ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [415] -- Donald Trump And Andrew Jackson

[ Posted Friday, November 11th, 2016 – 17:34 PST ]

Last week, we pre-empted our usual Talking Points format for a pre-election column. This week, we're going to do the same for a post-election column. The shock has not worn off, and it just feels too soon to return to analyzing Democratic politics. Democrats are in disarray right now, which is probably a good thing in the long run, at least if it leads to some major course corrections. But the wounds are still too raw for us to rub any further salt in them, so instead today we'd like to take a detour into history instead. If history bores you in general, we'd suggest you skip the rest of this column. For everyone else, let's take a look back today.

Does any of this sound familiar? A presidential candidate presents himself as a "man of the people" who will fight the entrenched elitists who are running the country. He launches a campaign the likes of which America has never seen before -- a campaign which absolutely horrifies those elites. His opponents call him patently unfit for the job, as well as boorish, crude, violent, unsophisticated, illiterate, and downright dangerous for the future of the country. The candidate himself complains of a president who is corrupt and illegitimate, rails against a totally rigged electoral system (direct quote: "there was cheating and corruption and bribery too"), and vows he will "clean the Augean Stables of Washington." He also promises a government attuned to the needs of the people rather than the elitists. His campaign is denounced in the media as "the most rude and ruthless political contest that ever took place in the United States," complete with charges (from both sides) of bigamy, adultery, slave-dealing, pimping a virgin to be raped by the Czar of Russia, bloodthirsty murder, tyranny, a stolen and rigged election, military despotism, the impropriety of buying a billiard table for the White House, and both sides warning that they were going to "save the Temple of Liberty from pollution." After running a campaign closer to a cult of personality than anything previously seen in America, he wins the election.

The year was 1828, and the candidate was Andrew Jackson -- the guy on the $20 bill in your wallet. While no historical comparison is perfect, the parallels between Jackson and Donald Trump are so pronounced that it's really only a matter of time before others begin to notice them.

To say Jackson revolutionized American politics is to understate his impact. Before Jackson, every single president had come from a handful of elites in Virginia and Massachusetts. Jackson was the first president from any other state, and the first who realized the true power of motivating and exciting the American electorate in ways not previously seen.

Before Jackson, presidential elections were conducted by bizarre rules of decorum. You may think the following is an exaggeration, but I assure you it is not. Before Jackson, presidential candidates were supposed to sit quietly at home and await a knock on their doors, which would inform them that they had -- without their ever suggesting the slightest interest in such a thing, of course -- been nominated by their supporters for the highest office in the land. After this momentous event, presidential candidates were expected to continue sitting decorously at home, while close friends and allies did the actual campaigning for them. Eventually, another knock on the door would inform them that they had won the election. This was exactly what the pre-Jackson media (and electorate) fully expected and required of presidential candidates. Anyone daring to defy this tradition was held up to public scorn, for committing the cardinal sin of "electioneering."

Jackson burned all of that to the ground. Jackson's first run at the presidency was actually in 1824, when he won both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote by large margins (153,544 popular votes to John Quincy Adams's 108,740), but because he hadn't won an absolute majority in the Electoral College (there were four major candidates in the race), the election was thrown to the House of Representatives. One of the four presidential candidates was Henry Clay, the sitting Speaker of the House. Clay met with Adams, and they colluded (in what Jackson would call the "Corrupt Bargain") to place Adams in the White House. Two days after the House vote, Adams announced Clay would be his Secretary of State.

Jackson went ballistic. He devoted the next four years of his life to getting the presidency the elites had stolen from him. Together with Martin Van Buren, he put together the first real political "machine" operation, and redefined how presidential elections would be run forevermore. Jackson's list of firsts is a long one -- he was the first candidate to publish a campaign biography, the first to have what we'd now call a "campaign war room," the first to attempt public opinion polling (by having men travel up and down the Ohio River in steamboats and strike up political conversations with people on board), the first to give speeches during his campaign, the first to have a handy nickname ("Old Hickory"), the first to have a campaign theme song (The Hunters of Kentucky, which told the tale of Jackson's military victory in the Battle of New Orleans), the first to have fan clubs across the country ("Hickory Clubs"), and the first to flood the nation with campaign-themed paraphernalia (everything from snuffboxes to whiskey flasks to wallpaper). He was, quite simply, the first to realize that politics needed to entertain the people. His supporters dreamed up all kinds of bizarre ways to do so, including erecting 100-foot-tall "Hickory Poles" and rolling huge balls of tin from one town to the next. Anything that got people's attention was fair game.

Jackson was derided by his opponents for all this show business and glitz. But the people loved it. Jackson was, according to his opponents, a dangerously unstable individual who had fought duels (and killed opponents). It was unthinkable to put such a hothead in charge of the country. Andrew Jackson also became the first president to survive an assassination attempt, it's worth pointing out (Jackson, 68 years old at the time, had to be physically restrained from thrashing the assassin with his cane). His military history -- the reason for his celebrity in the first place -- was denounced as nothing short of a series of bloodthirsty conquests by a Captain Bligh-like character who lashed out at his own men, at times.

All of this combined with changing laws to produce the biggest election America had ever seen. Property restrictions on who could vote were being dropped, and more people were now able to vote directly in the presidential election in more places. The total popular vote turnout actually tripled from 1824 to 1828, as a result of both the expanding franchise and as a result of Jackson's new method of campaigning. The percentage of eligible voters who participated in the election rose from 27 percent in 1824 to 57 percent in 1828.

Jackson went on, as president, to set a different list of firsts. He was the first to veto laws he didn't particularly like (previous presidents had only ever vetoed laws they considered unconstitutional). He invented the "pocket veto" as well. He took on the Bank of the United States, and won. As a direct result, he was the first president to be formally censured by the Senate. Jackson created his own pet newspaper, because others weren't writing sufficiently glowing reviews of his policies (the editor of the Washington Globe was Francis Preston Blair, who moved into a house across the street from the White House -- this "Blair House" is today still used by the White House, to host visiting dignitaries). He flat-out ignored the Supreme Court when he didn't like their rulings. He also ignored Congress when they asked to see correspondence between Jackson and his cabinet, creating the idea of "executive privilege." At one point, Jackson even fired his entire cabinet en masse, in large part because their wives were snubbing the wife of his Secretary of War (in what would become known as the "Petticoat Affair"). He was the first president to order federal troops to break up labor riots. At the end of his life, Jackson was reported to have remarked "that his main regret was in not having ordered the execution of John C. Calhoun for treason." He shook up Washington by defining the presidency on his own terms -- something never before attempted in such sweeping fashion. Again, the parallels to Trump are likely just going to become more evident as time goes on.

I was reminded of all this when thinking about Trump's inauguration. The crowd attending the event is likely to be a lot different than previous crowds, that's for sure. But no matter how much the elites (and Democrats everywhere) deplore Trump's supporters, it won't even come close to Jackson's first inauguration.

Throngs of people viewed Jackson's swearing-in at the Capitol. Tens of thousands -- more than any previous president had ever turned out -- showed up for the victory party. The following description is from Jackson biographer Robert V. Remini (from Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom 1822-1832, Volume II, Harper & Row, New York, 1981, pp. 177-180). The "Mrs. Smith" referenced was Margaret Baynard Smith, the wife of a senator from Maryland, who wrote down an extensive report of Jackson's inauguration. High society was absolutely horrified at "the People's President," to put it mildly. After Jackson was sworn in, he was provided with a white horse to ride down Pennsylvania Avenue, with his adoring crowd in tow.

"As far as the eye could reach," reported Amos Kendall, "the side-walks of the Avenue were covered with people on foot and the centre with innumerable carriages and persons on horseback moving in the same direction. For a full half hour, I stood waiting for the stream to run by; but like a never failing fountain the Capitol continued pouring forth its torrents." Slowly, gesturing his appreciation to the people who cheered and waved to him, Jackson headed for the White House, and oh, said the disapproving Mrs. Smith, "such a cortege as followed him! Country men, farmers, gentlemen, mounted and dismounted, boys, women and children, black and white. Carriages, wagons and carts all pursuing him to the President's house."

Never had there been such an inauguration of a President -- not even Thomas Jefferson's. Never before had the ordinary citizen expressed his enthusiasm for a new administration so spontaneously, with such obvious affection and good will. Few inaugurations since have matched it in ardor and excitement. The people had massed in front of the Capitol to witness the "triumph of the great principle of self government over the intrigues of the aristocracy" and now they trailed their adored leader back through the streets toward the executive mansion, reluctant to let him out of their sight. Then it suddenly occurred to a number of ladies and gentlemen who were watching the procession from the safety of their homes that this shouting, "raving Democracy" intended to enter the "President's palace," as they grandly termed the White House. The "palace" was about to be invaded by the rabble -- the people. What had the country come to! The masses seemed to think that with Jackson as their President they had a right to attend the inaugural reception, something normally restricted to polite society.

By the time the General arrived at the mansion all the rooms on the lower floor were filled to capacity by a mixture of every conceivable race, color, and social standing. People from the "highest and most polished," said Joseph Story, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, "down to the most vulgar and gross in the nation" poured into the White House. "I never saw such a mixture," he moaned. "The reign of KING MOB seemed triumphant," he added. "I was glad to escape from the scene as soon as possible."

A modest White House reception had been planned. Nothing elaborate, nothing like the previous presidential "levees," which had had a regal and elitist tone to them. But what took place verged on public disorder. It became a wild, near-riotous scene. Barrels of orange punch had been prepared, but as the waiters opened the doors to carry them out, the mob spotted them and rushed forward to seize them. The "most painful confusion prevailed" as waiters and guests collided. Pails of liquor splashed to the floor, glasses fell and were smashed or stepped on, and such mayhem ensued "that wine and ice-creams could not be brought out to the ladies." Several thousand dollars in smashed china and glassware were lost during the pandemonium. To add to the general melee, men with "boots heavy with mud" stood on the "damask satin-covered chairs" in order to get a better look at their President. It was a "regular Saturnalia," laughed Senator James Hamilton, Jr. "The mob broke in, in thousands -- Spirits black yellow and grey, poured in as one uninterrupted stream of mud and filth, among the throngs many fit subjects for the penitentiary." One "stout black wench" sat quietly by herself "eating in this free country a jelley with a gold spoon at the President's House."

When Mrs. Smith and her family arrived at the mansion, they were aghast at the spectacle in progress. "What a scene did we witness!" she gasped. "The Majesty of the People had disappeared, and a rabble, a mob, of boys, negros, women, children, scrambling, fighting, romping. What a pity what a pity."

Poor Jackson. They nearly suffocated him with their display of love and happiness. Everyone wanted to shake his hand, or touch him or congratulate him. Amos Kendall caught sight of him standing a few steps from the south entrance shaking hands with "people of all sorts and descriptions." The journalist tried to get to the President but the flow of people surged toward him and bucking it invited physical injury. "Like hundreds of others," Kendall said, "I leapt in at the window of an adjoining room." Still it was impossible to get near Jackson. Finally the pressure got so bad and the danger of actually injuring the President so real that a number of men formed a ring around him as "a kind of barrier of their own bodies." The President, reported Mrs. Smith, was "literally nearly pressed to death and almost suffocated and torn to pieces in their eagerness to shake hands with Old Hickory." Happily, he made his escape from his well-wishers and returned to his temporary quarters at Gadsby's. It was 4:00 P.M.

The flight of the President did not dampen the spirit of the mob, however. The mayhem, if anything, got worse. Indeed, it now looked as though the mansion itself was in danger and might collapse around them. To relieve the pressure inside the building, tubs of punch and pails of liquor were transferred to the lawn outside and all the windows were thrown open to provide additional exits for those anxious to keep up with the refreshments. The strategy worked. The "rabble" bolted after the liquor, using the fastest means of exit.

It was wild. For ladies and gentlemen of refinement it was an awful commentary on American life and customs. What would the rest of the world think? What would they say? And, they asked, what had happened to American political institutions to bring this about?

Jackson slipped away to his Inaugural Ball, which (much to Mrs. Smith's relief) was only open to ticket-holders, and thus left all the rabble outside. But the most shocking inaugural celebration had already happened, and had become part of America's history. For the first time, the people had chosen someone the elites didn't approve of, and they were overjoyed at their victory. Two other paragraphs from the biography are worth excerpting as well.

Indeed, the ball climaxed a memorable day. The inauguration proved so lusty in its display of the American spirit at its most boisterous, exuberant, and vulgar that the essential ingredients of this inaugural became traditional. It was the first people's inaugural. The people -- not politicians or Washington society or the Central Committee -- made it uniquely their own. "It was a proud day for the people," reported the Argus of Western America on March 18, 1829. "General Jackson is their own President. Plain in his dress, venerable in his appearance, unaffected and familiar in his manners, he was greeted by them with an enthusiasm which bespoke him the Hero of a popular triumph."

Speaking from a different point of view, Mrs. Smith had to agree nonetheless, although she tempered her comments with a small warning. "It was the People's day, and the People's President and the People would rule. God grant that one day or other, the People do not pull down all rule and rulers."

Now, of course, this won't happen during Donald Trump's inauguration. Security has become rather tighter than in those long-gone days. Nobody's getting near the White House that the Secret Service doesn't vet, in other words. Still, it's quite likely to be a pretty raucous party out on the Mall and throughout Washington next January.

But like all historical parallels, it only goes so far. Andrew Jackson certainly shook things up, but a lot of his actions were eventually condemned by history. No other president has ever dismissively ignored the Supreme Court, for instance. Which is a good thing, since it's a pretty dangerous thing to attempt.

Donald Trump is no Andrew Jackson in many, many ways. But Trump owes a lot to the outsiders who came before him and pioneered the entire "running against Washington" theme that has run through our politics ever since Jackson's election. Some call this "populism," and by some definitions this term fits. Populism is always against powerful elites, and "on the side of the people." But populist movements almost always have an uglier side as well -- anti-immigrant scapegoating is usually a big part of populism, both historically and currently.

