ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [423] -- Media Missing A Big Point On Trump's Muslim Ban

[ Posted Friday, February 3rd, 2017 – 19:02 PST ]

Before we launch in to this week's screed, we're going to shamelessly begin with a plug. Yesterday, we published a first-person account of what it was like to protest during Donald Trump's Inauguration weekend. There are some excellent photos of the demonstrations and an inspiring narrative by University of Maryland student Teresa Johnson. We urge everyone to check it out!

Moving right along, we're going to ignore (for a moment) all the shiny distractions that have vomited forth from the White House this week, and instead attempt to draw attention to an aspect of Donald Trump's Muslim ban that few in the media seem to be noticing. [We should add an editorial aside here: Yes, our editorial policy from now on will be to use Donald Trump's own language in the term "Muslim ban." Sean Spicer can insist until he's blue in the face that it's not a Muslim ban, but Trump promised to ban Muslims on the campaign trail, so who are we to argue with the term? Also, to do so would be to succumb to political correctness, something Trump loathes. So the Muslim ban will forever (in these pages) be the Muslim ban.]

But we digress. Donald Trump's Muslim ban, signed into existence as we were writing last week's column, was certainly the biggest story of the week. Spontaneous protests sprang up at international airports across the country as the chaotic implementation made it plain that this executive order just wasn't thought through all that much. Nobody knew what the order did cover and didn't cover, all the way from White House officials down to the border guards who were expected to somehow implement this vague and badly-defined policy. Clarifications had to be issued on a daily basis. The draft of the order simply did not go through any of the normal vetting channels, with some cabinet-level officials only seeing it hours before it was signed. The Trump administration is now starting to resemble (take your pick) either the gang who couldn't shoot straight or the Keystone Kops.

At first, green card holders were stopped at the border, turned around, and sent back. Then there was confusion within the White House whether the order applied to green card holders. Green card holders could individually apply for "waivers" from the order, it was decided upon. In the midst of all this came an order from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Edward Ramotowski, which claimed: "I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen."

Later in the week, it was announced that the order didn't actually apply to green card holders, therefore waivers weren't even necessary, and also added a few other exceptions as well:

The Department of Homeland Security announced additional exceptions to the ban on Tuesday, including Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government in positions such as translators. Officials also said the ban does not apply to dual nationals of the seven countries. For example, someone with Syrian and French nationality can enter the U.S. using their French passport.

This was clearly in response to all those media reports of translators who had been in the vetting process for years -- and who finally got an immigrant visa -- only to get the door slammed in their face at the airports. That's fairly bad optics for the White House, considering these people not only risked their own lives to help the United States military out in Iraq, but also risked the lives of their entire families. America promised them sanctuary, and Trump broke that promise.

Now, the Trump administration seems to be furiously backpedaling. Part of the reason is that federal judges are now involved, meaning honest answers must be given under oath. One of these cases was brought by two Yemeni brothers who were not only turned away last Saturday and sent back to Ethiopia, but actually coerced into signing away their green cards before being unceremoniously booted out. Thankfully, we have a system of federal courts to address such governmental actions:

During the hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said she was heartened to see the government was working to return the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, to the United States and reinstate their visas in exchange for dropping their case. The government appears to be attempting a similar case-by-case reprieve across the nation.

Translation: the government knows it screwed up, and is attempt to sweep it all under the rug by promising that the people -- with valid visas -- would now be welcome back in and the visas reinstated, in return for making the Trump administration's federal court embarrassments go away.

The judge also rebuked the government: "This order was issued quite quickly. It's quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it. It was chaos." But the most interesting thing to come out of the courthouse was how vast the number of people affected actually is. Contrary to what Donald Trump and all his spokesfolk have been insisting, "109 people" were not the only ones affected -- that was merely the number detained at airports on the first day of implementation. The real number?

Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump's ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government asserted in Alexandria, Va. federal court Friday.

. . .

That figure was immediately disputed by the State Department, which said the number of visas revoked was roughly 60,000. A spokeswoman said the revocation has no impact on the legal status of people already in the United States. If those people leave the United States, though, their visas would no longer be valid.

Initial estimates were that 90,000 people were affected, comfortably in the middle of those two figures.

But here's where we get to the big story everyone in the media seems to be missing. When Republicans used to speak of immigration, they would swear up and down that they were only against illegal immigration. They fully supported people who had "followed the rules and immigrated legally." Fully!

What's getting lost in the coverage of Trump's Muslim ban, however, is that his first action against immigration was targeted solely towards legal immigrants. Fully legal. One hundred percent. Green card holders. People with refugee visas -- fully vetted in a process that can take years. People with tourist visas -- also fully vetted (although not technically "immigrants").

Trump himself is a little unclear on the concept, as evidenced by his confusion after speaking with the head of the Australian government. Trump was pressed on whether he would honor an agreement President Obama had reached with the Aussies, to take in -- legally, as refugees -- half of the 2,500 people Australia was currently holding, or 1,250 refugees. Trump referenced these people (in a tweet, naturally) as "thousands" of "illegal immigrants." This is just flat-out incorrect. Refugees -- who aren't even here yet -- are not "illegal immigrants" in any way, shape, or form.

Another possible dot to connect was leaked this week as well. Trump's next possible executive action on immigration would deal, again, only with legal immigrants. Trump is contemplating whether to order that any fully legal immigrant who was receiving public assistance of any type to be targeted for deportation. Illegal immigrants are already barred from getting any aid, so this would be targeted only at legal immigrants. Also, the order would instruct immigration officials to try to determine which prospective legal immigrant might wind up on public assistance, and deny them papers. Trump is also reportedly considering what to do about the H1-B visa program, which allows skilled workers (such as computer programmers) to legally work in America.

In contrast to all this fevered activity on restricting legal immigration, Trump has so far been completely silent on undocumented immigrants. He made some rather breathtaking promises on the campaign trail, about how he'd send all 11 million of them home (later watered down to immediately sending all the "bad hombres" home). He also promised to end the DACA program, which affects "DREAMers" -- people who were brought to this country as children. But, so far, not a peep on what Trump is going to do about DACA. Or his promised "deportation force" for the 11 million.

Why isn't the media noticing this rather large disconnect? We have no idea. Trump forcefully promised to deal with all those millions of undocumented people in this country, over and over again while running for president. Now that he's taken office, it is becoming obvious that what is much more important to the Trump administration is to severely restrict legal immigration. Every Republican officeholder who has ever been quoted strongly denying they were "anti-immigrant" and loudly proclaiming their support for those who "followed the law and stood in line" -- and that means just about every prominent Republican politician, we should point out -- should now be asked about the Trump administration's disconnect with their stated position. Why are legal immigrants the first ones to be targeted? Why has Trump not followed through on any of his promises about undocumented immigrants, while focusing solely on those who did follow the rules?

Important questions we are waiting for someone to ask. Inquiring minds want to know.

As is becoming usual, so much else was happening in politics this week that we're going to have to deal with it all in whirlwind fashion. So hold onto your hats, here we go.

Donald Trump is also on the attack against Dodd-Frank, because as we all know, he promised over and over again on the campaign trail to be Wall Street's best friend and give the little guy less and less control over how the big banks screw them over. Yeah, sure... everyone remembers that Trump promise, right?

Trump also signaled his approval for Congress to get rid of an Obama rule which would have taken into account whether a person had been formally classified as too mentally incompetent to handle their own finances when they want to purchase a gun. Because, you know, what could possibly go wrong with allowing such people as many guns as they desire?

Also in the "what could possibly go wrong" file, Trump just tapped a woman for the post of Deputy C.I.A. Director who had previously run one of the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons. No red flags there, folks!

Sean Spicer had a pointed message for anyone at the State Department who found themselves in disagreement with Donald Trump -- "get with the program or go." No authoritarian worries there, mate!

That last sentence was a blatant attempt at a segue into the story of Trump getting testy with the leader of Australia, which (astonishingly) was almost immediately leaked to the media. Later, Trump aides tried to brush off the embarrassing international incident as merely Trump being tired after a long day. So maybe he should be getting more sleep and not tweeting so much in the wee hours? Just a thought.

And a final Trump note, speaking to all the black people he knows (it was a small meeting), Trump tried to riff on what a great guy that Frederick Douglass is. Is? Trump seems to think ol' Fred's still alive and doing great work... at whatever it is that he does. Perhaps Ben Carson should have a little talk with Trump about Douglass? Just a thought....

We're going to end this already-too-long intro with two bits of good news, albeit with a sad note in between.

The "Grab Your Wallet" movement seems to be growing, as corporations learn how dangerous it is to their bottom line to pander to the Trump administration. Uber was the biggest casualty so far, although Disney and Harley Davidson are also apparently taking note. Oh, and Nordstrom just dropped all their Ivanka Trump merchandise, citing "poor sales" as their reason.

One sad note this week, to follow up on last week's sad note. Two days after Mary Tyler Moore died, the artist who cast the statue of her (as Mary Richards, flinging her hat in the air in a Minneapolis intersection) also died. When her statue was dedicated, sculptor Gwendolyn Gillen said, of the famous Mary Tyler Moore Show character: "She helped break the stereotype of womanhood that our generation grew up believing was our destiny. She was the light breeze that blew through our minds and left us with the feeling that we could do anything we wanted to."

And finally, a feel-good story in the tradition of local news shows everywhere -- an endearing animal story! This week in Washington, Ollie the bobcat decided to take a stroll outside his fenced-in area at the National Zoo. He went on the lam (but not, thankfully, on anybody's actual lamb) for almost three days, but then after the official search for him was ended, he showed up back at the zoo, near the bird enclosure (naturally!). So count us as glad Ollie's safe and sound once again, because Washington's a real jungle to survive in, these days.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy to call, this week. We do have an Honorable Mention for Nancy Pelosi, for calling Steve Bannon a white supremacist this week (which was the old term, before "alt-right" was coined) -- nothing like speaking truth to power, Nancy!

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for speaking some truth to power herself.

Yates was a holdover from the Obama administration, warming the chair at the Justice Department while Jeff Sessions wends his way through the Senate confirmation process. But when she got wind of Trump's Muslim ban, she felt she had to do something drastic. She shot off a memo to all Justice Department lawyers, stating in no uncertain terms:

At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful. Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

The responsibilities she was speaking of were that the Justice Department must determine whether such orders are "legally defensible" and "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."

Well put! All federal officials, of course, take an oath to uphold and support not the whims of the sitting president, but the U.S. Constitution.

President Trump, of course, didn't take this challenge sitting down. He not only immediately fired her, but had to go full Trump tantrum on her in his public announcement, which said she had "betrayed the Department of Justice," and called her "weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration."

Sally Yates thus becomes not only the first high-ranking official to be explicitly fired by Donald Trump, but also the first one to get personally smeared and attacked on the way out the door. We say "only the first" because we fully expect there to be a continuing stream of such firings, over the course of the Trump presidency.

For valiantly standing up for what she believed to be her constitutional duty, for speaking truth directly to Trump, for being, in short, a profile in courage, there was simply no other choice this week than Sally Yates for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Sally Yates is now a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for people who are no longer in office.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

While we can't be sure if they even identify as Democrats, we have to condemn the violence at University of California, Berkeley this week. A rabid right-winger was scheduled to speak and a non-violent protest against the event was hijacked by a small group who set fires, lit off fireworks (at police, reportedly), and smashed windows.

Violence definitely gets media attention at protests, but it also is just as counterproductive, since it rarely (if ever) convinces anyone of the righteousness of your cause -- no matter how noble that cause might be.

Aside from hotheaded small-time vandals, however, what was much more important this week was a more widespread approval of corporate ecological vandalism -- Congress voting to strip an Obama regulation aimed at insuring clean water where coal mining takes place (especially mountaintop removal mining, which is just as bad as it sounds). This is an enormous issue to millions of people who live near such mining operations, who see their creeks and streams and rivers turned into nothing short of toxic-waste heavy-metal-laden sewers. Obama tried to change this, and now Congress is voting to overturn such changes. It was to be expected that Republicans would all vote for coal profits over clean water, but, shamefully, the following also happened:

The four Democratic senators who voted to overturn the rule -- Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) -- face reelection in conservative-leaning states next year.

So we're sending out MDDOTW awards to all four. No profiles in courage to be found here, to be brutally honest.

[Contact Senator Joe Donnelly on his Senate contact page, Senator Heidi Heitkamp on her Senate contact page, Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, and Senator Claire McCaskill on her Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 423 (2/3/17)

Because we spent most of the introduction today ranting about the media's lack of focus on Trump's attack on legal immigration, we've got a lot of diverse subjects to cover in today's talking points. While most are self-explanatory (as usual), because we had an old chart lying around we're going to give the first one a bit of context. So here's the background:

When Barack Obama reached his first crossover point in public opinion polling -- where his job approval polling numbers fell "underwater" (more people disapproved of his job than approved) -- we compared his record to his predecessors, and ran the following chart showing Obama's approval and disapproval lines crossing, as well as the point where all previous presidents reached this gloomy milestone (apologies for the lack of labels; the y-axis is the percent approval/disapproval, and the x-axis is months in office):

Historical Crossover Comparison

[Click graph to see larger-scale version]

At the time, we provided data, broken down by how many months in office the first crossover happened, for every president back to Eisenhower:

Eisenhower -- (never)
Kennedy -- (never)
Nixon -- 53 months into his presidency, in June 1973
G.W. Bush -- 40 mo., May '04
Johnson -- 37 mo., Dec. '66 (or 45 mo., Aug. '67)
G.H.W. Bush -- 36 mo., Jan. '92
Obama -- 18 mo., Jul. '10
Carter -- 16 mo., May '78
Reagan -- 15 mo., Apr. '82
Ford -- 5 mo., Jan. '75
Clinton -- 4 mo., May '93

OK, that's enough context. Just wanted to point out our previous chart, to better show what a breathtaking record Donald Trump just set. It'd be hard to even accurately place Trump on that chart, since the scale is measured in months, not days.

