ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [416] -- The Fallout Continues

[ Posted Friday, November 18th, 2016 – 17:42 PST ]

We have one prediction for Donald Trump's presidency that we haven't noticed elsewhere, so we thought it worth mentioning up front. Donald Trump will quite likely use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency better than anyone since the man who coined the term, Teddy Roosevelt. Well, Franklin Roosevelt certainly connected with the people, so maybe that's an unfair omission, but no matter who you put on the list of presidents who effectively used public opinion against Congress, Trump is very likely going to wind up pretty high on that list.

Think about it. Trump loves rallies. He loves the crowd's adulation. He's just announced he's going to take a 30-state victory lap before he's even sworn in. Why would anyone think that's all going to change after he takes office?

Republicans in Congress are probably going to wind up fearing this bully pulpit power more than Democrats. Most Democrats aren't going to be influenced all that much if Trump is whipping up popular support for issues that Democrats just can't vote for in any case. Some in battleground districts might waver, but given the Republicans' control of Congress, only the eight most-vulnerable Democratic senators could actually cause any difference (if Trump has to overcome a Democratic filibuster). Most of his ire -- and that of his supporters -- is quite possibly going to be directed at Republicans in Congress who balk at enacting Trump's agenda in full. Clashes could happen on issues such as Paul Ryan's plans to slash entitlements, which Trump has said should not be touched. Trump's going to push a huge infrastructure bill that Democrats will probably be delighted to vote for -- but which Republicans have been staunchly against.

But what are Republican House and Senate members going to do when Trump decides to take his act on the road and hold giant rallies in their home states and districts? Are they really going to stand up against something Trump is proposing when their own constituents are loudly calling for the same thing? Trump knows how to use this power against "Washington" and "the swamp," so it'll be interesting to see if he chooses to do so when butting heads with strict conservative orthodoxy. Trump would certainly know how to put the "bully" in bully pulpit, that's for sure.

No matter how it happens, though, our guess is that Donald Trump is judged by history as much more effectively using public opinion than Barack Obama. Obama never reached the potential on this front that he so clearly displayed during his first election, sad to say. But Trump lives for the applause of the crowd -- and the crowd usually agrees with just about anything Trump says, whether conservative think tanks have approved the concept or not.

But we'll see how all that works out soon enough. For now, Washington waits breathlessly for each transition team announcement, meeting, or leak. The Trump's transition team's process is looking more and more like a vicious fight between cliques in high school (or maybe junior high). Chris Christie is on the outs, due to his previous prosecution and jailing of Trump's son-in-law's father. So too are everyone who ever said a kind word about Christie, apparently, in what has been called a "Stalinesque purge."

Trump's top two advisors were seemingly picked to ensure daily fights about just about everything, with R.N.C. chair Reince Priebus grabbing the plum chief of staff slot, and Steve Bannon from Breitbart become the chief political strategist (Karl Rove's old job).

Also on the outs are Newt Gingrich, who released a statement which, when translated, reads: "I have to give up lobbyist money? No way! Screw that!" Also declining any cabinet consideration is Ben Carson, whose spokesperson's statement was so hilarious is needs no translation: "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency." This is a man who just ran to be president, for the irony-impaired.

Today's big announcement was that (whew!) neither Rudy Giuliani nor Chris Christie nor Ted Cruz will be attorney general. Instead, we're going to get Senator Jeff Sessions. Best reaction headline comes from the Huffington Post -- "Jeff Sessions Was Deemed Too Racist To Be A Federal Judge. He'll Now Be Trump's Attorney General." Sample quote: Sessions joked that his opinion of the K.K.K. was that they were "okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana." This should strike fear into the hearts of both non-racists and marijuana smokers, it bears pointing out. What will Sessions do on all the medical-legal and recreational-legal states? Nobody knows, but it'd be interesting to hear his answer during his confirmation process.

Meanwhile, Trump is meeting with pro skateboarders for foreign policy advice (you just can't make this stuff up), and seeking ways to introduce the first nepotism in the White House since J.F.K. appointed his brother to run the Justice Department. Jared Kushner will be an advisor to Trump one way or another -- paid or unpaid, "kitchen cabinet" or actual post -- no matter who kicks up a fuss about it, that seems to be certain at this point.

One amusing development of Trump becoming president is that Republicans will unanimously declare golf to be rehabilitated from the scorn they heaped upon Barack Obama for enjoying the game. In the past week alone, Trump met with his first world leader (Shinzo Abe of Japan), and Abe gave Trump some golf clubs while Trump gave Abe some golf shirts. Down in Australia, the prime minister couldn't find a way to contact Trump, so he asked his buddy, professional golfer Greg Norman, for Trump's private phone number. So the Ministry of Truth will go into overdrive erasing all those snarky GOP comments about Obama's golfing ("we've never been at war with Eastasia's golf courses..."), just in time for Trump to shoot his first presidential round, one assumes.

Let's see, what else is going on? Republicans in the House are considering bringing back earmarks. Wonder what the Tea Party's going to think about that? Deficit reduction is quite likely to be thrown overboard in a big way by Republicans in the first few months of Trump's reign anyway, so maybe this won't be a big ideological deal or anything. Over in the Senate, Lindsey Graham (who is somewhat of a Senate institutionalist at heart) has already publicly said he won't vote to get rid of the legislative filibuster altogether, meaning Democrats would only need two other senators to keep it intact.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, there's a battle for the party's soul going on. The progressive wing is fighting hard against the status quo of the Clintonian wing of the party. This won't result in a complete shakeup, but it certainly will result in progressives gaining a lot more influence on the party's agenda moving forward.

The Senate leadership is changing hands without much drama, because the heir apparent was known months ago. Chuck Schumer will take the reins from the retiring Harry Reid, and Schumer has obviously realized he's got to deal with the changing face of the party, since he's already elevated Bernie Sanders to a leadership position (albeit one that is rather nebulously defined, for now).

Over in the House, Nancy Pelosi had to postpone the caucus election for the leadership, and now faces challenger Tim Ryan, who hails from a blue-collar district in Ohio -- precisely the type of person needed to rebuild the party after Trump's Rust Belt surprise. He's not going to win -- Pelosi will probably carry the vote quite easily -- but it'll be interesting to see how much support he gets.

The Republican caucus committee in charge of electing Republicans to the House wins the award for snark, this week, with their hearty endorsement of Pelosi to continue. They accurately point out that during Pelosi's leadership term, they have gained more seats in Congress than they've had since the 1920s. Ouch. It's snarky, but it's true.

This is both an ideological intraparty fight and a generational one, it's worth noting. House Democrats -- unlike House Republicans, to their credit -- don't have term limits for committee leadership positions. Seniority seems to be pretty important, as the Washington Post pointed out. Most of the Democratic ranking members are rather advanced in age, to put it politely. New blood might be a good idea, in other words, especially considering the relative youth of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. So even if Pelosi wins comfortably, she really should consider moving a few "young guns" up the ladder of responsibility. Democrats are going to have to fight Donald Trump, and that's going to be a brutal battle. It's going to require a lot of energy and a lot of passion, to put it mildly.

It's not even solely a question of age, either, as the Post article notes (after pointing out the age disparity between House Democrats and House Republicans):

This is a stark contrast to the Senate, where Democrats have several proven fighters who are ready to rumble with the Trump administration. Pelosi's team will complain that the aforementioned sentiment is ageist, but it's really about more than age. It's about temperament and drive. Bernie Sanders is 75 and Elizabeth Warren is 67, but no one doubts their willingness or ability to go toe-to-toe with the right.

Good point. We need feisty, right now -- no matter how many birthdays they've had. Democratic House leadership elections are now slated to happen on the 30th of this month. But there will be another big leadership battle which will last even further -- the contest to replace the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

We addressed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two frontrunners for this post yesterday, in some detail, so if you'd like to read our thoughts on Keith Ellison and Howard Dean, please check it out. They probably won't be the only two running, though, so we'll just have to wait and see the full slate of candidates when the dust settles. Ellison is a very attractive candidate to the progressive wing of the party, but he definitely has pros and cons as a national figurehead for the party. Which we will likely be hearing more about in the upcoming weeks, on both sides.

Beyond the leadership power struggles, congressional Democrats have to answer a very basic question. Do they fight like tigers against every single piece of Trump's agenda, or do they try to work with him on things that are pretty darn close to the Democratic agenda items? Fighting like tigers certainly worked wonders for Republicans, during President Obama's term in office (from Day One, they opposed pretty much everything he tried to do, with almost perfect unanimity -- and it gave them back control of both chambers of Congress as a result). But Democrats consider themselves better than that, so when Trump proposes a huge infrastructure bill -- something Democrats have been trying to make happen for years, now -- will they work across the aisle and give Trump their support? That is a very interesting question, and it likely will torment Democrats for months.

A final sad note to close on, before we get to this week's awards. We join millions of Americans in mourning the loss of Gwen Ifill, co-anchor of the PBS NewsHour. She will be greatly missed by all who love good journalism, but there's one footnote to her career that we didn't hear anyone mention in all the grieving that took place upon her death. Gwen Ifill will never be forgotten by one specific venue -- Saturday Night Live. Ifill may be remembered for decades to come not for anything she herself did or said, but for Queen Latifah's portrayal of her during the 2008 election. Ifill hosted the vice-presidential debate that year, meaning she was the one asking questions to Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The SNL sketch will be replayed forever because of Fey's brilliant impersonation, which means the name Gwen Ifill will be remembered by all lovers of SNL far longer than most. Of course, we personally would have remembered Ifill for, you know, her whole career, but it's nice to know that her legacy will live on in SNL reruns as well.

Requiescat In Pace. You will be sorely missed, Gwen.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're not officially endorsing his run for the chair of the D.N.C. or anything (we want to see the full list of who is running before doing so), but so far one candidate has risen above all the others, at least in terms of actually vying for the position and racking up powerful endorsements. Which is why Keith Ellison is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

We've seen Ellison speak, and talked with him personally (when they held the Netroots Nation conference in Minnesota), and he's an impressive Democrat on any given week of the year. Call him an impressive progressive, perhaps (we couldn't resist). He's already got the backing of Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer, which is much more impressive than any other D.N.C. chair's endorsements, so far. He's co-led (with Representative Raúl Grijalva) the Congressional Progressive Caucus for years, if further progressive bona fides are necessary.

What we find most impressive about Ellison in general is that he has a razor-sharp mind and can easily hold his own in a political discussion with conservatives. He knows how to frame issues to appeal to the public at large, and since boosterism for the Democratic agenda is going to be a big part of the incoming D.N.C. chair's job, this is important. Ellison would be a remarkable voice to hear interviewed on television on a regular basis, to put it another way.

Again, we can't bring ourselves to outright endorse Ellison for the job yet, mostly because nobody's sure who will officially run or not (Martin O'Malley indicated that he was running, but already took his name out of qualification, for example). But so far, Ellison has to be seen as the favorite. Him taking the reins of the party would be a clear victory for the Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, make no mistake about it. It has been a while since real progressives have actually run the party, so this would be a notable sea change.

Whether he wins the chairmanship or not, Ellison has already proved his organizational skills in lining up so much (and such impressive) early support. Which is why Keith Ellison is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Representative Keith Ellison on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Since we're really looking back at three weeks' time (we pre-empted these awards for the past two Fridays), there is only one real choice. Hillary Rodham Clinton is easily the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. In fact, she'd be in the strong running for "...Of The Year" as well, if we had such an award.

Now, to be fair, the entire universe of public opinion polling also shares a lot of blame. After the election, our most prominent thought was: "This would have been a lot easier to take if Democrats had been expecting -- or even worried about -- it." If the polls had been accurate, Democrats would have had time to adjust to the idea of Trump winning before it actually happened. Since they weren't, the shock value was at maximum.

We're not going to totally pile on the Clinton campaign today (there'll be plenty of time to figure out what went wrong later), and join in all the finger-pointing. There are quite likely many reasons for her loss, and it might be impossible to say which was most important.

But for whatever reasons, she lost. Clinton lost states in the "Big Blue Wall." She lost the Midwest almost entirely. She lost Florida. Voter turnout was down, even from 2012. She failed to generate the enthusiasm necessary to turn out Democrats in several key demographics.

To top off the disappointment, she just gave a very heartfelt and humanizing speech this week -- proving that she can indeed do so. Which only left many to wonder why she didn't do so while out on the campaign trail. Why wait until afterwards?

Sigh. For more reasons that can currently be counted, Hillary Clinton was obviously the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Hillary Clinton is now, sadly, no more than a private citizen, and our blanket policy is not to provide contact information for those who are not actual officeholders.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 416 (11/18/16)

OK, we're back to our weekly talking points segment for Democrats. Kind of a mixed bag this week, as we're a little bit rusty putting these together (we fully admit) after taking two weeks off.

Democrats need talking points now more than ever, because the only thing they've really got left, power-wise, is to sharpen their political arguments and take them to the people every chance they can get.

 

1
   They're using it too

While we have used the metaphor ourselves recently, it's kind of astonishing to hear from Trump's actual team.

"The Trump transition team has actually been using a rather appropriate metaphor recently -- they are the dog that caught the car it was chasing, but then didn't know what to do with it. Just fills you with confidence that they'll be making the best picks for our nation going forward, doesn't it?"

 

2
   You get what you vote for

This is likely to be an ongoing phenomenon within the Trump administration, obviously.

"Donald Trump actually tried to appeal to black voters during the election, saying 'what have you got to lose?' Well, now he seems to be answering that question during his transition. He's appointed the darling of the alt-right, Steve Bannon, to be his closest political advisor. He's named someone to be attorney general who jokes around at how he thought the K.K.K. was 'OK,' until he learned that they smoked pot. A spokesperson from a super PAC who supported Trump was just quoted citing the Japanese internment as a positive 'precedent' for Trump to follow, when deciding what to do about Muslims. And we've just begun, folks -- this is going to get more and more obvious in the coming weeks."

 

3
   Taunt him

This is exactly what the Republicans were all teed up to say about Hillary Clinton, had she won, but it's pretty easy to recycle for Trump. Also, it taunts him, which should be fun for Democrats to do for the next four years.

"You call that a mandate? First president in a while to win with less than half the votes. Second Republican president in the last 20 years to win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote -- this time by a million votes or more. Trump may think he has a mandate, but my guess is that he'll soon find out the depth of the feelings against him, since he obviously doesn't have anywhere near the mandate Barack Obama had."

 

4
   Rebuild the bench

This is crucial, and Democrats have to start dealing with it in a big way.

"No matter who wins the chairmanship of the Democratic Party, their biggest to-do item should be to work as hard as possible to rebuild the Democratic bench. The party badly needs new blood -- at the local level, at the state level, and at the national level. We need up-and-coming young guns to be able to compete into the future with Republicans on the national stage. Our presidential choices last time would either have been the oldest president ever or the second-oldest ever. That should sound alarm bells, and we sincerely hope that the new party chair takes steps to improve this situation."

 

5
   An oldie but a goodie

There's one thing to be learned from the Clintons, that's for sure.

"Democrats are wondering what went wrong, and they're also wondering what they should actually work with Trump on in Congress. I would direct them to a slogan Bill Clinton ran on (which his wife should have paid more attention to), which is just as appropriate now as it was back in 1992 -- It's the economy, stupid."

 

6
   You don't vote, don't complain

This one irked us no end, we have to admit. Oh, and feel free to make suggestions for hashtags in the comments, if you've got something better.

"You know, I support Colin Kaepernick's right to make symbolic gestures, just as I support anyone's right to free speech. I was actually surprised that the NFL didn't crack down on him in some way, truth be told. But when I heard that he's never even bothered to register to vote, I would have to call him a hypocrite for not exercising his civic duty to try to improve things politically. We need a new generic derogatory term for this level of disengagement, in fact -- a term for all those who are even now protesting Donald Trump's election in the streets who didn't even bother to vote. Non-voter-splaining? Lazy-splaining? I don't know, someone else could probably come up with a snappier term, but it's a pretty basic rule in democratic societies -- if you don't vote, then don't bother to complain. You lose your right to any grand moral stand if you are actually part of the problem. Hmmph."

 

7
   Most bittersweet shirt yet

Seen at a rally in Washington recently was a T-shirt logo (please note the absence of a slash mark or hyphen) that was both wildly optimistic and very bittersweet for a lot of Democrats. The shirt had an image of Bernie Sanders on it, with the slogan:

Hindsight is 2020

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

 

283 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [416] -- The Fallout Continues”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Point six:"You lose your right to any grand moral stand if you are actually part of the problem."
    If you didn't vote in 2016, even if it was to send the message that you didn't like the choices offered, then you voted for more of the same by not voting against the choices offered.
    90% of congressional districts are gerrymandered to favor one of the current major parties. Only one candidate can win in those districts in the general election. There is no lesser of two evils argument for these elections.
    The only thing left to be decided in the general election in these districts was the status of the parties for 2018. The votes cast for candidates in 2016 determines the status of the parties for 2018. Party status carries benefits such as participation in the primaries (with maybe the exception of states that use the undemocratic and unconstitutional top two primary system).
    So if you live in one of these districts and voted for one of the two major party candidates in 2016 then you sent the message that you are fine with only one choice. You voted to validate the gerrymandered districts and for more of the same in 2018.