What is truly bizarre right now is that nobody knows what Donald Trump is going to do with the presidency. Nobody. Not his supporters, not his opponents, not the media, and certainly not his own party. Maybe he'll follow through on his crazy campaign slogans, and maybe he won't. Maybe a Republican Congress will set the agenda, and maybe they won't. Nobody really knows what to expect. As Beltway insiders attempt to read the tea leaves, what stands out is that nobody really has any clue what Trump is going to do -- probably not even Trump himself.

One thing seems certain, though. Trump, like Andrew Jackson before him, is going to pick and choose which Washington traditions he chooses to follow, and which he doesn't. Would anyone bat an eye if Trump announced he'll only allow reporters of his own choosing into the White House press pool? Or that his family will be his inner circle of advisors? Trump is going to shake all kinds of things up, and at this point absolutely nothing seems so far-fetched that you couldn't imagine Trump doing it. Painting his last name on Air Force One? Um, OK. Contracting the building of the border wall out to his own company? Wouldn't surprise me, at this point. He's already said his businesses will be placed in a not-so-blind trust consisting of his own children.

This is the only sure bet, right now: Trump will simply not listen to people who tell him: "But we've always done it this way before." Time-honored traditions will quite likely be jettisoned, much to the horror of today's Washington elite. Senators' wives (and husbands, nowadays) will be downright scandalized by much of it, no doubt. Many of these insiders are currently deluding themselves with the fantasy of "the presidency changes people, because they always rise to the seriousness of the office." It's the long-sought "Trump pivot," but my guess is that it just isn't going to happen (or, if it does, it will be very short-lived).

I don't have any overarching conclusions to draw today, but I did think it was worth pointing out some of the similarities between Jackson and Trump. In both cases, the people wanted to shake up Washington in a major way. That's what they voted for, and that's what they got in the 1820s. That is also probably what they're going to get in the next four years as well. America survived Jackson, but emerged a different place -- elections never went back to the way they had previously been run, just to name one big difference. Donald Trump may have irreversibly changed how the game of politics is played in America as well. It's not a very comforting prospect to some, but the idea that things are just going to "go back to the way they were" after Trump is probably nothing more than wishful thinking. Donald Trump redefined American presidential campaigns, for better or worse, and he's quite likely to redefine the American presidency as well.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

233 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [415] -- Donald Trump And Andrew Jackson”

  1. [1] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "Democrats are in disarray right now, which is probably a good thing in the long run, at least if it leads to some major course corrections. But the wounds are still too raw for us to rub any further salt in them"

    That course correction better include mass resignations from the DNC and zero involvement from any Clinton's or all the Dems will get is more wounds and lots of salt rubbed into them.

    Reid is thankfully departing... Pelosi and quite a few others need to follow his lead or be shoved aside.

    I saw that Howard Dean wanted to return to the DNC, but he went full on revolving door shill after leaving the job and is therefore NOT what Dems need... though a return to a 50 state strategy would be wise.

    Apparently Cuomo was first out of the gate to launch his 2020 campaign... but again... NOT what Dems need. More of the same guarantees more failure.

    At some point, and despite the high approval numbers, Dems will need to reevaluate Obama too.
    He wanted to be transformational, but one party rule by Republicans is not the transformation Dem voters wanted.

    A

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anything better than bumbling stupidity from Trump, compounded by him being treated like a petulant child by his own party, will be a relief.

  3. [3] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Good analogy to Jackson at least as far as the cultural dissonance. Jackson people and Trump people are much alike in those aspects, however, politically they are very different. Jackson's defining issue was his opposition to the Bank and the centralized financial power it epitomized. Today that argument is carried by Elizabeth Warren, she is waging war on the banks and Wall Street. I believe DT is committed to undoing her agency and removing restrictions on the Banks. So I say close but no cigar

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SF Bear,

    So I say close but no cigar

    Well, policy similarities wasn't the point of the comparison between Jackson and Trump.

    The question is whether Trump will change America and US politics as broadly and deeply as Jackson did or will Trump be changed by everything swirling around him.

    I think the latter is more likely.

  5. [5] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [1]

    altohone -

    If Dems want to have any chance of winning an election ever again they should quite all the navel gazing (just as the Republicans ignored the recommendations of their 2012 "autopsy") and instead study the Trump campaign very closely and follow a proven winning formula.

    Obviously to start with they need to choose a celebrity as their candidate, someone with name recognition, worth billions, who already has millions of fans. I wonder if Beyonce would consider running?

  6. [6] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    From an earlier column...

    I want the republics to nuke the filibuster! That's why I said that if they did it would be a good riddance!

    McConnell has said that they will but not when. I'm guessing in the first month at least. It can't come sooner enough for me.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    If voters were sending a giant middle finger at D.C., what does that make Trump?

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell [5] -

    How about Michael Moore? I bet he would have carried Michigan...

    Heh.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    SF Bear -

    Fair enough, but today's Bank of the US is the Federal Reserve. Ever hear righties talk about it? Same sort of attitude as Jackson had towards BUS...

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    If Dems want to have any chance of winning an election ever again they should quite all the navel gazing (just as the Republicans ignored the recommendations of their 2012 "autopsy") and instead study the Trump campaign very closely and follow a proven winning formula.

    BEST.... SUGGESTION.... EVER......

    But I have my doubts if anyone but a Trump-esque candidate could pull it off....

    I want the republics to nuke the filibuster! That's why I said that if they did it would be a good riddance!

    McConnell has said that they will but not when. I'm guessing in the first month at least. It can't come sooner enough for me.

    I too, want McConnel to nuke the filibuster.. I would love to see the look on new Minority Leader's face when he/she realizes their opposition party has been neutered....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    If voters were sending a giant middle finger at D.C., what does that make Trump?

    The tip of the spear...... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Anything better than bumbling stupidity from Trump, compounded by him being treated like a petulant child by his own party, will be a relief.

    And once again, you see the world as you WISH it to be rather than as it is..

    Someone who is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would not have been elected President.

    Nor would someone who is is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would have been able to be the thoroughly successful businessman Trump is..

    It's a common theme of ya'all's I have been pointing out for over a year...

    By not respecting your opponent, you underestimate your opponent..

    And when you underestimate your opponent, your opponent wins..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am curious as to ya'all's thoughts on all the threats of assassinating Trump that are permeating the airwaves....

    Comments???

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I asked in a previous commentary, but it might have been missed in the shuffle...

    Have you talked to Paula?? Is she doing OK???

    I am genuinely and sincerely concerned...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would invite EVERY Weigantian to watch this video..

    https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

    ESPECIALLY those Weigantians who censor my comments.....

    Trust me, you will thank me for it..

    I don't know who the hell that guy is... But WOW.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The biggest problem that Camp Hillary had is the exact same problem that 98% of Weigantians had....

    Ya'all simply could NOT even conceive that ya'all COULD be wrong and, therefore, saw no reason to roll with the flow....

  17. [17] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    5

    I haven't checked out the latest numbers personally, but somebody elsewhere said that Trump didn't expand the Repub base by much, but won because turnout for Hillary was waaayyyyyyyy down.

    If that's true, then it wasn't so much about Trump winning, but rather Hillary losing.

    Again, I'm not sure if the numbers have changed, but it was something like 5 million fewer Dem votes compared to 2012 and 10 million fewer votes than 2008... and Trump was nowhere near Obama's totals. So, the silent majority thing is a myth.

    Anyway, point being, they don't need Beyoncé, they just need someone with integrity who doesn't lack charisma so badly that even a popular president, first lady and countless rock stars are unable to help close the gap.
    And, by integrity I mean personal integrity, integrity on economic issues, foreign policy...

    ... and I'm not aware of any billionaires who qualify.

    I'm guessing you were just joking around, but I answered seriously anyway.

    The big problem for Dems is that the Wall Street coddling Hillary crowd dominates the party, and none of them have the integrity needed.

    Warren has the integrity, but her age and charisma could be issues.
    Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, has the integrity, but is similar to Warren just younger and shorter.
    Kamala Harris seems to have both, but may not be ready after only 4 years... a short track record like Obama that may worry the left... once burned, twice shy.

    Other names for consideration should be raised and SOON.

    And, BTW, I like Stein... she has integrity and charisma, but she's a little quirky too. I like quirky, but the Green party would probably be better off with new blood too. A viable third party challenger needs to check every box to hope to overcome the duopoly.

    A

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scenes from the liberal meltdown

    ?The University of Michigan offered its traumatized students coloring books and Play-Doh to calm them. (Are its students in college or kindergarten?)

    ?The University of Kansas reminded its stressed-out kids that therapy dogs, a regular campus feature, were available.

    ?Cornell University, an Ivy League school, held a campus-wide “cry-in,” with officials handing out tissues and hot chocolate.

    ?Tufts University offered its devastated students arts and crafts sessions. (OK, not kindergarten — more like summer camp.)

    ?At campuses from elite Yale to Connecticut to Iowa and beyond, professors canceled classes and/or exams — either because students asked or because instructors were too distraught to teach.
    http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/scenes-from-the-liberal-meltdown/

    And ya'all wonder WHY Trump won????

    Because of crap like THAT ^^^^.......

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:
  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mistrial: Ohio police shooting trial jury deadlocked
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ae9eb6a498c9464bb495c910541cd856/ohio-jury-resume-deliberations-police-shooting-trial

    Cops should NEVER be put on trial for doing their jobs and protecting their lives.....

  21. [21] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Yep... Yep....

    So in the spirit of the Reagan..."trust but verify"....

    1.5 out of three isn't bad...the only one who has a real job is Conaway...but that should not be of any surprise. Thiel is a member of the executive committee, or in other words its a pay off for support and to draw in others...funny Carson is not even mentioned...

    https://www.greatagain.gov/news/president-elect-donald-j-trump-announces-new-implementation-phase-presidential-transition-team.html

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Thiel is a member of the executive committee, or in other words its a pay off for support and to draw in others...

    Funny... If the Right Wingery said that about any gay supporter of Hillary, the Left would call it gay-bashing.. :D

    I guess one groups hero is another group's token... :D

    .the only one who has a real job is Conaway..

    So, you agree with regards to Conaway?? :D

  23. [23] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    CW #9 Good point, it is the age old battle between specie money and fiat money. A war started by none other than Sir Issac Newton of gravity fame. Although today's specie advocates resemble flat earthers. In Jackson's time this policy dispute was emblematic of the larger cultural divide between the establishment and the hoi polloi. Trump is the consummate showman and as you pointed out Jackson fist introduced many of the showman elements into our political contests. Nevertheless, I believe the policy differences were a more important element of Jackson's election than they were for Trump. This election was won largely by his genius for diverting attention AWAY from policy and giving his supporters blood and circuses instead.

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone [17] -

    Just to toss a name out there, what do you think of Gavin Newsom? He's probably going to be CA's next governor. He's shown real leadership on a few issues -- long before it became "safe" for Dem pols to do so.

    Just curious...

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    SF Bear [23] -

    Yeah, all populist movements are almost always universally against banks and Wall Street, as well as central banks. But I'd have to disagree about Jackson. I've read a lot of newspapers and campaign literature from the 1828 election. Very little of it was on policy. Mostly it was about (1) viciously attacking the other guy, and (2) defending the hero on your side.

    The billiard table story is a case in point. I'll dig out the whole thing later, but one Adams supporter in Congress (who lost his seat, I belive) stated "that damned billiard table" was the biggest issue in Ohio, and cost the Adams team the state. The pimping-for-the-czar story was equally devastating.

    Not a whole lot of people were focused on policy issues, in other words. They were focused on "throw the bums out" and anti-elitism, and that did include things like the BUS, but it was more personal than policy-oriented.

    Anyway, I wasn't making the case in this article that Trump and Jackson would have agreed on much policy, but rather the fact that both campaigned and won (and in Jackson's case, governed) on a promise to shake things up in a way never seen before. That was the main point.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, forgot (I swear I'll dig the whole story out later), that one of the reasons why the billiard table story was so potent on the frontier was it cost as much as "a brace of wagon horses." Elites versus farmers, in other words.

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    The ironic thing is this: If you wanted to have any shot at reducing money in politics and reducing the power of the elites and wealthy, you needed to vote for the ultimate insider, Hillary Clinton.

    The president doesn't affect these things any more than Congress does.

    45 years of a conservative supreme court gave us money equals speech and a piece of paper, a tax entity, is a person (one with religious views that must be respected under the first amendment).

    I am now sad that I will die before there isn't a conservative supreme court.

  28. [28] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Oh, and CW, "[m]aybe he'll follow through on his crazy campaign slogans, and maybe he won't" should take into account that Pence is the VP. That is really a scary thought (it certainly checked anyone who thought seriously about "second amendment solutions" concerning W).

  29. [29] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    CW #25 This illustrates the great challenge and joy of historiography. The facts are rarely in dispute (except for Republicans) but divining the motivations and tenor of the times is a challenge. There is no doubt the showmanship Jackson brought to that election was unprecedented and played a huge role in his success. It is also true the the Bank issue was THE dominate issue of the day and along with the Tariff of Abominations issue symbolically captured the dissonance between western and eastern areas of the county, rural vs. urban, etc. just as our election did. A judgement as to which was the dominate influence is dependent on the on the sources you use. My personal interest has been the great back and fourth about hard money vs soft money and no doubt that interest colored my judgement of the 1828 election.

  30. [30] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    CW #24 I saw Gavin close up and personal when he was Mayor. He showed great political instincts and is extremely charismatic. His problem then was a lack of focus and tenacity in administration. He did not tend the garden very well and the weeds i.e. potholes flourished. But he is very, very smart and has had years to watch and learn from the master Jerry Brown. When he becomes governor we shall see what he learned. He most definitely belongs on the democratic bench for a future run a the the White House.

  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW
    24

    I shared my distaste for Feinstein's boy Newsome with you a while back.

    I lived in SF when he became mayor, and when he should have lost the job.

    In the context of SF, he wasn't leading on anything... just another corporatist exploiting social issues to deceive voters.

    Don't trust him.