 

1
   Eight days a week

Trump just set a new presidential record. Big league!

"Did you see the Gallup polling data out this week? Donald Trump has become an unpopular president at a breathtaking rate, when measured historically. Bill Clinton enjoyed 573 days in office before his job approval rating measured lower than his job disapproval rating. Ronald Reagan spent almost a full two years in office -- 727 days -- before he reached this crossover point. Barack Obama got close to three years, at 936 days. Both Bushes set very impressive records -- George W. went 1,205 days before this happened, and his dad went a whopping 1,336 days before going underwater in the polls. But Donald Trump set a record that likely will never be broken by any future president -- it only took him eight days in office before the number of people who disapprove of the job he's doing rose above the number who approved. Eight days! It's the shortest presidential 'honeymoon' in history."

 

2
   That was fast (part 2)

That wasn't the only bad news from the polls this week for Trump.

"A recent PPP poll showed just how deeply the public disapproves of Trump's presidency, so far. He's only been in office two weeks, remember. During his first week in office, over a third of the public -- 35 percent -- wanted to see him impeached. This number actually jumped upwards during his second week in office and now 40 percent of the public wants Trump removed from office. That's four out of every ten Americans, and climbing fast."

 

3
   Like a broken sieve

This new reality has been astonishing journalists for the past two weeks, and it doesn't seem like it'll be changing any time soon.

"What's extraordinary to me is how much the new Trump administration is already leaking. So many leaks appear in the media on a daily basis that it's hard to keep track. Transcripts of private phone calls with world leaders are made available hours later. Infighting among top administration officials makes it into the newspapers right after it happens. The most astonishing thing is the negative nature of most of these leaks. These aren't officially sanctioned 'run it up the flagpole' types of leaks, these are nothing short of embarrassing evidence that the Trump White House operates in a state of constant chaos. Maybe top Trump advisors are just following Kellyanne Conway's lead, since sometimes the easiest way to get Trump to pay attention to something is to talk about it on Fox News, but I have to say this is the leakiest ship I've seen since the U.S.S. Minnow set sail on its fateful trip."

 

4
   Bowling Green massacre!

Speaking of Kellyanne, she fell flat on her face this week with one of those "alternative facts."

"One thing I can admit about the Trump administration is that they are proving to be comedy gold. Comedians everywhere had a field day on Twitter after Kellyanne Conway chided the media for not reporting on the entirely-fictional 'Bowling Green massacre,' saying: 'Most people don't know that because it didn't get covered.' Well, um, that's because it didn't happen, Kellyanne. Comedians quickly responded, from: 'Brian Williams won a Purple Heart for his service at the Bowling Green Massacre,' to: 'One still shudders to think how bad the Bowling Green massacre would've been if not for the heroic intervention of Fred Douglass.' In other words, Twitter had a big laugh at Conway's expense. My favorite? 'Finding these Bowling Green Massacre jokes to be a little too soon. Out of respect, we should wait until it takes place.' So the Trump administration is indeed providing job security for one segment of the economy, because comedians will have easy pickings for the next four years."

 

5
   Repair is the new GOP talking point

It's always worthwhile to keep an eye on what Frank Luntz is doing, because it always foreshadows a Republican blizzard of talking points. So be ready!

"I notice that after Republicans held their retreat and heard from spinmeister Frank Luntz, they're rolling out a new way of talking about the mess they've gotten into over Obamacare. Turns out 'repeal and replace' is a dandy political slogan, but not so operative in real life. Obamacare -- much to Republicans' astonishment -- not only has beneficial parts to it, but coming up with a Republican replacement plan is necessarily going to mean keeping large portions of Obamacare itself, or else throwing millions off their health insurance. So the new talking point is to, quote, repair, unquote, Obamacare. Seems 'repair' poll-tests better with the public than 'repeal' or 'replace' -- especially when it's becoming more and more obvious that the GOP has absolutely nothing to replace it with. So look for the new 'repair' weasel-word coming from a GOP politician near you, folks!"

 

6
   The people have spoken

The stench of hypocrisy hangs over Senate Republicans like a miasmic swamp-gas fogbank. So point it out!

"For ten months, Senate Republicans held up the nomination of an eminent jurist to serve on the Supreme Court -- an unprecedented bout of obstructionism. Even Robert Bork got an up-or-down vote, but Merrick Garland didn't. 'We have to let the people decide,' Republican senators piously pronounced, in direct contradiction with what the U.S. Constitution lays out as their duty. Now, these senators seem astonished that Democrats are equally as adamant about not confirming Trump's pick. They're the ones who wrote this playbook, so their hypocrisy is notable. You know what? The people did speak. They said they wanted Hillary Clinton to pick the next Supreme Court nominee. So to be true to their own stated high-minded standards, Republican senators should really be demanding that President Trump nominate a justice that Clinton chooses. After all, the people have spoken, right?"

 

7
   Pray for us all, instead

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not our favorite California governor, by a long shot, but he certainly deserves credit where credit is due this week. When Trump used the national prayer breakfast meeting (!) to make a joke that everyone should pray for Schwarzenegger's ratings as the successor to Trump on The Apprentice, Arnie shot back within hours with a videotaped message that is absolutely priceless:

Hey Donald, I have a great idea. Why don't we switch jobs? You take over TV, because you're such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job -- and then people can finally sleep comfortably again.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

232 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [423] -- Media Missing A Big Point On Trump's Muslim Ban”

  1. [1] 
    michale wrote:

    We should add an editorial aside here: Yes, our editorial policy from now on will be to use Donald Trump's own language in the term "Muslim ban." Sean Spicer can insist until he's blue in the face that it's not a Muslim ban, but Trump promised to ban Muslims on the campaign trail, so who are we to argue with the term?

    The fact that the term is over a year old means nothing???

    So, in other words, it's COMPLETELY accurate to say that Odumbo is against gay marriage. After all, he was at one time...

    You see the slippery slope you're on?? :D

    So the Muslim ban will forever (in these pages) be the Muslim ban.

    And Odumbo and Hillary will always be against gay marriage...

    OK, that works for me... :D

    Translation: the government knows it screwed up, and is attempt to sweep it all under the rug by promising that the people -- with valid visas -- would now be welcome back in and the visas reinstated, in return for making the Trump administration's federal court embarrassments go away.

    In other words, President Trump's administration realized it had made a mistake and is working to rectify their error..

    OK, and this is a bad thing exactly how???

    Also in the "what could possibly go wrong" file, Trump just tapped a woman for the post of Deputy C.I.A. Director who had previously run one of the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons. No red flags there, folks!

    Yer just picking on her because she's a woman!! :D

    Sorry, the Left Wingery side of my psyche just took over for a second. :D

    For valiantly standing up for what she believed to be her constitutional duty, for speaking truth directly to Trump, for being, in short, a profile in courage, there was simply no other choice this week than Sally Yates for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

    You have GOT to be kidding me...

    Even Democrats have stated that Yates had two choices.. She could resign or she could enforce the order..

    Does the name Kim Davis mean anything to ya'all?? :D

    While we can't be sure if they even identify as Democrats, we have to condemn the violence at University of California, Berkeley this week. A rabid right-winger was scheduled to speak and a non-violent protest against the event was hijacked by a small group who set fires, lit off fireworks (at police, reportedly), and smashed windows.

    Violence definitely gets media attention at protests, but it also is just as counterproductive, since it rarely (if ever) convinces anyone of the righteousness of your cause -- no matter how noble that cause might be.

    Now yer cooking with gas... er.. no pun intended! :D

    Seriously, CW.. Kudos.. It warms my heart (er, again, no pun intended) to see someone from the Left actually condemn the violence...

    Such bi-partisan condemnation of violence is something that is very VERY lacking around here...

    Again, kudos...

    I'll get to the talking points later.. My work day is starting early... :D

  2. [2] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    From yesterday's Guest Author...

    So, again, thanks for not unloading.

    You don't know HOW much self-control that took, let me tell you! :D

    Surprised Michale didn't provide this, so I guess it's up to me...

    "No time for the old in-and-out now, Love, just here to read the meter."
    -Little Alex, A Clockwork Orange

    Heh. Couldn't resist.

    As an avowed sci-fi geek, I am ashamed to say I have never read or seen A CLOCKWORK ORANGE...

    :D heh

    Listen,

    Did I hit on the same thing that struck you with the article? I commend the author for her willingness to stand up and speak out for others, but I fear we have gotten too "us vs. them" in this country!

    Welcome to the Democrat Party, circa 2017....

    It's your party, you can cry if you want to... :D

    Liz,

    But, I have to say I'm ... uncomfortable ... not hypersensitive, mind you! :) ... with the notion of "intersectionality". Probably because I haven't the foggiest idea of what it means.

    It's like "White Privilege" and "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT"...

    Concepts that are completely bogus and made up by the Left Wingery..

    This should help you understand...

    How Intersectionality Makes You Stupid
    A gay-rights group, caving to anti-Israel extremists, decides to cancel an ‘intensely divisive’ Jewish event—and then, under opposite pressure, decides to include it. The flawed lesson? The victim who shouts the loudest gets what they want in today’s hyper-politicized cultural climate.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/196754/intersectionality-makes-you-stupid

    H T H :D

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Why isn't the media noticing this rather large disconnect? We have no idea."

    The Orange One is the first Twitter Troll president. There will be an endless production of deplorable provocations and reality TV style stunts designed to distract the media with the latest shiny object. There will be very little scrutiny of the scammander in chief's lies and crimes. They're too numerous and his GOP partners in crime are OK with all of it provided that they get to voucherize Social Security.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As an avowed sci-fi geek, I am ashamed to say I have never read or seen A CLOCKWORK ORANGE...

    My advice would be don't start now!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Intersectionality.

    I going to forget I ever saw that word ... :)

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    All teasing aside...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/02/guest-author-protesting-the-inauguration-an-honest-reflection/#comment-93375

    THAT is a very good comment and would have been exactly what I would have posted had I wanted to see Ms Johnson's commentary reduced to the run o' the mill flame war.. :D :D

    Kudos...

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Intersectionality.

    I going to forget I ever saw that word ... :)

    Good luck with that...

    That's the Left current raison d'etre... Yer going to hear a LOT more of it in the coming months, I am sure..

    It's just another Left Wingery fad.. Simply another way for the Left to hypocritically claim "tolerance" and "diversity" while violently attacking anyone who doesn't toe their "tolerant" and "diverse" line...

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    It's just another Left Wingery fad.. Simply another way for the Left to hypocritically claim "tolerance" and "diversity" while violently attacking anyone who doesn't toe their "tolerant" and "diverse" line...

    Like "Love Trumps Hate"...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/killtrump.jpg

    :^/

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    The Orange One is the first Twitter Troll president.

    As opposed to Odumbo who NEVER twit'ed anything, right?? :D

    Oh that's right.. Around these here parts a "troll" is someone who says something that the Left Wingery doesn't like..

    Gotcha.. {wink, wink} :D

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [6]

    Thank you so much for that compliment. Been a pretty awful day here and that actually put a smile on my face.

    I do have a question for ya: Do you think Trump still stands by his suggestion that the Second Amendment might be the answer for preventing a president we don't like from putting a judge we don't want on the SCOTUS? Just curious if anyone has asked him about that.

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Thank you so much for that compliment. Been a pretty awful day here and that actually put a smile on my face.

    I feel for ya, my friend. My day yesterday was one of the worst I had in a long time...

    Glad I could help make yours a tad better.. :D

    I do have a question for ya: Do you think Trump still stands by his suggestion that the Second Amendment might be the answer for preventing a president we don't like from putting a judge we don't want on the SCOTUS?

    I believe that Trump's statement that 2nd Amendment supporters can use their political power to protect their rights does certainly apply to Left Wingers who want to stop a highly qualified SCOTUS nominee from ascending to the highest court...

    It would be rank hypocrisy however, considering how the Democrats cried, THERE MUST BE NINE!!! incessantly...

    As Balthasar pointed out, Judge Gorsuch is about the best pick that Democrats could hope for from President Trump..

    Also keep in mind one very salient point.. If Democrats force the nuking of the filibuster now, what recourse will they have when President Trump is able to appoint his 2nd judge to the highest court?? Or even his 3rd??

    The Democrats best course of action is to keep their powder dry, let Gorsuch be confirmed and hope that the political climate changes by the time President Trump chooses his 2nd SCOTUS nominee. Changes enough that it would allow a filibuster or a threat of same to be more effective..

    It's a gamble, but if the alternative is that President Trump is given carte blanche for his 2nd and maybe even a 3rd pick..... Well, I think it's a gamble that will likely work in the Democrats' favor..