    THE SAME MESSAGE SENT BY THOSE THAT DID NOT VOTE!

    So, using your reasoning, not only should those that did not vote shut up- so should anyone living in the 90% of congressional districts gerrymandered to favor one of the current major parties that voted for one of the current major party candidates.
    #Hypocrites may not be a snappy or snarky term- but it sure fits anyone that voted for a current major party congressional candidate in 2016 and then turns around and acts superior to and criticizes those that didn't vote.
    As for who else is part of the problem, check out my comment from your previous article about Ellison and Dean.

  2. [2] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CW-

    Surprised you did not bring Hatch into the Filibuster discussion. He is also on record as being against the tinkering with the legislative filibuster.

    I suspect that overall the repubics will come down against removing the legislative filibuster...it would only be in their best interests once the tables turn.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    . . . and now for something completely different.

    I have something good to say about King George W! He and Laura went to an animal shelter on election day to call attention to the good work done there. While they were there, they adopted a mixed-breed dog. Bravo! If only a president would do that while in office . . .

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Donald Trump will quite likely use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency better than anyone since the man who coined the term, Teddy Roosevelt.
    ...
    but no matter who you put on the list of presidents who effectively used public opinion against Congress, Trump is very likely going to wind up pretty high on that list.
    ...
    our guess is that Donald Trump is judged by history as much more effectively using public opinion than Barack Obama. Obama never reached the potential on this front that he so clearly displayed during his first election, sad to say. But Trump lives for the applause of the crowd -- and the crowd usually agrees with just about anything Trump says

    All hail Trump!

    A more effective president than Obama!

    Better than anyone since Teddy Roosevelt more than a century ago!

    High on the list of all-time presidents!

    Able to sway a crowd to agree to whatever he says!

    Will manage congress better than any previous president because no-one has been able to wield total control over congress the way Trump will! (at least, no president comes to mind as being that good)

    CW has been won over by the Trump!

    And Ellison gets MIDOTW, presumably because he was endorsed by Bernie. I can't think of anything else he's done beyond announcing his candidacy for the casual position of DNC Chair and that hardly warrants an award.

    While HRC gets MDDOTW, presumably because winning the popular vote just isn't good enough. Well it wasn't good enough to win the election and that makes her a very very bad person.

    But at least Democrats aren't fighting the result. How reassuring their lie-down-and-accept attitude is. They're just fighting each other and tearing their own party to shreds. It's nice that they don't blame republican voters for anything.

    Bernie is emerging as a leader they can follow. (Thank goodness someone is.) No doubt he and Elizabeth Warren will unite the party (that is to say, the shredded bits of the party they can find).

    And Bernie is also giving his support to Trump on such issues as the $10 minimum wage (let us not quibble about pesky details like the difference between $10 and $15).

    Bernie's back on the rally circuit too. He's another one who loves a big crowd. And, it has to be said, they love him back!

    Can't wait for the end of January to see what happens next.

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    Republicans in Congress are probably going to wind up fearing this bully pulpit power more than Democrats. Most Democrats aren't going to be influenced all that much if Trump is whipping up popular support for issues that Democrats just can't vote for in any case. Some in battleground districts might waver, but given the Republicans' control of Congress, only the eight most-vulnerable Democratic senators could actually cause any difference (if Trump has to overcome a Democratic filibuster). Most of his ire -- and that of his supporters -- is quite possibly going to be directed at Republicans in Congress who balk at enacting Trump's agenda in full. Clashes could happen on issues such as Paul Ryan's plans to slash entitlements, which Trump has said should not be touched. Trump's going to push a huge infrastructure bill that Democrats will probably be delighted to vote for -- but which Republicans have been staunchly against.

    EXACTLY...

    It's what I have been saying all along.. Trump is NOT a "Republican" in any real sense other than the '-R' after his name..

    "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency." This is a man who just ran to be president, for the irony-impaired.

    There is a big difference between running the FBI or CIA and being President..

    Captain Kirk is not the engineer that Scotty is, nor is Captain Kirk the scientist that Spock is..

    But he is a damn fine Starship Captain...

    So the Ministry of Truth will go into overdrive erasing all those snarky GOP comments about Obama's golfing ("we've never been at war with Eastasia's golf courses..."), just in time for Trump to shoot his first presidential round, one assumes.

    And, at the same time, the DEMOCRAT Ministry Of Truth will be saying to the GOP MOT, "Mind if we use those snarky comment's ourselves???" :D

    But Democrats consider themselves better than that,

    The facts {cough} {cough} Bush Years {cough} notwithstanding..

    Whether he wins the chairmanship or not, Ellison has already proved his organizational skills in lining up so much (and such impressive) early support. Which is why Keith Ellison is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

    His Nation Of Islam and support for Farrakhan should be disqualifying...

    Now, to be fair, the entire universe of public opinion polling also shares a lot of blame. After the election, our most prominent thought was: "This would have been a lot easier to take if Democrats had been expecting -- or even worried about -- it."

    If Democrats had actually read my comments, they would have.... :D

    While we have used the metaphor ourselves recently, it's kind of astonishing to hear from Trump's actual team.

    "The Trump transition team has actually been using a rather appropriate metaphor recently -- they are the dog that caught the car it was chasing, but then didn't know what to do with it. Just fills you with confidence that they'll be making the best picks for our nation going forward, doesn't it?"

    But they DO get credit for honesty...

    Right???

    He's named someone to be attorney general who jokes around at how he thought the K.K.K. was 'OK,'

    As opposed to the fact that it was Democrats who CREATED the KKK....

    I am also constrained to point out that that many DEMOCRATS have ALSO said many crude racist things...

    If you want to define a man by ONE statement that is nothing but hearsay anyways, that should also apply to Harry "Negro Dialect" Reid, which was a direct and witnessed quote...

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong."
    God, AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    "You call that a mandate?

    In politics, perspective is mostly everything...

    You BET Trump has a mandate...

    This one irked us no end, we have to admit. Oh, and feel free to make suggestions for hashtags in the comments, if you've got something better.

    "You know, I support Colin Kaepernick's right to make symbolic gestures, just as I support anyone's right to free speech. I was actually surprised that the NFL didn't crack down on him in some way, truth be told. But when I heard that he's never even bothered to register to vote, I would have to call him a hypocrite for not exercising his civic duty to try to improve things politically. We need a new generic derogatory term for this level of disengagement, in fact -- a term for all those who are even now protesting Donald Trump's election in the streets who didn't even bother to vote. Non-voter-splaining? Lazy-splaining? I don't know, someone else could probably come up with a snappier term, but it's a pretty basic rule in democratic societies -- if you don't vote, then don't bother to complain. You lose your right to any grand moral stand if you are actually part of the problem. Hmmph."

    Ding, Ding, Ding... We have a winner!!!

    And, in Kapernick's case, WE HAVE A WHINER!!

    You don't vote, you have absolutely NO moral or ethical foundation to complain about ANYTHING to do with politics...

    Kudos on your Talking Points, CW... :D

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    A more effective president than Obama!

    To be fair, CW said in using the bully-pulpit, Trump will likely be more effective... And, based on recent history, it's probably an accurate prediction...

    CW has been won over by the Trump!

    Don't tease me.. :D

    While HRC gets MDDOTW, presumably because winning the popular vote just isn't good enough.

    It really isn't..

    Well it wasn't good enough to win the election and that makes her a very very bad person.

    No.. Just a very very bad candidate...

    I am sure... well, PRETTY sure.. she is a wonderful grandmother...

    But at least Democrats aren't fighting the result.

    Uh....

    Electors are under an unprecedented amount of harassment and threats to ignore the law and the rules and vote for Hillary, regardless of how their state voted...

    And Bernie is also giving his support to Trump on such issues as the $10 minimum wage (let us not quibble about pesky details like the difference between $10 and $15).

    Oh!!! oohh!!! I know this one!!!!

    5!! :D

    Can't wait for the end of January to see what happens next.

    It's going to be a wild 8 years, eh?? :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    #Hypocrites may not be a snappy or snarky term- but it sure fits anyone that voted for a current major party congressional candidate in 2016 and then turns around and acts superior to and criticizes those that didn't vote.

    It's not that Kapernick didn't vote for POTUS..

    He is not even REGISTERED!!!

    There are plenty of state and local races and votes that would positively impact things that Kapernick CLAIMS to believe in..

    But Kapernick is too busy attacking and maligning cops to be bothered with registering and voting...

    It's not the lack POTUS vote that makes Kapernick a hypocrite and a jackass..

    It's his lack of voting, period...

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    He's named someone to be attorney general who jokes around at how he thought the K.K.K. was 'OK,'

    Sessions was also prosecuting KLAN bosses left and right when this statement was allegedly made... One such Klan member was Henry Francis Hayes who was charged with murder and abduction of a black teen, Michael Donald, chosen at random.. Sessions pushed for the death penalty for Hayes and, when Sessions was elected State Attorney General, Sessions made sure that the execution happened...

    I must further point out that Sessions was the ONLY Republican Senator to support Eric Holder's nomination for AG...

    So, on the one hand, we have a single racist statement allegedly made by Sessions from a someone who had a record of making racism accusations against co-workers..

    On the OTHER hand, we have ACTIONS of Sessions that support and defend black Americans..

    I dunno... Sound "racist" to you??

    "No studying... hurrumph..."
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    I must further point out that Sessions was the ONLY Republican Senator to support Eric Holder's nomination for AG...

    Correction.. Sessions was one of only 4 GOP Senators who voted to support Eric Holder's nomination for AG...

    Apologies for the error...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Brought forward from an earlier discussion..

    USUALLY, but NOT ALWAYS. Many police chiefs in Louisiana are elected, as is the police chief of Santa Clara, for example. And they are technically not violating Federal Law, they are simply saying that they will not be the agents enforcing Federal Law. That Federal agents will have to do that themselves, and not rely on local officials to do it for them.

    The Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 *REQUIRES* State and local Law Enforcement agencies to cooperate with Federal Authorities on immigration matters..

    So, those agencies and mayors you are referring to *ARE* breaking the law by not assisting Federal immigration officers and are subject to arrest....

    Just ask Governor John Royce of Michigan :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    There is also TITLE 8 USC , Section 1324

    “Any person who, knowing that an alien has come to the U.S. in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection such alien in any place, including any building… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years.”

    Thar's a new sheriff in town..

    State, county, city and LEO officials who continue to aid and abet criminals might very well find their communities poorer and themselves incarcerated....

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (7)-
    You are right that the lack of a POTUS vote is not what makes Kapernick a hypocrite- it's his lack of voting.
    That was not my point. My point was that the people complaining about those that didn't vote are the hypocrites because in their congressional elections the complainers sent the same message as those that didn't vote that they want more of the same by voting for the lesser of two evils when there was actually only one evil that could win the election.
    So I will repeat my question the no one had the courage to answer when asked in a previous thread.
    Will anyone here that lives in one of the 90% of districts gerrymandered to favor one of the current major parties with only one possible winner admit that they wasted their vote by voting for the lesser of two evils congressional candidates when there was only one evil that could win ?
    Anyone living in a Republican district that voted Democrat or living in a Democratic district that voted Republican ?
    If you are one of those people do you criticize people that voted for a third party candidate because they (just like you) voted for a candidate that can't win ?

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of the NFL, isn't it incredible the foresight of our founding fathers to schedule voting on Tuesdays, the day when most NFL players have off and there are no games being played ?

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of the NFL, isn't it incredible the foresight of our founding fathers to schedule voting on Tuesdays, the day when most NFL players have off and there are no games being played ?

    hehehehehe

    Maybe our resident history expert can give us the reason why we vote the second Tuesday in Nov... :D

    Will anyone here that lives in one of the 90% of districts gerrymandered to favor one of the current major parties with only one possible winner admit that they wasted their vote by voting for the lesser of two evils congressional candidates when there was only one evil that could win ?

    Getting concessions around here is harder than pulling teeth.. :D

    But my point is, is that there is a lot to vote for that has nothing to do with Political Partys....

    I admit that I pretty much ignored all but a few of the races and initiatives.. I voted for POTUS (Trump) and our FL Senator (my lovely wife) and the medical marijuana initiative (YES).. Ignored all the rest....

    Voting is NOT just about what Party you support... It's about what way of life you support...

    If Kapernock doesn't even bother to register to vote, he has no moral or ethical foundation to protest anything...

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John Oliver did a "How is this still a thing?" segment on Tuesday voting.
    People needed a day of travel to get to the polling place and they didn't want people to miss church.
    Isn't it amazing that even as late as the 1700's that people were still primitive and gullible enough to believe in a supernatural being that folded their arms, wiggled their nose or said abracadabra and created everything out of nothing?

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    He's named someone to be attorney general who jokes around at how he thought the K.K.K. was 'OK,'

    I am also constrained to point out that the Democrats' MO of throwing around false accusations of racism at the drop of a dime is wearing thin with everyday Americans..

    " He ain't happy without a good curse. 'This is cursed!!!' 'That is cursed!!'..."
    -The Mummy II

    Hence, the election of President Trump.....

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    People needed a day of travel to get to the polling place and they didn't want people to miss church.

    Makes sense...

    Isn't it amazing that even as late as the 1700's that people were still primitive and gullible enough to believe in a supernatural being that folded their arms, wiggled their nose or said abracadabra and created everything out of nothing?

    Ahhhhh 'BEWITCHED'... Whatta hottie :D

  18. [18] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [13]

    The Founding Fathers did not schedule elections for Tuesday.

    The first presidential election was held on Wednesday 7 Jan 1789.

    From 1792 to 1840, elections for the president were held whenever states felt like it within a 34-day period before the first Wednesday in December.

    By 1845 it was decided that it would probably be best if presidential elections were held on a single day. They chose Tuesday because it was the day before market day, the day farmers from outlying areas arrived in the nearest market town.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell (18)-
    Joke. Poetic license.

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    The Founding Fathers did not schedule elections for Tuesday.

    The first presidential election was held on Wednesday 7 Jan 1789.

    From 1792 to 1840, elections for the president were held whenever states felt like it within a 34-day period before the first Wednesday in December.

    By 1845 it was decided that it would probably be best if presidential elections were held on a single day. They chose Tuesday because it was the day before market day, the day farmers from outlying areas arrived in the nearest market town.

    Makes sense... :D

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Can't wait for the end of January to see what happens next.

    Do you think Trump will actually take the oath of office? I won't believe any of this until he does.

    As for the first part of your comment ... it's called the normalization of Trump.

    Because, if you love America, you have to hope this guy doesn't screw up.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    It's interesting to compare and contrast the reaction Republicans had to the election of the first black president of the United States with the reaction Democrats have to the election of the least qualified and most woefully unprepared president of the United States.

    On January 20, 2009, the congressional Republican leadership vowed - on the first day of Obama's presidency, while the US economy was circling the drain amid the disastrous impacts of two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East - that their top priority was to do everything in their power to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president.

    In the early morning of November 9th, 2016, Democrats of all stripes accepted Donald Trump's presidential election victory and expressed the hope that he would succeed because, if Trump fails, then America fails.

    Is there a better way to illustrate the difference between Republicans and Democrats than examining what each of them put first - country or party, success or failure, leadership or power?

    I think not.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you think Trump will actually take the oath of office? I won't believe any of this until he does.

    Really???

    As for the first part of your comment ... it's called the normalization of Trump.

    Or, the switch from campaigner to president.. A switch that President Obama never quite fully embraced...

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes, that's another way of putting it, I agree.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's just that there was and is so much about a Trump candidacy and future presidency that is anything but normal.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    No matter how it happens, though, our guess is that Donald Trump is judged by history as much more effectively using public opinion than Barack Obama. Obama never reached the potential on this front that he so clearly displayed during his first election, sad to say.

    Do we understand why Obama failed to use public opinion and persuade Americans to support his agenda instead of divided, ineffective government?

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, that's another way of putting it, I agree.

    Thank you.. :D

    It's just that there was and is so much about a Trump candidacy and future presidency that is anything but normal.

    I completely agree..

    But that's the point..

    Look where "normal" has gotten us..

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    In the early morning of November 9th, 2016, Democrats of all stripes accepted Donald Trump's presidential election victory and expressed the hope that he would succeed because, if Trump fails, then America fails.

    PUBLICLY, some Democrat leadership adopted this attitude... But NO Democrats have condemned the rioting and the assaults and the violence and the harassment endured by Trump supporters and Electors...

    Also, you are comparing 2 different dates...

    For a truly apt comparison, we'll have to see how Democrats react to President Trump on 20 Jan 2017...

    Is there a better way to illustrate the difference between Republicans and Democrats than examining what each of them put first - country or party, success or failure, leadership or power?

    Yes...

    And that would be to compare 20 Jan 2009 to 20 Jan 2017....