    A

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have zipper worries about Newsome, but if he is running against Trump that shouldn't be a problem.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm really surprised that the darkest parallel between Jackson & Trump hasn't even been raised yet:
    deportation. Jackson, you see, had campaigned on the issue of Indian Removal. He made it a topic of his first Inaugural Address. Proving the adage that there's nothing new under the sun, Jackson told Congress that removal was just the humane thing to do for the Indians:

    "Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohegan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware is fast over-taking the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they remain within the limits of the States does not admit of a doubt. Humanity and national honor demand that every effort should be made to avert so great a calamity."

    However 'humane' Jackson thought the policy was, it led to the forced removal from the deep south of tens of thousands of native Americans, and the shameful "Trail of Tears", in which the Cherokee were forced to walk to Oklahoma, and many thousands died along the way.

    It would be well to remember that Trump is also a proponent of similar theories (ludicrously called "nativism" and "nationalism", though usually directed against both natives and national interests). Nearly the first words out of Trump's mouth when he kicked off his campaign were about Mexican immigrants, embellished later by remarks about a 'deportation force' and a flat ban on Muslim travel and emigration to the US.

    With Republicans holding all of the power in DC, does anyone doubt that Trump won't be able to act on his own version of Jackson's tragic "removal policy"? Would Trump, like Jackson, refuse to take action against States that assume the Federal prerogative and attempt to evict immigrants and Muslims themselves? What an awful prospect.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    SO...

    What ya'all think of ya'all's "NOT MY PRESIDENT'ERS"???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seething liberals vow revolution in Democratic Party
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305617-seething-liberals-vow-revolution-in-democratic-party

    Looks like the Democrat Party is going to be in hurtin' status for quite a while.....

    It's what happens when arrogance and bigotry replace logic and reason....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.. In the afore article, Democrats are looking to repeat the success of the Tea Party. A Tea Party movement that was so derided and ridiculed by the Left... :D

    The hypocrisy of the Left simply knows no depths.....

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it makes ya'all feel any better, RCP still has Clinton up by .5 points :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Trump ran an often ugly campaign. Yes, I am among those worried about his unpredictability. But the left has work to do, not only on policy and organization but also on attitude. Too many of my progressive friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ -- and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall.

    My friends on the left have come to resemble a little too closely my friends on the right, and the Republican Party has also received well-justified kicks in the pants from time to time. But it’s liberalism that has thought itself ascendant of late, while conservatives have found themselves scrambling for an identity.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-11/trump-and-the-fall-of-liberalism

    Hmmmm Where have I heard this argument before??? :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news....

    NFL looks for change to stop eroding TV ratings
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-nfl-tv-ratings-bears-spt-1113-20161112-story.html

    Kick those America-hating morons in the ass and give them 2 choices...

    Honor Flag and Country or take off the uniform and go home.....

    It's that simple....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nearly the first words out of Trump's mouth when he kicked off his campaign were about Mexican immigrants, embellished later by remarks about a 'deportation force' and a flat ban on Muslim travel and emigration to the US.

    Once again, you try and perpetuate bullshit and once again, I am here to set the record straight with FACTS....

    Nearly the first words out of Trump's mouth when he kicked off his campaign were about ILLEGAL immigrants....

    And no sane, logical or rational American has any problem, nor SHOULD have any problem with Trump's words on ILLEGAL immigrants...

    Don't worry.. I'll ALWAYS be around to set the record straight with the FACTS.... :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    China warns Trump against abandoning climate change deal
    https://www.ft.com/content/35803636-a82a-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

    Trump Tells China To Take Their Climate Deal And Shove It...
    -http://michalenews.com

    And in other news..

    Liberals Push Orbital-Change Deal
    "We simply MUST STOP planetary orbit-change or the Earth is doomed!!!!"

    :^D

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (36)-
    So the "left" (that really is right of center if you're talking about the Democratic Party) is like the Cleveland Browns.
    They could have signed Brock Osweiller or drafted Carson Wentz (Bernie Sanders and/or Voucher Vendetta) but chose instead to stick with a known evil in RGIII (Hillary Clinton).
    0-10.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    I wasn't commenting on what the Democrat Party SHOULD have done so much as pointing out the blatant hypocrisy on what the Democrat Party MAY do now...

    I mean, for years, the Left has denigrated the Tea Party, persecuted and ridiculed the Tea Party at every turn and juncture and then, when it appears that the "Tea Party Method" was responsible for THE largest political coup in the history of the country, someone in the Democrat Party says, "Hmmmmm Let's try THAT!!!"....

    Such blatant 180s simply MUST be hazardous to one's health, eh??

    :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/13/conservatives-advice-for-newly-humbled-press.html

    A common theme is emerging with regards to AFTER ACTION reports coming from the media.. This commentary is similar to that FaceBook video I posted yesterday...

    It will be a common thread in my upcoming AA report....

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How would you view a decision by President Trump (or, by president-elect Trump, for that matter) to nominate Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS?

    Don't worry, I don't think it's going to happen or even cross Trump's mind. I'm just wondering if you would view it as I would ... as a wonderful step toward healing a perpetually divided nation.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think PE Trump can choose other ways to indicate a willingness to meet halfway and heal...

    Re-Nominating an anti-2nd Amendment judge like Merrick is a non-starter....

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (43)-
    Yep. I just wanted to add an "I told you so."
    While it was before I commented on this site I was talking about the Tea Party strategy of taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries before there was a Tea Party.
    That was not enough for anyone to listen to me when I said that a small contribution candidate could be competitive. As far back as the 2000 campaign I contacted Ralph Nader (including a small contribution) suggesting such an approach, got put on his mailing list and was asked to contribute up to 2000 dollars.
    Bernie has proven that a small contribution campaign can work.
    It can work even better during an off year election in the primaries against the Big Money congressional candidates of both current major parties.
    So if the left uses this strategy to improve the Democratic Party by purging the Big Money candidates form the party I say better late than never.
    And if the people that voted for Trump and the other Big Money candidates on the right finally figure out that they are also being screwed by the Tea Party, Trump and the Republican establishment and they use this strategy to improve the Republican Party by purging the Big Money candidates I say again better late than never.
    Then citizens can influence the issues in the elections instead of having the Big Money interests frame the debate for the purpose of manipulating the very people that they are exploiting to support them.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Okay, that's fair enough. I still think he should nominate someone who both the Democrats and Republicans can get behind.

    In other words, nominate someone using the same kind of unifying thinking that President Obama based his decision on.

    But, I just wanted to mention something else that has been swirling around in my head lately. I'm beginning to think that all of your arguments against the identity politics of the Democrats deserve more thought and discussion and debate.

    I think the tendency toward talking about issues in terms of how different groups of people and different places across the country are affected by how these issues are dealt with or not dealt with.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that I am very open to discussing all of this as we go forward.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Okay, that's fair enough. I still think he should nominate someone who both the Democrats and Republicans can get behind.

    In other words, nominate someone using the same kind of unifying thinking that President Obama based his decision on.

    But, I just wanted to mention something else that has been swirling around in my head lately. I'm beginning to think that all of your arguments against the identity politics of the Democrats deserve more thought and discussion and debate.

    I think the tendency toward talking about issues in terms of how different groups of people and different places across the country are affected by how these issues are dealt with or not dealt with really leads to missing the big picture of what voters, in general, everywhere in the country are worried and concerned about.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that I am very open to discussing all of this as we go forward.

  50. [50] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    38

    You should include the name with your excerpts.
    It's SOP.

    Whoever it was who wrote those words is projecting so badly they deserve a smack... and hard.
    Everything he said is true about the right wing "centrist" Wall Street coddling warmonger Dems.

    They "have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ".
    That sums up most Hillary (and Obama) supporters perfectly... including a few here.

    That's how they treated both the Left and Trump voters.
    It is the establishment Democrats, not the Left, who are "dripping with hubris".

    The way they continue to blame everyone but themselves is also a clear indicator that they still feel entitled to run the Democratic party despite their yuge failures. They continue to put their personal interests ahead of both the party and country.

    And, BTW, you calling these types representative of the Left in other comments is fiction. Please rejoin reality. You opposed the Democratic establishment... so why are you helping them now by perpetuating that lie?

    A

  51. [51] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If voters were sending a giant middle finger at D.C., what does that make Trump?

    The tip of the spear...... :D"

    More like the shaft that bites all the people who voted for him in their collective rears, if all the Republicans he has surrounded himself with like Christie, Pence, Gingrich, Ryan, McConnell etc. get their way.

    "Nor would someone who is is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would have been able to be the thoroughly successful businessman Trump is."

    How in the world can you keep calling him a successful businessman??? I don't understand that! Are you that totally blind??? ALL of his businesses have FAILED. ALL his Atlantic City hotel casinos went BANKRUPT. ALL his branded businesses like Trump steaks and Trump airlines, no longer EXIST. How does that make the man successful?? He had ONE reality TV show, that's IT.

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If voters were sending a giant middle finger at D.C., what does that make Trump?

    The tip of the spear...... :D"

    More like the shaft that bites all those who voted for him in their collective rears. Especially if all the Republicans he is surrounded by, from Christie, to Pence, to Gingrich, to McConnell, to Ryan, to Giuliani, get their way.

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Nor would someone who is is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would have been able to be the thoroughly successful businessman Trump is."

    How in the world can you keep calling him a successful businessman??? ALL of his Atlantic City hotel casinos went BANKRUPT. ALL of his branded businesses have FAILED, like his airline and his steaks, both of which no longer EXIST. Also gone is the Vodka that bears his name, the magazine, the board game, the University, the mortgage company, the travel web site, etc. ALL FAILURES, and that's only a partial list.

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    The way they continue to blame everyone but themselves is also a clear indicator that they still feel entitled to run the Democratic party despite their yuge failures.

    Hmm.

    This is populism vs. realism. We have had a 10 year drift towards progressive politicians, and during this time the business model has changed significantly (here are just a few of the larger changes):

    1. China has added massive deflation to world labor costs

    2. Free trade deals have allowed sophisticated supply chains to further reduce costs (e.g. fish is caught in Norway, frozen and flown to China for processing, then flown back to the same Norwegian fishing villages where it is prized as a local delicacy)

    3. Technology continues improve, yet further driving down the cost for most classes of labor

    4. Trickle down economics in the U.S. coupled with the acceptance of huge deficits has driven up the Gini

    None of these things will change now a populist wave of politicians (Duterte, Trump, Brexit->May) have capitalized on the pain from the loss of income for the first world working class.

    Check figure 4 in this link: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/global-income-distribution-in-detail.html

    Trump can't fix this, and in fact the only plan his team seem to have ready for day one isn't how to build a wall, repeal Obamacare or get out of the Iran treaty - it is a complete plan including vote/sign ready legislation to lower taxes on the rich (who would have predicted that?).

    In four years time a rabble rouser from the left will be telling the hoi polloi that their pain is still as real (and probably worse unless Trump ditches 90% of his current transition team and takes a very different approach from standard establishment Republicanism), and that Trump and the Reaganites are false prophets only looking out for the billionaire class. Whoever that is (sort of a "son of Bernie") will face the same challenge four years later.

    Those heavy manufacturing jobs in the rust belt aren't coming back. China is trying to damp down their over investment in steel and other heavy industry. There is massive overcapacity and India is just coming online from a World economic perspective.

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Nor would someone who is is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would have been able to be the thoroughly successful businessman Trump is."

    How in the world can you keep calling him that???

    Here is a list of FAILURES as published by Rolling Stone Magazine and Gawker:

    1. Trump Airlines
    2. Trump beverages
    3. Trump: The Game
    4. Trump casinos
    5. Trump magazine
    6. Trump Mortgage
    7. Trump Steaks
    8. Trump's travel site
    9. Trump's comms company
    10. Trump Tower Tampa
    11. Trump University
    12. Trump Vodka
    13. Trump's cologne brands
    14. Trump's line of menswear
    15. Trump-branded mattress
    16. The New Jersey Generals
    17. Tour de Trump
    18. Trump on the Ocean
    19. Trump Network

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    Successful? I hardly think so!

    Here is a list of FAILURES:

    1. Airlines
    2. Beverages
    3. The Board Game
    4. casinos
    5. magazine
    6. Mortgage company
    7. Steaks
    8. travel web site
    9. telecommunications company
    10. Tower Tampa
    11. University
    12. Vodka
    13. cologne brands
    14. line of menswear
    15. branded mattresses
    16. The New Jersey Generals
    17. TV Network

  57. [57] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Nor would someone who is is plagued by "bumbling stupidity" would have been able to be the thoroughly successful businessman Trump is."

    How can you possibly keep calling him that, given all his failures and bankruptcies?? I can list at least 19 distinct different business ventures of his right here that have failed. But whenever I try to post the list, it gets eaten.

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    Michael wrote:

    "I am curious as to ya'all's thoughts on all the threats of assassinating Trump that are permeating the airwaves....

    Comments???"

    They are awful of course, and should be condemned. But it does show you that Trump is an even more divisive President than you made Obama out to be. When, in our history, have we had people in multiple cities staging protest marches in the streets by the thousands over an elected President before they even take office? That did not even happen when Obama was elected, and you called him divisive. Will you do the same now for Trump?

    Trump needs to come out forcefully, now, and reassure those people, and condemn in the strongest possible terms, instances of bigotry taking place by some of his supporters in his name. It is up to Trump, to reach out tho those protesters as President, and not the other way around.

  59. [59] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "SO...

    What ya'all think of ya'all's "NOT MY PRESIDENT'ERS"???"

    Hardly different from all those who said the same thing about Obama, don't you think? Including the Republicans in Congress who vowed to make him a one term President, and those who questioned Obama's legitimacy and birthplace. What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander an all that eh?

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If it makes ya'all feel any better, RCP still has Clinton up by .5 points :D"

    If it makes YOU feel any better, Clinton is on track to have won the popular vote by at least 1.8 million votes, when all the votes are finally counted.