    Because the alternative of having 1 and possibly 2 rabid conservatives replacing a liberal and a 'tween on the SCOTUS would likely be disastrous for the Democrat Party agenda...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrats best course of action is to keep their powder dry, let Gorsuch be confirmed and hope that the political climate changes by the time President Trump chooses his 2nd SCOTUS nominee. Changes enough that it would allow a filibuster or a threat of same to be more effective..

    Of course, if Democrats follow this logical and rational course of action, the Left Wing (present company excepted, of course.. :D ) will lose their collective frakin' minds...

    They don't want ANYTHING even resembling co-operation between the Democrats and President Trump...

    The Left is in the moment.. No matter how bad it will make things for Democrats later, the Left is demanding that the Democrat Party be the Party of NO...

    And if the Democrats appease their base, the SCOTUS could very well become 7-2 in favor of conservatives in the next 8 years...

    Food for thought...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    From the Guest Author's commentary...

    It amazes me how often people claim that our society has never done anything to address "white privilege" in this country. Does the term "Affirmative Action" ring a bell? We've been aware of how unfair it makes the playing field for minorities searching for work for decades. Granted, it's not just the work place that is affected by it, but it isn't a new issue that has been ignored either.Z

    How long do you think that white Americans must pay for the sins of their ancestors???

    Further, given the fact that the US is simply one of HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of societies that have kept slaves in it's past, why is it that it's only in the US that there is such eagerness to placate, appease and confer victim status on people whose distant ancestors were slaves??

    Institutionalized racism is dead.. It died in November of 2008...

    Is the goal to stamp out ALL racism???

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Excellent commentary by CBS..

    Commentary: Schumer has no good options on Neil Gorsuch
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-schumer-has-no-good-options-on-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7i&linkId=34048988

    Probably because it mirrors my own thoughts.. :D

    Looking to the long game, it's better for Democrats to allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed and hold the F-card for when it's really needed..

    I am sincerely curious as to ya'all's thoughts on this.. I know Balthasar is of the same opinion as me...

    Curious where everyone else stands...

    No judgements.. Promise..

    "C'mon! You must have some ideas. Don't be afraid. Just…pitch them out. We call it "spinning". No one's gonna judge you."
    "Okay, for starters, I think you need a strong opening sequence."
    "That's ridiculous!!! No one does that anymore. You just throw up the title and get on with it."

    -STARGATE SG-1: 200

    :D

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW:

    We should add an editorial aside here: Yes, our editorial policy from now on will be to use Donald Trump's own language in the term "Muslim ban." Sean Spicer can insist until he's blue in the face that it's not a Muslim ban, but Trump promised to ban Muslims on the campaign trail, so who are we to argue with the term?

    Arguing with the term "Muslim ban" will be the pleasure of legal teams across the United States in opposition to the unconstitutional Executive Order signed by PT**. All the legal spinning on the planet by PT's lawyers couldn't scrub the "animus" from Trump's language nor remove the blight of religious discrimination written in the EO and signed happily by PT... as he previously stated... with cameras rolling... in no uncertain term(s). Add to the fact that on the same day PT signed the EO, he taped an interview with David Brody of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network). Brody asked PT if "the refugee changes you're looking to make, as it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?" PT responded, "Yes"... with cameras rolling... and later PT suggested that special treatment would be given to Christian Syrians under the "ban."

    So as those patriots that value the United States Constitution and the laws contained therein can tell you, PT has admitted to intent of religious favoritism which is banned by the Establishment Clause contained therein, has most likely also violated the First Amendment and a law passed by Congress called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Hobby Lobby was determined to be a "person" protected by the RFRA, which applies to all persons... so not really a stretch to imagine the SCOTUS deciding a real person qualifies as a "person" when a corporation qualifies as such. :)

    [1] michale wrote:

    The fact that the term is over a year old means nothing???

    Of course it doesn't mean "nothing," snowflake; it means that PT's intent is clear regardless of the rhetorical manipulation contained in the EO. Animus is one of those things that figure "bigly" and 1000% relevant in a court of law... Remember these three M's... motive matters most.

    ---------------
    **PT - My moniker for President Trump... an homage to PT Barnum, the original con ;)

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember these three M's... motive matters most.

    Remember the addendum to the 3 Ms..

    Only Applies To Right Wingers....

    Glad ta see ya back, Kick.. :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Brody asked PT if "the refugee changes you're looking to make, as it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?" PT responded, "Yes"... with cameras rolling... and later PT suggested that special treatment would be given to Christian Syrians under the "ban."

    Priority treatment based on religion is codified into US Law...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    **PT - My moniker for President Trump... an homage to PT Barnum, the original con ;)

    Odumbo.. My moniker for President Obama to reflect Weigantians' ongoing obsession with 3rd grade playground taunts... :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Priority treatment based on religion is codified into US Law...

    To clarify, it's codified into US law that religions being persecuted are given priority refugee status..

    Nothing to see here... Move along.. :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course it doesn't mean "nothing," snowflake; it means that PT's intent is clear regardless of the rhetorical manipulation contained in the EO.

    And, of course, the fact that President Trump is operating from a list created by FORMER President Odumbo ALSO means nothing, right??

    You DO realize that President is doing *exactly* what he promised he would do...

    If patriotic Americans had a problem with it, they would have elected Hillary Clinton...

    They didn't.. They elected President Trump... Ergo, the debate on this executive order has already been done and your side lost...

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    From the recent Guest Author commentary...

    Perhaps, it's not so much a statement of arrogance as a state of arrogance that can be so ingrained it can't be recognized or acknowledged.

    That is so dead on ballz accurate it's SCARY!!!!

    Kudos... VERY well put....

  22. [22] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Just time for a quick in and out...and not the kind in A Clockwork Orange...

    Glad to see that our resident NPAINO is in fine form...no time for NPAINO circular arguments.

    Since I won't be around to roll up my sleeves on the coming SCOTUS scrum...I was on record as supporting the removal of the filibuster for the lower court seats as literally the GOP had obstructed to the point that almost every district had to declare judicial emergencies. Fer dead hippie on sticks sake they were even blocking their own noms that Obama Had approved. So yes it was the right move and the dems will have to pay a price as will the rest of the country...

    Reid was wise to respect and make a explicit carve out for Legislation and the Supreme court noms, unfortunately the GOP behavior to rescind rules , that were respected by the Dems when the GOP were in charge, to get Trumps cabinet rammed through before thorough ethical vetting is completed or thorough due diligence has been completed leads me to believe that McConnell will move rapidly at the first sign of a filibuster to eliminate the remaining filibuster options for both legilative and the supreme court judges...

    No matter how you slice it the filibuster for legislation and SCOTUS is a good thing as history proves it prevents the majority from doing to much harm....no matter who that majority happens to be.

    On the humor front for those who are dyslexic i wonder if "love trups hate" becomes "trump loves hate" or is it "Trump hates love?"

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    On the humor front for those who are dyslexic i wonder if "love trups hate" becomes "trump loves hate" or is it "Trump hates love?"

    You tell me...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/killtrump.jpg

    :^/

    For a group that professes love and tolerance, the Left Wingery seems to be utterly devoid of either...

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

  24. [24] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey CW-

    Nice piece... I would have added an aside to the MDDOTW about the water regulations that were just repealed that it is also the first large wealth transference from the public to the private sector. When the water regulation was written it was also designed to protect the tax payer from having to give more money to the very sectors polluting the water via having to buy the treatment chemicals from them.

    Now we are just back to where a large number of municipal water sources will have to think about privatization due to not being able to afford the extra costs to treat the water. While this would be bad for the taxpayer...it couuld be good for me, I have been investing in water rights and water infrastructure for quite some time and it is starting to pay off. This will only help.

    Think about it if one of the guys who predicted the housing crash and made a bundle off of it is investing in water rights there is probably something there.

    It was a busy week and the whole ban thing sucked all of the oxygen out of the room but...I am surprised you didn't at least give a knock in passing to the EO signed by Trump that will benefit Wall Street at the expense of Joe Q. Public...I mean what can go wrong with removing a requirement that the fund manager actually operate in the interests of the investor vs. the product being offered. Interestingly enough.

    So much for the vaunted "draining of the swamp"...perhaps I am just being to cynical here, BUT, I guess it could be coincidence that this was signed right after the appointment of the "billionare" cabinet...who happened to buy their seats with an aggregated average of $7 million in contributions...they all donated out of love for country and want nothing in return...right? it happens to me all of the time, i love money for nothing and my chicks for free....

    The only other thing I saw missing was the House decision to vote to rescind the oil disclosure rules on the day Tillerson was sworn in.

    I mean what can go wrong by allowing large US based multinational oil corporations to keep where they are receiving or spending large amounts of monies to foreign powers? it's not like they have their own Intelligence and security operations that are on par with our own government.

  25. [25] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    GRRRR---

    Edit function needed...

    In 22 it should read...that were respected by the Dems when the GOP were in the MINORITY.
    VS.
    that were respected by the Dems when the GOP were in charge... as I published

  26. [26] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Last one before I am off to fix some problems in Terra Del Fuego...

    Hey Neil....

    Have you been out of the country in the last week or so?

    If so have you noticed any new processes for departing the country?

    I have encountered the same new "process" three times so far. So... I am just curious since you seem to be on the go alot and go to different places than I do...

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Didn't the Beatles do a song about intersectionality?

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    And, totally apropos of nothing...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/aww.jpg

    The women in my family sure know how to get their way... :D

  29. [29] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    For a group that professes love and tolerance, the Left Wingery seems to be utterly devoid of either...

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Dude...you need to let go of that crap...I am on record as are others that violence is bad and accomplishes nothing and I am pretty sure the great majority around here also feels the same...If the subject was violence and we were not saying anything you would have a point but it is not ...so you don't. Remember for each one of your links there is an equal retort for the right.

    When you start behaving like a true NPA vs an NPAINO and start posting crap the right does as well as the left then you will have a moral foundation to critique the rest of us...

    Just saying...don't expect us to respond when you have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand and you drag out crap like that...We all know it is bad and reprehensible we just don't see the need to litigate every little thing.

    Oh and for clarification "Black Block" is a non political "group" comprised of rich kids the hail from both sides of the fence politically speaking.

    They are there solely to be violent and discredit any group seeking to protest peacefully...most of them are out in 12 hours or less after arrest and have the charges against them either dropped or reduced to MD's...they are not the Left Wing...Which should not be confused with me saying the Left doesn't do plenty of its own mischief,but the most recent Berkely thing is all Black Block all you have to do is watch the news footage.

    Just keepin' it real...

    Ok gang that's it told to put the 'puter away...see you down the road.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Dude...you need to let go of that crap...I am on record as are others that violence is bad and accomplishes nothing and I am pretty sure the great majority around here also feels the same...

    But yet that feeling is ONLY articulated when the violence comes from the Right...

    Why is that??

    Put another way...

    If violence is condemnation worthy if it comes from the Right, shouldn't it be condemnation worthy if it comes from the Left??

    I wouldn't have a bit of a problem and wouldn't say a WORD if ya'all ignored the violence from the Right as ya'all do when it's from the Left...

    Either condemn ALL violence or not...

    Where is the flaw in that logic??

    When you start behaving like a true NPA vs an NPAINO and start posting crap the right does as well as the left then you will have a moral foundation to critique the rest of us...

    I have, so I do... :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    When you start behaving like a true NPA vs an NPAINO and start posting crap the right does as well as the left then you will have a moral foundation to critique the rest of us...

    I have, so I do... :D

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/01/sean-spicers-ban-ban-didnt-last-long/#comment-93343

    I accept your apology... :D

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    [17] michale wrote:

    Priority treatment based on religion is codified into US Law...

    [19] michale wrote:

    To clarify, it's codified into US law that religions being persecuted are given priority refugee status..

    Muslims will be glad to hear that since they're one of the "religions being persecuted." "To clarify," there's not much clarity above since you fail to cite the "US law."

    Nothing to see here... Move along.. :D

    Oh, I disagree. I think it would be The Greatest Show on Earth to watch one of PT's poor dumb *flakes* attempt to argue to the SCOTUS that language contained in a "US law" (maybe you mean the Lautenberg Amendment... originally enacted as part of a 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill?) should outweigh the Bill of Rights and/or other various amendments contained in the United States Constitution. While there will always be cases where constitutional rights are outweighed in the interest of national security, those cases are generally considered case-by-case where motive matters bigly versus a blanket "ban" that unconstitutionally discriminates against or stereotypes any one religion. That's why PT and Splicer are suddenly insisting their "ban" is not a "ban." :)

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    But yet that feeling is ONLY articulated when the violence comes from the Right...

    This is getting to the boring stage again. Time to grow up Michale. Do you need every single person who contributes to this page to state that violence is wrong and hurts rather than promotes just causes in our society? Can't you just accept that we condone violence on both sides?

    Have we demanded that you apologize every day for the lives that 45's vitriol and hatred extinguished in Quebec City? Do we point out every day that more people have been killed by right wing terrorism in the last 10 years than any other group, and demand an apology from you? Or say that you ALWAYS ignore right wing terrorism?

    Either grow up, or if you can't, suck it up like we have to with your whining.