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The president being different than the candidate?
    Sounds normal to me.
    It never ceases to amaze me how people just accept the Bullshit because it is normal.
    The general election candidate changes their position more to the center from the right or left in the primaries. That's OK because that's just what candidates do.
    They change their position again after the general election. That's OK because that's just what politicians do.
    And then people wonder why they never get what they thought they were supporting.
    I have no problem with a candidate or elected official changing their position due to changing circumstances- but the majority of the changes are premeditated for strategical and deceptive purposes- and that's not OK.
    The Democrats are not any better than the Republicans just because they don't have the balls to stand up for what is right when they are not in control. Neither party is never out of power which is the major problem that makes these purposeful deceptions accepted as normal.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    And that would be to compare 20 Jan 2009 to 20 Jan 2017....

    And I would be willing to wager any amount of quatloos that on 20 Jan 2017, Democrats will be saying "It is our goal to make Donald Trump a one-term President".....

    Because you just HAVE to know that many Democrats are, privately, saying that right now...

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How about we shoot one of those feel good videos with Bernie, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, the Koch Brothers, etc. all singing:
    All we are saying- is give Trump a chance.
    Pretty sure John Lennon won't object.

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrats are not any better than the Republicans just because they don't have the balls to stand up for what is right when they are not in control.

    No, the Democrat are not any better *BY DESIGN*....

    As evidenced by Hillary's "You have to have a public policy persona and a private policy persona" claim.....

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    How about we shoot one of those feel good videos with Bernie, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, the Koch Brothers, etc. all singing:
    All we are saying- is give Trump a chance.
    Pretty sure John Lennon won't object.

    I would pay real money to see that!! :D

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of the popular vote, here is an interesting factoid...

    If you take away just THREE cities.... New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.... Just THREE cities....

    Trump wins the popular vote by over 3 million votes....

    I found that quite telling....

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Considering the record setting level of dislike for both candidates- isn't it time to come up with another name for the "popular" vote ?

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    Considering the record setting level of dislike for both candidates- isn't it time to come up with another name for the "popular" vote ?

    Heh...

    How about The Popular'er Vote.. :D

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    The relationship between a husband and a wife is psychological.

    One is psycho, the other is logical..

    I am not going to go on record as stating which is which...

    She knows where I sleep... :D

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    And, since I am spouting off words of wisdom, here is another gem:

    "Studies have proven that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than men who mention it."

    :D

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have a serious question that I have been pondering of late ... it has to do with US foreign policy.

    How would you define US foreign policy? I mean, what should US foreign policy be about. I'm not talking about how Republican ideas on foreign policy differ from Democratic ideas nor am I talking about partisan politics.

    It's just a very fundamental question about what US foreign policy, generally speaking, is all about ...

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    It's just a very fundamental question about what US foreign policy, generally speaking, is all about ...

    I think that our Foreign Policy should ALWAYS further the interests of the United States while still keeping an eye on our principles and values...

    Invariably, in such a state, these two main objectives will come into conflict and a certain amount of "fudging" will be required...

    In such instances, the amount of "fudging" should be directly tied to amount of US interests that are furthered...

    There are also short-term and long-term interests to take into account as well...

    Do we take a hit in the short-term to further a long term goal??? Do we kick the can down the road for a hundred years so that our interests don't suffer in the here and now???

    It's not an easy question to answer with any degree of certainty, but the overall guiding principle should be akin to the overall guiding principles with doctors..

    FIRST, do no harm..

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    It's funny you should ask this question, Liz because I was going to bring up a fictional situation that has me in a quandary...

    Have you been watching the new Keifer Sutherland show, DESIGNATED SURVIVOR??

    I probably won't get to any response til the morning, as dinner is done... :D

    I'll check in early in the AM.. Just don't want you to think I am bailing... :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    I will say before I go that the cast of HAMILTON was totally hypocritical in their lecturing of VP-Elect Pence...

    They lecture and lecture about diversity after putting out a casting call that white actors need not apply for...

    Total hypocrites.... Par for the course for the "elites" of the Left Wingery....

    Which is EXACTLY why we have President Trump.....

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I started watching DS but, after the first couple of episodes, I lost interest.

    I found the storyline less than exciting and the script downright boring, to be perfectly blunt about it.

    Disappointing ...

  44. [44] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [19]

    Don Harris -

    Well at least the research brought me up to speed on the whole day-of-election thing so a nett gain I think. :-)

  45. [45] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Sorry Don Harris, the above comment should've been referring to comment [13], not [19]. D'uh. ::administers headslap::

  46. [46] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [29]

    (let's see if I can get the fricking comment number right this time without screwing it up twice)

    Don Harris -

    It never ceases to amaze me how people just accept the Bullshit because it is normal.

    I appreciate that this isn't the context in which you made this observation but the first thing I thought of when reading it was how Americans accept fallacies about their voting system and how that mass delusion has been normalised, even though it makes no fricking sense whatsoever to anyone who actually thinks about it for 5 minutes.

    Consider this: in the electronic systems of voting, especially where there is no paper trail and strictly no access allowed to source codes, there is no transparency, no accountability, no checks and balances, and therefore nothing that safeguards the integrity of the vote.

    Surely voters have the right to transparency and accountability in the voting system so they can be absolutely confident that the equipment is operating as it should be? Why are there no checks on the machines as a matter of good practice both before and after every election? Voters do not even have the right to request such safeguards.

    The vote is the most fundamental unit of democracy so how come Americans have this foolishly simplistic and blind trust that everyone involved in the voting process is both 100% competent and 100% above suspicion? And that every unit of equipment involved is in perfect operating order?

    This is yet another illustration of good sense not being common.

    Hand-in-hand with this foolish, blind trust - and also accepted on all sides of the political polygon and fiercely defended by all - is the extraordinary idea that there must be clear, incontrovertible evidence of proven irregularity before undertaking an investigation into any part of the process, especially that involving electronic equipment.

    Just reduce that to its simplest form: evidence must come before investigation. Put the cart before the horse, in other words.

    This enshrines in state law that - in 99.999999999% of all cases - there can never ever be an investigation.

    States like Kansas then double-down on this by banning all public access to any paper trail backup or source codes. Sure you can use FOI to request the material because there's no written law to prevent access, but the Kansan SoS office respond by ignoring these requests until the time limit is passed. Clever, huh? Oh and not suspicious at all, right?

    Yet still Americans fiercely fight to prevent any transparency, accountability and checks to safeguard their votes.

    Makes no sense whatsoever.

  47. [47] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    So is age important or not in determining 'leadership' of the Dems?

    Most of the Democratic ranking members are rather advanced in age, to put it politely. New blood might be a good idea, in other words, especially considering the relative youth of the leadership on the other side of the aisle.

    Ah right, so age is important. Can't have old Dems in the US House when the republics have young ones.

    After all:

    It's going to require a lot of energy and a lot of passion, to put it mildly.

    So old = less energy + less passion. Got it.

    But when it comes to the US Senate...

    This is a stark contrast to the Senate, where Democrats have several proven fighters who are ready to rumble with the Trump administration.
    ...
    It's about temperament and drive. Bernie Sanders is 75 and Elizabeth Warren is 67, but no one doubts their willingness or ability to go toe-to-toe with the right.

    But you disagree, CW, right? Especially after saying that the old in the US House should be replaced by the more energetic and passionate young, right?

    Good point [referring to blockquote statement from WashPo]. We need feisty, right now -- no matter how many birthdays they've had.

    Right, so... just to recap:

    Age must give way to youth for Dems -- but only in the US House. In the US Senate, it is the exact opposite for Dems.

    Not double standards I think, just a 'flexible adjustment' to allow for both support for the favored (Sanders and Warren) and repudiation of the unfavored (Pelosi and all other elderly Dems in the US House).

    It's just a matter of holding opposing views I guess.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell (46)-
    Hear Hear!!!
    While he wasn't talking about voting machines, Ronald Reagan covered my sentiments on voting machines best when he said "Trust- but verify."
    We have a right (and if we don't we should) to know our votes are cast and counted correctly. Beside not knowing if your vote was counted correctly, under our current system you could make the same mistake every time you vote in your entire life, have your vote thrown out and never even know it.
    We should all get receipts when we vote (if ATMs can give us receipts so can voting machines). Each receipt would be assigned a random number. After the election, those numbers would be published with the votes cast for each number. Citizens could check their receipt against the published list to make sure their vote was cast and counted correctly and have proof in the form of their receipt if it was not.

  49. [49] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [48]

    Don Harris -

    I'm just happy somebody agrees with me! Over at Daily Kos, I've been savaged for daring to hold such views. People have deliberately misread what I've said and demanded I submit concrete evidence that there was tampering of the machines. (They confuse the concept of safeguarding their vote with suspicion of irregularities.)

    I've been called "a fucking loon" and worse. I've been told I'll be banned from the site for the malicious spreading of CT. (Haven't been banned yet and haven't STFU either.)

    I really really like the receipt concept! I'm stealing that and spreading the idea as far and as wide as I can!

    Thank you.

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Mopshell, Don...

    I see what ya both are saying and ya'all are correct to a certain extent..

    I actually asked for a receipt when I voted and was surprised there wasn't one available..

    But on the other hand, I do see the logistical nightmare of what ya'all are proposing.. And the potential for abuse...

    I am also constrained to point out that the Left's position on Voter ID Fraud is certainly relevant to Voter Receipt..

    If there is no evidence of any issues, why take steps to address it??

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Ah right, so age is important. Can't have old Dems in the US House when the republics have young ones.

    Well, you CAN....

    But it doesn't seem to win the Dems any elections, eh??

    :D

    So old = less energy + less passion. Got it.

    Usually.. Certainly less energy.. And passion without energy isn't much use...

    Not double standards I think, just a 'flexible adjustment' to allow for both support for the favored (Sanders and Warren) and repudiation of the unfavored (Pelosi and all other elderly Dems in the US House).

    Or.... Just an acceptance of the reality of the here and now....

    The "winners" and the "losers", if you will.....

    While I would never be so presumptuous to speak for CW (mostly :D) that's my take on what he is trying to say....

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    I started watching DS but, after the first couple of episodes, I lost interest.

    I found the storyline less than exciting and the script downright boring, to be perfectly blunt about it.

    Disappointing ...

    I am surprised..

    It IS a bit formulaic and predictable.... But we like it..

    I always expect, when in the middle of a crisis, President Kirkland turns to an underling and barks, "GET ME JACK BAUER!!!!"

    :D

    But the reason I brought it up was the recent episode that featured the real life immigration issue we're facing.. I'll expand more on that in a few...

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    There’s another important story within this election: Americans on both sides of the aisle took direct action and approved nearly a dozen state and local ballot initiatives that will reduce the power of special interests and open up state and local politics to broader participation and greater transparency.

    For instance, voters in South Dakota passed the first-ever statewide Anti-Corruption Act, creating a game-changing “democracy voucher” system.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306584-blue-collar-voters-launch-hand-grenade-into

    Something I thought you might find interesting.. :D

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    But the reason I brought it up was the recent episode that featured the real life immigration issue we're facing.. I'll expand more on that in a few...

    Speaking of immigration...

    I don't think ya'all realize the trouble that the Democratic Party's illegal immigrant outreach programs are in...

    The Obama asked Congress to change and loosen the laws on Immigration..

    Congress refused...

    Obama then used his questionable authority to "change the laws" on his own.. In effect, picking and choosing which laws he will and will not enforce...

    Trump doesn't have to ask Congress for a damn thing... Trump doesn't NEED Congress to do a damn thing..

    All Trump has to do is order that the Immigration Laws be enforced AS THEY EXIST today...

    Democrats CAN'T stop it because Trump is able to LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY bypass Congress on EVERYTHING...

    That is President Obama's "Immigration Legacy"... He has given President Trump the authority and the ability to do EXACTLY what President Trump wants to do and the Democratic Party is COMPLETELY impotent about it...

    Ya'all just have to admire the karmic beauty of it all...

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good news about Merkel standing for a fourth time. In January she will become the leader of the free world. Let's hope the Germans are smarter than us and we have somebody with some decency after the fiascos here and in the U.K.

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    It’s contrary to the laws of nature for a tabloid writer to tell the gentry media not to go berserk. It’s like a cat telling his owner to stop coughing up hairballs or Iron Man asking Captain America to be less arrogant. Here at The Post, our mission statement does not include understatement. We provide journalistic Red Bull, not Sominex.

    Nevertheless, a word of neighborly advice to our more genteel media friends, the ones who sit at the high table in their pristine white dinner jackets and ball gowns. You’ve been barfing all over yourselves for a week and a half, and it’s revolting to watch.

    For your own sake, and that of the republic for which you allegedly work, wipe off your chins and regain your composure. I didn’t vote for him either, but Trump won. Pull yourselves together and deal with it, if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
    http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/keep-crying-wolf-about-trump-and-no-one-will-listen-to-a-real-crisis/

    Heh

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    In January she will become the leader of the free world

    Only for the Democratic Party... :D

    we have somebody with some decency after the fiascos here and in the U.K.

    Don't forget Israel..

    EVERYONE in the world is wrong and the Democrats are right??

    Is that it?? :D

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Everybody has forgotten Israel. They are irrelevant on the global picture. Nobody cares what they think about international affairs. Nobody wants to hear Bibi's opinion on China, Ukraine, etc. Why are you whining about America handing the mantle of world leadership to Germany? America First and all that.

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Why are you whining about America handing the mantle of world leadership to Germany?

    I'm not.. It's you making the claim..

    Without ANY supporting facts, as per the norm... :D

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Turnout on election day was what, around 53%?

    We disagree about many things, but your notion that 47% of registered American voters gave up their constitutional right to free speech by not voting is not only factually but morally wrong.

    I find it particularly odd and disturbing that you would single out an individual who is standing up (or rather, kneeling) for what he thinks is right... an individual who has had an impact beyond that of most politicians and pundits.

    Your flawed comment is one I would expect to hear from the desperate establishmentarians who disagree with Colin Kaepernick and are flailing around for a reason to bash him (see the Troll's response).

    In any case, not voting is a right, and does indeed send a message.

    You have misdirected hostility, with shades of establishment thinking well covered by Don in comment #1... though it's not just that hypocrisy but also a herd mentality at work.
    Just like many Hillary supporters are blaming everybody but Hillary, you blaming non-voters rather than the system that keeps so many Americans disaffected with a limited number of horrible candidates who agree on most policies (and including interests that strive to actively discourage participation) is pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

    As Kaepernick said in the linked article, it would have been hypocritical to vote for either D's or R's since they BOTH support the system of oppression he is protesting.

    I would expect you to address that issue before joining in on bashing him. Kaepernick isn't wrong... so maybe that's why you didn't?

    And, BTW, I'm not sure if your "surprise" was pleasant or disappointed that the NFL didn't crack down on Kaepernick and all the others who have joined him in exercising their free speech rights... I think clarification is in order.

    A

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did you pay no attention to what Trump was saying. I thought you were the ultimate fanboy.

    Here, try this:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/04/27/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/index.html

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    But don't worry, Neil. I know yer hurting...

    I'm here for ya...

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Did you pay no attention to what Trump was saying. I thought you were the ultimate fanboy.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/04/27/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/index.html

    Yea, that was back in April...

    Kinda a lots happened since then.. :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    Your flawed comment is one I would expect to hear from the desperate establishmentarians who disagree with Colin Kaepernick and are flailing around for a reason to bash him (see the Troll's response).

    How could I POSSIBLY have an adversarial attitude towards you?? :D

    Regarding Kippernock...

    There are PLENTY of logical and rational reasons to bash him.

    No flailing necessary... :D

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    So is it America second now? I pity your Sisyphean task, and that of all the fanboys trying to defend what Trump whines about. Are you proud that he is bitching about the cast of Hamilton? Just asking?

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    So is it America second now? I pity your Sisyphean task, and that of all the fanboys trying to defend what Trump whines about. Are you proud that he is bitching about the cast of Hamilton?

    I have no inclination to defend Trump on anything.. When he's right about things, I say so.

    When he is wrong, I also say so..

    Like the Hamilton BS.. Trump is dead on ballz accurate.. The HAMILTON morons are totally out of line.. Total hypocritical morons talking about "diversity" yet put out casting calls that say White People Need Not Apply

    Typical Left Wingery... (Sorry, Liz.. Slippin' a bit... :D)

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    So there are no white people involved with the production. Care to support that point?

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can you list the top 10 Trump statements you disagree with Michale?

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    It's funny to hear you bitch about Trump Fanbois when you and many other Weigantians were the epitome of Obama Fanbois... :D

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    As for the rest of the column...

    Democrats working with Trump will be detrimental if they go against the wishes of Dems and Indies (like Dems voting for Bush's war and tax cuts and WS bailout and Big Brother crap) and positive if Trump wants to do things that are good for America.

    "Obama never reached the potential on this front that he so clearly displayed during his first election"
    Uh.
    Sure.
    Obama never even tried, and it was a conscious decision.
    Saying he "never reached the potential" is sugar coating at best, revisionism at worst.

    Schumer claiming to support Bernie's ideas is great, but he lacks credibility on the issues. We shall see if it's just lip service politics if he continues his support for Wall Street coddling corporatism.

    Pelosi will be a continuing disaster if she clings to her leadership post.

    One item few mention about Keith Ellison was his support for the illegal regime change war in Libya.
    Progressive purity can't be found among Democrats, but neither should such failures be swept under the rug.