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "Trump can't fix this, and in fact the only plan his team seem to have ready for day one isn't how to build a wall, repeal Obamacare or get out of the Iran treaty - it is a complete plan including vote/sign ready legislation to lower taxes on the rich (who would have predicted that?)."

    I wonder how his supporters are going to feel when it turns out he can't even build that wall??

    There is an Indian reservation that stretches along the border of Arizona and Mexico for 75 miles. It is completely open land and the Native American tribe that lives there wants to keep it that way and is totally opposed to any kind of wall at all being built on their land. Because the tribe is treated as a sovereign nation by the U.S., the Federal government cannot build a wall there without the tribe's consent and approval, something they have already vehemently said that they are never going to give.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    How can you possibly keep calling him that, given all his failures and bankruptcies?? I can list at least 19 distinct different business ventures of his right here that have failed. But whenever I try to post the list, it gets eaten.

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life.
    -Michael Jordan

    Using your reasoning, Michael Jordan is absolutely THE WORST basketball player in the history of the world and, in basketball and in life, he is the EPITOME of "bumbling stupidity".....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is an Indian reservation that stretches along the border of Arizona and Mexico for 75 miles. It is completely open land and the Native American tribe that lives there wants to keep it that way and is totally opposed to any kind of wall at all being built on their land. Because the tribe is treated as a sovereign nation by the U.S., the Federal government cannot build a wall there without the tribe's consent and approval, something they have already vehemently said that they are never going to give

    Not a problem...

    The US will simply build the wall right up to the border of tribal property on each side.....

    The effect will be to funnel scumbags, drugs, rapists and murderers straight into tribal land....

    The beefed up and fully manned Federal Border Force can set up checkpoints and cordons to insure that said scumbags, drugs, rapists and murderers do not spill out of tribal land into the good ole US of A.....

    Within 3 months, tribal elders will be BEGGING President Trump to extend the wall thru tribal land....

    Easy, Peezy, Lemon, Squeezy.....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it makes YOU feel any better, Clinton is on track to have won the popular vote by at least 1.8 million votes, when all the votes are finally counted.

    I think Russ said it best..

    "Thank god we have the Electoral College to put a collar on crazy"

    Or words to that effect.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Okay, that's fair enough. I still think he should nominate someone who both the Democrats and Republicans can get behind.

    For me personally, and I honestly believe, all of Trump supporters, the 2nd Amendment is the litmus test by which ALL nominees will be selected...

    I simply cannot see any Democrat "getting behind" a nominee that will fully protect the 2nd Amendment..

    Honestly, I don't think SCOTUS nominees is the best area for a meeting of the minds....

    I'll get to your other part later...

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder how his supporters are going to feel when it turns out he can't even build that wall??

    He is already talking back the "big beautiful wall" - it is going to be a fence instead. We're keeping Obamacare, the Iran Treaty is a good idea after all, there are contradictory signals about deportations.

    By the time Trump is inaugurated Michale will be marching against him :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:
  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    He is already talking back the "big beautiful wall" - it is going to be a fence instead. We're keeping Obamacare, the Iran Treaty is a good idea after all, there are contradictory signals about deportations.

    By the time Trump is inaugurated Michale will be marching against him :)

    Whatever ya have ta tell yerself to make it thru the day.... :D

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder how his supporters are going to feel when it turns out he can't even build that wall??

    Even better, when Mexico tells Trump they aren't going to pay for it as well.

    Plus Trump will be very wary about appointing a special prosecutor to go after Hillary - even he isn't stupid enough to realize what will happen to him when the Democrats get power back. That is if he isn't already in jail for the Trump U. con, or another of his cons.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is up to Trump, to reach out tho those protesters as President, and not the other way around.

    Bullshit..

    "Elections have consequences"
    -President Barack Obama

    Trump won the election...

    It's up to the protesters to quit acting like spoiled brats...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even better, when Mexico tells Trump they aren't going to pay for it as well.

    Mexico gets BILLIONS from the US in various forms, including remittances.....

    Mexico WILL pay for the wall..

    Of that, there is absolutely NO DOUBT....

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is an Indian reservation that stretches along the border of Arizona and Mexico for 75 miles.

    Thanks for pointing this out.

    I've just read up on the Tohono O'odham tribe - their reservation (on the U.S. side of the border) is the size of Connecticut. They also have people in Mexico, and traditionally have a migrant culture. They have a complex relationship with the border patrol, as their reservation is a high traffic area for people and drug smugglers - mostly to the detriment of the tribe, it must be said.

    No "big, beautiful wall" for them. What a farce.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    And ... Trump now realizes what an idiot he was when he thought Japan and South Korea should get their own nukes. He is marching backwards on this as well.

    This is freaking hilarious. He is going to be a muppet controlled by Pence and the Congress.

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper about Trump’s promise to establish tariffs on goods from countries such as China and Mexico in the first 100 days of his presidency, Ryan again demurred.

    “Well, I think there’s a better way of dealing with that particular issue,” Ryan said, citing his own tax reform plan.

    Trump promised tariffs on China and Mexico. Congress is going to give him as tax bill to sign instead.

    LMFAO.

    Don't tell us we didn't warn you that Trump was lying to you all along.

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    52

    "We have had a 10 year drift towards progressive politicians"

    Utter nonsense.
    Obama ran as a progressive and then stabbed us in the back.
    Hillary claimed to be progressive but wasn't.
    Republicans took over Congress and now the presidency.

    What "drift" are you referring to?

    Perhaps you meant populist not progressive?
    I would argue that too.
    One fake populist president, an appointed British PM, and a wackjob in the Philippines does not a "drift of politicians" make.

    In any case, what in the world does it have to do with my comment about the internal control of the Democratic party by Wall Street coddling corporatists?

    Are you claiming the economic changes (none of which are new to the last 10 years) require the Dems to retain the Big Money bootlickers?

    And, btw, crony capitalism where our tax code subsidizes the offshoring of jobs is not free trade... and Germany has retained much of their manufacturing base using techniques we could emulate (but Wall Street coddling Dems and their Republican collaborators have ruled them out due to their anti-union ideology and greed).
    Is that the "realism" to which you were referring?

    A

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    This is freaking hilarious. He is going to be a muppet controlled by Pence and the Congress.

    Sour grapes is so unappealing.... :^/

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ryan again demurred.

    Don't see anything about Trump there... :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is freaking hilarious. He is going to be a muppet controlled by Pence and the Congress.

    Sour grapes is so unappealing.... :^/

    Not that I am hitting on you or anything.... :D

  79. [79] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Trump won the election...

    It's up to the protesters to quit acting like spoiled brats..."

    You are ONLY saying that because he has an "R" after his name. If the situation was reversed, and those people were out protesting a Hillary Clinton win, admit you would be singing a different tune entirely.

    Again, Trump is President. He NEEDS to start acting PRESIDENTIAL, and reach out to those people. It IS up to HIM to do so. Calling the protesters spoiled brats or whiny is a total disservice to the real concerns and fears of millions of your fellow Americans. I THOUGHT you were voting for something BETTER than that?? Or was I wrong?

  80. [80] 
    John M wrote:

    By the way Michale, Trump just appointed Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee as his White House Chief of Staff. So much for selecting someone who was not part of the establishment I guess huh??? How much more establishment can you get than Priebus???

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are ONLY saying that because he has an "R" after his name. If the situation was reversed, and those people were out protesting a Hillary Clinton win, admit you would be singing a different tune entirely.

    If Hillary had won in the same manner that Trump had won and Trump supporters were acting like Hillary supporters are now??

    I would be saying the exact same thing.

    "Yea, we're disappointed, but get over it already. She's our President and that is that..."

    I think everyone here knows me well enough to to know that this is fact...

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way Michale, Trump just appointed Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee as his White House Chief of Staff. So much for selecting someone who was not part of the establishment I guess huh??? How much more establishment can you get than Priebus???

    Yet Trump is in charge....

    I thought ya'all approved of hiring politicians and people with experience?? At least you do when someone who has a '-D' after their name does it. :D

    It's gonna be a fun 4 year, ain't it?? :D heh

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's just so funny because I thought the Left Wingers were all about peace and tolerance and against hate..

    It's so..... disappointing to learn that they are just as intolerance and hate-filled as they accuse the Right of being...

    Sad....

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    What "drift" are you referring to?

    Gay marriage.
    Action on climate change.
    Boosting renewable energy.
    Reformed healthcare.
    Dodd-Frank.
    Consumer protection agancy.
    Nuclear agreement with Iran.
    Opened up Cuba.
    Expansion of Pell Grants.
    Saved the U.S. auto industry.
    Gays in the military.
    Women in the military.

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    Priebus as Chief of Staff - that'll "drain the swamp" - har har.

    We've got four years of gay-bashing, immigrant baiting, climate denial, and general stupidity (you can't make good policy if you deny reality).

    On the upside, I'm probably going to be able to buy all my kids new cars with the taxes I save. They are unhappy about Trump at the moment, so that should cheer them up.

    Plus they live in a sane state, so most of Trump's nonsense won't impact them anyway.

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    [50] altohone,

    Everything he said is true about the right wing "centrist" Wall Street coddling warmonger Dems.
    They "have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ".

    That sums up most Hillary (and Obama) supporters perfectly... including a few here.

    I am not going to mince words here because I have just about had it with your BS. You are worse than Michale (no offense Michale) because when you get on your sanctimonious high horse or your soapbox, anyone who disagrees with your dogma is labelled and dismissed. You have this annoying habit of assuming and presuming facts not in evidence in order to more easily label others and dismiss their beliefs, with statements such as "in case you don't realize what you're saying." It seemingly never occurs to you that someone who disagrees with your position is speaking from a lifelong history of hands-on experience. If only we'd read this paragraph or that article, we'd see the wisdom of your position.

    Lighten up, pal.... Al.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    [11]

    Neil said: If voters were sending a giant middle finger at D.C., what does that make Trump?

    Michale said: The tip of the spear...... :D

    I think Michale is close, but I'm going with: The tip of the double-edged sword. :)

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    The tip of the double-edged sword.

    Interesting. It is Trump's only hope of coming out of this with anything but the look of a confused puppet that doesn't understand why everybody hates him - including all the people who got excited at his rallies. I doubt he has the smarts, but one of the kids might not be as much of a clown as the rest - I put my money on Ivanka's husband - there might be a brain there. If he really is a change agent, and the Republican establishment starts to scream, the fun is on.

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Let's review and discuss, shall we?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/09/angry-white-men-triumphant/#comment-87946

    Trump, more than any GOP candidate in a loooooooong time, relied heavily on the RNC..

    Bull... Trump cut the RNC loose almost a month ago...

    I totally understand why someone would actually think he owes them "ZERO allegiance," although that is simply not the case. :)

    It IS the case...

    The vast majority of the GOP abandoned Trump after that locker room video was released. Trump returned the favor and gave the RNC the finger a couple weeks later...

    Trump has absolutely ZERO allegiance to the RNC...

    Which is good for America....

    *********

    Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is your "ZERO allegiance to the RNC" at work, Huckleberry. It's amazing how quickly those bottom feeders rise to the top when you "drain the swamp."

    Might you at least sometimes pay attention to what I tell you? :)

  90. [90] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [17]

    Altohone -

    I haven't checked out the latest numbers personally, but somebody elsewhere said that Trump didn't expand the Repub base by much, but won because turnout for Hillary was waaayyyyyyyy down.

    Again, I'm not sure if the numbers have changed, but it was something like 5 million fewer Dem votes compared to 2012 and 10 million fewer votes than 2008... and Trump was nowhere near Obama's totals. So, the silent majority thing is a myth.

    Clinton is presently some 2 million votes in front of Trump with about 7 million votes left to count. At this rate she looks to equal or slightly surpass Obama's 2012 numbers.

    That might resemble some form of silent majority, except that it would be Democratic and I don't think the term "silent majority" applies to them.

    That term is strictly for the republics. Their majority is so perfectly silent that it doesn't even show up in the numbers. The current count shows that Dems cannot hope to equal them this time round.

    Anyway, point being, they don't need Beyoncé,

    Ah yes, I was forgetting that she has brown skin and is female. America has resoundingly told women that any man at all is better than a woman. We are not worthy. They let us have access to lesser positions (but only in the minority, ie outnumbered by males) - especially if pretty like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann - but not for the really big and important job of president.

    they just need someone with integrity who doesn't lack charisma so badly that even a popular president, first lady and countless rock stars are unable to help close the gap.

    And, by integrity I mean personal integrity, integrity on economic issues, foreign policy...

    ... and I'm not aware of any billionaires who qualify.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, Clinton had the most integrity of all of them so there just isn't anyone else in the party who qualifies.

    Therefore they will have to make do with a man since integrity is not a condition required for a male candidate. Better still, a man outside the party with no political experience whatsoever. After all, one of the habits of successful people is that they emulate winners. Therefore it is surely obvious that if the Democratic Party is to have any chance of future success, it must study the successful republic campaign and emulate it in every detail.

    I'm guessing you were just joking around,

    But of course - I don't seriously believe the Democrats could ever find a candidate equal to Trump and I don't believe they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the White House or the senate majority in my lifetime.

    but I answered seriously anyway.

    Thank you. We just happen to disagree.

    The big problem for Dems...

    The big problem for Dems is that they are nowhere near as good at getting elected as the republics and their party might well go the way of the Whigs because of it.

    Warren has the integrity, but her age and charisma could be issues.

    I don't agree. I think a lot of Warren's so-called integrity is just show. She certainly rushed to stab President Obama in the back, along with her chickenshit colleagues who think congresspersons should have far more power and the president much less.

    She is also a very weak speaker in terms of voice and body language. Plus she has the same sartorial problems as Clinton - all her clothing is the exact same style and only the colors vary. That is not acceptable.

    Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, has the integrity, but is similar to Warren just younger and shorter.

    Kate Brown's gender and sexuality disqualify her.

    Kamala Harris seems to have both, but may not be ready after only 4 years... a short track record like Obama that may worry the left... once burned, twice shy.

    Her gender disqualifies her as does her political experience - not because she has too little but because she dares to have any at all. That blatantly is not what Americans want in their president.