    CW.com is not a safe space for you.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    What's extraordinary to me is how much the new Trump administration is already leaking. So many leaks appear in the media on a daily basis that it's hard to keep track. Transcripts of private phone calls with world leaders are made available hours later.

    45 must be going bananas in the White House. I'll bet he has an internal secret police force headed by Bannon or Flynn to ferret out the leakers and "fire them on the spot".

    The kids tell stories about how 45 would berate and belittle them growing up. And you can tell from his tweets that he thrives on humiliating people, so I don't expect things to get any better.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Repair is the new GOP talking point

    Time for Chuck S. to publicly announce that he is willing to help 45 further improve Obamacare and is pleased that at least the Republicans understand that, after minor repairs, the basic tenets, like:

    a/ pre-condition requirements,
    b/ allowing kids to stay on plans until that are 26, and
    c/ no lifetime maximums,

    are core values that the people want, and that he wants.

    Nice little wedge to drive between 45 and the Republicans who want to gut it.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    As an avowed sci-fi geek, I am ashamed to say I have never read or seen A CLOCKWORK ORANGE...

    Have you read 1984 - little bit more topical, what with "alternative facts" and the "ban" fiasco.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    [16] michale wrote:

    Remember the addendum to the 3 Ms..

    Only Applies To Right Wingers....

    You insist PT is an "Independent" so how is your above statement relevant? You also routinely insist PT is more a "Democrat" than anything else, and you regularly insist he is a "Right Winger." Since PT appears to be each and every, all and singular, your father, your son, and your holy spirit, perhaps you should just refer to him as your holy Trumpity? ;)

    Or.... You could make up your mind what he is and stick with one of them instead of the constant rewrite to fit your ever changing circular narrative. After all, if you can't make up your mind, people might conclude you don't have one.

    Glad ta see ya back, Kick.. :D

    To be honest, I haven't really been away... just been reading and not responding. My SO bet me that I couldn't NOT respond, and he lost that bet and now owes me the vehicle of my choice. I want an M1A2. It will come in handy when PT starts World War Tweet.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bowling Green massacre!

    Conway's flub has all the hallmarks of one of those tasty little morsels that the weak minded like 45 and Flynn love where they get to be the good guys and the press are just against them.

    I thought Conway was smart enough not to conflate 45's fantasy land where he is always the hero and there are the "bad hombres" like MUSLIM TERRORISTS and THE PRESS. This is the "Cowboys and Indians" mentality from the 1950s 45 and his conspiracy buddies (e.g. Flynn and Giuliani) seem to revel in.

    I could see if from Lewandowski, but Conway has to understand by now that 45's Teflon Umbrella only protects him. The fanboys aren't going to be as passionate about protecting the hangers on.

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Muslims will be glad to hear that since they're one of the "religions being persecuted." "To clarify," there's not much clarity above since you fail to cite the "US law."

    Cite.....

    ) should outweigh the Bill of Rights and/or other various amendments contained in the United States Constitution.

    That don't apply to non-citizens in this regard...

    Neil,

    This is getting to the boring stage again. Time to grow up Michale. Do you need every single person who contributes to this page to state that violence is wrong and hurts rather than promotes just causes in our society? Can't you just accept that we condone violence on both sides?

    Can't you just accept that if you complain about violence from the Right but are completely silent when it comes to violence from the Left that it's hypocrisy...

    Have we demanded that you apologize every day for the lives that 45's vitriol and hatred extinguished in Quebec City? Do we point out every day that more people have been killed by right wing terrorism in the last 10 years than any other group, and demand an apology from you? Or say that you ALWAYS ignore right wing terrorism?

    When there IS Right Wing terrorism, I don't ignore it..

    But ya'all's idea of "right wing terrorism" is when Republicans in Congress oppose the actions of Democrats..

    Hardly "terrorism" by ANYONE's definition..

    Either grow up, or if you can't, suck it up like we have to with your whining.

    CW.com is not a safe space for you.

    Heh.. Funny...

    As long as ya'all are hypocrites when it comes to violence from the Left, I'll be here to point out the hypocrisy..

    You had better suck it up or quit being hypocritical.. :D Those are your only choices...

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    I want an M1A2.

    Well our hapless pols on both sides have been building more than we can ever use, so guess what, there are plenty sitting idle in the desert waiting for a new owner.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can't you just accept that if you complain about violence from the Right but are completely silent when it comes to violence from the Left that it's hypocrisy...

    Get over it. I just did condemn violence from any side. CW isn't your personal "safe space".

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    I am truly amazed that ya'all can't see the blatant hypocrisy at work here...

    What is more likely is that, as Liz points out re: arrogance, ya'all's hypocrisy is so ingrained and a part of ya, that you can't recognize it or concede it..

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    But ya'all's idea of "right wing terrorism" is when Republicans in Congress oppose the actions of Democrats..

    You live in a fantasy world. If you need to generate from thin air your own "us and them" or "Cowboys and Indians" storylines to try to validate your worldview, you might want to look at your worldview.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    I am truly amazed that ya'all can't see the blatant hypocrisy at work here...

    Boo hoo. We're all crying real tears here for you. Well, since you've made your point and we rejected it, time to move on, n'est pas?

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, this fiasco of a President that even Republicans must chuckle about (I know Lindsay Graham is) set new heights for unintended comic relief when at a National Prayer 45 asked people to pray for better ratings for his asinine show. If he didn't have a record of being the most self-obsessed person we have ever had to endure, I'd say it was a bit of a poor taste joke, but it probably never occurred to 45 that it was ridiculous.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    You live in a fantasy world.

    Do I really need to link all the times during the Odumbo years that ya'all referred to Republicans as "terrorists" SOLELY because they opposed legislation of the Dumbocrats???

    Boo hoo. We're all crying real tears here for you. Well, since you've made your point and we rejected it, time to move on, n'est pas?

    Don't cry for me. It's ya'all (NEN) that are slaves to yer ideology...

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/everyone-has-a-right-to-free-speech-even-milo/515565/

    Like I said.. Blatantly hypocritical.. Even CW recognized how utterly bad the Left is for their violence...

    Too bad no one else here does...

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump himself is a little unclear on the concept [legal immigrants vs. illegal immigrants vs. refugees], as evidenced by his confusion after speaking with the head of the Australian government.

    When I see such simple confusion about important subjects, I always remind myself of 45's best con - that he is some soft of genius businessman who is going to deliver great plans and deals that fix everything.

    So far is Muslim ban has been an unmitigated disaster, still no sight of his ISIS plan that our dumb generals need his help with, and the Repeal and Replace Obamacare is down to "Repair" (at this rate all the fanboys will get is a minor tweak with one big change - the branding will change from Obama to 45 and suddenly it will be the best healthcare law ever).

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Neil....

    Have you been out of the country in the last week or so?

    No - just had a heart procedure so I'm grounded for a while.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Too bad no one else here does...

    Nice try, but you only get one chance at reading comprehension.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    The 54-to-45 approval of the measure, which Trump has pledged to sign, undoes an Interior Department rule barring coal-mining companies from conducting any activities that could permanently pollute streams and other sources of drinking water.

    Since this is mostly going to impact rabid red country, this is an opportunity for Democrats be remind everyone there who really looks out for their interests.

    Let's hope it doesn't require poisoned kids to make the point.

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Nice try, but you only get one chance at reading comprehension.

    No one here, sans CW, has condemned the Left Wing violence...

    All ya'all have done is, after prompting from me, condemned violence in general..

    Which would be fine if ya'all hadn't been on record as condemning Right Wing violence SPECIFICALLY without ANY prompting.....

    Like I said, if you are going to condemn violence from the Right and NOT condemn violence from the Left, then that's hypocritical...

    No - just had a heart procedure so I'm grounded for a while.

    ACK!!! Shit, dood!!! Take care of yerself!!! :D I mean that sincerely...

  53. [53] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Typo alert 6th paragraph-
    "Translation: the government knows it screwed up, and is attempt to sweep it all under the rug"

    "attempting"

    Excellent column until TP 6.
    I get the popular vote dig fun and games, but mentioning her name is bad juju for you Dems.

    goode trickle noted an important omission in comment 24.
    Investment advisors putting their commissions/personal interests ahead of the financial interests of investors is seriously corrupt.
    Republicans legalizing this corruption again is not in line with Trump's supposedly populist shtick.

    Another omission was Spicer falsely accusing Iran of attacking a US ship... it wasn't Iran and it wasn't a US ship. A journalist helpfully corrected him on half of the claim, but such carelessness is troubling.

    The warmongering against Iran, with bipartisan support btw, for a legal missile test deserved a mention too. Numerous false claims were made to justify new sanctions on Iran, including the repetition that they are the largest state sponsors of terror...
    ... pick a terrorist attack... any attack that brought out the pearl clutching by politicians or the media since and including 9/11.
    None of them involved Iranian support.

    On the other hand, Wikileaks detailed that the US government is fully aware that the Saudis directly supported both ISIS and al Qaida who ARE behind all those terrorist attacks.

    Now there is bipartisan "politically correct" fake news being disseminated widely... aka propaganda... that the establishment coddling Trump is participating in actively.

    Why are we seeing it?
    Three reasons-
    1- Trump wants to look tough
    2- Money for politicians from defense contractors and AIPAC
    3- Israel coddling

    Given that sweeping such things under the rug could lead to another unnecessary and illegal war even more disastrous and costly than the Iraq boondoggle, the fact that false claims being made at the highest level of our government are not being challenged is scary.

    CW, I don't recall you being a fan of the war in Iraq, so I hope you will consider a column drawing attention to this.
    Silencing the drums of war before a rhythm is established, or at least dampening them down with some valid skepticism would be a huge service to mankind, and good for the Democratic party too.

    A

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    ACK!!! Shit, dood!!! Take care of yerself!!! :D I mean that sincerely...

    Thanks Michale. Just a reset for some bad A-fib. Nasty procedure though. Sore.

  55. [55] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    37

    "Or.... You could make up your mind what he is and stick with one of them instead of the constant rewrite to fit your ever changing circular narrative. After all, if you can't make up your mind, people might conclude you don't have one."

    Very happy to see you commenting again.

    But I wouldn't go with a tank just yet... they get horrible millage and Trump seems determined to cause a huge spike in gas prices.

    A

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Or.... You could make up your mind what he is and stick with one of them instead of the constant rewrite to fit your ever changing circular narrative. After all, if you can't make up your mind, people might conclude you don't have one.

    Apparently, I had enough of a mind to call the election nearly verbatim... Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania (OOoooo That's gotta hurt!!) etc etc etc.. :D

    Pretty much more of a mind than anyone else here, yourself included..

    I'm just saying if one wants to compare brain-pans...

    Mine's the biggest one here.. :D

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Not to toot my own horn or anything, but... BEEP BEEP

    :D

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    [18] michale wrote:

    Odumbo.. My moniker for President Obama to reflect Weigantians' ongoing obsession with 3rd grade playground taunts... :D

    Hmmmm... the most consumed Weigantian happens to be you...

    So thank you ever so much for that skosh of personal introspection into your idée fixe. Glad to see you've gotten with the "program," and please keep us updated regarding your journey. Twelve is a lot of steps. :)

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Hmmmm... the most consumed Weigantian happens to be you...

    Says the girl who uses 3rd grade playground name calling :D

    So thank you ever so much for that skosh of personal introspection into your idée fixe. Glad to see you've gotten with the "program," and please keep us updated regarding your journey. Twelve is a lot of steps. :)

    "Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella."
    -JUMPIN JACK FLASH

    :D

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Hmmmm... the most consumed Weigantian happens to be you...

    Yea, we have more than a half dozen Weigantians running thru the gambit of 3rd grade playground name-calling..

    And *I* am the only consumed one.. :D

    Once again, ideological slavery at it's finest.. :D

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Gods, it's good ta have ya back, Kick!!! :D

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    [55] altohone wrote:

    Very happy to see you commenting again.

    I've been reading, though. You make a lot of good points... and so does Neil.

    But I wouldn't go with a tank just yet... they get horrible millage and Trump seems determined to cause a huge spike in gas prices.

    Now ain't that just the naked truth... ! which this comment of yours reminds me... so much I could say in reply, but I'm on my way to Houston.... so...

    "So why do you think I should work for the National Security Agency?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIHx1z9DOLU

    Later :)

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    Investment advisors putting their commissions/personal interests ahead of the financial interests of investors is seriously corrupt.

    I strongly agree with this statement, as I am frustrated by the fleecing that many people experience working with capital market firms. However, I'd like to raise a few points that might cause some thoughts (that I'll split across a few posts)

    Part 1: Trusting Financial Advisors

    1. Financial advisors get paid in three ways:
    a/ Monthly fee = often about $100
    b/ Assets under management fee: often 1% of the portfolio you entrust to them
    c/ Commissions from selling their clients specific instruments

    Since a/ and b/ are visible, but c/ isn't, this is where the financial firms try to generate most of their income, so their visible fees seem as low as possible.

    In many ways, we need to look at financial advisors as sales people. If we walk into a used car lot, we don't expect the sales person to try to sell us the best car at the lowest price. A mattress sales person is going to try to sell the most expensive mattress, etc. We expect to do our homework and be informed consumers.

    However we seem to entrust financial advisors as professionals like lawyers and doctors who we believe have a responsibility to put their customers first. This is the rule that Obama attempted to put in place.