    Hillary and her supporters (including the media but excluding you) deserve the disappointing award for the year.
    The way they treated Bernie supporters in the rigged primary and Trump supporters in the general was basically identical... and they deserved to lose.

    Did you happen to read the article by Nick Turse (I think it was on HP and TomDispatch)?
    It could be summarized as-
    We don't know what we'll get with Trump, but we knew well some of the many horrible things we would have gotten from Hillary's foreign policy, and we should be thankful we avoided them.

    A

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    64

    There's nothing like selectively ignoring the US Constitution to prove the accuracy of your moniker.

    But I expect it from an establishmentarian in denial like you.

    A

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you agree with everything Trump has said? Point taken.

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you list the top 10 Trump statements you disagree with Michale?

    Don't really have the time to research ALL of Trump's statements..

    Tell ya what...

    You list Trump's more "egregious" statements (with cites) and I'll tell you if I agree with them or not... :D

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Schumer threatens filibuster if Trump doesn't pick 'mainstream' court candidate
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306940-schumer-threatens-filibuster-if-trump-doesnt-pick-mainstream-scotus

    Easy fix for that.. :D

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    So, you agree with everything Trump has said? Point taken.

    I see you still have a problem with FACTS and saying I said things that I never did... :D

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    "If {Trump} doesn't nominate a mainstream {SCOTUS JUSTICE} candidate, we're going to go at him with everything we've got"
    -Senator Chuck Schumer

    Which, every one knows, is nothing more threatening than a wet, day old noodle.... :D

  77. [77] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    So let me toss this into the electronic voting integrity issue...

    Of which I have major issues with. After all it is not as if all of the major systems in use today don't have major flaws that result in a loss of data integrity between the voting booth and the counting center...

    So I think receipts are part of the solution... BUT... the receipt should list who you voted for and if it is not correct at the time of voting you should be allowed to then void the old ballot and recast a new ballot ( since in all of the current scan or direct "e screen" voting systems a unique number is already required) and thus a new receipt would be issued preferably with the notation of the old ballot being noted.

    The other half of the solution is having the voting record be available online via the local registrars/voting authority office where you can input your ballot receipt number and verify after the fact that your vote was tabulated correctly on the actual vote count level. If there is a problem then the alarm should be raised...and conversly you can ensure your "voided" ballot was also not tabulated.

    It should not be that difficult to implement something like this as most places already allow you to verify online your registration status, which if it checks out, is then associated with your ballots unique ID and your votes are then tabulated. So the only real new thing that needs to be done is creating the web interface for the voter to check their ballot if so desired.

    This type of system would also go along way to making sure all of those pesky "provisional" ballots get tabulated as well.

    Since the system has gone so digital I am of the strong opine that just having a paper backup is not sufficient, you also need to have the digital accessible backup as well to allow for comparison, otherwise, we are all still living in the dark so to speak.

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    All good points..

    One problem I forsee is that it's a very small step from what you propose to having names attached to those voting records....

    I think that would suppress the vote of a LOT of people...

  79. [79] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [50]

    Michale -

    If there is no evidence of any issues, why take steps to address it??

    Therefore...

    If there's "no evidence of any issues", there's no reason to:

    *take your car in for a regular service

    *check tires

    *check oil

    *check brakes

    *check battery

    *check belts

    *check fluids like coolant, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, windshield washer fluid, brake fluid etc

    because unless there is evidence of an issue, why bother taking steps to address it, right Michale?

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    If there's "no evidence of any issues", there's no reason to:

    *take your car in for a regular service

    *check tires

    *check oil

    *check brakes

    *check battery

    *check belts

    *check fluids like coolant, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, windshield washer fluid, brake fluid etc

    because unless there is evidence of an issue, why bother taking steps to address it, right Michale?</I.

    So, what you are saying is that PREVENTIVE STEPs are a good idea???

    So, for example, even if there isn't any real evidence of Voter ID fraud, we should still take PREVENTIVE STEPs to prevent voter fraud by instituting ID laws to insure that only those legally allowed to vote ARE voting..

    Would you agree? :D

  81. [81] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [51]

    Michale -

    You're being very generous to CW (and I would not expect anything less of you).

    But CW is saying age is an issue when it can be used against someone he doesn't like. It magically becomes "ageism" if used against someones he does like.

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh carp....

    If there's "no evidence of any issues", there's no reason to:

    *take your car in for a regular service

    *check tires

    *check oil

    *check brakes

    *check battery

    *check belts

    *check fluids like coolant, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, windshield washer fluid, brake fluid etc

    because unless there is evidence of an issue, why bother taking steps to address it, right Michale?

    So, what you are saying is that PREVENTIVE STEPs are a good idea???

    So, for example, even if there isn't any real evidence of Voter ID fraud, we should still take PREVENTIVE STEPs to prevent voter fraud by instituting ID laws to insure that only those legally allowed to vote ARE voting..

    Would you agree? :D

  83. [83] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [57]

    Michale -

    In January she will become the leader of the free world

    Whether you like it or not, Michale, this is how the free world countries do see it and they're not making any secret of the fact. The only exception is the republics of America which are just as entitled to their opinion as the rest of the free world.

    There's no hard-and-fast rule here. It is a perception. It has always been a perception. And the perception now is that Germany will take over the mantle of leader of the free world.

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Whether you like it or not, Michale, this is how the free world countries do see it and they're not making any secret of the fact.

    For example....??????

    There's no hard-and-fast rule here. It is a perception. It has always been a perception. And the perception now is that Germany will take over the mantle of leader of the free world.

    That's a perception that's only been expressed by the Left Wingery of the world...

    Hardly an expression with any credibility considering the sour-grapes factor...

    The US is still the only remaining superpower..

    When Germany starts taking over those duties, you may have an argument to make..

    Not until then...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    And considering the examples of Israel, BREXIT and the US, the Left Wingery's view of the world is definitely on the decline....

  86. [86] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [80]

    Michale -

    So, for example, even if there isn't any real evidence of Voter ID fraud, we should still take PREVENTIVE STEPs to prevent voter fraud by instituting ID laws to insure that only those legally allowed to vote ARE voting..

    Would you agree? :D

    Nice try but no cigar.

    My concern has nothing to do with voter fraud issues and you know it. Trying to twist this into your pet issue is disingenuous to say the least.

    Voters, Michale, are not machines. I was specifically drawing a comparison between two types of machines - cars and voting equipment. In no way can that be fairly construed as a comparison between living, breathing people and machines.

    What I am saying is that electronic machinery fails sometimes and, in this case, most malfunctions can either not be easily detected or not detected at all.

    There's a mountain of research on this, all of it concluding that electronic voting equipment is not foolproof and that malfunctions are not likely to be detected by anyone but an expert which election workers aren't and we shouldn't expect them to be.

    So, knowing for certain that things do go wrong with electronic machinery, why are you so against taking preventative steps to safeguard legally-cast votes? Why are you defending a flawed system?

    Right now, every vote cast via machine and/or counted electronically, is vulnerable to machine malfunction. Yet this is the situation you want to maintain.

  87. [87] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [84]

    Michale -

    When Germany starts taking over those duties, you may have an argument to make..

    No, Michale, it is not my argument. It is the view expressed by European governments, both conservative (as in Germany and Britain) and liberal (eg France). I didn't make this up, Michale, and I do object to your inferring that I did.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    No, Michale, it is not my argument. It is the view expressed by European governments, both conservative (as in Germany and Britain) and liberal (eg France). I didn't make this up, Michale, and I do object to your inferring that I did.

    I have no doubt that it's what you believe....

    But until such time as there is OBJECTIVE and FACTUAL evidence that the world believes that Germany is the new Superpower, I will go on accepting the reality that the facts show..

    This is EXACTLY the problem that I pointed out time and time again BEFORE the election..

    Many of ya'all's insistence that the world is as you WANT it to be, rather than as it really is...

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Voters, Michale, are not machines. I was specifically drawing a comparison between two types of machines - cars and voting equipment. In no way can that be fairly construed as a comparison between living, breathing people and machines.

    Yes, people are not machines...

    But the actions of people, like machines, CAN be accurately predicted, given acceptance of FACTS rather than simply cherry picking which data we will factor in to our predictions and which data we will ignore..

    So, knowing for certain that things do go wrong with electronic machinery, why are you so against taking preventative steps to safeguard legally-cast votes? Why are you defending a flawed system?

    I am not. I believe I am on record as AGREEING with you that a paper trail is desirable...

    JUST as it is desirable that we insure that ONLY those who are legally allowed to vote are actually voting..

    Right now, every vote cast via machine and/or counted electronically, is vulnerable to machine malfunction. Yet this is the situation you want to maintain.

    You have been hanging around NeilM too long.. Ascribing opinions and statements to me that I never said...

    I simply made the connection that ensuring machines accurately record the votes and ensuring that ONLY those legally allowed to actually CAST the votes that SHOULD be accurately recorded..

    You concede the former but your ideology doesn't allow you to concede the latter, even though they BOTH have the *EXACT* same goal...

    Insuring the integrity of the election...

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    Insuring the integrity of the election...

    Grammar check...

    Is it "INSURING" or "ENSURING"???

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    You list Trump's more "egregious" statements (with cites) and I'll tell you if I agree with them or not... :D

    You're the fanboy Michale. You mean you didn't hear anything from him that made you go hmmm. Or did you just pick the person most likely to annoy the educated and ignored everything that came out of his mouth?

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    How about his humiliation of the disabled. Did you agree with that?

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or "Grab them by the @@@@@"? Did you miss that one?

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you still think Mexico is going to pay for the wall? No feelings of gullibility there?

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or the 650 million people coming across the border in one week? How confident are you in that one?

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    A man who Politifact counted 185 lies in one week and you are struggling?

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    Germany is the new Superpower

    Nice try, but that isn't what I said as well you know. Germany is the country that is being looked to for leadership. Nobody is looking at Trump. He has no qualifications, qualities or interest (i.e. America First) to play a leadership role.

  98. [98] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [89]

    Michale -

    I am not. I believe I am on record as AGREEING with you that a paper trail is desirable...

    Sorry, but I must've missed it. It was probably buried in a rant about voter fraud or people who aren't legal human beings.

    But I'm willing to give you what you want:

    I agree that any and all proven incidences of voter fraud should result in the perpetrator being charged and this did indeed happen during this last election. I recall two cases being in the news.

    I also approve of voter IDs as long as these are provided to every registered voter free of charge and no other ID is required.

    So now are you willing to address what should be done to safeguard legally-cast votes to ensure transparency, due diligence and accountability for every voter?

  99. [99] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [90]

    Michale -

    Insuring the integrity of the election...

    Grammar check...

    Is it "INSURING" or "ENSURING"???

    Both are correct. :D

  100. [100] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [88]

    Michale -

    But until such time as there is OBJECTIVE and FACTUAL evidence that the world believes that Germany is the new Superpower, I will go on accepting the reality that the facts show..

    Oh I see where you went wrong now. You thought the Leader of the Free World was the same as the leader of the biggest/best superpower.

    But there is no necessity for the Leader of the Free World to be in charge of a superpower. That is not what the honorarium refers to. It refers to democratic freedom, to providing leadership to the nations of the free world, not to how big your military arsenal is.

    The US still has a bigger military than the next five nation's militaries put together. It's just that, come January 20, 2017, the nations of the free world will look to Germany for leadership, not the US.

  101. [101] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [97]

    neilm -

    Trying to keep up with Michale's idiosyncratic rationalization of the world as he see it, requires rather a lot of mental gymnastics! :D

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mopshell [101]

    It it hard to win an argument with a smart, informed person, but it is bloody near impossible to win one with a stupid person.

    Remember that when Michale claims he always wins every argument here.

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    Loving Trump flipping over SNL.

    Word to the Donald: It isn't going to get any better when you are both an easy target and it is delightfully obvious that it pisses you off.

    Time to grow up Donald. 70 years as a pre-teen is long enough :)

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Richard B. Spencer, a leader of the alt-right movement, said that White identity is at the core of both the alt-right movement and the Trump movement, even if most voters for Mr. Trump “aren’t willing to articulate it as such".

    Is anybody surprised?

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    How about his humiliation of the disabled. Did you agree with that?

    This is why I wanted to hear it from you because I knew you would overreach..

    Trump made fun of a disabled person. He didn't humiliate the disabled. It's like if you call a black person a moron, does that mean you are calling all black people morons??

    Having said that, of course it was crude and rude..

    Or "Grab them by the @@@@@"? Did you miss that one?

    Is that a "statement"?? Nope, it's just locker room talk... Something every male has engaged in since the invention of the locker room...

    And, of course I don't agree with it...

    "Any more ball busters??"
    -Billy Madison

    :D

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you still think Mexico is going to pay for the wall? No feelings of gullibility there?

    One way or another, Mexico is going to pay for the wall..

    Yes, I firmly believe that..

    A man who Politifact counted 185 lies in one week and you are struggling?

    Politifact is a well-documented Left Winger stooge...

    And considering YOUR candidate's history of lies, do you HONESTLY think that's a valid line of attack against Trump??

    Your candidate lost, Neil. Accept it and move on... :D

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Nice try, but that isn't what I said as well you know. Germany is the country that is being looked to for leadership.

    Again, that's the claim..

    Yet NO ONE can point to a SINGLE FACT to back it up..

    Don't get me wrong. I am sure the Left Wingery of the world is going to try and ignore Trump... They lost and now they are whining... I get it..

    But the US is still the only superpower, the US President is still the leader of the free world..

    These are the facts... This is the reality....

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    So now are you willing to address what should be done to safeguard legally-cast votes to ensure transparency, due diligence and accountability for every voter?

    I already have... But what you and Don and GT propose will create a whole host of major problems.

    Problems that ya'all have not followed up on...

    Balls in your court, so to speak.. :D

    It's just that, come January 20, 2017, the nations of the free world will look to Germany for leadership, not the US.

    Yes, that's the claim from the Left. But it's the same wishful thinking that we heard when ya'all said, "Hillary's got this one in the bag" or "The UK will NEVER vote to leave the EU"

    It's a wish, unsubstantiated by ANY facts whatsoever...

    Trying to keep up with Michale's idiosyncratic rationalization of the world as he see it,

    Yer REALLY talking down to ME about seeing the world as I want to see it???

    REALLY??? :D

    It it hard to win an argument with a smart, informed person, but it is bloody near impossible to win one with a stupid person.

    And yet, WHO was the smart person and WHO were the stoopid people on 9 Nov 2016?? :D

    How soon the masses forget... :D

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Insuring the integrity of the election...

    Grammar check...

    Is it "INSURING" or "ENSURING"???

    Both are correct. :D

    Really?? I would not have thought that..

    Danke...

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    America Called Bullshit on the Cult of Clinton
    The one good thing about Trump’s win? It shows a willingness among Americans to blaspheme against saints and reject the religion of hollow progressiveness.

    https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary

    Yea... It's TRUMP supporters who are the looney tunes.. :^/

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    It's all incredibly revealing. What it points to is a mainstream, Democratic left that is so bereft of ideas and so disconnected from everyday people that it ends up pursuing an utterly substance-free politics of emotion and feeling and doesn't even realize it's doing it. They are good, everyone else is bad; they are light itself, everyone else is darkness; and so no self-awareness can exist and no self-criticism can be entertained. Not for even one second, in Heffernan's words. The Cult of Hillary Clinton is the clearest manifestation yet of the 21st-century problem of life in the political echo chamber.

    yup, yup, yup....

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:
  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's as if I wrote it myself! :D

    It is. You are right. It is a smug piece of nonsense that misses several facts, such as the Democrats gaining seats in the House and Senate, and Clinton winning the popular support easily.

    But why bring facts into a puff piece.

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK - I was sitting on the tarmac with a few minutes to run out a few quotes. Here are some that I'm going to number so it is easier to see you cherry pick (i.e. you never responded to the 650M new immigrants in one week quote). I'll be keeping tabs.

    BTW, your answers so far are pure fanboy.

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Word to the Donald: It isn't going to get any better when you are both an easy target and it is delightfully obvious that it pisses you off.

    And it also says a lot about the people who it delights... :D

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    BTW, your answers so far are pure fanboy.

    Yea.. I said I disagree with Trump on those deplorable statements and you STILL call me a fanboi.. :D

    Like I said... You are in your own little reality.. :D

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:
  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay Neil,

    Aren't you a fan of Investors Dot Com???

    Media Malpractice? Media Bias And The 2016 Election
    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/media-malpractice-media-bias-and-2016-election/

    Your thoughts??

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. "Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

    2. "14 percent of non-citizens are registered to vote."

    3. "Inner-city crime is reaching record levels."

    4. U.S. Manufacturing has declined since the 1980s.

    5. Climate change is a Chinese hoax

    6. April 3, 2016: Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace: Talking about Japan and South Korea, "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

    7. 45% Tariffs on all Chinese imports

    8. Bringing back waterboarding and worse because torture works.

    9. Elimination of the Department of Education will significantly reduce the fiscal deficit.

    10. Threatening to withdraw from NATO

    1 to 10 - yes (you think these are true or good ideas)

    Score:

    0: You did 10 seconds of research and you can't believe you now voted for Trump (no, we don't get a Mulligan you dork, we have to live with this idiot)

    1-5: I'll nit-pic on a few, but what a lying clown Trump ius

    6-9: I'm trying not to be a fanboy but failing miserably.