    Other names for consideration should be raised and SOON.

    There's a very good reason why other names are not being raised - there is no-one in the party who fits what Americans just voted for in their choice for next president.

    And, BTW, I like Stein... she has integrity and charisma, but she's a little quirky too. I like quirky, but the Green party would probably be better off with new blood too. A viable third party challenger needs to check every box to hope to overcome the duopoly.

    Maybe the Green Party will fill the vacuum that will be left by the Democratic Party over the next four years.

  91. [91] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [14]

    Michale -

    I am not in touch with Paula so I can't help you.

  92. [92] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [13]

    Michale -

    I am curious as to ya'all's thoughts on all the threats of assassinating Trump that are permeating the airwaves....

    Comments???

    Don't worry about it; it's part of the job.

    When Obama won in 2008, Australians started running a book with bets on how long it would be before the first black president was assassinated.

    But security kept him safe in spite of a constant stream of threats. They will keep Trump safe too.

    Not so sure about Pence though... no reason... just a feeling.

  93. [93] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [34]

    Michale -

    SO...

    What ya'all think of ya'all's "NOT MY PRESIDENT'ERS"???

    Very American isn't it. After all, republics have said the same about Obama for the last eight years. It's just an American thing. Won't last.

  94. [94] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [35]

    Michale -

    It's just the Bernie people stirring up trouble. They're sore losers. They want to burn down the party (or kidnap it and take over) that denied their guy a chance at losing the election.

  95. [95] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [37]

    Michale -

    If it makes ya'all feel any better, RCP still has Clinton up by .5 points :D

    It's meaningless. It's only of academic interest now.

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [52]

    neilm -


    4. Trickle down economics in the U.S. coupled with the acceptance of huge deficits has driven up the Gini

    Trump can't fix this

    It is not the president's job to bother himself with economic issues. It is the US House which writes the budget.

    Paul Ryan has had his budget ready to go for at least two years now. It will be passed in January next year and Trump will sign it.

    Sure it embodies trickle-down economics but that's by design because that's what will achieve the GOP's aims.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Such malice-infused comments, Mopshell ... where does it all come from?

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    I think Michale is close, but I'm going with: The tip of the double-edged sword. :)

    I'll readily concede the possibility that you COULD be right...

    Time will tell...

    "It usually does"
    -Liz

    :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    It's just the Bernie people stirring up trouble. They're sore losers. They want to burn down the party (or kidnap it and take over) that denied their guy a chance at losing the election.

    You're likely correct as well..

    Can't the Left reign them in???

    "You're Catholic, can't you talk to them?"

    "They hate me more than you. At least you have an excuse, you're Jewish, you don't know any better."

    "I don't think they'd accept that one, we used that one already when we killed Christ."
    -Dogma

    :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is your "ZERO allegiance to the RNC" at work, Huckleberry. It's amazing how quickly those bottom feeders rise to the top when you "drain the swamp."

    Might you at least sometimes pay attention to what I tell you? :)

    I always do...

    You're just not always right.. :D

    "I always believe you, Max but you're not always right."
    -Bruce McGill, TIME COP

    :D

    Hiring RNC BS (nod to CW :D) in NO WAY acknowledges any fealty to the RNC..

    I think ya'all have proven beyond ANY doubt that Trump listens to what people have to say and then does whatever the hell he wants....

    Trump is the man at the wheel.. Whomever he chooses as his support staff in NO WAY determines his course of actions..

    Ya'all will find that out as we go along..

    'Sides.. As I pointed out to JM above.. Ya'all would slam Trump regardless of who he chooses...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    That term is strictly for the republics. Their majority is so perfectly silent that it doesn't even show up in the numbers.

    But it DOES show up for the people who actually follow facts and reality instead of just propaganda sites..

    Not tootin' my own horn... but.... BEEP BEEP...

    :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah yes, I was forgetting that she has brown skin and is female.

    Completely true and, like her presence on the campaign trail, completely irrelevant...

    HRC thought she could buy votes and turnout with celebrities, shiny beads and shallow flattery..

    HRC was way WAY wrong...

    It's that simple....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, Clinton had the most integrity of all of them..

    Which is a sad sad commentary on the Democratic Party as a whole....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    The big problem for Dems is that they are nowhere near as good at getting elected as the republics and their party might well go the way of the Whigs because of it.

    I would say that the biggest problem for the Dems is that they tend to believe their own press releases and propaganda and react to the world as they wish it was rather than react to the world as it really is...

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale -

    I am not in touch with Paula so I can't help you.

    Thank you..

    I hope she's doing OK...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, has the integrity, but is similar to Warren just younger and shorter.

    Kate Brown's gender and sexuality disqualify her.

    Kamala Harris seems to have both, but may not be ready after only 4 years... a short track record like Obama that may worry the left... once burned, twice shy.

    Her gender disqualifies her as does her political experience - not because she has too little but because she dares to have any at all. That blatantly is not what Americans want in their president.

    I would have to disagree...

    Americans have absolutely NO PROBLEM having a woman president...

    It's clear that Americans simply did not want THIS WOMAN (HRC) as President...

    Yea, yea.. "But! But!! The popular vote!!" If the PV was relevant to how we pick our President, that would be a valid point...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that age old question MUST be asked..

    Who was the better Metatron??

    Alan Rickman or Curtis "Booger" Armstrong??

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Obama won in 2008, Australians started running a book with bets on how long it would be before the first black president was assassinated.

    But security kept him safe in spite of a constant stream of threats. They will keep Trump safe too.

    It's funny...

    I didn't think much of any assassination attempts when Obama was elected in 2008. Remember, I voted FOR Obama in 2008.. I guess I just thought that we have finally growed up...

    I *AM* seriously concerned about assassination attempts on Trump... But I am heartened by the fact that those who protect Trump up and down the spectrum are all Trump supporters and voted for Trump.. So that makes me feel better...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it makes ya'all feel any better, RCP still has Clinton up by .5 points :D

    It's meaningless. It's only of academic interest now.

    It IS academic, but it's not meaningless..

    It shows that the delusions of the Leftist MSM is VERY hard for said Leftist MSM to let go of.. :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Despite all the discussion of demographic forces that doomed the G.O.P., it will soon control the presidency as well as both chambers of Congress and two of every three governor’s offices. And that’s not just a function of James Comey, Julian Assange and misogyny. Democrats who believe so are dangerously mistaken.

    Other factors conspired in the party’s debacle. One in particular haunts me. From the presidential race on down, Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a “basket of deplorables” who aren’t all deplorable. Some are hurt. Some are confused.

    Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. A 64-year-old Southern woman not onboard with marriage equality finds herself characterized as a hateful boob. Never mind that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren’t themselves onboard just five short years ago.

    Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/the-democrats-screwed-up.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

    Does any of this sound familiar???

    It should.... It's been what I have been saying for the last year.....

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think the tendency toward talking about issues in terms of how different groups of people and different places across the country are affected by how these issues are dealt with or not dealt with really leads to missing the big picture of what voters, in general, everywhere in the country are worried and concerned about.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that I am very open to discussing all of this as we go forward.

    I think the very idea of "identity politics" is exactly why Democrats found themselves on the short of of the election. Not just with the presidential election, but all downstream elections too....

    Identity politics is just a fancy way of saying that we're going to cater to one special interest group at the expense of a different special interest group..

    To have any real and meaning, our discussion must start with the idea that the ONLY "identity" relevant to American "identity politics" is the American identity...

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, "identity politics" as it is deployed by the Left is *ONLY* designed to drive people apart...

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another take on the gender/identity crap...

    Killing the ‘sisterhood’: why identity politics didn’t work for Clinton

    But in an era where women get a greater percentage of the college degrees and women without children earn more than their male counterparts, most women don’t see themselves as victims, let alone ones who need to join hands in solidarity.

    In Slate, Michelle Goldberg writes that Hillary’s “victory would have been a sign that the gender hierarchy that has always been fundamental to our society .?.?. was starting to crumble. It would have meant that men no longer rule.” She laments, “I thought my daughter was not going to be consigned to a lesser life than my son. I no longer do.”

    Oh, please. If anyone besides a few liberal elites believed that, Hillary would have won.
    http://nypost.com/2016/11/13/killing-the-sisterhood-why-identity-politics-didnt-work-for-clinton/

    I wrote #107 and #108 before I read the above...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for those of ya'all who just see.....

    Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:41 PST ]

    [95] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:44 PST ]

    [96] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:48 PST ]

    [97] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:53 PST ]

    [98] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:55 PST ]

    [99] Michale wrote:
    Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 04:57 PST ]

    [100] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:00 PST ]

    [101] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:02 PST ]

    [102] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:05 PST ]

    [103] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:07 PST ]

    [104] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:10 PST ]

    [105] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:12 PST ]

    [106] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 05:49 PST ]

    [107] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 07:15 PST ]

    [108] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 07:29 PST ]

    [109] Michale wrote:
    [ Permalink ] [ Monday, November 14th, 2016 at 07:43 PST ]

    ........ ya only have YERSELVES to blame for being "shocked" at the outcome of the election..

    Who knows?? If ya'all have actually chosen to be exposed to.... yunno... FACTS... ya'all might have been able to take steps that might have actually changed the outcome..

    Maybe if ya'all had chosen to expose yourselves to.. yunno... REALITY, you might have been able to volunteer a little harder here or convince someone a little more there..

    But noooo............

    Ya'all who see the above felt that Party loyalty and Ideological purity were more important than the facts and more important than reality..

    In short.....

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

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You will find that a more robust discussion will ensue if comments are less personal. Because, most of us are sensitive souls, you know.

    Trying to keep the personal pronouns out of comments is a great way to put arguments and views forward.

    It's a really hard thing to do and does take a bit of extra time to think about what is being typed out but it helps to take the personal out of it and emphasize the argument itself.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That means no more "ya'all", no more "royal you", and no more standard you, yourselves, etc.

    It would be okay to continue using Democrats and the Left so long as these labels are not attached to your fellow Weigantians.

    What do you say we try to do that and see how it goes?

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    You will find that a more robust discussion will ensue if comments are less personal. Because, most of us are sensitive souls, you know.

    I will endeavor to do just that, but in all honestly, I believe I earned comment #110...

    But it's out of my system for the most part and we can move on...

    Trying to keep the personal pronouns out of comments is a great way to put arguments and views forward.

    Which is exactly what I try to do.. Al knocked me above that I don't name names.. I do that very specifically because they people who I am talking about know who they are... :D

    It's a really hard thing to do and does take a bit of extra time to think about what is being typed out but it helps to take the personal out of it and emphasize the argument itself.

    You have my word that I will endeavor to do just that moving forward..

    I can't promise to succeed but I do promise to make my best effort.... :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you say we try to do that and see how it goes?

    I will endeavor to point out the exceptions to "ya'all"s, "royal you"s ("What is a ute"?? :D) "Left Wingery"s, etc etc when and where warranted....

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent! :)

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You may have to do [110] over ... the links aren't clickable??

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    You may have to do [110] over ... the links aren't clickable??

    They aren't meant to be..

    They simply represent what people who employ the "michale crutch" filter see...

    Although, if I recall correctly (didn't really care enough to go back and check out what it looks like) those who DO employ the Michale Crutch Filter (MCF) (I do love my acronyms :D) DO have clickable links..

    I guess this is done that way so that if those people actually DO want to be exposed to FACTS and REALITY, they have that option..

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    (I do love my acronyms :D)

    Apparently, closing my attributes??

    Not so much... :D

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Hillary's campaign left quite a lot to be desired but, it certainly leaves quite a number of lessons to be learned as well.

    It's a veritable teaching tool for the Democrats, going forward ... how not to run a campaign.

    Every campaign needs a candidate befitting the times, number one. And, number two, every candidate needs a mission that is real and clear and an uplifting message that speaks to all Americans and concentrates on the future while recognizing the present and learning from the past.

    The Democrats had precious little of that in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Hopefully, they will learn something as they engage in the inevitable, if unproductive, navel-gazing exercise. They are easy lessons so I am hopeful ... that was a little joke.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They simply represent what people who employ the "michale crutch" filter see...

    Ah, I see.

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe the Michale crutch filter will eventually become a thing of the past ... stranger things have already happened!

    :-)

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mopshell [92] It is not the president's job to bother himself with economic issues. It is the US House which writes the budget.

    Agreed. But do you think that the people who voted for Trump to make a change in their situation care?

    Trump didn't say "I'm going to get congress to make America great again".

    Let's see Trump's supporters true colors.

    - If Trump does nothing but throw them thinly disguised racist/bigoted red meat for four years and they still worship him, then we know that the whole "nobody cares about our plight" outrage is fake and is just another cover for hatred.

    - If he actually moves the dial for them, then good luck to them, because obviously 8 years of Obama didn't.

    - If they feel cheated by yet another lying politician who went to DC and lined the pockets of himself and all his rich friends so vote for "son of Bernie" then we are in for a socialist revolution.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe the Michale crutch filter will eventually become a thing of the past ... stranger things have already happened!

    :-)

    Indeed.... :D

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale crutch filter = Troll relief.

    I was simply bored with dozens of consecutive Brietbart talking points with no supporting evidence interspersed with puerile personal attacks. Part of free speech is being able not to have to listen to a stream of hateful diarrhea.

    If Michale grows up, let me know and I'll try switching the filter off for a while. Until then, I'm adding $50/year to my contribution in Chazz's name.

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Word of the day: kakistocracy

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I think we may be on to something ... and just in time for the big fundraiser!

    God knows, I have been frustrated by the same things that frustrate you. But, with the appropriate effort, I have found that the frustration does wane.

    And, besides, I really believe that this site is well worth the effort.

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Btw, I don't believe Michale is a troll. He is the only one around here who saw it coming, after all.

  132. [132] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    82

    Not only didn't you mince words, you dismissed my claim with condemnation and derision, and without any argument... proving my point perfectly. Pathetic.