    But should we treat certain classes of professionals as "trustworthy". Pharmaceutical companies spend huge amounts of money on doctors to prescribe their drugs - do all doctors do what is right for their patients, or do some make sure they get on that annual all expenses paid golf weekend with their spouses at the country club? Do class action lawyers really care about the $4.29 per person they extract from a large company or their windfall fees?

    Really the lesson to learn from this rule, whether it stays or not, is that it is a good idea to be an informed customer. My personal favorite asset management advice comes from Barry Ritholz (e.g. http://ritholtz.com/2014/12/better-than-all-weather-portfolio/ ). But remember, buyer beware.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    Part 2: A few simple rules beats most financial advisors expensive advice

    I have many close friends who are in the financial advisory business on both coasts. Here is the distilled advice they give over beers when they can talk freely.

    1. Get control of your finances.

    Most financial advisors can justify all their fees simply by the discipline they bring to their clients. Most of their clients are throwing away far more money stupidly than they will ever pay their financial advisors, except the really dodgy ones (if you stick to a good brand like Ameriprise or Amex, the dodgy ones are usually screened out, but there is a reason these companies have nice offices in high rent areas surrounded by parking lots with Mercedes and BMWs and filled with well dressed, successful looking people).

    Use Quicken or some equivalent and track your income and expenses. Create a budget and stick to it. Focus on getting high interest debt converted to low interest debt and then eliminated for non-performing assets (for most people this means everything except their house).

    2. Don't buy things that you don't need, or overspend on things you do.

    Read some of the psychology books about happiness - the difference in happiness over 5 years from buying a $75,000 BMW vs. a $30,000 Honda is zero - learn this lesson. Spend within your means.

    3. Create a plan.

    List out your future goals (retirement, paying for kids college, buying a second car, saving for a downpayment on a house, etc) and understand the impact on today's finances of achieving the goal. This is where financial advisors like to sprinkle the pixie dust around, but really, the math is pretty simple and you can use excel plus youtube videos to understand and execute most of the math. Basically, if you need $12,000 in five years, you need to save $2,400/year, so about $200/month. Create a separate savings account.

    4. Bucket your money

    Have three buckets for your future money needs:

    For example:
    a. Anything you need in less than 5 years hold in cash or cash equivalents
    b. Anything you need in 5-10 years have in S&P 500 index funds
    c. Anything you need in 10+ years have in more aggressive markets - small caps, emerging markets, etc.

    Your mileage may vary.

    5. Under no circumstances compare your lifestyle to somebody who annoys you.

    A lot of people spend money very unwisely and are up to their ears in hock. Unfortunately they also look like they are the "rich" with Porsches, fancy houses, expensive vacations, etc. They also tend to brag about it (our current President is an extreme example of this type).

    There are rich people and good luck to them, but live with the fact that there is always going to be somebody richer than you, unless you are Warren Buffet or whoever. The goal is to generate wealth, not show off your ability to get somebody to sell you something you can't afford.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Part 3: Basically only a very few beat the market.

    If somebody came up to you and told you that they had a machine that could turn iron into gold and they would let you in for some money up front, you'd ask yourself the question: Why do they need my money - why aren't they keeping all the profits to themselves and reinvesting it and becoming richer and richer.

    That is the thought I instill in my boys when dealing with financial instruments and asset managers. If they sure they are on to a good thing, why are they letting me in on it. I wouldn't share a goose that laid golden eggs.

    Studies show that most fund managers lose over time when compared to low cost S&P 500 index funds. They pull a lot of tricks to goose their historical results, but don't be fooled - if they really had a guaranteed machine to generate money, regular people would not be invited in.

    Hope this was helpful.

  66. [66] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Then there is the fact that after two weeks in office, Trump is taking a vacation down to Florida where he will be attending TWO events at TWO of his properties. The fact that he isn't trying to avoid giving the appearance that he is using his position to make his businesses more money is what angers Devon the most about Trump. As a police officer, Devon won't accept a free coffee from the local coffee shop owner because it could be viewed negatively by the public, yet the President isn't required to concern himself with such ethical issues???

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    63

    Pharma should be banned from rewarding doctors for prescriptions and research. That business is ugly and likely responsible for far more harm than we are currently aware of.

    Class actions or otherwise, and the percentage varies, but lawyers always get their cut if they win. But I believe disclosure is mandated and lawyers are ethically bound to put their clients interests first... not that there aren't unscrupulous ones.
    Non-financial remedies are also frequently part of class actions... sometimes the more important part.

    In any case, good advice in general and specifically on investing.

    Glad you are doing well...
    ... you reminded me of the Billy Crystal bit in City Slickers... "they call it a procedure, but it's an operation" or something like that... been a long time.

    A

  68. [68] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    62

    Nice.
    Best scene in the movie, though there are a couple of close seconds.

    A

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Institutionalized racism is dead.. It died in November of 2008...

    I don't believe one event can kill off institutional racism....or that it can ever truly be completely removed, sadly.

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    goode trickle
    26

    Are you willing to share what this "process" is?

    I think I'm heading to Germany in August... is it something we should know about?

    A

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    A [68]:

    lawyers are ethically bound to put their clients interests first

    Yes, putting their client's legal interests first is required, but not their financial interests - in fact they often justify gold plating by this means.

    Pharma should be banned from rewarding doctors for prescriptions and research.

    I couldn't agree more. Currently the American consumer is subsidizing the rest of the World for drug research via ridiculous prices and absurd market restrictions, such as banning us from buying drugs from Canada or Mexico.

    We also subsidize the rest of the NATO's military protection because other countries have figured out that we are dumb enough to pay over 60% of our discretionary spending on the MIC. Both Big Pharma and the MIC have a stranglehold on DC.

    One thing that 45 is right about is that DC is a swamp - sadly he is a con man who just said the words but isn't going to do anything now he has the votes.

    "they call it a procedure, but it's an operation"

    My family are freaking out so I'm calling it a procedure ;)

  72. [72] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    69

    Disturbing article at The Intercept-

    "The FBI has quietly investigated white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement"
    by Alice Speri
    Jan 31 2017

    some excerpts-

    "White supremacists and other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies. A striking reference to that conclusion, notable for its confidence and the policy prescriptions that accompany it, appears in a classified FBI Counterterrorism Policy Guide from April 2015, obtained by The Intercept."

    "in a 2015 speech, FBI Director James Comey made an unprecedented acknowledgment of the role historically played by law enforcement in communities of color: “All of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty.” Comey and the agency have been less forthcoming about that history’s continuation into the present."

    "Federal law enforcement agencies in general — the FBI, the Marshals, the ATF — are aware that extremists have infiltrated state and local law enforcement agencies and that there are people in law enforcement agencies that may be sympathetic to these groups,” said Daryl Johnson"

    "Reforming police, as it turns out, is a lot harder than reforming the military, because of the decentralized way in which the thousands of police departments across the country operate, the historical affinity of certain police departments with the same racial ideologies espoused by extremists, and an even broader reluctance to do much about it.

    “If you look at the history of law enforcement in the United States, it is a history of white supremacy, to put it bluntly,” said Simi"

    "Norm Stamper, a former chief of the Seattle Police Department and vocal advocate for police reform, told The Intercept that white supremacy was not simply a matter of history. “There are police agencies throughout the South and beyond that come from that tradition,” he said. “To think that that kind of thinking has dissolved somehow is myopic at best.”

    -----

    The whole article is worth a read.

    Of course, institutionalized racism in banking and all sorts of other areas remains a problem too.

    A

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't believe one event can kill off institutional racism....or that it can ever truly be completely removed, sadly.

    Racism can never eliminated, this is true...

    But the mere fact that we elected a black American as President proves that INSTITUTIONALIZED racism is dead in America..

    I could be wrong. But, unless you have factual relevant evidence (no "code words or dog whistles, cold hard facts) that *proves* I AM wrong, I am going to go where the facts take me..

    And the facts are clear...

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Liz,

    Perhaps, it's not so much a statement of arrogance as a state of arrogance that can be so ingrained it can't be recognized or acknowledged.

    You NAILED it! Beautifully put!

    Didn't she, though!??

    And what is so freaky is that it applies to so much beyond simple arrogance...

    It borders on epiphany!! :D

    Now they stood beside the treasure, on the mountain dark and red...
    Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
    'Peace on earth' was all it said...

    -One Tin Soldier

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    It borders on epiphany!! :D

    "Peter?? Oh, he was borderline for a while... Then he crossed the border."
    -Egon, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Then there is the fact that after two weeks in office, Trump is taking a vacation down to Florida where he will be attending TWO events at TWO of his properties.

    Are we REALLY going to start THIS early, complaining about President Trump's vacations?? :D

    And the fact that he is taking them in places that he owns is completely irrelevant..

    He's the President.. If he wants to take his vacations in places he owns, places he is most comfortable, what's the big deal???

    Better he do that than totally decimate someone else's business, eh??

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't believe one event can kill off institutional racism....or that it can ever truly be completely removed, sadly.

    Would you say that institutionalized sexism is dead??

    Of course you would..

    And why?? Because women are put into leadership positions all over the country.. From Police Chiefs to CEOs of Big Business, women are more and more becoming leaders..

    So, to claim that institutionalized sexism is alive and well is to ignore the facts and ignore reality..

    So it is with institutionalized racism.

    The President Of The United States is the epitome of power in this country and, indeed, the world... And we elected a black man to that post...

    That makes the case that institutionalized racism is dead in this country..

    Individualized racism is alive and well, tis sad, tis true...

    But the idea that a corporation, a business, a government agency can be completely and utterly racist???

    I just can't see it happening.. Not in the here and now... Not with Social Justice Warriors on hysterical SAD missions, LOOKING for even the slightest whiff of institutionalized racism...

    It's like the existence of Bigfoot.. If he existed, in this day and age, there would be definitive proof of his existence...

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    As a police officer, Devon won't accept a free coffee from the local coffee shop owner because it could be viewed negatively by the public, yet the President isn't required to concern himself with such ethical issues???

    How did he feel about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation?? I mean, if the mere appearance of impropriety pisses him off (which I whole-heartedly agree with) I would imagine he was not a huge Hillary fan.

    I am not asking to be a prick, I am sincerely curious..

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone [72]

    Thanks for the link. Yes, we are all too aware of the presence of the hate-based groups within law enforcement. We live in western Washington, one of the most liberal parts of the country, yet Devon was still very hesitant to come out at work for fear of how he would be treated. And it was for good reason...he's been targeted by fellow officers and superiors who just don't like that they have to work with a FAG. But he is an incredible officer who knows While the FBI is investigating local police departments, they also need to look at their own agents!

    Sadly groups like Black Lives Matter haven't helped how the police view those they serve. Cases like the shooting deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and the death of Eric Garner caused such violent unrest based on speculation, not facts. When all the evidence was finally made known, the officers involved were exonerated by the courts. Where the officers violate the law and the trust of the communities they serve, they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. They don't deserve to be treated like Officer Darrin Wilson was in Ferguson -- having his life destroyed for simply doing his job and not allowing someone to kill him with his own gun!

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Sadly groups like Black Lives Matter haven't helped how the police view those they serve. Cases like the shooting deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and the death of Eric Garner caused such violent unrest based on speculation, not facts. When all the evidence was finally made known, the officers involved were exonerated by the courts. Where the officers violate the law and the trust of the communities they serve, they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. They don't deserve to be treated like Officer Darrin Wilson was in Ferguson -- having his life destroyed for simply doing his job and not allowing someone to kill him with his own gun!

    Word......

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Sadly groups like Black Lives Matter haven't helped how the police view those they serve.

    This bears repeating...

    The Left makes lots and lots of noise on how the actions of officers reflect on police as a whole..

    But no one has ever even MENTIONED how the actions of Black Lives Matter reflect on the Left as a whole towards police...... Until now.. Kudos, Russ...

    While it would be eye opening for an officer to walk in the shoes of a black person in the ghetto, it would be EQUALLY eye-opening for a black person in the ghetto to do a patrol shift in the ghetto...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    But no one has ever even MENTIONED how the actions of Black Lives Matter reflect on the Left as a whole towards police...... Until now.. Kudos, Russ...

    Probably because no one on the Left *CARES*....

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    [77] michale wrote:

    Would you say that institutionalized sexism is dead??

    You didn't ask me, but my answer is "no."

    Of course you would..

    Wait, what?! I said "no," and I believe that you've totally misjudged ListenWhenYouHear with that pronouncement. :)

    Okay, hello? You must really just not want to see it, but of course you're wrong about this. Women with identical qualifications and experience are still routinely paid less than men across multiple and various assorted institutions in America... this is a fact... even among PO's White House staff. It doesn't matter why this is true, it is a fact and is evidence of institutional gender bias. Women are not allowed to hold certain positions in the military merely because of their gender. It doesn't matter why this is a fact, but it is a fact and evidence of institutionalized gender bias. It is true that the military is changing, but it would not surprise me in the least if PT rolled back gender progress in the military... for whatever reason, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, he might. Progress has been made, but evidence of progress doesn't constitute proof that institutionalized gender bias no longer exists. Got that? :)

    Regardless of what type of bias you're speaking about, you should be mindful that just because something is not codified into law, there is nevertheless functional bias that exists. The sentencing for use of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine is an example of functional institutional racism in our criminal justice system. Blacks and Hispanics get higher sentences for the same or similar offenses than Caucasians... they just do. Women too get harsher sentences than men for the same or similar offenses... I will leave it up to your ample researching capabilities to do your own "googling" versus trying to list a bunch of links that anyone can easily find.