    10: Pure fanboy. Wants to be wife #4.

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re Investors dot com - you really mean IBD - which I peruse for their take on markets.

    Their points:

    1. The media called Trump on more lies than Hillary - that is because Trump lied more than any politician in the 2016 race (by a country mile), and Hillary and Bush were tied for most honest. Calling BS is the media's job.

    2. They then stated that "more than two-thirds of registered voters (67%) reported that the media's reports on the candidates are often inaccurate, while only one-quarter trusted in the accuracy of its news stories."

    In case you haven't noticed, there was an industry in fake news that generated clicks and thus ad money. e.g. Paul Horner is behind crazy stories including “Donald Trump Requiring All Muslims To Wear Badges" and "President Obama Signs Executive Order Banning The National Anthem.”

    This industry targeted Republicans because they spread the stories more. If Democrats had been gullible the stories would have been about Trump instead.

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    "The 38-year-old Arizonan Paul Horner claimed he’s making around $10,000 a month posting nothing but fake news stories. One laughable headline brought word that “The Amish in America Commit Their Vote To Donald Trump; Guaranteeing Him A Presidential Victory.” But Horner tells the Post that it never, ever occurred to him that Trump might actually win. Ironically at least one of his entirely imaginary articles was tweeted by Donald Trump’s campaign manager, as well as Trump’s son-in-law."

    "The Macedonia Connection

    Maybe people will do anything for money — even 6,000 miles away from America. Five days before the election, BuzzFeed traced many fake news sites to unemployed teenagers in Macedonia. Leading up to the 2016 election, the Macedonian town of Veles (population 45,000) “experienced a digital gold rush as locals launched at least 140 US politics websites.” Yes, even USADailyPolitics.com originated from Macedonia — and the largest of their fake news site wound up with hundreds of thousands of followers."

    “An automated army of pro-Donald Trump chatbots overwhelmed similar programs supporting Hillary Clinton five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election, according to a report published Thursday by researchers at Oxford University,” the New York Times reports."

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    1. "Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

    Generally speaking, I would agree...

    2. "14 percent of non-citizens are registered to vote."

    I have no idea if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was...

    3. "Inner-city crime is reaching record levels."

    I would agree with that....

    4. U.S. Manufacturing has declined since the 1980s.

    I would also agree with that...

    5. Climate change is a Chinese hoax

    I would consider it more of a Globalist/Corporatist con job of epic proportions, but ToMAYtoe, ToMAAtoe....

    6. April 3, 2016: Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace: Talking about Japan and South Korea, "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

    Although I spent some time in Japan and the Koreas, my area of expertise was the Middle East...

    But I would agree that if Japan & The ROK had a credible deterrence, it would ease up on US responsibility.

    Being that the US is the only remaining superpower, yunno.. :D

    7. 45% Tariffs on all Chinese imports

    I am economic dullard, you know that. But stickin' it to the Chinese and making all the snowflakes' IPhones cost more?? Yea, I would like that. A Two-Fer.. :D

    8. Bringing back waterboarding and worse because torture works.

    Definitely agree because it's well-documented even by Obama officials and my own personal experiences in the field. DEFINITE agree...

    9. Elimination of the Department of Education will significantly reduce the fiscal deficit.

    While that may or may not be accurate, I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate the Education Department... But it DOES need to change from the Democrat's Ministry Of Truth....

    10. Threatening to withdraw from NATO

    Of course withdrawing from NATO is not a good idea.. THREATENING it, though is a fantastic idea..

    (no, we don't get a Mulligan you dork, we have to live with this idiot)

    Yes.. *WE* do... So get over it.. :D

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    You go where the money is - Trump supporters are five times as gullible as Hillary's

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    "The Macedonia Connection

    So, Trump's election is a conspiracy from teens in Macedonia??? :D

    You DO realize that it's well-documented that this obvious "fake news" BS had nothing to do with Trump's win, right??

    Why can't you accept the reality??

    The American people did NOT WANT Hillary Clinton as President....

    It's THAT simple.....

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    You go where the money is - Trump supporters are five times as gullible as Hillary's

    Whatever ya have to say to make it thru your day.. :D

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    5. Climate change is a Chinese hoax

    I would consider it more of a Globalist/Corporatist con job of epic proportions, but ToMAYtoe, ToMAAtoe....

    OK, that is not entirely accurate...

    Climate change is real and is happening.. This is a given fact that no one, not even Donald Trump, denies..

    CLIMATE CHANGE, ie Human Caused Changing Of The Planet's Climate, is a con job of epic proportions...

    Knowing how ya love to pik at nits that supports yer ideological agenda and Party slavery, I felt I should clarify that... :D

    Once this con is FULLY exposed, maybe the Left Wingery can start a PLANET ORBIT CHANGE con... I imagine that would be a hoot... :D

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow - a score of 7 = trying not to be a pure fanboy.

    Did you do ANY research, or, like Paul Horner's completely made up stories, you just believed them.

    1. AA Communities: So it was better during slavery or Jim Crow laws?

    "African-American communities are suffering from many social ailments, including poor schools and high unemployment, and it is important that candidates address these problems and offer specific ways of ameliorating the situation," said Eric Foner, a Columbia University historian who has written numerous books on slavery and post-Civil War reconstruction. "However, it is absurd to say they are in the worst shape they've ever been. Putting slavery aside, go back to the Great Depression, or the crack epidemic of the 1970s and 1980s."

    2. "No idea" - that is my point, you have no idea, so you just follow blindly like a fanboy

    3. Crime in inner cities is way down over the last few decades - not even close.

    "In 2014, the violent crime rate in these largest cities was 658.7 per 100,000 residents, a significant decline from 868.9 in 2006 (and even higher in earlier years). Over the same period, the murder rate in these cities fell from 12.3 per 100,000 residents to 7.4 per 100,000 residents." - source: FBI

    4. "Manufacturers have experienced tremendous growth over the past couple decades, making them more “lean” and helping them become more competitive globally. Output per hour for all workers in the manufacturing sector has increased by more than 2.5 times since 1987. In contrast, productivity is roughly 1.7 times greater for all nonfarm businesses. Note that durable goods manufacturers have seen even greater growth, almost tripling its labor productivity over that time frame. - See more at: http://www.nam dot org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing/#sthash.VZ6NCRx1.dpuf"

    5. I'll take that as a "No"

    6. I'm not interested in your opinion, just whether you think Japan and S. Korea having nukes is a good idea. I'll take that as a yes.

    7. You are an economic dullard. No, iPhones wouldn't get any more expensive - all the parts come from the U.S. etc, only the construction labor is Chinese, and that could be moved to Taiwan or Vietnam in a couple of months. The retaliatory tariffs and ensuing trade war would wipe out millions of U.S. jobs - still think it is a good idea?

    8. Despite all evidence to the contrary, but I expected that. The world isn't like an episode of '24' - hate to break the news to you.

    9. I'll take that as a no.

    10. I'll take that as a no. It isn't a threat if it is too stupid to be taken seriously, even by fanboys.

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    The American people did NOT WANT Hillary Clinton as President....

    The electoral collage will pick Trump, not the American people:

    Trump: 61,201,031
    Clinton: 62,523,126

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Since you don't understand science, I'm not going to try to explain AGW to you. I don't do adult kindergarten.

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    Did you do ANY research, or, like Paul Horner's completely made up stories, you just believed them.

    I was going with my guy..

    While the claims may not be wholly accurate, you are missing the point..

    The fact that the PERCEPTION is that they are factual is sufficient...

    The CONDITIONS are that these things COULD be accurate..

    And THAT is all that matters..

    I am not going to scroll up and down to see what you are referring to.. I have better things to spend my time on. No, really, I do! :D

    If you want me to answer you, you have to quote the parts you are answering..

    The electoral collage will pick Trump, not the American people:

    And the American People pick the Electorals.. Splitting hair semantics..


    Trump: 61,201,031
    Clinton: 62,523,126

    And if the popular vote were relevant, you would have a point..

    But it's not, so you don't..

    Like I explained above, using your reasoning, the Cubs didn't win the World Series... It was a tie...

    Candidates don't campaign for the popular vote, they campaign for the state...

    Trump won the required states....

    That is all that is relevant..

    There are also entire blocks of millions of votes that would likely be for Trump that aren't counted...

    Finally, if you get rid of just 3 cities, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, Trump would win the popular vote by millions...

    "Let me tell you about {that Popular Vote}, Slick. As of right now, it means precisely dick."
    -Agent K, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact that the PERCEPTION is that they are factual is sufficient...

    The CONDITIONS are that these things COULD be accurate..

    And THAT is all that matters..

    Says it all. Do you have a rainbow unicorn? No? I've got one for you for only $50,000.

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact that the PERCEPTION is that they are factual is sufficient...

    The CONDITIONS are that these things COULD be accurate..

    And THAT is all that matters..

    You believe what is believable to you.

    F'n hilarious.

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Since you don't understand science, I'm not going to try to explain AGW to you. I don't do adult kindergarten.

    Oh, believe me, I get it..

    I know all the BS that the Left likes to portray as "truth"...

    But the simple fact is that EVERY theory, EVERY prediction made by the Global Warming nutballs has been WRONG...

    WRONG

    Now, I am not a scientist, but I *DO* remember from my High School science classes that one creates a theory and then uses experimentation and predictions to TEST the theory..

    And if, as in this case, EVERY prediction is WRONG, then the REAL scientist tweaks the theory to match the data......

    But what happens here is that the Left Wingers tweak the data to match the theory...

    But that is ALL going to come to an end... It's ALL going to come crashing down and the con job that is Global Warming is going to be exposed for the garbage that it is...

    Now I just have FIRST CONTACT and my bucket list will be done.. :D

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    But the simple fact is that EVERY theory, EVERY prediction made by the Global Warming nutballs has been WRONG...

    Oh wait. My apologies..

    It's not called GLOBAL WARMING any more.

    GLOBAL WARMING didn't focus-group very well, what with all the record freezing temperatures world-wide..

    NOTE: If you have to "FOCUS-GROUP" your "science" it AIN'T science..... :^/

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    As I said, I don't do adult kindergarten. Wallow in your "perception", if it makes you feel better.

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump: 61,201,031
    Clinton: 62,523,126

    The American people chose Clinton. Let me try to explain this in simple perceptions for you:

    222222
    22
    22 >
    222222 >
    22 > 1
    22 >
    222222 >

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    1. The media called Trump on more lies than Hillary - that is because Trump lied more than any politician in the 2016 race (by a country mile), and Hillary and Bush were tied for most honest. Calling BS is the media's job.

    What part of The media has ZERO credibility with the American people do you not understand??

    The media called the election for Trump..

    They were as wrong as wrong can be....

    ZERO credibility....

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    Damn! Fail. All the spaces stripped out.

    222222
    ........22
    ........22...>
    222222.....>
    22...............>.....1
    22.............>
    222222...>

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    What part of The media has ZERO credibility with the American people do you not understand??

    All of it. What part of "people believed fake news" don't you understand.

    You can't grasp the simple science behind AGW and you can use a computer. Sadly, you are one of the smarter Trump voters and look at the state of your acceptance of reality:

    The fact that the PERCEPTION is that they are factual is sufficient...

    The CONDITIONS are that these things COULD be accurate..

    And THAT is all that matters..

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    All of it. What part of "people believed fake news" don't you understand.

    What part of "YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM" do you not understand??

    This is fun!! :D

    You can't grasp the simple science behind AGW

    That's because there IS no "science", simple or otherwise, behind Human Caused Global Warming..

    It's ALL nothing but Focus-Grouped politics..

    But it's going to disappear pretty fast over the next year.. :D

    Sadly, you are one of the smarter Trump voters and look at the state of your acceptance of reality:

    You can make any bogus point ya want (and ya have made a LOT of bogus points over the last year or so) if you pull comments out of context... :D

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Making you feel at home Michale: 1 + 1 = 2, but you can perceive the real answer is "South Africa"

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    But it's going to disappear pretty fast over the next year.. :D

    Really. Very interesting. Care to tell us how? Is Trump going to perceive it away?

    When you reject reality for perception, you can't suddenly claim you are the only person with credibility and expect to be taken seriously.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    The media called the election for Trump..

    They were as wrong as wrong can be....

    ZERO credibility....

    I know. Clinton won the popular vote, but whatever.

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale: If I give you $20 and you give me $50,000 in exchange, will you perceive that this is a good deal? I've got some business in Orlando in February and some new tires for the ride would be nice when I get back home.

  145. [145] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You are the person who the marketing department named "Almond Milk" for.

    The rest of us know it is just nut juice.

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    Really. Very interesting. Care to tell us how? Is Trump going to perceive it away?

    Nope.. Trump is simply going to make pushing the Global Warming con not lucrative any more at all... :D

    At least, that's my guess on how he will do it..

    Making you feel at home Michale

    Says the guy who has been WRONG at EVERY turn regarding Trump.. :D

    I know. Clinton won the popular vote,

    And the World Series was really a tie..

    but whatever.

    Exactly right..

    The popular vote and $34.99 will get you a latte at SeaTac... :D

    Michale: If I give you $20 and you give me $50,000 in exchange, will you perceive that this is a good deal?

    Depends on the context... :D

    If that $20 is a rare bill that is worth $250K, then hell yea I would consider it a GREAT deal!! :D

    It's all about the context, my friend.. :D

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    You are the person who the marketing department named "Almond Milk" for.

    The rest of us know it is just nut juice.

    Says the guy who accepts the marketing strategy of CLIMATE CHANGE vs GLOBAL WARMING :D

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    Really. Very interesting. Care to tell us how? Is Trump going to perceive it away?

    Nope.. Trump is simply going to make pushing the Global Warming con not lucrative any more at all... :D

    At least, that's my guess on how he will do it..

    I have a great idea..

    We'll have these Global Warming scientists make a prediction..

    If they are right, they get paid for their work...

    If they are wrong, they go to prison for 10 years...

    THAT should solve the problem.. I bet we wouldn't hear a PEEP out of these so-called "scientists"... :D

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    We'll have these Global Warming scientists make a prediction..

    If they are right, they get paid for their work...

    If they are wrong, they go to prison for 10 years...

    The more I think about it, the more I like this idea..

    If I recall correctly, the Left Wingery LOVES the idea of jailing scientists... So they should love this idea as well..

    Awesome. Our first bi-partisan agreement!!! :D

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:
  151. [151] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell (49)-
    You don't have to steal it. I would never claim to be the first to propose it.

    GT (77)- Do you have access to my email account ? I could swear I've written the same thing in emails to people about this issue such as Harvey Wasserman after he discussed the voting machines on Ralph Nader's Radio Hour.

    It seems that many of us, including Michale all agree there should be receipts, a paper trail and some way to verify our votes being cast and counted correctly.

    A ray of sunshine piercing the clouds of discontent and disagreement.

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why prosecute the cities? The reason the illegal immigrants are here is because they get paid work.

    Why not go to the source and prosecute the employers? That' right, Trump uses illegal immigrants in his businesses, n'est pas?

    Trump was convicted of using illegal immigrants in NY in the 1980s.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/deal-sealed-trump-tower-suit-article-1.834028

    Oops.

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    The National Review has yet more dirt on Trump and illegal immigrant workers:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/donald-trumps-foreign-workers-american-workers-arent-good-enough-trump

    Is Sessions going to prosecute Trump?

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    And the perception now is that Germany will take over the mantle of leader of the free world.

    And if Merkel loses her election to a right-wing candidate??

    Will Germany STILL be the leader of the free world??

    Or will ya'all have another excuse???

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.infowars.com/more-electors-get-death-threats-from-hillary-voters/

    Well, I am sure glad that Hillary voters have "accepted" the election results..

    I would have been worried otherwise.. :^/

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    Why prosecute the cities?

    Violating the law???

    Why not go to the source and prosecute the employers?

    I am completely on board with that..

    So is President Trump...

    Trump was convicted of using illegal immigrants in NY in the 1980s.

    WOW.. Almost 40 years ago..

    Yea, that's SOOOOO relevant today.... :D

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Michale: Did you ever ask yourself why the Police Chiefs of major cities support sanctuary city status?

    This might help:

    https://majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/immigration_position112811.pdf

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump was convicted of using illegal immigrants in NY in the 1980s.

    That was back when Trump was a Democrat.. I guess it's a Democrat thing, eh? :D

  159. [159] 
    neilm wrote:

    You really get your news from Infowars - I always wondered who read Alex Jones - I thought that was beneath you?

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    Hey Michale: Did you ever ask yourself why the Police Chiefs of major cities support sanctuary city status?

    No.. Nor do I care..

    They are violating the law.... The reasons are immaterial..

    Their list of excuses are just weak limp-dicked justifications trying to justify the unjustifiable...

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    You really get your news from Infowars - I always wondered who read Alex Jones - I thought that was beneath you?