    Hillary's Wall Street coddling ideology so prevalent in the Democratic party needs to go.
    All the exit polls make it clear that the establishment economic policies the corporatist Dems like Hillary support are the main reason Hillary lost the rust belt states.

    Defend them if you can, but insulting me doesn't qualify.

    Unless you wanted to lose, your "life-long experience" didn't lead to wise decisions in 2016 so you should probably find another argument.

    Your extremist attacks on patriotic whistleblowers are identical to the Republicans. It's certainly not a liberal or progressive policy position. If it's not ignorance causing you to do it, I apologize for assuming the best.

    If Dems want to win again, and win back the support of voters like me and the working class, then maintaining the status quo and attacking the critics who tried to warn Dems is insane.
    "Lighten up" is exactly the wrong approach.
    You need to get serious, fast.

    And, maybe read those articles, accept some responsibility, and consider if there's something to learn from them that may help you from making the same mistakes that caused the disastrous election results for the Democratic party again.

    A

    PS- I'm not fond of people who mince words.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale crutch filter = Troll relief.

    Michale Crutch Filter = Fact/Reality relief

    How'de that work out for ya, Neil?? :D

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Btw, I don't believe Michale is a troll. He is the only one around here who saw it coming, after all.

    Thank you, Liz

    It doesn't bother me any more.. Around here "troll" simply means someone who says something factual and accurate that the name-caller doesn't like...

    "Yea.. I can live with that.."
    -Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

  135. [135] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "It's just so funny because I thought the Left Wingers were all about peace and tolerance and against hate..

    It's so..... disappointing to learn that they are just as intolerance and hate-filled as they accuse the Right of being..."

    So, if you yourself Michale are all about peace and tolerance, are you willing to go on the record right here and now, and condemn Trump's choice of an out and out white nationalist racist and antisemitic alt-righter Steve Bannon as his chief strategist???

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    86

    Since you apparently weren't joking, and you don't seem to be joking in your response to me, we are going to have to agree to disagree on almost all of your points, many of which are offensive (Warren does need some public speaking and fashion advice).

    But I will say, if you think Hillary has the most integrity in the Democratic party, you are seriously out of touch with reality.

    I'm going to hold out hope you were joking throughout your reply though, because you are not normally off the deep end.

    Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

    A

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    Btw, I don't believe Michale is a troll. He is the only one around here who saw it coming, after all.

    I base the label "Troll" on the times I've tried in the past to repeatedly ask for reasonable evidence to support claims. I got all the boring troll-like excuses and mechanisms ("look it up yourself", changing the subject, false equivalencies, etc. etc.) but never any links to peer reviewed evidence of anything.

    I enjoy this site much more without Michale, but would welcome any poster who can support any argument, not just regurgitate right wing fairy tales for the believers. I can read Breitbart myself if I want that.

  138. [138] 
    John M wrote:

    Mopshell wrote:

    "Paul Ryan has had his budget ready to go for at least two years now. It will be passed in January next year and Trump will sign it."

    If Paul Ryan could not get House Republicans to agree on and pass ANY of their 12 individual appropriation spending bills during the past year that they have had a majority in the House, what makes you think they are going to be able to pass ANY kind of budget come January?

  139. [139] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [93]

    Such malice-infused comments, Mopshell ... where does it all come from?

    I'm surprised you asked since surely it is obvious that I learned it from you. You should give yourself more credit.

  140. [140] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "'Sides.. As I pointed out to JM above.. Ya'all would slam Trump regardless of who he chooses..."

    NOT TRUE at all. I actually think his choice of Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff is a reasonable one. I just don't think it is going to go down with his most rabid Trump followers very well, since it is a HIGHLY establishment choice and not what his followers elected him on. That's why I wanted your take on it Michale. Since you kept saying how it was a choice between Clinton and the establishment, and Trump and the anti-establishment, and then one of Trump's first major choices is someone who is the epitome of establishment.

  141. [141] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [95]

    Michale -

    You're likely correct as well..

    Can't the Left reign them in???

    The short answer is: No.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Michale grows up,

    By "grow up" you mean become a Party hack who ignores facts and reality to embrace ideological mythology???

    No thanks.. I'll happily remain a "child" until my dying day..

    Part of free speech is being able not to have to listen to a stream of hateful diarrhea.

    Part of free speech is ALSO not having to listen to facts and reality..

    You are absolutely right...

    BUT....

    But with that right comes responsibility..

    The responsibility to be honest and NOT represent yourself as a thinking and reasoning adult, but rather nothing more than a petulant child who rants and cries because the world is as it is and not as it's wished to be... :D

    Of course, there IS the alternative....

    But I somehow don't think yer amiable to that.. :D

  143. [143] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The effect will be to funnel scumbags, drugs, rapists and murderers straight into tribal land...."

    You don't think that they don't cross tribal land already? The article I read, in fact, talked about how tribal authorities were already dealing with that, had been for many years, and still were opposed to the wall anyway.

    "Within 3 months, tribal elders will be BEGGING President Trump to extend the wall thru tribal land....

    Easy, Peezy, Lemon, Squeezy....."

    If you truly believe that it will be that easy, you REALLY are living in a dream world.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    NOT TRUE at all. I actually think his choice of Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff is a reasonable one.

    I stand corrected.... :D

    That's why I wanted your take on it Michale. Since you kept saying how it was a choice between Clinton and the establishment, and Trump and the anti-establishment, and then one of Trump's first major choices is someone who is the epitome of establishment.

    My take is that I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt until he gives me real and tangible reasons not to..

    For example.. If I see President Trump (I am NEVER going to tire of saying that.. :D) allowing RNC BS to push an establishment agenda that I disagree with, I will definitely let my dissatisfaction be known here in Weigantia, far and wide...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't the Left reign them in???

    The short answer is: No.

    Yea... didna think so... :^/

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't think that they don't cross tribal land already? The article I read, in fact, talked about how tribal authorities were already dealing with that, had been for many years, and still were opposed to the wall anyway.

    I am sure SOME do..

    But SOME is not ALL and ALL is what the tribe will see when the Border Wall goes up and they are not on board...

    If you truly believe that it will be that easy, you REALLY are living in a dream world.

    "Easy" is a relative term.. If the tribal leaders allows a much larger influx illegals to prey on tribal members, then the leaders may find themselves going the way of Democrat "leaders"...

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I base the label "Troll" on the times I've tried in the past to repeatedly ask for reasonable evidence to support claims.

    I *DID* support each and every one of my factual claims WITH facts..

    The problem is, you didn't LIKE the facts, so you didn't ACCEPT them as facts..

    And, as we CLEARLY saw, EACH and EVERY one of my facts was dead on ballz accurate and it was your so-called "facts" that were found wanting....

    I was right...

    You were wrong...

    It's that simple...

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Do you always learn the wrong lessons? :)

  149. [149] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Mexico gets BILLIONS from the US in various forms, including remittances.....

    Mexico WILL pay for the wall..

    Of that, there is absolutely NO DOUBT....'

    One has nothing to do with the other. For one, remittances are private individual people to people economic transactions. Republicans and Libertarians especially won't want to touch that.

    For another, it is a matter of National Pride. Mexico will NOT pay for any kind of wall, of that there is absolutely no doubt. If you think otherwise, then you have no clue when it comes to the Latin mindset.

    Not to mention all the big American corporations who are already so heavily invested in Mexico. Trump might not listen, but do you think Republicans in Congress would pass anything that would spark a trade war with Mexico if all those corporations started screaming loudly?

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/agents-brace-for-pre-trump-border-surge/

    The Border Patrol's Commander In Chief is Donald Trump...

    YES!!!

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Did you get a chance to watch that FaceBook video?? I would love to hear your thoughts on it...

    https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary's campaign left quite a lot to be desired but, it certainly leaves quite a number of lessons to be learned as well.

    It's a veritable teaching tool for the Democrats, going forward ... how not to run a campaign.

    Every campaign needs a candidate befitting the times, number one. And, number two, every candidate needs a mission that is real and clear and an uplifting message that speaks to all Americans and concentrates on the future while recognizing the present and learning from the past.

    Couldn't agree more..

    As I said from Day One... This is an ESTABLISHMENT VS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election..

    The problem is Clinton was simply NOT credible as the Anti-Establishment candidate...

    The lesson from HRC's campaign is simple to identify but much harder to put into play..

    SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS, NOT AS WE WISH IT TO BE...

    The Establishment is simply incapable of reliable self-analysis...

    It was the EXACT same problem with the Anti-BREXIT campaign...

    HRC's campaign had a heads up, they had a BONA-FIDE "trial run" in the Brexit Campaign...

    But they ignored the facts and reality because it didn't fit THEIR reality and THEIR world-view...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    And many on the Left are STILL doing it. Even Neil, here in Weigantia...

    He goes on and on that I "had no facts.." when it is painfully obvious that I was the only one WITH the facts....

    Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the vast majority of the Democrats are going to be like Neil here...

    It's going to be the same problem Democrats had after the 2010 shellacking and the 2014 Nuclear Shellacking..

    "The problem is not our message... The problem is our messaging"

    The problem *IS* the message....

    The Democratic Party better learn that really fast or they never will win another election in our lifetimes...

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not to mention all the big American corporations who are already so heavily invested in Mexico.

    Spot on. There are too many supply chains that move parts repeatedly across both the Canadian and Mexican borders that will collapse if Trump dicks around with NAFTA. In fact, given that Mexico has what we need and want (cheap labor) and that Trump has vowed to send them 1-2M more workers while laying off an equal number here, only makes their position only stronger - if I were them I'd dream up some large infrastructure project and demand that Trump pays for it - maybe a $10B gun buy back program?

    The "remittances" approach is also a joke. Let me introduce you to financial reality - sending money to Canadian banks that have ATMs in Mexico is not that difficult to figure out, especially when these banks start advertising heavily on every Spanish TV channel.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    He goes on and on that I "had no facts.." when it is painfully obvious that I was the only one WITH the facts....

    Let me amend that to say Liz, Joshua and Altohone ALSO had facts..

    Sorry, I let my hyperbole get in the way of my common sense.... Apologies...

    I'll try and reign it in...

  156. [156] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [134]

    John M

    If Paul Ryan could not get House Republicans to agree on and pass ANY of their 12 individual appropriation spending bills during the past year that they have had a majority in the House, what makes you think they are going to be able to pass ANY kind of budget come January?

    First up, I concede that you make a very valid point here; there is no arguing that this wasn't the case - it most assuredly was.

    Nevertheless, I do believe there won't be any problem passing Ryan's original budget in full. I think it didn't work before because he was trying to cater to all factions during his first stint as speaker. You'd have to be a far better operator than Paul Ryan to make that approach work.

    This time he has the Trump base on his side which is fully in line with the freedom caucus. He can privatise Social Security, eliminate Medicaid and cut Medicare because he will also give them full repeal of the ACA. He can do away with food stamps altogether because he will give the euphemistic "job creators" a massive tax cut.

    Pretty much he can put into his budget everything he's ever wanted to do and promised in return to deport all undocumented immigrants and "anchor babies" to Mexico (whether they came from there or not). He will promise to eliminate the EPA and probably USPS as well. These are all things the freedom caucus wants.

    In the upper chamber, Cruz will be pushing for the elimination of the IRS. Not sure he'll get it but if he does, it will be an interesting to see how that works out.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "remittances" approach is also a joke. Let me introduce you to financial reality - sending money to Canadian banks that have ATMs in Mexico is not that difficult to figure out, especially when these banks start advertising heavily on every Spanish TV channel.

    Oh yes and those banks will be doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, right??

    Of course not.. They will put the hurts on the illegal immigrants' remittances, knowing that the immigrants have no place else to go..

    So, likely these banks will choose a "rate" very slightly below what the government would take...

    And, of course, the US government will ALSO be keeping an eye on those canadian banks and ALSO get a cut from the banks' new source of income...

    Let's face the FACTS here, Neil.. Mexico get's BILLIONS from the US.... Mexico will STILL get billions from the US....

    MINUS the cost of the border wall...

    This is the reality that you simply refuse to acknowledge....

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    80

    Gay marriage.
    An advancement on a progressive social issue.

    Action on climate change.
    Minimal and insufficient and coupled with an anti-progressive, massive expansion of domestic fossil fuel extraction and nuclear power.

    Boosting renewable energy.
    A valid progressive advance, but also minimal (as far as government support goes) and see above.

    Reformed healthcare.
    Right wing corporatist reform developed by the Heritage Foundation... nowhere near progressive.

    Dodd-Frank.
    Pathetically ineffective and mostly not implemented... not progressive.
    Too big to fail got bigger, inequality got worse, fraud went unpunished.

    Consumer protection agancy.
    Good on small issues to the extent they were pursued (very selectively), AWOL on the big financial issues.

    Nuclear agreement with Iran.
    A positive development offset by numerous anti-progressive wars, policies, actions.

    Opened up Cuba.
    Progressive, but Wall Street is happy too.

    Expansion of Pell Grants.
    Pathetically insufficient and nowhere near the systemic reforms needed. Possibly even counterproductive as it subsidizes and allows the drastic cost increases to continue.

    Saved the U.S. auto industry.
    That's what I'm talking about.
    A real progressive victory on economics.
    But without progressive reform on trade, Wall Street regs, government support, and tax policy, the offshoring of auto industry jobs has continued.
    There's no reason production and parts manufacturing can't return with such progressive reform... not to mention other industries.

    Gays in the military.
    A now legalized reality that was true for ages... but in the progressive social issue category.

    Women in the military.
    Better late than never. See above.

    To summarize, your list is flawed and the scope has been narrow... progressive advances on social policy are crumbs in comparison to the corrupt neoliberal economic policies that have not only remained but have also been expanded by Dems.

    For example, gay marriage is great, but if the couple can be defrauded out of their house and savings and they lose their jobs, the marriage won't last.

    A

  159. [159] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [132]

    altohone -

    But I will say, if you think Hillary has the most integrity in the Democratic party, you are seriously out of touch with reality.

    And I would respond with: if your think HRC is everything the Republics claim, your opinions are profoundly corrupted by propaganda.