    So your argument here is that institutional racism has ceased to exist because "we the people" elected PO? Now I'm going to do to you what you do to other commenters (you have been thusly forewarned).

    Would you say that the fact "we" didn't elect HRC is proof that institutional gender bias is alive and well in America? Of course you would. *LOL*

    Yes, I know... one person's election or loss by the majority of voters isn't remotely indicative of the life or death of centuries of institutionalized racial or gender bias. Would I put it past you to argue that since HRC won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes that proof exists of the death of gender bias? I sure would NOT. You have this affinity to bend statistics to fit your narrative. You'd argue that the almost 3 million votes was completely meaningless on the one hand yet bona fide proof of the death of institutional gender bias on the other... whatever would fit your circular argument du jour. :) They're calling that "alternative facts" lately... yes, it's a thing.

    Considering we spent time discussing PT's partly unconstitutional EO that called for a temporary "ban" from certain Arab countries, how can you honestly believe there is no institutionalized racism? Immigration law is intertwined with criminal law and in practice poses greater dangers for Latinos who are actually American citizens. In the "war on terror" and radical Islam, even though U.S. federal policies are supposedly only targeting noncitizens in theory, in practice Arab and Muslim citizens are singled out for racial and religious profiling and denial of due process. Fact.

    Institutional racism is when schools, banks, courts, governmental organizations, etc., give negative treatment to groups based on race, and it is undeniably happening in America. It doesn't matter if its existence is justified or not justified, but to deny that it exists is to ignore the facts and ignore reality.

    The President Of The United States is the epitome of power in this country and, indeed, the world... And we elected a black man to that post...

    That makes the case that institutionalized racism is dead in this country..

    M'kay..... No.

    PT: "Many people have come out and said I'm right, you know that? Let me just tell you. Let me just tell you. When you see illegals, people that are not citizens, and they're on the registration rolls..."

    So how does one come to the conclusion that there's no institutionalized racism in America when the "epitome of power in this country and, indeed, the world" believes that he's seen millions of "illegals" voting? PT can tell they're "illegals, people that are not citizens" by looking at them?

    Busy day... later. :)

  84. [84] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    79

    "Where the officers violate the law and the trust of the communities they serve, they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law"

    I agree, but often when the facts come out, the guilty officers are still exonerated.

    There was a poll recently that had the vast majority of police officers agreeing that bad cops are not being properly held accountable.

    As for Ferguson and other incidents, I honestly don't know if the officer could have handled the situation better using a different approach... it's impossible to judge going on just what was reported... but it's certainly a possibility. But the DOJ report was not ambiguous about the ugly facts of the context the community faced. I'm not saying the individual officer is responsible for the institutionalized injustices, just that I would have been protesting too.

    In any case, as the article noted, when police departments are aware of the problem, and don't act on it due to shared beliefs among the leadership, the only word that fits is institutionalized.

    Devon's situation is both amazingly brave and scary. TI had a series of articles called Code of Silence about Chicago police... it was about corruption not bigotry, but they reported on the dilemma officers faced... retaliation for speaking up that made the job even more dangerous. And that was similar to what I've read about what minority officers face(d).
    Brave man.

    As an aside, I did restaurant management for years long ago, and I get the slippery slope ethics issue of officers accepting free coffee. But for the few pennies that coffee actually costs, in return there was also five minutes where the restaurant manager didn't have to worry.
    People knowing that officers came by regularly is also a benefit as deterrence.
    And when you know that the job of dealing with the worst of humanity and the best of humanity at their worst is also underpaid, I always offered free coffee... they had to pay for food though.

    A

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Would you say that the fact "we" didn't elect HRC is proof that institutional gender bias is alive and well in America? Of course you would. *LOL*

    No, I wouldn't..

    There is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that Hillary lost because she was a woman..

    There is overwhelming factual evidence to support the claim that a woman could easily be President..

    Americans didn't want THAT woman to be President...

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    While it would be eye opening for an officer to walk in the shoes of a black person in the ghetto, it would be EQUALLY eye-opening for a black person in the ghetto to do a patrol shift in the ghetto...

    That is the smartest thing I've heard you say in years. Keep thinking empathically, it is amazing how many issues are grey and not black and white.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    There was a poll recently that had the vast majority of police officers agreeing that bad cops are not being properly held accountable.

    The same probably goes for doctors, financial advisors, etc.

    The instinct to protect "our group" from unjustified attacks spills over to protecting "our group" by default because the worst outcome for an insider is to side with "them" when "they" turn out to be accusing a good doctor/policeman/etc. unfairly.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    You didn't ask me, but my answer is "no."

    Yer right.. I didn't ask you.. :D

    Wait, what?! I said "no," and I believe that you've totally misjudged ListenWhenYouHear with that pronouncement. :)

    And I believe that someone who wears a vagina on their head is not objective, logical and rational enough to answer the question.. :D

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    That is the smartest thing I've heard you say in years.

    Can't you come off your....

    Wait.. wassat???

    "Could you speak into my good ear.. I coulda swore you just called me 'Ace'??"
    -Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

    :D

    Keep thinking empathically, it is amazing how many issues are grey and not black and white.

    Oh, I readily agree that there are many MANY issues vis a vis LEOs and community that are grey areas..

    But instances such as Ferguson, Staten Island, Sanford etc etc etc are not... THOSE issues are extremely black and white... No pun intended...

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    On the subject of institutionalized bigotry (racism, sexism, etc.), has anybody heard of project Implicit?

    This is a long running Harvard project that tracks individuals' biases. You can take their tests yourself (many of you may not like the results, you have been warned).

    https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

    Basically we have been conditioned to react to certain stimuli by our upbringing and these heuristics are more inherent than most of us realize. While we can over rule these heuristics, this takes mental energy that kicks in the "thinking slow / thinking fast" mechanisms that Daniel Kahneman covers in his book (see next comment). This alteration in thinking can be measured by the time it takes us to make decisions - i.e. the "wait a minute, that isn't right" mental engagement takes longer and the test measures the time it takes you to make an instinctive decision versus a "fair" decision.

    Try it - there are a couple of screens to go thru, so here is my recommendation:

    1. Main Page -> "Social Attitudes" -> skip register and just select "Go"
    2. Deal with the legal warning and hit "I wish to proceed"
    3. Choose "Race IAT" first - you can come back to the others later.

    If you feel OK about it, share your results.

    I grew up in colonial Africa and then Scotland, so my conditioning makes be mildly racist by default.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    Rest of USA to California: Make our day with Calexit

    You know American politics is fraying when California liberals are plotting how to secede from the Union, Berkeley is the new poster child for suppressing free speech on college campuses, and fascist gangs dressed in black go around destroying property and physically assaulting people who hold differing political views — all while calling themselves “anti-fascists.”
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/liberals-743080-berkeley-union.html

    Yep....

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    Daniel Kahneman

    Kahneman won the Nobel for Economics in 2002 - but he isn't an economist. His research with his partner Amos Tversky revolutionized psychology - you have probably read books related to his research (Gladwell's awful book "Blink" tried to outsmart Kahneman - not a good idea).

    I strongly recommend Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow". It may give you a different perspective on how you actually process information vs. how you think you do (hint: we should all be a lot more humble than we are about what we think is right and wrong).

    I'm reading Michael Lewis' "The Undoing Project" which isthe story of Kahneman's and Tversky's work - it is excellent too.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    You know American politics is fraying when California liberals are plotting how to secede from the Union

    No they are not. Quit the melodramatics, bringing looney Fox News shock nonsense here just wastes everybody's time.

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    On the subject of institutionalized bigotry (racism, sexism, etc.), has anybody heard of project Implicit?

    I started to take the test, but could not give it my full concentration being at work and all... Of course, I went for the WEAPONS test first so that probably says something in and of itself :D

    It looks fascinating and I will try it in the morning when I have the house to myself and report back...

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    It looks fascinating and I will try it in the morning when I have the house to myself and report back...

    Good luck - I've not tried the Weapons test - there are a lot of new ones since I last checked this out over five years ago.

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    No they are not.

    That's yer claim...

    The facts as being reported by YOUR MSM says differently..

    You can't dispute the facts, simply because you don't like them...

    And the fact is, California Succession has gotten a HUGE boost in popularity and discussion...

    Personally, I would *LOVE* to see California secede... :D Kinda like letting your 10 yr old "run away" and let them move into the tree house.. It lasts until that evening when the child comes back into the house cold and hungry, unable to provide for themselves... :D

    Makes me grin just thinking about it. :D

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Quit the melodramatics, bringing looney Fox News shock nonsense here just wastes everybody's time.

    Actually, that was Orange County.. There are also a plethora of articles from the LA Times, San Francisco rags etc etc...

    While YOU may not agree with the idea of secession (what logical person would??) it's a fact that it has gained in popularity considerably and a LOT of the Left Wingery in California is talking about it...

    To deny that is to deny reality.. :D

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I did the weapons one:

    Your result:

    Your data suggest a slight automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and Weapons with White Americans.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Actually, that was Orange County..

    Ooh - the OC Register - the print version of Fox News - and I'm sure you can find lots of "CA succeed" stories, just like there were lots of "TX succeed" stories during the Obama years, but really is it anything beyond silly speculation to excite eyeballs?

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Your data suggest a slight automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and Weapons with White Americans.

    Hmmmmmm Seems like ya have a lil' bit of bigotry in ya, Neil.. :D

    But, seriously... That is very interesting..

    My biggest problem when I took the test was I couldn't remember which key belonged to which group.. I probably need to have more beer when I take these tests.. heh

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    I was surprised by my result - I buck the trend - most people (about 75%) associate black Americans with weapons.

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    My biggest problem when I took the test was I couldn't remember which key belonged to which group.

    I think that is exactly what they are measuring.

  103. [103] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    87

    OK.
    The psychology may be unavoidable, but doctors and financial advisors aren't empowered by the state to patrol your neighborhood and force you into medical care or bad investments.

    I think their approach to addressing such problems is different as well.

    I'm in a bit of a food coma right now... am I missing your point?

    A

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It borders on epiphany!! :D

    Wow!

    It's just the way the piece spoke to me. :)

    By the way, that is the last time I respond to a guest column here before they demonstrate that they are willing to engage in discussion. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of accepting an invitation to be a guest author at CW.com!!??

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    just like there were lots of "TX succeed" stories during the Obama years, but really is it anything beyond silly speculation to excite eyeballs?

    And didn't the Left ridicule and laugh at all those Texas Secession morons???

    So, why not ridicule and laugh at all the California Secession morons, rather than pretend they don't exist :D

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm in a bit of a food coma right now... am I missing your point?

    No - you are just bringing up a new one - the impact of the group protection behavior.

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here I am, laughing at the California secession movement. Heh.

    California isn't going to secede, my friend. It is going to continue to lead, as it so admirably does in an enlightened and intrepid way.

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think their approach to addressing such problems is different as well.

    That is an interesting point. The first instinct for groups is to announce that they will police themselves. This keeps the dirty laundry hidden from public view where it could undermine wider confidence in the profession to the detriment of all. The problem with this is that the "buddy" system kicks in and people are given multiple chances - take the American Catholic Church and the child abuse scandals.

    The best way to ensure that a profession, guild, religious order, etc. is not hiding dirty secrets is to have independent oversight groups that are trusted by the whole community to be impartial. The British police, who have very large constabularies, are forced to report to outside third party government organizations. This is not possible in many places here because the police departments are so small. The British police try to cover up for each other of course, but persistent complaints against single officers or local jurisdictions is noted and results in more scrutiny and pressure to weed out the bad apples.

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    California isn't going to secede

    You are right, it is silly thinking. The most extreme possibility is a ballot measure that everybody knows is useless regardless of the outcome, but is just to embarrass 45. As such, it would probably be wildly popular as a way to get under his legendary thin skin.

    I'd prefer a ballot measure that made releasing tax returns a requirement to get on any state wide ballot. That might generate some momentum beyond California and would make the 2020 election more interesting.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As such, it would probably be wildly popular as a way to get under his legendary thin skin.

    This, I predict, will be the undoing of President Trump, sooner or later, as world leaders and the American resistance know well this character flaw.

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    Here I am, laughing at the California secession movement. Heh.

    California isn't going to secede, my friend. It is going to continue to lead, as it so admirably does in an enlightened and intrepid way.

    Oh I know that CA will never succeed...

    I just love pointing it out as it epitomizes the extreme short-sightedness of the Democrat Party... :D

    This, I predict, will be the undoing of President Trump, sooner or later, as world leaders and the American resistance know well this character flaw.

    I have a hard time believing that President Trump's "thin skin" is anything more than an act...

    Once again, I ignore all the hoopla and all the hysteria and look at things with the cold objectivity of logic..

    There is simply NO WAY that a man as successful as President Trump in practically EVERYTHING he does could POSSIBLY be the man ya'all see and claim he is...

    It's simply NOT within the realm of possibility....