    How is that any different than ya'all getting ya'all's "news" from HuffPoop or DailyKO$???

    'Sides, the information has been widely reported.. IW was simply the handiest resource..

    Would you feel any different if the link was from CNN???

    Of course you wouldn't...

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well if it is 40 years in the past then Trump won't worry about prosecuting employers. Only thing is that the hospitality and construction businesses are two of the major lawbreakers when it comes to this.

    I'd reserve my respect for Sessions until you see if he only goes after Democratic run cities, or if he goes after Republican run cities with the same policies AND aggressively prosecutes the employers.

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would you feel any different if the link was from CNN???

    If it is widely reported then send me a link from the BBC, Le Monde, or even, heaven forbid, if you must, CNN.

    I mean, the smoking gun would be if Clinton herself threatened "second amendment remedies" ... oh wait, that was Trump, wasn't it.

    And you vehemently defended it. No hypocrisy here folks.

  164. [164] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wouldn't it be fun if Sessions initiates proceedings against a city, who then turn around and conduct sweeps through every Trump and major Trump donor's construction sites, hotels, golf courses, etc.

    How fast do you think Trump and Sessions would run off with their tail between their legs?

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    They are violating the law.... The reasons are immaterial..

    You should have done your research. Immigration law is a Federal responsibility, not a State one. The police are not violating the law by not doing the INS's work for them.

    For somebody who is so passionate about illegal immigration you seem to be wholly misinformed.

  166. [166] 
    michale wrote:

    Well if it is 40 years in the past then Trump won't worry about prosecuting employers. Only thing is that the hospitality and construction businesses are two of the major lawbreakers when it comes to this.

    Who cares.. They are violating the law..

    PROSECUTE them...

    I'd reserve my respect for Sessions until you see if he only goes after Democratic run cities, or if he goes after Republican run cities with the same policies AND aggressively prosecutes the employers.

    Nope.. My respect is the same.. IF he does as you say, THEN I will condemn him..

    But for now.. He has the right idea...

    By the bi.. Could you name any of those Republican run cities that are sanctuary cities??

    If it is widely reported then send me a link from the BBC, Le Monde, or even, heaven forbid, if you must, CNN.

    https://www.google.com/#q=electors%20harassment

    I dunno why you would expect any of the sources you mention to have these kinds of stories.. They are all in the bag for Hillary...

    But it is widely documented enough and wide-spread enough to be accurate...

  167. [167] 
    michale wrote:

    Wouldn't it be fun if Sessions initiates proceedings against a city, who then turn around and conduct sweeps through every Trump and major Trump donor's construction sites, hotels, golf courses, etc.

    How fast do you think Trump and Sessions would run off with their tail between their legs?

    Wipe yer chin... Yer drooling.. :D

    You should have done your research. Immigration law is a Federal responsibility, not a State one. The police are not violating the law by not doing the INS's work for them.

    You should have done your research..

    “Any person who, knowing that an alien has come to the U.S. in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection such alien in any place, including any building… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years.”
    TITLE 8 USC , Section 1324

    Further, the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 *REQUIRES* State and local Law Enforcement agencies to cooperate with Federal Authorities on immigration matters. Failure to comply is a violation of the law...

    For somebody who is so passionate about illegal immigration you seem to be wholly misinformed.

    Yer kidding, right?? :D

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'd reserve my respect for Sessions until you see if he only goes after Democratic run cities, or if he goes after Republican run cities with the same policies AND aggressively prosecutes the employers.

    Nope.. My respect is the same.. IF he does as you say, THEN I will condemn him..

    Re-read what you just said - I think you got yourself mixed up.

    You are claiming you would ONLY respect him if he only targets Democratic run sanctuary cities, but not Republican run sanctuary cities or any employers.

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    You see, THAT is exactly the problem the Democratic Party faces..

    President Trump doesn't have to do a DAMN thing.. All he has to do is instruct his DOJ to start ENFORCING the existing laws that the Obama Administration has ignored for the last 8 years..

    The free ride is over... People are going to start going to jail...

    Thar's a new sheriff in town....

  170. [170] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wipe yer chin... Yer drooling.. :D

    You were the one soiling your underwear about Sessions going after sanctuary cities, but when an obvious response is pointed out you suddenly think differently.

    Sad!

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    You are claiming you would ONLY respect him if he only targets Democratic run sanctuary cities, but not Republican run sanctuary cities or any employers.

    One of us is misunderstanding, but I don't think it's me.. :D

    I respect Sessions for saying what he is going to do and intending to do it..

    IF he does as you claim he will, IE only targets Democrat cities and leaves the heretofore fantasy Republican cities alone, THEN I will condemn him for that and lose respect for him...

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Any person who, knowing that an alien has come to the U.S. in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection such alien in any place, including any building… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years.”
    TITLE 8 USC , Section 1324

    Uh-huh, but then why did Arizona need to pass a law specifically forcing the police to act as immigration agents, and why did that same law get struck down on appeal?

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    IF he does as you claim he will, IE only targets Democrat cities and leaves the heretofore fantasy Republican cities alone, THEN I will condemn him for that and lose respect for him...

    Then we are saying the same thing.

    Which do you think is going to be more effective at identifying illegal immigrants: sweeps through Trump's businesses or forcing Denver to check the immigration status of everyone it has successfully prosecuted?

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    For somebody who is so passionate about illegal immigration you seem to be wholly misinformed.

    Ya gotta remember... I was San Diego SO.. I lived in Chula Vista... My beat was Otay Mesa and San Ysidro...

    There isn't much I don't know about the illegal immigration issue..

    Granted my experience is dated... But I see nothing that indicates things have changed THAT much...

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    Uh-huh, but then why did Arizona need to pass a law specifically forcing the police to act as immigration agents, and why did that same law get struck down on appeal?

    Liberal courts... :D

    Which do you think is going to be more effective at identifying illegal immigrants: sweeps through Trump's businesses or forcing Denver to check the immigration status of everyone it has successfully prosecuted?

    Let's do both and find out... :D

  176. [176] 
    neilm wrote:

    Odd that the Republican run senate in July 2016 did not pass a law to defund sanctuary cities.

    Care to tell us why Republicans are soft on this issue Michale?

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    Then we are saying the same thing.

    Not exactly..

    You are saying WHEN it happens..

    I am saying IF it happens...

    A subtle yet significant difference...

    But beyond that difference..

    Yes..

    We are on the same page when/if that happens...

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    Odd that the Republican run senate in July 2016 did not pass a law to defund sanctuary cities.

    Care to tell us why Republicans are soft on this issue Michale?

    Two words.

    Obama...

    It would have been a waste of time... They knew they could just bide their time and deal with President Trump.. :D

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    Two words.

    Obama...

    It would have been a waste of time... They knew they could just bide their time and deal with President Trump.. :D

    That was just a joke, in case you took it seriously..

    The GOP didn't want to piss off they hispanic community because they weren't sure how far along the Democrat's covery REGISTER ILLEGALS FOR VOTING program was...

    :D

    OK, that was a joke to..

    The GOP Senate was pandering to the hispanic community in hopes of scoring points...

  180. [180] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But the US is still the only superpower, the US President is still the leader of the free world.."

    I HAVE to agree with Michale on this one. When leaders and diplomats start running to Berlin instead of Washington, and start asking questions like what does Germany think or what will Germany do about the situation in Darfur or the South China Sea, instead of asking what will America do or what does the USA think, or when Russia starts going to Berlin to resolve the crisis in the Ukraine instead of Washington, or the Arab states and Israel start trying to get Germany to broker a peace deal instead of the USA, THEN we can say that Germany is the leader of the Free World instead of the USA, but NOT before.

  181. [181] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "Michale:

    You are the person who the marketing department named "Almond Milk" for.

    The rest of us know it is just nut juice."

    GOOD ONE!!! ZING!!! This one stopped me in my tracks and had me laughing out loud!!!

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem for the Republicans on the immigration enforcement issue is the employer prosecution avoidance.

    It is the police chiefs that are in favor of the sanctuary policy. As such, Democratic mayors can agree to those policing policies because they have been proven to reduce crime and lead to more effective crime solution rates. For Republican mayors it is a third rail (even if they understand why their police force doesn't want to be in the immigration enforcement business, it is impossible to explain that to a Brietbart fed electorate).

    1. The border will always leak (e.g. 50% of immigrants fly in and overstay their visas, the Wall won't be 100% effective, etc.).

    2. Forcing the police to be an internal INS group will only catch a small percentage of illegals

    3. Strict employer enforcement isn't on the cards. This is the area where the needle could be moved most. I wonder why we don't hear about that from Republicans?

  183. [183] 
    John M wrote:

    Let me expound on that a little bit. Germany IS the leader of Europe. It has in fact been that way for quite some time now. But that is NOT the same as being the leader of the entire Free World as de Gaulle found out. Germany leads because it dominates Europe economically. France may think that Europe revolves around a Paris-Berlin axis, but France is clearly the junior partner here. It is France that tries to keep on the good side of Germany, and not the other way around. That's because the real leverage lies in Berlin and not in Paris. But again, first among Europe does not yet equate to being leader of the world.

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    The problem for the Republicans on the immigration enforcement issue is the employer prosecution avoidance.

    If we were discussing Republicans... well, you know the rest..

    That's what ya'all don't understand yet.

    For all intents and purposes, Trump is an INDEPENDENT...

    It would not surprise me in the least if Trump put Democrats in cabinet positions and in advisory positions..

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    1. The border will always leak (e.g. 50% of immigrants fly in and overstay their visas, the Wall won't be 100% effective, etc.).

    Nothing is ever 100% anything..

    "Well, ma'am.. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE can be 100% dick.."
    -John C Reilly, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    :D

    2. Forcing the police to be an internal INS group will only catch a small percentage of illegals

    Even if that were true, among that small percentage MIGHT be another murderer or rapist...

    3. Strict employer enforcement isn't on the cards. This is the area where the needle could be moved most. I wonder why we don't hear about that from Republicans?

    Republicans don't matter.. TRUMP is at the wheel.. At he has already said that stricter employer enforcement is part and parcel to his border package..

    Why not give it a CHANCE to fail before you declare it a failure??

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    I HAVE to agree with Michale on this one.

    Thank you...

    It may yet come to that.. Trump might be the worstest leader in all of creation and we might see world leaders beating feet to Berlin's door...

    But the mantle of Leader Of The Free World doesn't change simply because of Trump's election to the Presidency...

    Like I said above.. Give him a CHANCE to fail before you declare him a failure...

    It would give the claim a LOT more credibility, don'tcha think??

  187. [187] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    In two years time (2018 election season) what are the three key changes you expect from Trump?

    e.g. (these are just examples)

    1. GDP Growth
    2. # Illegal Immigrants in the Country
    3. Growth in coal mining employment

  188. [188] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    "4. U.S. Manufacturing has declined since the 1980s."

    "4. "Manufacturers have experienced tremendous growth over the past couple decades, making them more “lean” and helping them become more competitive globally. Output per hour for all workers in the manufacturing sector has increased by more than 2.5 times since 1987. In contrast, productivity is roughly 1.7 times greater for all nonfarm businesses. Note that durable goods manufacturers have seen even greater growth, almost tripling its labor productivity over that time frame"

    I don't see any mention about the number of manufacturing jobs.

    Output per hour and increased productivity doesn't mean there wasn't a decline.
    Did you forget to include job numbers or is that irrelevant to you?

    I also noticed that the other day you claimed something along the lines that the US needed Mexican low wage workers and that you were happy that Merkel was running again in Germany.
    Are you a Democrat?

    Your nonsense about the popular vote makes me think so.

    A

  189. [189] 
    neilm wrote:

    When I was a kid we used to have a joke that never grew old. We were always short on money, so if we were driving somewhere and the gas was running low, somebody would always shout:

    "Drive faster so we get there before the gas runs out"

    This joke might be pertinent in a few years time.

  190. [190] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [187]

    I'm not a Democrat, but then I align currently with most Democratic policies because the Republicans have rejected science (in particular AGW and Evolution).

    They are also mean and nasty mfers at the moment.

    I think manufacturing is going the way of agriculture - it will be a smaller and smaller part of the workforce, but an important capability that countries need to generate the wealth for their populations.

    Manufacturing has been the on ramp for emerging economies, but I don't think this will continue - just as the banana republics were able to bootstrap via agriculture in the past, but agriculture isn't a viable on ramp today.

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    In two years time (2018 election season) what are the three key changes you expect from Trump?

    I expect to see enforcement of our immigration laws WIDELY increase...

    A crackdown on protesters who attack LEO...

    Killing cops by ambush a federal crime that, upon conviction, is an automatic Death Penalty...

    More as they come to me...

  192. [192] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Stick with 3.

    But basically you want to see:

    1. A decrease in the numbers of LEO's killed in the line of duty via more punitive penalties. This should be easy to measure. Are you OK with the following numbers from this web site:

    http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you are OK with these numbers, we need to pick the areas you want to see improvement. Here are the categories I'd pick, but you can pick any ones you want:

    1. Beaten
    2. Bomb
    3. Poisoned
    4. Shot
    5. Stabbed
    6. Strangled
    7. Terrorist Attack

  194. [194] 
    neilm wrote:

    #2 Immigration - Increase in enforcement of immigration laws - how are you going to measure that?

    How about measuring the numbers of aliens removed (first column of table 39 from the DHS Year Book)?

    https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2014/table39

    Note: returns are "self deportations" not the active implementation of the immigration laws you seek.

  195. [195] 
    neilm wrote:

    What about a third one?

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    1. A decrease in the numbers of LEO's killed in the line of duty via more punitive penalties.

    Of course I WANT to see that.. Who doesn't???

    But that's not what I said..

    I want the Trump administration to take a harder line against attacks on cops than the Obama administration has... Especially attacks that are in the form of ambushes...

    Put another way...

    The Obama administration has made it clear that attacks on black people BECAUSE they are black people are heinous crimes and should be pursued nearly maniacally and punished to the extent of the law and, if that's not harsh enough, then create more laws to MAKE it harsher...

    I would like to see that same passion addressing attacks on cops BECAUSE they are cops..

    "Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are.."
    -James Woods, THE HARD WAY

    #2 Immigration - Increase in enforcement of immigration laws - how are you going to measure that?

    The number of REAL arrests, including TBSs.. The number of actual deportations and the numbers snared up in raids and such...

    The Obama Administration was able to make clear exactly how many immigration laws they are ignoring...

    I am sure the Trump Administration can make it as clear how many immigration laws they are enforcing...

  197. [197] 
    neilm wrote:

    So you want to feel good?

    How about moving the dial on the issues?

    C'mon - pick something you can measure. You keep scolding us for not giving Trump a chance. I contend he is a conman who tells people what they want to hear so they feel good, but then does nothing but empties their pockets.

    Prove me wrong. Pick some hard numbers from e.g. the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial fund statistics and the DHS.

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm not a Democrat,

    You're the second Weigantian to claim they are not a Democrat..

    I find that funny to read, especially AFTER the election??

    Maybe being a Democrat is embarrassing now?? :D heh

  199. [199] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Obama Administration was able to make clear exactly how many immigration laws they are ignoring...

    Really. Some numbers, or do you just 'feel' that is your 'perception'?

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    You're the second Weigantian to claim they are not a Democrat..

    Check my history - I've said this many times.

    Let me be clear though - I strongly supported Hillary over Trump, Bernie, et al. I still think she would be the best President and I'm unhappy she lost.

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    C'mon - pick something you can measure. You keep scolding us for not giving Trump a chance. I contend he is a conman who tells people what they want to hear so they feel good, but then does nothing but empties their pockets.

    Prove me wrong. Pick some hard numbers from e.g. the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial fund statistics and the DHS.

    I really can't give you hard numbers because this particular world is not black and white...

    But I can give you some general markers..

    Number of arrests...

    Number of deportations...

    Number of Illegal Immigrant committing murders and assaults...

    Less gang activity from gangs like MS13 would be a good example of increased immigration enforcement..

    It's like a New York cop's definition of pornography..

    "I may not be able to define it, but I sure as hell will know it when I see it.."

    When we see proper immigration laws enforcement, we'll know it..

    When employers start whining that they are getting pinched too much by ICE, we'll know it..

    When illegal immigrants actually run AWAY from Border LEOs instead of running TO Border LEOs, we'll know it..

    I wish I could be more specific, but I can't...

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    Really. Some numbers, or do you just 'feel' that is your 'perception'?

    DAPA, DACA, DAMA, DAQA, DARHMA, GREGG, etc etc etc...

    Entire court battles have been fought so that Obama can ignore immigration laws....

  203. [203] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is balderdash.

    How do you think the families of fallen officers will feel if you told them that Trump made you feel better, but they pointed you to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial fund statistics showing a 50% increase in officer shootings?

    This is drivel Michale - how are you going to tell the people of another devastated town in the mid-West that you "feel" immigration laws are working better when their local factories have closed down.

    Are you just part of the con?

  204. [204] 
    neilm wrote:

    DAPA, DACA, DAMA, DAQA, DARHMA, GREGG, etc etc etc...