    ...because you are not normally off the deep end.

    You should ask CW's Queen Elizabeth about that. I doubt she'd agree with you.

    Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

    Nothing else works.

  160. [160] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    90

    Lying isn't going to help the Dems.

    Not that you seem to care.

    A

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The problem *IS* the message....

    ... though, this time around, the problem was also the messenger, herself.

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Nothing else works.

    That is a very sad commentary. I hope you don't really believe that ...

  163. [163] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    113

    No.
    An excerpt from other media sources should have the name of the writer.

    Focus.

    A

  164. [164] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    112

    If the troll could distinguish between Dems and the Left, your point would be valid.

    They aren't synonyms... though the establishment Dems want voters on the left to believe it too.

    A

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    In responding to Al [132], you wrote,

    And, I would respond with: if you think HRC is everything the Republics claim, your opinions are profoundly corrupted by propaganda.

    Of course, she wasn't the caricature the Republicans and their supporters claim.

    However, to ignore her obvious and substantial errors in judgement with respect to handling and managing sensitive emails and the use of the Clinton Foundation for political gain and, most importantly, her pathetic response to why she lost to Donald Trump and how she ran her campaign with a thinly veiled sense of entitlement may well condemn the Democrats to the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    We're working on that - all of us ... and I think we'll have a better place for discussion if we all succeed in listening to each other.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz.

    .... though, this time around, the problem was also the messenger, herself.

    No doubt... It was a two-fer...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're working on that - all of us ... and I think we'll have a better place for discussion if we all succeed in listening to each other.

    Unfortunately, Al trips on his shoelaces before he even leaves the starting gate.. :D

  169. [169] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    130

    No troll.
    You are a troll because you persist in using the tactics of trollery.

    The fact that some of your comments are valid and factual doesn't change the reality.

    I know.
    I don't use the MCF.

    A

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Now, now ... :)

  171. [171] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    161

    Thanks for saving me the effort.

    I guess I was wrong about Mopshell.

    Geez... what about Biden, right?
    (that's a joke, though I believe factual as well)

    A

  172. [172] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    164

    Proving my point again.
    Trollery is lazy and dishonest.

    A

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Geez... what about Biden, right?
    (that's a joke, though I believe factual as well)

    What's that supposed to mean?

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, now ... :)

    Seriously..

    How can anyone expect to have an adult and intelligent conversation with someone who starts their argument with the equivalent of "hay, poopyhead.."?? :D

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Altohone is no different than Neil and no different than HRC and her minions...

    All of them refuse to give ANY credence to any facts, thoughts or opinions that are not completely in lockstep with their own..

    Anyone who doesn't agree 1000% is a troll, a poopyhead, a racist, a sexist or any one of a hundred different bogus labels...

    It was that exact attitude that totally lost the election....

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just try to ignore the silly stuff, Michale ... that's what I try to do ... :)

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    This time he has the Trump base on his side which is fully in line with the freedom caucus. He can privatise Social Security, eliminate Medicaid and cut Medicare because he will also give them full repeal of the ACA. He can do away with food stamps altogether because he will give the euphemistic "job creators" a massive tax cut.

    I think you are mis-characterizing the Trump base, or at least the key part that gave him victories beyond the standard Red States everybody expected him to win.

    The message from them seems pretty clear - nobody is doing anything for them and Trump has promised to. Many of them voted for Obama hoping for a change, so they don't want their social programs slashed - for many in their communities, SS and Medicare is all they have as a future safety net. They obviously don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or the other social issues Republicans have been railing about. They might want to ban Muslims and throw out immigrants, but again, why not vote for Romney if that was their primary goal.

    The key constituency that gave Trump the win in MI, PA, NC and WI want their old life and communities back. They want jobs. They want their kids and neighbors to stop feeling that there is nothing to live for so become addicted or kill themselves in a more direct manner. I predict Trump will do nothing for them, even if he really wants to because congress will stop him. I hope they fail and Trump really does deliver on the hopelessness and helping the poorest, especially if he pushes back on the social issues (he is claiming that Gay Marriage is a done deal and the abortion should be a state's rights issue). We'll see.

  178. [178] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    169

    Mopshell was clear.
    He/she thinks Hillary has more integrity than anyone else in the Democratic party.

    I disagree completely, and offered Biden as an example since I know he's one of your favorites.

    There are many other examples though.

    But since we're back on the topic, your list of examples that show Hillary lacks sufficient integrity is far too short.

    Hillary using a private server to avoid the FOIA was troublesome regardless of the content of her emails.
    Numerous votes favoring her donors were troubling.
    Wikileaks exposed a dozen other examples.

    A

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just try to ignore the silly stuff, Michale ... that's what I try to do ... :)

    It's a lot easier to do now, I'll be totally honest with you... :D

    heh

  180. [180] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    "Mopshell [92] It is not the president's job to bother himself with economic issues. It is the US House which writes the budget.

    Agreed."

    Absolutely incorrect.

    Economic issues are certainly part of the president's job.

    All presidential campaigns include promises on economic issues, the president should fight for needed changes, and our economy is the ultimate national security matter in a world where we are the sole superpower.

    A

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    But since we're back on the topic, your list of examples that show Hillary lacks sufficient integrity is far too short.

    My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, naturally. And, many examples fit under the same headings I mentioned.

    But, what do you say we try to move on from the path of devastation left by the Clintons ... :)

  182. [182] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    171

    You engage in trollery.
    Calling you a troll is simply factual, and you are contradicting yourself yet again as you have claimed not to care.
    Need a hanky?

    You and Donald also engage in stereotyping based on race... one classic form of racism.
    If you don't like the label, don't do it.

    It is also factual that you constantly conflate Dems with the left even when discussing right wing corporatist policies they embrace. You are lying, and aiding the corrupt establishment when you do that.

    You may not like my facts, but your trollery dismissal of them is projection. Unsubstantiated lying about me is pathetic, but expected. Trolls are too lazy to be honest debaters.

    A

  183. [183] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [111]

    You will find that a more robust discussion will ensue if comments are less personal.

    [144]

    Do you always learn the wrong lessons?

    Evidently your view regarding "robust discussion" does not apply to your serving up personal insults.

    [111]

    Because, most of us are sensitive souls, you know.

    I take it your use of the word "most" infers you don't believe "all" is the case.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.But, what do you say we try to move on from the path of devastation left by the Clintons ... :)

    That's really going to be up to the Clintons, don'tcha think???

    The Clintons have been the power behind the Democrat Party, overtly and covertly, for over two decades..

    Such power is not relinquished willingly, especially by those who so obviously relish the power...

    I see a prolonged struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party for at least a decade...

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trolls are too lazy to be honest debaters.

    You mistakenly believe I am "debating" you... I nailed you in comment #171 and then dismissed you...

    Responding to your continued mistakes is not a debate, but rather a simple correction of the record and my amusement of your continued use of the "poopyhead" equivalency.... :D

  186. [186] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [156]

    altohone -

    Lying isn't going to help the Dems.

    You seem confused about the definition of a lie in this particular instance.

    Not that you seem to care.

    Yeah I do care about living out the rest of my life in a recession thanks to Americans. We thought you were our allies.

  187. [187] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [162]

    I think we'll have a better place for discussion if we all succeed in listening to each other.

    After you...

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just try to ignore the silly stuff, Michale ... that's what I try to do ... :)

    I'm tryin' I'm tryin'... :D

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know it, Michale ... and it's already making a positive difference in my outlook on life. Seriously! :)

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    You go first, I insist ... :)

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know it, Michale ... and it's already making a positive difference in my outlook on life. Seriously! :)

    "I'm fatter....er.. FLATTERED..."
    -Eddie Murphy, The Nutty Professor

    :D

  192. [192] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    177

    Indeed.
    I was twisting the knife.

    The Clinton's are now powerless and irrelevant.
    This is about Hillary supporters who haven't recognized the truth in your words or mine.

    I feel compelled to keep twisting that knife until they recognize reality because there will need to be viable and effective opposition to Trump, and the next election campaign is underway already. Democratic gains in the next election require that the failures of the Clinton wing are not repeated.

    I will promise not to do so in comments directed to you though.
    I hope that's good enough.

    A

  193. [193] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    181

    Your one man victory parades when you believe you smacked others down despite blatantly failing are legend.
    I've been laughing at you for it since our first encounter.

    Other than that, you took the words right out of my mouth.

    A

  194. [194] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    182

    No.
    You are the one who is confused.
    Ignorance is apparent, but not an excuse.

    I'm glad you care about yourself and your country.
    But if you cared about the Democratic party, which is what was specifically being referenced, you wouldn't be spewing nonsense about the nature of their problems and what they need to do in order to win elections.

    For example, in comment 155 you gave an opinion stated as a fact that "nothing else works". Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.

    I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

    A

  195. [195] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I know you'd rather dig into history right now, I don't blame you one bit, but I just read that Pelosi is moving up the election for her position in an attempt to keep her job.

    Her actions are emblematic of the tone deaf Democratic leadership. Another Hillary type trying to rig an internal election to put herself before the wellbeing of the party is exactly the wrong message to send.

    I hope you can find some time to chime in about this in a column soon.

    The Dems need new blood in all leadership roles.

    I would also like to know who you might think would be good replacements.
    Thanks.

    A

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    GODFATHER: CHICAGO WILL ALWAYS BE SANCTUARY

    TRANSLATION: Chicago will always be a shithole with hundreds of innocent Americans brutally murdered every year....

  197. [197] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [126]

    God knows, I have been frustrated by the same things that frustrate you. But, with the appropriate effort, I have found that the frustration does wane.

    It was the pointlessness of it all that got to me. If somebody can't distinguish between facts and their own opinions and starts evading any requests for supporting points based on peer research or high quality statistics, then it isn't and argument, it is contradiction.

    To see the difference, watch this Monty Python sketch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Did I mention that I killed Hitler?"
    -Dean Winchester

    :D heh

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was the pointlessness of it all that got to me. If somebody can't distinguish between facts and their own opinions and starts evading any requests for supporting points based on peer research or high quality statistics, then it isn't and argument, it is contradiction.

    And yet, my FACTS, my peer research and my high quality statistics turned out to be dead on ballz accurate and your "facts", your "peer research" and your "high quality statistics" turned out to be nothing but Party bullshit...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. Ya'all are probably going to get tired of it real soon, if not already..

    But the simple fact is, as long as Neil continues to call his shit "shinola", I'll be pointing out, "No, Neil.. Your shinola is nothing but shit..."...

  201. [201] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well you have to give Trump one thing - his cabinet is lining up to be very diverse. We've got:

    a racist old white man as a strategy expert
    an ineffective old white man as chief of staff, and
    a bitter and angry old white man lined up for secretary of state

    I'm sure we'll see far more diversity - we've still got the religious nut, the ex-military martinet, and the if you shout loudly they will understand English demographics to go.

    Did I miss any?

  202. [202] 
    neilm wrote:

    For extreme diversity, we could have Sarah Palin as the utterly clueless token '7/10' so Trump has got some tittles to stare at if he wakes up during a cabinet meeting. They should give her the DoE - they want to ruin that anyway.

    One of my close friends is a research professor in materials science who has worked with multiple Nobel Prize winners, including Higgs when they were both at Edinburgh University.

    He expects a severe drop in funding in the U.S. for research, particularly from the DoE, so is over in Switzerland interviewing for positions there.

    So Trump is managing to bring knuckleheads into the White House and lose the smart people who can work anywhere in the World.

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Neil is going to relive 2008 with President-Elect Obama and Neil playing the part of the entirety of the Republican Party.. :D

  204. [204] 
    neilm wrote:

    Even right wing commentator S.E. (There's a Republican Hiding in the Next Cubicle) Cupp wonders why Trump's White House is going to look like the 1950's:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/opinions/trump-failed-first-test-cupp/

  205. [205] 
    Kick wrote:

    [96] Michale,

    I always do...

    You're just not always right.. :D

    Fair enough. :)

    "I always believe you, Max but you're not always right."
    -Bruce McGill, TIME COP

    Bruce McGill! Did you have to quote him? He's the jerk that Trump got to do the voiceovers in his commercials, a guy I wanted nothing to do with from the minute I met him. I spent a week in my younger days working on a movie set and listening to him do nothing except talk about himself, exactly what people who have dated Trump say about him. Yuck!

    No more quoting Bruce McGill! :)

    Hiring RNC BS (nod to CW :D) in NO WAY acknowledges any fealty to the RNC..

    I disagree because he does owe his presidency to the RNC and how much work they did for him, work that campaigns usually handle themselves. He relied heavily on the RNC, and his choice for the White House is his exercise in dancing with the one that brung him. I will also say that I do expect Trump to change staff frequently.

    I think ya'all have proven beyond ANY doubt that Trump listens to what people have to say and then does whatever the hell he wants....

    If that were true, he would have chosen Chris Christie as his VP running mate.

    Trump is the man at the wheel.. Whomever he chooses as his support staff in NO WAY determines his course of actions..

    Of course it does.

    'Sides.. As I pointed out to JM above.. Ya'all would slam Trump regardless of who he chooses...

    Depends on who he chooses, and could you please stop speaking about people here like they agree on every single thing? Obviously... we don't. :)

  206. [206] 
    Kick wrote:

    [128] altohone,

    Not only didn't you mince words, you dismissed my claim with condemnation and derision, and without any argument... proving my point perfectly. Pathetic.

    I knew that paragraph was coming, and that was by design. :) I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever. I will say that one day you'll run across someone just like you used to be. ;)

    Hillary's Wall Street coddling ideology so prevalent in the Democratic party needs to go.

    Someone drank the Kool-Aid.

    All the exit polls make it clear that the establishment economic policies the corporatist Dems like Hillary support are the main reason Hillary lost the rust belt states.

    No, actually, they "all" don't.

    Defend them if you can, but insulting me doesn't qualify.

    I've got better things to waste my time on. :)

    Unless you wanted to lose, your "life-long experience" didn't lead to wise decisions in 2016 so you should probably find another argument.

