more traditional Republican. Romney himself has been one of Trump's harshest critics, saying last spring "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud."

    One difference this election is the popularity of a third-party candidate, Libertarian Gary Johnson. The CNN poll of polls show him garnering 5% support among likely voters.

    Other early voting trends favor Trump. While polls show Clinton has a commanding lead among African Americans, the share of black votes so far is down 5%. Trump does much better with white voters, who increased their share by 3% this election.

    Another group that failed to show up was 20-something Democrats. The North Carolina Board of Elections releases data on each voter. CNN compared registered voters who voted early in both 2012 and 2016.
    One third of Democrats age 22 to 29 who voted in 2012 failed to show up this time. By comparison, turnout of Democrats age 50 and older exceeded 90%.

    Twenty-something Republicans were more enthusiastic. Nearly three quarters of them who voted early in 2012 showed up again this election.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/north-carolina-early-voting-2016/index.html

    It seems that no matter where you look, things are coming up TRUMP and Hillary is in trouble...

  225. [225] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS,

    Reince Priebus: "A Clinton Presidency Would Be Tainted."

    Why?

    "'cause it 't ain't Republican." *

    Good one. I hope Reinhold has his resume updated. :)

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    The choice seems pretty obvious, and can be summed up as: Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump. No matter what you think of Hillary, she is not a dangerously unstable individual with a propensity for obsessing about her enemies and wreaking vengeance. That right there is all I really needed to contemplate in order to make my choice.

    So.....

    Are you saying that if the GOP had run a Romney-esque or a McCain-esque candidate this time around, you would be voting Republican??? :D

  227. [227] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Is anyone here worried at all that Trump will win???

    Win what? :)

  228. [228] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Donald Trump is the candidate of Joe and Jane We're-Barely-Surviving-Hanging-On-Paycheck-To-Paycheck Public....

    To tens of millions of educated Americans, Donald Trump is the candidate of the:
    G..... O..... P.....

    Grab Our P******

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    To tens of millions of educated Americans, Donald Trump is the candidate of the:
    G..... O..... P.....

    That's OK..

    Those SAME tens of millions of "educated" Americans think that Jay-Z's "I'm a motherfucker and I pimp my hos and bitch-slap my hos" is "art"...

    Those tens of millions of "educated" Americans aren't right in the head... :D

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have already written my HILLARY HAS WON concession comment.... I don't think I'll need it, but it's down just in case...

    I think I'll just wing my PRESIDENT TRUMP announcement comment... :D The After Action reports explaining exactly where ya'all went wrong in great detail will last weeks.... :D

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I'll just wing my PRESIDENT TRUMP announcement comment... :D The After Action reports explaining exactly where ya'all went wrong in great detail will last weeks.... :D

    Don't worry.. I will temper my comments with mercy and understand of the total traumatic shock ya'all had just experienced....

    I will be compassionate to your pain.... mostly....

  232. [232] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Those SAME tens of millions of "educated" Americans think that Jay-Z's "I'm a motherfucker and I pimp my hos and bitch-slap my hos" is "art"...

    I think it would serve you well if you let it sink into that alternate reality bubble that you're living in that Donald "grab 'em by the p***y" Trump is NOT running against Shawn Carter... stage name Jay Z.

    Donald "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crimes, they're rapists" Trump is running against Hillary Rodham Clinton... stage name Hillary. :)

    Those tens of millions of "educated" Americans aren't right in the head... :D

    Of course they're not "right" in the head. This is no doubt the product of their years of education and their eschewing of right-wing-nut propaganda and conspiracy theory websites. *LOL*

    TRUTH :)

    Later -------------->

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it would serve you well if you let it sink into that alternate reality bubble that you're living in that Donald "grab 'em by the p***y" Trump is NOT running against Shawn Carter... stage name Jay Z.

    Of course Trump isn't..

    But Trump *IS* running against a person who supports Shawn "I am a motherfucker and I bitch-slap my hos" Carter...

    And THAT tells me ALL I need to know about that person...

    Of course they're not "right" in the head. This is no doubt the product of their years of education and their eschewing of right-wing-nut propaganda and conspiracy theory websites. *LOL*

    In favor of LEFT wing-nut propaganda and conspiracy theory websites...

    Like I said.. They ain't right in the head... :D

    TRUTH :)

    That's you're problem.. You are all about "TRUTH" even though 'TRUTH' is subjective and solely based on Party loyalty...

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada

    Until they can come to grips with *FACTS*, they will be nothing but Party lemmings... Sheeple to be led around by their.... whatevers....

    It's THAT simple...

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say... Give all the facts on the ground...

    It sure looks good for Trump..... :D

  235. [235] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    I have already written my HILLARY HAS WON concession comment.... I don't think I'll need it, but it's down just in case...

    Good to know. Now go back and add an entire paragraph discussing how only a moron who needed Florida to win the presidency would piss off a large chunk of the residents of that state and key swing states like Nevada... ON DAY UNO...
    DAY #1
    DAY WON.

    What happened in Vegas... ! :)

    later gator -------------->

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crimes, they're rapists" Trump

    Dead on balls accurate...

    is running against Hillary Clinton... stage nameOPEN BORDERS Hillary. :)

    There... Fixed it for you...

    Hillary wants OPEN BORDERS...

    No American in their right mind wants OPEN BORDERS...

    Hillary is going to lose....

    It's that simple...

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. Calling it a night.. BLACKLIST with the wife and then hittin' the sack...

    Tomorrow is going to be exciting!!! :D

    "This ship is exciting, isn't it!!!"
    -Scotty, STAR TREK 90210

    :D

  238. [238] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I love it when you channel yer inner Teal'c

    Heh.

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The real change will only happen when Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, given the sad state of affairs that is Republican governance.

    Democrats *HAD* control of both ends of Pennsylvania and THEN SOME....

    They didn't do anything with it...

    What makes you think that will change if they get control THIS time??

  240. [240] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean for more than five minutes, Michale.

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean for more than five minutes, Michale.

    They had effective majorities for months..

    And they squandered it on something the American people did not want nor need..

    The American people were clamoring, in fact BEGGING, for jobs..

    Democrats gave us TrainWreckCare, proving beyond ANY doubt that, for Democrats, the Democrat Party Agenda was more important than the welfare of the American people...

Comments for this article are closed.