    All politics. On both sides. What are the hard numbers? Are the number of illegal immigrants going up or down? Is the decrease due to fewer coming in than voluntary leavers, or is effective use of the current laws and new laws making an impact.

    Is this how you make decisions? On how you feel?

  205. [205] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wish I could be more specific, but I can't...

    You can't - but the numbers are there. Are you afraid of what they will say in two years time? Maybe you aren't as confident a fanboy as you like to when you strut around and fire off missives that make you feel good.

    Reality is a bitch. Get used to it. It is about time for both you and Trump.

    Man up and pick something measurable.

  206. [206] 
    John M wrote:

    One more thing about the leadership of the Free World, and then I will let it drop. Just because France, or Italy or Sweden start looking to Berlin for leadership, does not mean that the mantle has passed from the USA to Germany. However, if and when Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea etc. start looking to Berlin instead of Washington, then you may indeed have a point.

  207. [207] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is this how you make decisions? On how you feel?

    How do you feel about owning the Brooklyn Bridge? I've got a great one for you. Don't worry about anything else, just think how you will 'feel' when you 'perceive' you are the owner of a great bridge that people from the world over know. I'll rename it "Michale's Really Cool Bridge" for you.

    What do you mean you want the data that proves I own it?

    I wish I could be more specific, but I can't.

  208. [208] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    189

    OK on the not a Dem thing.
    So, it's not party loyalty at the root of your displeasure.
    Are you a voter?
    May I ask who you would have supported in a Bernie vs Trump matchup?

    Harping on the popular vote is fine if you're arguing the mandate thing or just trying to annoy Trump and his supporters, but the "if the rules were different Hillary would have won" bit is sort of like-
    If I had bacon, I'd make bacon and eggs, if I had eggs.

    As far as manufacturing, I take it the number of jobs in manufacturing in the US declining seemingly doesn't meet your definition of "declining".
    That seems like a very convenient approach for a proponent of free trade deals to take... an approach that masks the real harm being caused.

    Do you support ending the tax breaks that subsidize and incentivize the offshoring of US manufacturing jobs?

    A

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    Just keep in mind one thing..

    The issue is NOT immigration....

    The issue is, always has been and always will be.. ILLEGAL immigration...

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    "So say we all.."
    -Battlestar Galactica

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    Is this how you make decisions? On how you feel?

    *I* am not making any decisions...

    I am reacting to OTHER people making the decisions... yes... based on how I FEEL about them...

    You can spout numbers and statistics and polls til the cows come home..

    We have had a LOT about that the last year, no??

    And yet, all of us stated how we FEEL about those numbers and polls and statistics...

    We all know how it ended..

  212. [212] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "I may not be able to define it, but I sure as hell will know it when I see it.."

    That's an interesting, and usually mis-used quote, not from a cop in NY, but from the eminent Justice Potter Stewart, who, in an obscenity case out of Ohio, was being asked to declare a theatrical release - Louis Malle's The Lovers - to be hard-core pornography. You can see The Lovers today. It's really tame. Potter agreed:

    "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

    Your use of this analogy in this context is inadvertently instructive. Like the hysterics who brought The Lovers to court, you and the rest of the Trump zealots would have us look at immigration and find it obscene. Like Potter, we've looked, and it doesn't fit the definition. And future generations will look at it and wonder what all of the fuss was about.

    Trump voters have to man up and finally admit that the Immigration Debate is actually about their perception that society is changing in a way that they don't like, that internationalism and multiculturalism is something they don't like.

    And to prove it, they elected a man who conducts more business outside of the US than inside, and has a wife that can barely speak english. Traditional values? She's his third wife.

    This is not unlike the way Trumpers are protesting Starbucks: by buying lots of Starbucks.

  213. [213] 
    neilm wrote:

    Are you a voter?

    Yes - I vote in every election and strongly recommend my kids do too.

    May I ask who you would have supported in a Bernie vs Trump matchup?

    Bernie. Trump is a crook and a con man. Bernie is left of center. I think Hillary is center-right - like Merkel and David Cameron.

    I'm that old cliche - center-right fiscally, strong capitalist with a strong safety net, and progressive on social issues.

    I pointed out the popular vote because Michale said "the American people have spoken", not because I'm disputing the results. Trump won with the system we have. I had no problem with the system before the election, and don't now.

    Re Manufacturing - to me this equates to all manufacturing, not just large scale heavy manufacturing (steel mills, car plants, etc.) - if you use a different definition let me know. Large scale heavy manufacturing is on the decline across the world. China will probably be the last country that can use cheap labor to grab economic market share via this method. There are other manufacturing classes however - high tech (e.g. fabs), simple discrete (component assembly lines), process (e.g. pharma), etc.

    In my opinion, and this is definitely an opinion as I know alternatives, automation and technical progress are removing the most expensive aspects from many manufacturing processes - the people. I think it is a mistake to try to reverse this, as countries such as Japan who have too few people will just get an unassailable advantage in the market. Thus we need to think about the impact of these trends. There are two major possibilities: better education so our workforce can do jobs other countries populations can't and/or a universal wage to spread the increasing wealth across more people.

    The United States does not seem to value education with the intensity of South Korea, China, Finland or Singapore (to name some examples), and I think this is a headwind that we ignore. We are very wealthy however and I think our social security net could be a lot more generous (measured by the Gini).

    Re: Free Trade

    I think there are two major advantages to free trade, and one major disadvantage. The advantages are that a bigger market results in more wealth (i.e. the pie is bigger overall). The other advantage is that interconnected supply chains get businesses to temper international conflicts (as I predict Trump will quickly find out if he tries to bring in protectionist measures). The disadvantage is that the free movement of capital is easier to achieve than the free movement of labor for political reasons (hence the outrage over illegal immigration both here and in Europe). This free movement of capital means that a plant can move from the U.S. to Mexico either directly (e.g. Carrier) or indirectly (e.g. the furniture industry). The leadership of a country that encourages free movement of capital has an obligation to address the implications for the losers. To me, this is where the U.S. governments have fallen down for decades.

    I definitely support ending tax breaks that encourage offshoring.

    I think I answered all your questions. Sorry for being long winded.

  214. [214] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    This is not unlike the way Trumpers are protesting Starbucks: by buying lots of Starbucks.

    It's not about protesting Starbucks..

    Starbucks hasn't really done anything that requires protesting...

    It's about rubbing it in the noses of the Left Wingery how wrong they are and how vindicated Trump supporters feel..

    As I read it on Facebook...

    "Wanna have some fun... Go to Starbucks and order something and say your name is TRUMP. Then, when they yell out TRUMP, watch all the liberals start bawling anew..."

    :D

    No protest involved at all..

    Just a lot of nose-rubbing vindication.. :D

  215. [215] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, all of us stated how we FEEL about those numbers and polls and statistics...

    We all know how it ended..

    Yes. In a vote count. If we had chosen the President on how most people thought the election would have turned out we would have Hillary.

    You are just goose stepping all over the parade ground trying to avoid having to hold Trump to any accountability beyond "how you feel". Don't think we aren't noticing.

    Man up. Pick some real numbers.

    You scold everybody for not accepting Trump (which I've not actually noticed anybody do except in your feverish brain). You counter by holding up the electoral college result. Goose and gander, and all that.

  216. [216] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just keep in mind one thing..

    The issue is NOT immigration....

    The issue is, always has been and always will be.. ILLEGAL immigration...

    We know. The stats I linked to were for illegal immigration removals.

  217. [217] 
    neilm wrote:

    No protest involved at all..

    Just a lot of nose-rubbing vindication.. :D

    Whatever gets you through the day.

  218. [218] 
    michale wrote:

    You are just goose stepping all over the parade ground trying to avoid having to hold Trump to any accountability beyond "how you feel". Don't think we aren't noticing.

    Holding Trump ACCOUNTABLE!!????

    For what!???

    TWELVE DAYS of being President Elect and YOU want to hold him.... ACCOUNTABLE!!????

    EIGHT YEARS of Democrat blundering and incompetence and YOU want to hold Trump "accountable" for 12 days of being President-Elect...

    For frak's sake!!! Do you even HEAR yourself!???

  219. [219] 
    neilm wrote:

    Holding Trump ACCOUNTABLE!!????

    Try to keep up. We are discussing how you will decide if Trump is a good President in two years time, since you claim not to be a fanboy.

  220. [220] 
    neilm wrote:

    Pick the top three things you will judge Trump on, and the specific measurements (in generally available statistics from reliable sources) you will use to measure him.

    So far you have chosen: my feelings.

  221. [221] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's put it another way. What were the three things that made you vote for Trump?

    At the moment, based on your oeuvre, I'd go with:

    1. Liberals will be unhappy in Starbucks
    2. Hillary and Obama don't like the police and let illegal immigrants stay.
    3. Trump says things that annoy educated people.

    Prove me wrong. Point to three key policies that were important enough to you to pick Trump over Hillary, and how, empirically, you will judge him on his performance in two years time.

    I think you are too scared to. You know you picked a bomb throwing con man and will resist all attempts to pin him down because, like all fanboys, Trump can do no wrong if he makes you feel good.

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    Just a lot of nose-rubbing vindication.. :D

    Whatever gets you through the day.

    I'm not a coffee drinker, so I don't partake..

    I DO find it funny as hell though seeing the almighty arrogant taken down a couple notches...

    You reap what you sow.. They'all have no one to blame but themselves....

    Seems the basket of deplorables gets the last laugh...

  223. [223] 
    neilm wrote:

    I DO find it funny as hell though seeing the almighty arrogant taken down a couple notches...

    You just vindicated points #1 and #3 above.

  224. [224] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's put it another way. What were the three things that made you vote for Trump?

    American pride...

    American exceptionalism....

    With great power comes great responsibility....

    Prove me wrong.

    That ship has sailed, my friend.. :D

    Point to three key policies that were important enough to you to pick Trump over Hillary, and how, empirically, you will judge him on his performance in two years time.

    The over-abundance of political correctness in every aspect of our lives...

    Illegal Immigration...

    Bringing the rule of law back to American soil...

    Trump can do no wrong if he makes you feel good.

    Exactly...

    And if Trump starts doing things that don't make me feel good, don't make me feel better about America and being an American, you'll be sure that I will say something..

    Unlike everyone (mostly) here who gave Obama a pass on EVERYTHING that they slammed Bush for because Obama had a '-D' after his name....

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    You just vindicated points #1 and #3 above.

    If you want to count my finding humor in the takedown of the arrogance as "vindication", then I surely won't stand in the way of you feeling good.. :D

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    Try to keep up. We are discussing how you will decide if Trump is a good President in two years time, since you claim not to be a fanboy.

    Ask me again in two years...

    How will you decide if Trump is a BAD President in two years time??

    If they are so easy to articulate, what are YOUR metrics??

    Oh wait.. You have ALREADY decided that Trump is a bad president..

    My bust... :D

  227. [227] 
    neilm wrote:

    Basically Michale, picking the leadership for a country of 300M+ people, for you, is an exercise in "getting back".

    Who are you getting back at? We don't care. We can just block you at will or leave the site, as I presume many do who see this as a troll-dominated forum. CW must make some calculation based on keeping you, after all he wants an increasingly growing number of followers and would probably prefer an intelligent discussion to the verbal sniping you and I enjoy.

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    Basically Michale, picking the leadership for a country of 300M+ people, for you, is an exercise in "getting back".

    Not at all..

    That was just an added bonus.. Considering all the abuse I have endured over the past 1+ year, a thoroughly enjoyable bonus... :D

    would probably prefer an intelligent discussion to the verbal sniping you and I enjoy.

    Why not do both?? :D

    Intelligent verbal sniping... :D

    Ahhh.. I know.. Because you can't acknowledge any intelligence that doesn't toe your Party line... :D

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    That was just an added bonus.. Considering all the abuse I have endured over the past 1+ year, a thoroughly enjoyable bonus... :D

    I enjoy being right when everyone told me I would be wrong...

    Sue me... :D

  230. [230] 
    michale wrote:

    That was just an added bonus.. Considering all the abuse I have endured over the past 1+ year, a thoroughly enjoyable bonus... :D

    Which isn't to say that I didn't give as good as I got...

    Not trying to play a martyr here..

    I was 50% of the problem, I readily admit.... :D

  231. [231] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think Trump is a con man and a crook. This worries me, so I'm already predisposed to expecting a bad outcome. Fair enough.

    Here are the three things I'll judge Trump on:

    1. Total number of hate crimes (measured by the FBI UCR system).

    2. A basket of the deficit, unemployment rate and GDP growth (measured by the OMB, Dept. of Labor and the Fed)

    3. CO2 Percentage in the Atmosphere (measured by ESRL)

  232. [232] 
    neilm wrote:

    Basically Michale, picking the leadership for a country of 300M+ people, for you, is an exercise in "getting back".

    Not at all..

    Well then, we are back at step 1. Since personal vindictiveness isn't at the heart of your fanboydom, what are the three issues most important to you that made you choose Trump over Clinton and how will you measure them empirically?

    Your current answer is the opposite of "Not at all".

    You can't bring yourself to admit it though. Don't worry, nobody was expecting anything else than "I like being a troll".

  233. [233] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Here are three things I'll be looking for:

    1. Will he ever be able to make a point without waving his hands around like a choreographer?

    2. How long will it take to turn his tangle of conflicts of interest into a Gordian knot? He's got to choose between mistresses here, which was admittedly never his strong point.

    3. How many days after the inauguration will we have to wait before Putin marches back into the Ukraine? I'm guessing two months - Putin will want cool, but not cold weather when he starts killing people.

  234. [234] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [232]

    You could also add:

    1. Will he stop tweeting like a pouting teenager at SNL

    2. Will he ever admit his hands are significantly smaller than average

    3. Will he manage to keep his zipper up if he is in DC and Melania is in NYC?

  235. [235] 
    michale wrote:

    Here are the three things I'll judge Trump on:

    1. Total number of hate crimes (measured by the FBI UCR system).

    Really???

    So, Trump is going to be responsible for ALL the hate crimes committed after his presidency begins..

    So, of course, you blame Obama for ALL the hate crimes and ALL the cop killings committed by black people since OBAMA's presidency began, right??

    2. A basket of the deficit, unemployment rate and GDP growth (measured by the OMB, Dept. of Labor and the Fed)

    That's a fair critique..

    But look at the stock markets soaring after Trump's election...

    3. CO2 Percentage in the Atmosphere (measured by ESRL)

    Why???

    We have a record amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet global temps haven't kept pace....

    Why is that??

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    1. Will he stop tweeting like a pouting teenager at SNL

    Why does Trump's tweets concern you so??

    He was able to tweet like a "pouting teenager" and was STILL able to bring down the biggest political campaign juggarnaut in the history of the world..

    You personally don't like it?? Fine... admit that...

    But it doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on Trump's ability to accomplish the mission...

    2. Will he ever admit his hands are significantly smaller than average

    WOW.. Now THAT is really relevant, eh???

    Again, I have to ask.. Do you HEAR yourself???

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    3. How many days after the inauguration will we have to wait before Putin marches back into the Ukraine? I'm guessing two months - Putin will want cool, but not cold weather when he starts killing people.

    OK, so you are saying that Putin will take Ukraine by March of 2017...

    I'll hold you to that...

    The only question is, will you admit you were wrong.. :D

    1. Will he ever be able to make a point without waving his hands around like a choreographer?

    2. How long will it take to turn his tangle of conflicts of interest into a Gordian knot? He's got to choose between mistresses here, which was admittedly never his strong point.

    My gods, the minutiae..

    And don't forget Trump's hair.. That, of course, automatically disqualifies him for the presidency...

    And, to think, at one time the Left Wingery was actually CREDIBLE on the whole diversity and tolerance thing... :^/

    Well, ya'all have definitely given up THAT high ground... :^/

    Like I asked Neil..

    Do you actually HEAR yerself??? :^/

  238. [238] 
    neilm wrote:

    3. How many days after the inauguration will we have to wait before Putin marches back into the Ukraine? I'm guessing two months - Putin will want cool, but not cold weather when he starts killing people.

    Well it only took Putin one phone call to Trump to decide that he could bomb children's hospitals in Aleppo with impunity - which he did with tragic results the next day (thanks Donald!)

    Here are some ways Obama could troll Trump:

    1. Appoint Bernie to the Supreme Court on January 3rd when there is a forced Senate recess. After the Garland intransigence McConnell deserves it.

    2. Grant presidential pardons to all "dreamers"

    3. Free Chelsea Handler and pardon Snowden

    4. Make January 20th official Small Handed Person Appreciation Day and make Donald Trump the Parade King

  239. [239] 
    michale wrote:

    3. CO2 Percentage in the Atmosphere (measured by ESRL)

    Why???

    We have a record amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet global temps haven't kept pace....

    Why is that??

    The correct answer is" WE DON'T KNOW

    Just ta help you out a little... :D

  240. [240] 
    michale wrote:

    2. Grant presidential pardons to all "dreamers"

    Sure... All the dreamers have to do is go down to a local government office and put their names in a database.. :D

    :D I am sure they will be all for doing that.. :D

  241. [241] 
    michale wrote:

    Well it only took Putin one phone call to Trump to decide that he could bomb children's hospitals in Aleppo with impunity - which he did with tragic results the next day (thanks Donald!)