    Most of my work this year was done in Nevada where there was a blue wave. I feel pretty good about it... so ... :) I can tell you how your argument would have played in Nevada, but it wouldn't make a dent... *LOL* :D

    Your extremist attacks on patriotic whistleblowers are identical to the Republicans. It's certainly not a liberal or progressive policy position. If it's not ignorance causing you to do it, I apologize for assuming the best.

    "Extremist attacks"? I've never been called an extremist before, another first. The fact that you refer to Manning and Snowden as "patriotic whistleblowers" tells me everything I need to know; you really have no idea what you're talking about.

    If Dems want to win again, and win back the support of voters like me and the working class, then maintaining the status quo and attacking the critics who tried to warn Dems is insane.

    You really do have no idea what you're talking about.

    "Lighten up" is exactly the wrong approach.
    You need to get serious, fast.

    Lighten up on this board and those who disagree with you.

    And, maybe read those articles, accept some responsibility, and consider if there's something to learn from them that may help you from making the same mistakes that caused the disastrous election results for the Democratic party again.

    You can shove your articles straight up your ass. There are 51 separate elections, asshole, and I can assure you that your BS wouldn't have played too well in more than half of them. :)

    PS- I'm not a Democrat.

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

  208. [208] 
    Kick wrote:

    [188] altohone,

    "Indeed.

    I was twisting the knife.

    Indeed you were, with lots of assumption and presumption and with little regard to whose back you're twisting it in.

    This is about Hillary supporters who haven't recognized the truth in your words or mine.
    I feel compelled to keep twisting that knife until they recognize reality because there will need to be viable and effective opposition to Trump, and the next election campaign is underway already. Democratic gains in the next election require that the failures of the Clinton wing are not repeated.

    That knife you are twisting will come in handy when someone needs it to cut themselves free. :)

    I will promise not to do so in comments directed to you though.

    Lucky Liz.

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    [203] Elizabeth Miller,

    Kick,

    You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

    At one point or another, aren't we all?

  210. [210] 
    Kick wrote:

    [190] altohone to Mopshell,

    For example, in comment 155 you gave an opinion stated as a fact that "nothing else works". Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.

    I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

    Said the alt-lefty who described Obama's signature legislation as: Right wing corporatist reform developed by the Heritage Foundation... nowhere near progressive.

    :D

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    No more quoting Bruce McGill! :)

    I LOVE Bruce McGill!!!

    He was awesome as god in QUANTUM LEAP :D

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    I disagree because he does owe his presidency to the RNC and how much work they did for him,

    The facts clearly show that Trump cut the RNC loose in the last weeks of the election...

    Trump's selection of RNC BS *MAY* be a sign of rapprochement but I doubt it..

    I am sure that one of the requirements for RNC BS taking the job is that he relinquishes all connections with the RNC... In other words, RNC BS works for Trump now, not for the RNC...

    Trump could pick Hillary Clinton for a position and I would trust Trump that he knows what he is doing.. Right up to the point that he does something TANGIBLE that I believe violates our agreement...

    Simple picking a lackey doesn't qualify...

    How much power and latitude Trump gives said lackey is the key...

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would like to see an LEO position for Sheriff David Clarke... Maybe AG???

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump could pick Hillary Clinton for a position and I would trust Trump that he knows what he is doing.. Right up to the point that he does something TANGIBLE that I believe violates our agreement...

    Simple picking a lackey doesn't qualify...

    How much power and latitude Trump gives said lackey is the key...

    For example..

    If President Trump wants to hire HRC as the head of the janitorial staff...

    I would have no problem with such an appointment.. :D

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bare-ruined-choirs/

    This is why I am so surprised that there is such shock at the results of the election??

    The seeds for the utter decimation of the Democratic Party were planted long long ago in 2010....

    Anyone who ignored Party loyalty and Ideological purity, such as yours truly, could have.... AND DID.... see this coming....

  216. [216] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [203]

    You are lucky that I'm not moderating this blog.

    You're CW's QEI so surely you have the influence to get Kick and me and all other females banned from the site if that's what your little heart desires.

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Do you think Sheriff David Clarke would make a good AG???

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Did I mention that I killed Hitler?"
    -Dean Winchester

    :D

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    PS- I'm not a Democrat.

    Really??? Do tell.... :D

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    If Michale grows up, let me know and I'll try switching the filter off for a while.

    Just keep in mind one thing, Neil my friend..

    Your Michale Crutch Filter (MCF, patent pending) is simply one WordPress update away from being rendered useless and impotent..

    So, I wouldn't become too addicted to it if I were you.. You might find yerself reduced to a babbling idjut.... :D

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell and Kick,

    Foul language is not appreciated around here, you know ...

  222. [222] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you think Sheriff David Clarke would make a good AG???

    Heh.

  223. [223] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    202+

    Not a single substantiated argument in your rant.

    The "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" approach is truly convincing and dripping with years of experience.

    Of course, the "It's beneath me" defense is quite endearing and reminds me of someone who lost an election once.

    Oooh... Nevada.
    If only Hillary had listened to you with your years of experience and truly convincing tactics, she'd be feeling good about it too.
    I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single voter there about how they would respond to my arguments... that must have taken days.

    Obamacare is a right wing, corporatist approach and was written by the Heritage Foundation.
    Look it up.

    I know exactly in whose back I'm twisting the knife.

    I commend your decision to leave the supposedly not at all Wall Street coddling Democratic party. Finally a glimmer of hope emerges.
    Did you use a knife to cut yourself free?

    A

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your Michale Crutch Filter (MCF, patent pending) is simply one WordPress update away from being rendered useless and impotent..

    Or, I could simply change my posting name to A

    Heh :D

  225. [225] 
    A wrote:

    Hehehehehehehehe

    Now, how funny is THAT!!!! :D

  226. [226] 
    Kick wrote:

    [219] altohone,

    Not a single substantiated argument in your rant.

    I believe I made that perfectly clear in my second sentence wherein I stated: "I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever." Not sure why you were searching for an argument, substantiated or otherwise, where you were told from the outset that none would exist.

    Of course, the "It's beneath me" defense is quite endearing and reminds me of someone who lost an election once.

    I never said "it's beneath me;" I said I have better ways to waste my time.

    If only Hillary had listened to you with your years of experience and truly convincing tactics, she'd be feeling good about it too.

    I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single voter there about how they would respond to my arguments... that must have taken days.

    You couldn't find an argument so you made up your own. :)

    Obamacare is a right wing, corporatist approach and was written by the Heritage Foundation.
    Look it up.

    Look it up!?! *LOL* :)

    So to Mopshell you explain: "Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken," and Neil is admonished about Obama's "right wing corporatist approach" to Obamacare along with a list of other progressive grievances.

    I guess Obama is whatever you need him to be depending on who you're lecturing. :) *LOL*

    I know exactly in whose back I'm twisting the knife.

    I commend your decision to leave the supposedly not at all Wall Street coddling Democratic party. Finally a glimmer of hope emerges.
    Did you use a knife to cut yourself free?

    I don't belong to any party; you just presumed and assumed I did and responded accordingly. Your grievances and problems are not mine, never have been and never will be. :D

  227. [227] 
    Kick wrote:

    [217] EM,

    Mopshell and Kick,

    Foul language is not appreciated around here, you know ...

    Around where, Elizabeth? The United States? You might have heard we've elected a foul-mouthed con artist extraordinaire to lead our country... so that elitist condescending attitude so many have cultivated toward Americans might be taking a backseat here for awhile. Those who are easily offended by "foul language" might want to turn their heads and cover their ears until the storm blows over.

    Where I come from in the South, donkeys are referred to as "asses," and nary a soul bats an eye at its use. You are free to skip my posts if you're offended, but I will not be censored while the menfolk are free to speak... free from condescension.

    I enjoy this blog because more than most, the author speaks his mind, sometimes colorfully, doesn't play gotcha or attempt to scorn his readers/commenters while pouring them into a mold of his own making. Having said all that, I will happily censor myself if CW wishes. I have seen every colorful word I can think of being posted by what I presume to be men; may I please have a list of acceptable "foul language" from the womenfolk?

    Thank you. :)

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lighten up, Kick!

    And, watch your language around here. This is a civilized blog, you understand ...

  229. [229] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick

    Like I said, truly convincing.
    You certainly have plenty of time to waste on blather.
    Gee, who else claims to have arguments but can't be bothered to present them?
    Oh yeah... that's Trump.

    Obama selling out progressives doesn't equate to campaigning like Republicans genius.

    Your ignorance about Obamacare being the corporate subsidies for insurers approach originating from the Heritage Foundation is very revealing. It is called history. Do you need to be spoon fed a link? Are you unaware that Romneycare was based on their right wing approach too?
    Maybe you're just too young to have been around?
    Or do you have a another excuse for not knowing the basic facts of a policy that's been debated endlessly for 8 tears?

    A

  230. [230] 
    Kick wrote:

    [224] altohone,

    Like I said, truly convincing.

    Like I said... third time's a charm (?)... "I don't waste a good argument where I see it would do absolutely no good whatsoever."

    You certainly have plenty of time to waste on blather.

    Oooh... Blather. I'm very impressed and flattered you managed to ask every single person I've ever talked to about how they respond to my blather or arguments, as the case may be... that must have taken years.

    Gee, who else claims to have arguments but can't be bothered to present them?

    I never said I "can't be bothered," I said I have better ways to waste my time. Some of the greatest things accomplished in people's lives actually come to them while they're busy wasting time. You know, work hard, play hard? :)

    Oh yeah... that's Trump.

    Oh, shock... I actually thought you would say it's Michale. :D

    Obama selling out progressives doesn't equate to campaigning like Republicans genius.

    I never suggested that it did, just noted that Obama seemed to be an interchangeable character depending on who it is that disagrees with you or that you're lecturing and/or personally insulting... for instance, you stated:

    * Obama ran as a progressive and then stabbed us in the back.

    * Mimicking Repubs and catering to their base is not a path to victory for Dems.

    * Well, Obama didn't win twice by mimicking Republicans, so you are obviously mistaken.
    I do care about the Democratic party, so even if we agree to disagree, I will challenge such false claims.

    Obama is a sore subject to progressives, don't I know. It might not suit your agenda, but Obama, very much like Trump, possesses a crossover appeal... many on both sides of the ideological political spectrum convinced that their agenda was Obama's agenda. That appeal was by design and not remotely an accident.

    Obama's first commercials ever aired featured an Illinois lawmaker, a Republican, gushing about Obama and his ability to work across the aisle. It was a direct appeal to Republicans and Democrats. People do forget... many of the lefties I know have short memories where Obama is concerned, particularly regarding his "running as a progressive."

    Maybe you're just too young to have been around? Here let me spoon feed you a link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGqyMtnO7E

    Your ignorance about Obamacare being the corporate subsidies for insurers approach originating from the Heritage Foundation is very revealing. It is called history. Do you need to be spoon fed a link? Are you unaware that Romneycare was based on their right wing approach too?

    As I responded before to your insult, I know the history of PRISM and the NSA... from the perspective of holding a security clearance and taking an oath... from the inside looking out... not the other way around. I know the history of healthcare in America from the ACA to Romneycare to Hillarycare to Theodore Roosevelt, whom I refer to as the "OP"... original progressive.

    Or do you have a another excuse for not knowing the basic facts of a policy that's been debated endlessly for 8 tears?

    "Eight tears"? Freudian slip? There's simply no denying that whining progressives have been crying about Obama, the ACA... stabbing them in the back, twisting the knife. So Obama ACTUALLY WAS that guy who would work across the aisle with Republicans... exactly that guy he revealed he was on Day 1 of his campaign for the presidency. Need a hanky?

  231. [231] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Isn't there some sort of word limit around here?

  232. [232] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    225

    You obviously don't know the definition of blather.

    Are you finally admitting that Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation?
    Or are you still denying it?
    Have you been drinking?
    Why are you talking about the NSA?

    "People do forget... many of the lefties I know have short memories where Obama is concerned, particularly regarding his "running as a progressive."

    You're in denial if you think Obama didn't make progressive campaign promises and break them.

    Eight years... two terms, two campaigns.
    Are you drunk?

    A

  233. [233] 
    Kick wrote:

    [227] altohone,

    You obviously don't know the definition of blather.

    Of course I do. You obviously don't know the power of blather. Many voters you deal with actually want to blather on and on, and so you're blathering... sometimes with that crazy uncle... listening to unbelievable stuff that people believe... because they saw it online.

    Are you finally admitting that Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation?
    Or are you still denying it?

    What kind of blathering idiot would admit that? C'mon... You know it's not actually factual to say "Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation," but I do catch your meaning. :) Bill for bill, I would say Obamacare contains ideas from HEART

    “S. 1770 — 103rd Congress: Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.” http://www.GovTrack.us. 1993. November 18, 2016 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1770

    That contained ideas from the Heritage Foundation. Now, this is getting boring.

    Why are you talking about the NSA?

    Ummm... I was probably getting bored or maybe I had a drink.

    You're in denial if you think Obama didn't make progressive campaign promises and break them.

    Whoa! I never said that. Uhhh... you're doing that thing you do where you assume and presume more than what I actually said. Not unlike Michale, it has become a surprisingly endearing yet sometimes infuriating thing. I just said "people forget" how he actually campaigned, and I think it would serve people well to remember that Obama also presented himself as the guy who would work across the proverbial aisle and work with Republicans... bragged about his ability to do it and even had Republicans in his very first ads... Hey... he probably touched one of them "R's" and some of it rubbed off on him.

    Couldn't you just kick Obama's rear end? Oh, I could. I wanted single payer for the people. :(

    Eight years... two terms, two campaigns.

    Hey, there's still a little time left. Maybe BO's got one more trick up his sleeve? I'm guessing he does, although we might never hear what it was... we might!

    Are you drunk?

    Then or now? Let's see... it's about 2:15 p.m. here... it only takes me 1 drink to get that way... 8 minus 2...

    I will be in 6 hours. :D

Comments for this article are closed.