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    I just love pointing it out as it epitomizes the extreme short-sightedness of the Democrat Party... :D

    No, it epitomizes the effectiveness of bait-click. Don't fall for it.

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    You are right, it is silly thinking.

    And the Lefties that push such a ridiculous short-sighted notion...

    Would you say that they are as deluded and moronic as those who push the Texas Secession notion??

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or did I mean click-bait?

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    I really think I meant click-bait - that makes more sense, right?

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have a hard time believing that President Trump's "thin skin" is anything more than an act...

    That may be true but, there is a plethora of character and personality traits along with a general lack of pertinent knowledge about serious issues that could just as easily lead to his downfall.

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    I'd prefer a ballot measure that made releasing tax returns a requirement to get on any state wide ballot. That might generate some momentum beyond California and would make the 2020 election more interesting.

    Why stop at Tax Records.. Why not a ballot measure that includes release of School Records too?? :D

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why stop at Tax Records.. Why not a ballot measure that includes release of School Records too?? :D

    I'm fine with that.

    In tax returns I'd hope to see sources of income that might indicate conflict of interest?

    What do you expect to see in a School Record? What is the purpose (and political points are not valid, we are looking for why this would impact a persons ability to execute their job fairly)?

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have a hard time believing that President Trump's "thin skin" is anything more than an act...

    Bizarre - so you think 45 is deliberately trying to look like a 5-year-old who needs a nap?

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [115]

    lol

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I thought you wrote chick bait when you meant click bait ... now THAT would have been really funny. :)

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    Okay, I thought you wrote chick bait when you meant click bait ... now THAT would have been really funny. :)

    It has been a looooong time since I could even slightly delude myself that I might be chick-bait ;)

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    What do you expect to see in a School Record? What is the purpose (and political points are not valid, we are looking for why this would impact a persons ability to execute their job fairly)?

    Evidence of intelligence, or lack thereof.. Discipline problems, integrity and honor issues, etc etc...

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    Bizarre - so you think 45 is deliberately trying to look like a 5-year-old who needs a nap?

    Yep...

    Which would cause people to underestimate him (as each and every one of ya'all have done) and allow him to cream the field of GOP candidates and allow him to decimate the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    Yep.. I definitely think it's a real possibility that is supported by the facts..

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would that include military academy records?

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Would that include military academy records?

    Abso-tively and posit-loutly :D

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Would that include military academy records?

    AND Service records...

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    Which would cause people to underestimate him (as each and every one of ya'all have done) and allow him to cream the field of GOP candidates and allow him to decimate the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    If there is a flaw in the logic, I'de be happy to entertain it...

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would that include military academy records? AND Service records...

    Here's an interesting piece on Trumps early days at a military academy.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decades-later-disagreement-over-young-trumps-military-academy-post/2016/01/09/907a67b2-b3e0-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html?utm_term=.39ac3cc29818

    I know what you think about the Washington Post. But, how would you come across pieces like this if I didn't point them out to you? :)

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    If there is a flaw in the logic, I'de be happy to entertain it...

    Apart from absolutely no evidence apart from your desire not to have voted for an emotional imbecile?

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would that include military academy records?

    AND Service records...

    So let me get this straight. If somebody has served their country, the opposition gets to go over their records with a fine tooth comb looking for everything they can use against the vet, but if you don't serve your country you get a free ride?

    Are you sure you want this?

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe the East wing of the White House should forgo the First Lady's office in favour of the "First Shrink"? (see Maureen Dowd's latest column)

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you sure you want this?

    I don't think that is what Michale was suggesting. He was just adding military service records, should they exist, into the fray of what should be looked into when it comes to choosing people for high public office.

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Apart from absolutely no evidence apart from your desire not to have voted for an emotional imbecile?

    No evidence??

    Trump demolished the GOP field...

    Trumps decimated the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    No evidence my left arse cheek.. :D

  136. [136] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't think that is what Michale was suggesting.

    I thought we were talking about mandated documents required for statewide office in California?

    I suggested Tax Returns and it snowballed from there.

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't think that is what Michale was suggesting. He was just adding military service records, should they exist, into the fray of what should be looked into when it comes to choosing people for high public office.

    When it comes to picking our POTUS, there is no such thing as TOO much information...

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    No evidence??

    Yes, no evidence. The evidence is as strong that outrageous hair resulted in his win as his childish behavior.

    You need to establish a direct link between deliberate childishness and voter decisions. So far you have provided no evidence beyond "he did x and won, so x must have been the reason".

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    I can put anything in for 'x' - small hands. Orange demeanor. Bigotry.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    but if you don't serve your country you get a free ride?

    I don't think Michale was suggesting that.

    Blame it on the comment format ... but, I still think this is the best comment format ever, except, of course, for the missing edit function. :)

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    http://observer.com/2017/02/chelsea-clinton-congressional-run-democratic-party/

    And ya'all think *I* am brutal to the Clintons?? :D

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    You need to establish a direct link between deliberate childishness and voter decisions. So far you have provided no evidence beyond "he did x and won, so x must have been the reason".

    Once, maybe..

    Twice is a pattern...

    I am not saying it's the SOLE reason..

    But it is undeniable that ya'all underestimated President Trump at EVERY juncture.. AND you cited this exact kind of issue when you did...

    I am simply pointing out that the man ya'all describe simply CANNOT be as successful as President Trump has been..

    And YOU have no facts to support any other conclusion...

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And ya'all think *I* am brutal to the Clintons?? :D

    There you go again, confusing yourself with me!

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    And apparently, President Trump is doing something right..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    His approval numbers have jumped 6 points since he issued his Counter-Terrorist Executive Order...

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    There you go again, confusing yourself with me!

    Touche' :D When it comes to being brutally honest about the Clintons, you definitely give me a good run for the money.. :D

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't think Michale was suggesting that.

    What I am saying is that, if one chooses to run for POTUS, ANY expectation of privacy is rendered void...

    ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in a candidate's life should be open to disclosure and scrutiny...

    If you want things to remain private, then don't run for POTUS...

    That's my personal belief...

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, did you take a quick look yet at that WP article on the early days of Trump at a military academy?

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Would you agree that putting Iraq on the list of countries included in the temporary travel restrictions outlined in President Trump's executive order was a colossal mistake that could have very serious and negative consequences for America's national security?

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Would you agree that putting Iraq on the list of countries included in the temporary travel restrictions outlined in President Trump's executive order was a colossal mistake that could have very serious and negative consequences for America's national security?

    First off, it was President Obama's list, not President Trump's...

    And, considering how close ISIS and Iraq are, no.. I don't think President Obama putting Iraq on the list was a mistake....

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, did you take a quick look yet at that WP article on the early days of Trump at a military academy?

    I did not. I don't have the time at the moment to look at it with any serious consideration..

    And I know you well enough to know that you WANT me to give it serious consideration. :D

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you want things to remain private, then don't run for POTUS...

    That's my personal belief...

    Tax returns?

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, considering how close ISIS and Iraq are, no.. I don't think President Obama putting Iraq on the list was a mistake....

    The Iraqi military is currently engaged in a mission to oust ISIS from its territory and is working with the US military and US advisors to accomplish this task.

    How does it make sense to say to these Iraqi fighters and their families that they cannot even visit the US? What message does that send to Iraq and its citizens?

    I think you need to seriously contemplate your answer before tapping out a response.

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    If you want things to remain private, then don't run for POTUS...

    That's my personal belief...

    Tax returns?

    AND health records...

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tax returns?

    Michale would agree with that. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. I'm being serious here, I'm not trying to be facetious.

    ... if he knows what's good for him, that is. :)

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    The Iraqi military is currently engaged in a mission to oust ISIS from its territory and is working with the US military and US advisors to accomplish this task.

    Exactly..

    And, since ISIS has NOT been ousted from Iraq's territory, then it's logical that President Obama would want to limit immigration from Iraq...

    How does it make sense to say to these Iraqi fighters and their families that they cannot even visit the US? What message does that send to Iraq and its citizens?

    It sends a message, "Once you get your house clean, then we'll talk..."

    Put another way... If you have a family where one is really really sick, wouldn't you want them to get that person well BEFORE they visit you and your family??

    I think you need to seriously contemplate your answer before tapping out a response.

    Oh I did. :D

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale would agree with that. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. I'm being serious here, I'm not trying to be facetious.

    ... if he knows what's good for him, that is. :)

    Yes, all things being equal, I would agree with that..

    But, during the campaign, all things WEREN'T equal.. The Left as clamoring for President Trump's tax records but WEREN'T clamoring for Hillary's health records...

    During the 2012 election, the Left was clamoring for Romney's tax records, but WEREN'T clamoring for Obama's School Records...

    I am for COMPLETE disclosure from candidates...

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    106, 108

    I wasn't sure why you were talking about the why of group protection behavior in the context of my comment... but then I responded to your comment rather than remaining focused on the context myself.

    But going back, WHY it happens is sort of a distraction from the point THAT it happens.

    There's an awful lot of denial about it.

    And going back further to white supremacists in law enforcement, we wouldn't even know the FBI see it as a problem if the secret report hadn't been leaked.

    You would think the people of a diverse nation would be entitled to know about something with such widespread implications.

    Listen mentioned needed scrutiny of the FBI itself, and the fact that the report was kept secret seems to support that.

    "The first instinct for groups is to announce that they will police themselves"

    And they keep claiming it's sufficient despite the decades of evidence that it isn't.
    In other words, we are well beyond "first instincts".
    Your reference to third party review in the UK, which happens to be a reform supported by BLM, is actively opposed by law enforcement groups.

    Go figure.
    Head in the sand until an anonymous pollster comes around.

    And, again, going back to the white supremacists in law enforcement problem, they aren't even promising to police themselves.

    A

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    But, during the campaign, all things WEREN'T equal.. The Left as clamoring for President Trump's tax records but WEREN'T clamoring for Hillary's health records...

    And, conversely, the Right was clamoring for Hillary's medical records, but WEREN'T clamoring for President Trump's tax records..

    And so it goes and so it goes..

    That's why I think that it should be universal across the board disclosure, regardless of candidate..

    Disclose EVERYTHING....

    Yes, and I realize how unwieldy that could be...

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Falcons win the coin toss ... a very good omen, indeed! :)

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:
  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Falcons off to a good defensive start!

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    Falcons delivering a maestro performance - ahead at intermission!

  164. [164] 
    neilm wrote:

    84 Lumber blows it out of the park - Wow!

    They are betting on 45's hatred losing big time.

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:
  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is that something you expect me to click on?

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's going to be an exciting last minute!!!

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh. My. Good. God!!!

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's going to be a very, very long four years.

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, um, that's because it didn't happen, Kellyanne.

    Now, just for the record, this is a very appropriate and entirely correct use of the, ah, word 'um'.

    :-)

  171. [171] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    How did he feel about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation?? I mean, if the mere appearance of impropriety pisses him off (which I whole-heartedly agree with) I would imagine he was not a huge Hillary fan.

    I am not asking to be a prick, I am sincerely curious..

    I was more than happy to ask him this. His response was: "What impropriety?" The Clinton Foundation has one of the best rankings amongst non-profit charities. Have there been investigations that found any evidence that suggests illegal activities occurred? No. Devon believes the FBI would have charged her with any criminal action that warranted a charge if it existed. Clinton did not benefit from gifts given to the foundation in any way.

    "If this guy (you) is former law enforcement, just ask him to provide the statutes that were violated by Clinton and the evidence to back the charges up. If we have no faith in investigations conducted by law enforcement, then our country is doomed."

  172. [172] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone,

    Here is my issue with the DOJ's findings on Ferguson... It was not that their findings were incorrect regarding the city's actions, it was that the report failed to put the city's dynamics into context with it's conclusions.

    Ferguson's population is roughly 75% black and 25% white. The white population is mainly those over 50 years of age. When the stats are presented for traffic stops that resulted in arrests for each race, it appears that only black drivers ever get arrested... And that may very well be the truth; But WHY that is is never addressed! It doesn't note that the majority of arrests stemmed from drivers having outstanding warrants that require the officer to arrest the person. It never takes into consideration that the only reason that all six people arrested for resisting arrest were black was because the only six people to physically resist arrest just happened to be black! Had a Latino or Asian person chosen to physically resist arrest, the police would have gladly included them in their stats!

    The decision to arrest is not based on RACE, it is based on the law!

    Ferguson was trashed in the report for the city's local ordinances and fines that the city had used as a big part of their operating budgets. The city had created a legal web that citizens would get trapped in that caused financial damages that were outrageous. The report failed to point out that these ordinances and fines could have been removed from the books by the city council at any point in the city's history. This didn't just occur overnight, it had been on-going for years!

    Why wasn't something done to stop these horrible things???

    Because NO ONE cared enough to do so!

    The black community in Ferguson were "victims" that didn't seem to mind being victims. They had no black city council members because no one wanted to do the job. They held a majority in the population, but had almost no involvement in the city government. Ferguson PD had no black officers I believe, but I seriously doubt that was due to them turning away black applicants!

    Racism in any form is a horrible thing that we should all strive to put down. There were lots of things in Ferguson that sounded awful in the DOJ's report, but almost all of those were within the citizens ability to change for themselves. I believe a lot of good came out of the DOJ's report, overall.

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    I was more than happy to ask him this. His response was: "What impropriety?"