    Of course, you give Obama a pass when he bombed the DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS Hospital in Afghanistan..

    Not a Democrat my left arse cheek... :^/

  242. [242] 
    neilm wrote:

    3. CO2 Percentage in the Atmosphere (measured by ESRL)

    Why???

    Because I want the planet to be in good shape for my kids and their kids.

    You don't need to agree with my choices.

    I notice you are too chicken to list yours.

  243. [243] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, you give Obama a pass when he bombed the DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS Hospital in Afghanistan..

    WRONG!

    No I didn't.

  244. [244] 
    neilm wrote:

    2. A basket of the deficit, unemployment rate and GDP growth (measured by the OMB, Dept. of Labor and the Fed)

    That's a fair critique..

    But look at the stock markets soaring after Trump's election...

    I have little interest in the weekly movements of the stock market.

  245. [245] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, you give Obama a pass when he bombed the DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS Hospital in Afghanistan..

    WRONG!

    No I didn't.

    So then you posted here condemning Obama for the bombing??

    Link???

  246. [246] 
    michale wrote:

    I have little interest in the weekly movements of the stock market.

    Especially when they disprove your hysterical attacks against Trump.. :D

    You don't need to agree with my choices.

    And you don't need to base your choices on logic and science rather than a partisan Party agenda..

    But it would be nice if you did...

    I notice you are too chicken to list yours.

    I already listed mine.. But you didn't like them.

  247. [247] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. Will he stop tweeting like a pouting teenager at SNL

    Why does Trump's tweets concern you so??

    He was able to tweet like a "pouting teenager" and was STILL able to bring down the biggest political campaign juggarnaut in the history of the world..

    Touchy about your little demigod, aren't you.

    Lighten up.

  248. [248] 
    neilm wrote:

    I notice you are too chicken to list yours.

    I already listed mine.. But you didn't like them.

    They are measurable, as you admit, beyond how you feel. So you don't care how many cops are killed, just that you feel good about how Trump?

  249. [249] 
    neilm wrote:

    measurable -> unmeasurable

  250. [250] 
    michale wrote:

    Touchy about your little demigod, aren't you.

    Lighten up.

    Are you kidding?? I am as happy as a clam... :D

    I just thought we were having a serious discussion about the merits of the Democrat disintegration as a viable political force for this and the next generation....

    But hay, I can joke about it too if that's where we want to be... :D

  251. [251] 
    michale wrote:
  252. [252] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, list out again for us how you will measure if Trump is a success beyond your "feeling good about him".

    For years you whine about how everybody here let's Obama, etc. etc. off the hook for everything, but you are not a fanboy and will judge Trump on his merits.

    Time to put up or shut up.

  253. [253] 
    michale wrote:

    So you don't care how many cops are killed, just that you feel good about how Trump?

    How Trump..... what???

    I have already expressed what I want to see... Like I said.. You don't like it so you ignore it...

    Typical Democrat...

  254. [254] 
    michale wrote:

    For years you whine about how everybody here let's Obama, etc. etc. off the hook for everything, but you are not a fanboy and will judge Trump on his merits.

    Yes, ya'all let Obama off the hook for EVERYTHING Obama DID...

    Now you want me to applaud Trump for everything he MIGHT DO...

    And you don't see any incongruity in that because you are so blinded by Party loyalty and partisan hatred...

    When Trump fraks up, I'll express my displeasure...

    When Trump does good, I'll express my approval...

    If you need more than that... well...

  255. [255] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

    Bloody marvelous. He just can't stop himself. Does he think the media is going to be impressed or roll over for him.

    After this gets out (thanks NY Post) every media outlet will be bending over backwards to show they aren't intimidated.

    There will be a badge of honor for the first to get sued and win on 1st amendment rights.

  256. [256] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have already expressed what I want to see... Like I said.. You don't like it so you ignore it...

    You said you wanted laws to punish cop killers. We already have laws to punish cop killers. What if Trump's laws backfire (like that has never happened) and more cops are killed?

    You never showed any concern if more cops were killed, just that you wanted to feel better about cop killer laws.

  257. [257] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have already expressed what I want to see... Like I said.. You don't like it so you ignore it...

    You said you wanted laws to punish cop killers. We already have laws to punish cop killers. What if Trump's laws backfire (like that has never happened) and more cops are killed?

    You never showed any concern if more cops were killed, just that you wanted to feel better about cop killer laws.

  258. [258] 
    michale wrote:

    You still haven't explained why Trump is responsible for Hate Crimes but Obama isn't....

  259. [259] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.

    Ever hear the saying "don't pick a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel".

    Trump forgets that Brietbart is a tiny outlet and FB and Google are putting "Fake News" filters in place.

    Let's hope he takes the same approach to Congress. This will be even more fun than expected.

  260. [260] 
    michale wrote:

    You said you wanted laws to punish cop killers. We already have laws to punish cop killers.

    No... We have laws to punish killers..

    I want to see a universal FEDERAL law that can be applied to those who AMBUSH cops and, when it results in the death of cops, I want an automatic death penalty...

    You never showed any concern if more cops were killed, just that you wanted to feel better about cop killer laws.

    That's beneath contempt and not worthy of any response beyond this one...

  261. [261] 
    neilm wrote:

    You still haven't explained why Trump is responsible for Hate Crimes but Obama isn't....

    I don't need to. These are my criteria with measurements you or anybody else can track.

    When are you going to have the guts to put your measurable criteria up?

  262. [262] 
    neilm wrote:

    Face it, you don't care if cops are killed, you just want to feel good about Trump otherwise you'd be fine using the Officer Memorial stats.

    These are people who track the stats so they can hold people like Trump, Obama and all the other politicians to account for the each and every loss of one of our finest, and you won't help them in case it makes you feel bad.

    Textbook definition of a fanboy.

  263. [263] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's beneath contempt and not worthy of any response beyond this one...

    Then why won't you accept the Officer Memorial numbers - it is one of the other. You either care about the methods or care about the outcomes.

    You won't track the outcomes, so you therefore only care about the methods.

  264. [264] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    You see, this is why I expect that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to have a logical and rational conversation with people like you and Balthasar, etc etc...

    In ya'all's world, TRUMP is totally responsible when Russian forces bomb a hospital in Aleppo, yet Obama is COMPLETELY blameless when US forces bomb a hospital in Afghanistan...

    In ya'all's world, TRUMP is totally responsible for all hate crimes committed during his administration yet Obama is COMPLETELY blameless for all hate crimes committed under OBAMA'S administration...

    This is pre-election all over again.... Ya'all live in ya'all's own little world where "Trump Is Toast" and Hillary is our next President...

  265. [265] 
    neilm wrote:

    No Michale. You see the world in black and white when it suits you, but let yourself off when you do it yourself.

    If you don't like my characterization of Trump, then ignore it.

    You also put a lot of words in other people's mouths. For instance, you seem to have decided that I'm going to blame Trump for all hate crimes. I'm not. I suspect that his divisive style will result in an increase in hate crimes, so I intend to track that. But we will need to see a correlation AND a causation. So I'll look for the correlation and then determine if Trump is the cause, or it has nothing to do with him.

    Plus, these are my decisions to make. I asked for yours and you wanted the death penalty for a specific style of police execution (ambush). Frankly, I'd do away with the death penalty altogether, because I don't think it makes any difference to the number of murders, but does make the decent part of society (i.e. not cop killers) complicit in a ritualized form of killing which I think increases the number of murders in society. Some research backs me up, some contradicts this view.

    Regardless of my views on the death penalty, if we are going to have an enhanced sentence for cop killing, the method of killing is unimportant to me. Ambush, heat of the moment, attempt to prompt Blue suicide - I'd make the enhanced penalty apply to all.

    But here is what I'd also do. I'd make sure that the change made things better. I'd track the number of cop deaths. What if, knowing that he was going to be executed without any other option, a cop killer went on a rampage and killed as many cops as possible - they only have one life to lose. Or if they tracked down and killed a cop's partner to try to eliminate a possible witness, etc.

    Lastly, I'm going to point you to a tragic list, the total list of all British Police Officers killed in the line of duty.

    If you really care about cops lives, I'd like you to think about why this list, which covers 115 years and 10 months is less than we suffer in less than 10.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

  266. [266] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, every one of the deaths on the list is a tragedy and I hope every single killer was caught and punished. But I'd really like to see the coward who killed Yvonne Fletcher caught and punished.

    She was on protection duty outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984 and shot from within the Embassy. Qaddafi then took the British Embassy staff in Tripoli hostage until all the Iranian Embassy staff were released. This was one of my biggest disappointments with Margaret Thatcher, but she was in an impossible position because it was quite clear that Qaddafi would have killed all of the British staff without blinking an eye.

    The killer was never identified, but Qaddafi's government admitted responsibility and paid compensation to WPC Fletcher's family.

  267. [267] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is one group of officers that are not included in the list above - those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. 12 Officers in the RUC were killed in the line of duty in a similar manner to the earlier list, but 277 were killed by the IRA.

    So every time I see Bill Clinton with a fat smug smile on his face stand up during the 4th July Parades when the Irish go by I was to punch him. Reagan wasn't much better, in fact, given that he was President when he allowed the open funding of the IRA as these officers were killed, I'd hold him more accountable. And Carter.

    The history of Ireland is complex and I have family on both sides (my grandparents committed the ultimate sin - a Catholic married a Protestant - they had to move away and even at my christening there was a family battle). I'm not picking sides, but I am condemning the open funding of cop killers in Irish bars throughout the United States.

  268. [268] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, we both want to eliminate cop killings. But then politics gets in the way.

    Have you ever read Giovanni Guareschi's "Don Camillo" books. They are marvelous short stories about a Catholic Priest and a Communist Mayor in a little village in the Po Valley just after WW2. Politics separates them but the underlying theme is that when they get exhausted fighting each other they realize that they both want the same things. The music of Verdi, a good cigar, a glass of local wine, so see a young mother with her baby dressed up for a Christening and that all the people in the village are happy and safe.

    You should find them and read them. They were very valuable to me as a kid:

    https://www.amazon.com/Little-World-Don-Camillo-Book-ebook/dp/B00HAMIVUC/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

  269. [269] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [108]

    Michale -

    My question:
    So now are you willing to address what should be done to safeguard legally-cast votes to ensure transparency, due diligence and accountability for every voter?

    Your reply:
    I already have...

    I definitely missed your contribution to how to safe-guard legally-cast votes. I'm guessing it's going to go off into a rant about voter fraud again...

  270. [270] 
    michale wrote:

    You also put a lot of words in other people's mouths. For instance, you seem to have decided that I'm going to blame Trump for all hate crimes. I'm not.

    But that is EXACTLY what you said..

    Here are the three things I'll judge Trump on:

    1. Total number of hate crimes (measured by the FBI UCR system).

    The NUMBER ONE thing you'll judge Trump on is the total number of hate crimes..

  271. [271] 
    michale wrote:

    I definitely missed your contribution to how to safe-guard legally-cast votes.

    Yer loss ... :D

  272. [272] 
    michale wrote:

    egardless of my views on the death penalty, if we are going to have an enhanced sentence for cop killing, the method of killing is unimportant to me. Ambush, heat of the moment, attempt to prompt Blue suicide - I'd make the enhanced penalty apply to all.

    But yet, you agree with Hate Crime laws which amount to the same thing...

    Enhanced charges due to the specifics of the crime, ie SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

    For me, it's simple.. If a scumbag is robbing a bank and shoots a cop in the commission of a robbery, the cop is no less dead, true...

    But when a cop is targeted, ambushed and executed, that is an attack on society as a whole... It demonstrates an intent to attack society not found in the heat of the moment attacks on LEOs...

    As such, I believe it warrants the Special Circumstances designation that would make an automatic death penalty warranted...

  273. [273] 
    michale wrote:

    Ever hear the saying "don't pick a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel".

    And yet, Trump picked a fight with EVERYONE who buys ink by the barrel during the election..

    And BEAT them all.. Mercilessly!!!

    So, while your saying is accurate, apparently it doesn't apply to Trump... :D

  274. [274] 
    michale wrote:

    I definitely missed your contribution to how to safe-guard legally-cast votes. I'm guessing it's going to go off into a rant about voter fraud again...

    What I had said is that ya'all had some really good ideas about how to safeguard legally cast votes, but ya'all didn't follow thru by explaining the logistics of what ya'all proposed...

    Lucifer is in the details...

    Well, Lucifer was in Sam Winchester, but normally, Lucifer is in the details.. :D

  275. [275] 
    michale wrote:

    Didn't I say above that I fully expect to have Democrats in a Trump administration???

    Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Considered For Trump Cabinet
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrat-tulsi-gabbard-considered-trump-160642017.html

    Like I keep telling ya'all..

    Trump is an INDEPENDENT who doesn't care if a person has a -D or a -R after their name...

  276. [276] 
    michale wrote:

    Appoint someone to a job? Freak out – it’s an outrage!

    Go to dinner? Freak out – it’s an outrage!

    Actually keep promises made to the voters? Freak out – it’s an outrage!

    But it isn’t going to work. Not anymore. Not with the form of the Destructor Hillary and the rest of super smart Team Smugfail chose. Freakoutrage fatigue is in effect. You can cry Wolf Blitzer all day long and nobody cares.

    It’s important to understand why liberals are so angry and so scared. They are angry because they believe they have a moral right to command us, apparently bestowed by Gaia or #Science or having gone to Yale, and we are irredeemably deplorable for not submitting to their benevolent dictatorship.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/11/21/brace-yourself-for-four-years-of-nonstop-freakoutrage-n2248518

    Yup, yup, yup......

  277. [277] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.facebook.com/massreport/videos/1334073473272333/

    Yea, I think those barrel inkers have been neutered.. :D

  278. [278] 
    michale wrote:

    o every time I see Bill Clinton with a fat smug smile on his face stand up during the 4th July Parades when the Irish go by I was to punch him.

    "I'm thinking to myself, 'Don't slap the President, Don't slap the President..'... Next thing I know, I am backhanding him like a mouthy caddy!!"
    -Mayor Winston, SPIN CITY

    :D

  279. [279] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    212

    No need to apologize.
    I prefer long winded and detailed to short and vague.

    In my opinion, the way you describe yourself and your economic views puts you to the left of Hillary, Obama and Cameron and more in line with Merkel... particularly the "with a strong safety net" bit and the "leadership of a country that encourages free movement of capital has an obligation to address the implications for the losers" part.
    The "universal wage to spread the increasing wealth across more people" belief is practically Corbyn territory.

    "To me, this is where the U.S. governments have fallen down for decades."
    In your opinion, is there a line that has been or can be crossed by these free trade deals where that "falling down" would cause you to stop supporting these deals?

    As far as "large scale heavy manufacturing" goes, the decline seems to be related to the level of development... as in, once a nation falls into the developed category, demand decreases to just growth, maintenance and replacement.
    However, the decline isn't complete as new cars, buildings, washing machines, etc. will still be needed.
    I think we should be pursuing a strategy like Germany, where technology and automation reduce the labor costs while maintaining the industries instead of offshoring.

    Our current policies cater to the "anything for an extra nickel of profit" for our one percenters Wall Street ideology... a focus on the short term rather than stability and quality.

    I see the same ideology being followed in the "other manufacturing classes however - high tech (e.g. fabs), simple discrete (component assembly lines), process (e.g. pharma), etc"

    Neither Dems nor Repubs are working to alleviate the pain of those who are losing out, nor even discussing ending the tax breaks that incentivize offshoring.

    So, how do you think we achieve some progress?

    A

  280. [280] 
    michale wrote:

    "You know, I support Colin Kaepernick's right to make symbolic gestures, just as I support anyone's right to free speech. I was actually surprised that the NFL didn't crack down on him in some way, truth be told. But when I heard that he's never even bothered to register to vote, I would have to call him a hypocrite for not exercising his civic duty to try to improve things politically. We need a new generic derogatory term for this level of disengagement, in fact -- a term for all those who are even now protesting Donald Trump's election in the streets who didn't even bother to vote. Non-voter-splaining? Lazy-splaining? I don't know, someone else could probably come up with a snappier term, but it's a pretty basic rule in democratic societies -- if you don't vote, then don't bother to complain. You lose your right to any grand moral stand if you are actually part of the problem. Hmmph."

    And we come to find out that most of the cast of HAMILTON... yunno, the ones that thought they had the moral authority to sit in judgement of VP-Elect Pence..... ALSO haven't voted in quite a while...

    What IS it about Left Wingery activists?? Is there some sort of HYPOCRISY CLAUSE or something???

  281. [281] 
    michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/22/trump-wont-pursue-charges-against-clinton/

    I whole-heartedly and 1000% agree with President Elect Trump on this...

  282. [282] 
    michale wrote:

    “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
    -General James Mattis

    Our (hopefully) soon to be SecDef...

    I like this guy! :D

  283. [283] 
    michale wrote:

    More Quotes from General James "Mad Dog" Mattis...

    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

    “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

    “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

    “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

    "Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”

    I *REALLY* like this guy!!!

Comments for this article are closed.