    You must have asked him the wrong question..

    I wanted to know his opinion on the APPEARANCE of impropriety.. :D

    Because there was PLENTY of that..

    Regardless, I think I have my answer.. :D

    The decision to arrest is not based on RACE, it is based on the law!

    EXACTLY!!

    And THAT is the point that is ignored over and over and over..

    Black people wouldn't be arrested if they didn't break the law...

    There were lots of things in Ferguson that sounded awful in the DOJ's report, but almost all of those were within the citizens ability to change for themselves.

    Once again, dead on ballz accurate...

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    PATRIOTS PULL IT OUT!!! :D

    It was obviously Brady's support of President Trump that made all the difference!! :D heh

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    They are betting on 45's hatred losing big time.

    And, once again, anti-President Trump and anti-America hatred loses.... Big Time!!! :D

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    Mr. Schumer isn’t alone in feeling pressure from the left. His party is deeply divided between pragmatic politicians and an activist base that styles itself “the resistance.” The minority leader may feel his survival depends on adopting the activist approach. But outside the heavily blue coasts, it could consign Democrats to permanent minority status, continuing a trend that has cost the party the White House, both houses of Congress, 13 governorships and nearly 1,000 state legislative seats in the past eight years.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sharp-left-turn-aheadbeware-1486335796

    Yep, yep, yep..

    This is the EXACT problem facing the Democrat Party...

    On the one side, they have the Hysterical Left, the Professional Left who wants it's Democrats in government to be as mean, nasty and obstructionist as the Left has accused the Right of being..

    On the other side, they have the pragmatists, the ones who know that compromise is what makes government work...

    I have a feeling it's going to be the Hysterical Left that is going to win this civil war and the result will be a Democrat Part that will be the Minority Party for the rest of my life..

    I have to say that such a thought brings a smile to my face.. :D

    Of course, I had a smile on my face when I voted for President Obama as well. So, things COULD change..

    But, for now? I am one happy camper!! :D

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    Mr. Schumer isn’t alone in feeling pressure from the left. His party is deeply divided between pragmatic politicians and an activist base that styles itself “the resistance.” The minority leader may feel his survival depends on adopting the activist approach. But outside the heavily blue coasts, it could consign Democrats to permanent minority status, continuing a trend that has cost the party the White House, both houses of Congress, 13 governorships and nearly 1,000 state legislative seats in the past eight years.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sharp-left-turn-aheadbeware-1486335796

    Yep, yep, yep..

    This is the EXACT problem facing the Democrat Party...

    On the one side, they have the Hysterical Left, the Professional Left who wants it's Democrats in government to be as mean, nasty and obstructionist as the Left has accused the Right of being..

    On the other side, they have the pragmatists, the ones who know that compromise is what makes government work...

    I have a feeling it's going to be the Hysterical Left that is going to win this civil war and the result will be a Democrat Part that will be the Minority Party for the rest of my life..

    I have to say that such a thought brings a smile to my face.. :D

    Of course, I had a smile on my face when I voted for President Obama as well. So, things COULD change..

    But, for now? I am one happy camper!! :D

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh. My. Good. God!!!

    It's going to be a very, very long four years.

    Look at the bright side, Liz...

    At least the Atlanta Falcons won the popular vote... :D

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    http://distractify.com/trending/2016/10/07/police-response-terrified-black-teenager

    THIS is your normal average every day cop... 99% of the cops are like this...

    But all the majority of the Left (and many MANY on the Right) sees is a racist killer...

    I would wager to say that the vast majority of the people (on both the Right AND the Left) who hate cops do so because they did something stoopid that was totally and completely their fault and the cops arrested them for it..

  180. [180] 
    michale wrote:

    Wave of illiberalism present in liberal quarters today

    Illiberalism’s dictionary definition, incidentally, is to be biased, hide-bound, intolerant. I’ve, of course, thought of the possibility that my subjective take on this may itself be unknowingly illiberal.

    The first example of illiberalism, as I see it, occurred before the election when many Democrats refused to look at Hillary Clinton’s ethics issues critically, and dismissed many voters’ genuine concerns about them as overblown and right-wing-driven.

    There was more illiberalism right before the election — many seasoned mainstream media elites were infected by echo-chamberitis — they were talking to themselves, underestimated the anger in the country, couldn’t or wouldn’t see Trump supporters as multi-dimensional individuals, and believed that Clinton would waltz to a huge victory.

    The problem with echo chambers is the people in it seldom know they are in it, therefore it’s hard to come out of it.

    Unfortunately, there is a kind of groupthink, thought-and-language-policing and social-media-shaming culture that exists in liberal circles now. It can be argued that there is plenty wrong in conservative circles too, but my topic today is about progressive pathology.

    Some of this has been chronicled in “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech” by Kirsten Powers, a Democratic pundit. The left’s tactics, she says, use intimidation and there is an authoritarian impulse at work to browbeat people through social media into groupthink.

    The illiberalism continued after the election. Obviously, liberals were devastated at the humiliating loss of their candidate. But the way they dealt with the loss wasn’t pretty.

    They became easy to mock and parody by schadenfreude-filled conservatives. In short, there was some hysteria, some tantrums, in media, college campuses, and the entertainment world, and some bad behavior on public display.

    Still, the refusal to come to terms with an election loss, and relying on irrational explanations for the loss was unbecoming and illiberal. For example, I’m tired of the Democratic talking point that Clinton was the effective winner because she won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes.

    Whatever one thinks of the Electoral College, it was the law which decides the winner, something the Clinton Campaign itself acknowledged when it boasted of their “many paths to 270 electoral college votes” prior to the election.
    http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/04/wave-illiberalism-present-liberal-quarters-today/97407608/

    I am trying to stay away from posting entire articles, but it was hard with this one because everything it says is so dead on ballz accurate..

    I highly recommend it and would be VERY curious if anyone here can dispute any part of it..

    A serious discussion on this articles points is what is needed to bring the Democrat Party in from the cold..

    But, sadly for the Left (and many Weigantians here) it requires a good long cold hard objective look in the mirror...

    And there are very VERY few on the Left willing to go there...

  181. [181] 
    michale wrote:

    I can accept a view that women have a right to have an abortion, but I don't want government to pay for them. I understand that Democrats feel the need to atone for their party's defense of slavery before the Civil War, opposition to reconstruction immediately after the Civil War and support of Southern racial segregation until the 1960s, but I don't want my grandchildren's money spent trying to make this right. I welcome any immigrant who can contribute, pay taxes and obey our laws, but I don't want to pay to support those who can't.

    It seems that the outcome of the last election is understood only by people like me. Frankly, I don't like Donald Trump either. He is arrogant, careless with what he says, overly competitive and insensitive.

    I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren's money.

    So, go ahead — rage, riot, demonstrate, burn, dress up, march, protest, pout, sing, make speeches, resist, vandalize and denounce me as much as you want. I am deplorable, and I am happier with my vote every day.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-voter-happy-deplorable-perspec-0206-md-20170203-story.html

    The Internet is alive with so many dead on ballz accurate commentaries today!! :D

  182. [182] 
    Kick wrote:

    [85] michale wrote:

    There is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that Hillary lost because she was a woman..

    Oh, I totally agree. Did you happen to get the gist of what I wrote there and just chose to ignore it in your reply?

    You stated, quote: the mere fact that we elected a black American as President proves that INSTITUTIONALIZED racism is dead in America..

    If you'll read what I actually wrote, I was simply stating that PO's election is no more proof that institutionalized racism is dead in America than HRC's loss is proof that institutionalized gender bias is alive and well. Neither PO's win nor HRC's loss proves anything of the sort regarding institutionalized bias.

    There is overwhelming factual evidence to support the claim that a woman could easily be President..

    Again, I totally agree. The 2016 election vote totals alone support this fact.

    FACTS
    48.2% of Americans voted for Clinton.
    46.1% of Americans voted for Trump.
    53.9% of Americans did NOT vote for Trump.

    Americans didn't want THAT woman to be President...

    Based on the votes of Americans, there is a better argument that Americans didn't want "THAT man."

    While I believe it's an overreach to conclude that "Americans didn't want THAT woman," because HRC lost the Electoral College system, I do believe that she totally blew the election. I myself am not one of those people hung up on "why," but notwithstanding all the various assorted talking points regarding "why," I think it's delusional to blame anyone not named Clinton or associated with the Clinton campaign for her loss. Enough said.

    Under our Electoral College system, Donald Trump becomes the 45th President of the United States regardless of the fact that the majority did NOT vote for President Trump... PT. This was quite obvious on election day and just "is what it is."

    I will also say I have never seen such a sore winner in my entire life! *LOL* "My crowd was the biglyest!" *LOL* Poor Donald... his crowd could best be described as "anemic." :) Some of us there actually voted for HRC.

    Moving forward, you can save the whiny response from the fringe of the right-wing bubble that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for ALL those 3-5 million "illegals" who ALL voted for HRC or if you exclude an entire large state or two. *LOL* Based on this BS, one could equally argue that Trump's electoral vote victory came entirely from Texas, and if you just take out Texas... blah, blah, blah... utter nonsense to argue either way regarding removing California or New York or Texas, and there's no evidence whatsoever of 3-5 million "illegals" who ALL voted for Hillary. Texas is full of "illegals," and Trump won Texas so... Also utter nonsense to say that Trump would have campaigned differently and won the popular vote if not for our Electoral College system since HRC would have obviously also campaigned differently under that same scenario. :) Based on right-wing bubble rhetoric, I imagine HRC would have still won the popular vote in a nationwide popular vote election since ALL the illegals voted for her, and without the constraints of the EC system, HRC would have campaigned in Texas and pockets of America full of "illegals," and that would have naturally given her the edge since... as Trump concedes, ALL the "illegals" voted for HRC and would have no doubt given her the win in a nationwide election by popular vote... and my apologies to those who don't get sarcasm. :)

    Moving forward, Trump won with a minority of voters, and his crowds as well as the crowds in DC and nationwide on the day after his inauguration were indicative of this fact, but he needs to get over it already!

    You're the POTUS now, PT, act like it... please instead of a 5-year-old. :D

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren's money.

    You mean the people who generate the wealth that the lay about red state whiners spend?

    Those people - who create the jobs, the new industries that keep America in a forefront economically? Those people, who are educated and empathic?

    Why doesn't this clown go back to Russia with all his fiends?

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    No matter how ya'all wanna spin it, the Democrat Party is in deep doo doo...

    The rioting, the assaults, the hate, the destruction, the looting... ALL at the hands of Democrats...

    They are VERY counter-productive to the Left Wingery making inroads with patriotic Americans.

    Ignoring that it's happening and the Left's inability to take responsibility for the actions is making things very much harder for the Democrats..

    I know, I know... Ya'all claim that it's just a few malcontents, that's it's not reflective of the Democrat Party..

    BUT...

    But here's the thing and there is just NO DENYING it..

    Unless the Democrat Party *FORCEFULLY* and *UNEQUIVOCALLY* condemns the actions of these alleged few malcontents....

    Well, then the Democrat Party OWNS those malcontents and their actions...

    It's THAT simple....

    Ya'all know that I am correct in this... You just refuse to acknowledge it...

  185. [185] 
    Kick wrote:

    [88] michale wrote:

    And I believe that someone who wears a vagina on their head is not objective, logical and rational enough to answer the question.. :D

    Troll, troll, troll your boat gently down the stream... *LOL*

    I can honestly say I've never worn a vagina on my head, and I would take care with comments such as this since people might naturally see through the projection of your fantasy onto my reality. ¯\_(?)_/¯

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, troll, troll your boat gently down the stream... *LOL*

    And someone who responds to a rational and logical assessment with childish and immature name-calling is part of the problem, not part of the solution..

    I can honestly say I've never worn a vagina on my head, and I would take care with comments such as this since people might naturally see through the projection of your fantasy onto my reality.

    Even if that were true, you still remain silent and defend those who do...

    In short, same difference. :D

    ANYONE who wears a vagina on their head is a few fries short of a Happy Meal and, as such, is not worth listening to BECAUSE they are a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    ANYONE who wears a vagina on their head is a few fries short of a Happy Meal and, as such, is not worth listening to BECAUSE they are a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

    But, unlike most everyone here, I am HAPPY to be proven wrong..

    Simply point to a person or a time where wearing a vagina on one's head actually created or elicited something positive in society..

    I await with eager anticipation.. :D

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    [186] michale wrote:

    And someone who responds to a rational and logical assessment with childish and immature name-calling is part of the problem, not part of the solution..

    I agree such a person is not "part of the solution," but nevertheless the minority of Americans has elected a POTUS who resembles that remark and whom we should all be wishing well because he's now literally got our lives and our futures in his tiny little hands.

    You think your "vagina" comment is rational and logical? I think that type of comment is indicative of trolling. My response wasn't meant to be name calling but rather to elucidate my impression of the tone of your comment and should be sung to the tune of "Row Row Row Your Boat."

    Even if that were true, you still remain silent and defend those who do...

    In short, same difference. :D

    In short, utter BS and your same old tired lame argument. You have basically two arguments that are generally surrounded by a lot of noise, and we've all seen them both and... yawn... stretch... yawn. This ain't rocket science. I will defend anyone's right to peacefully protest whether they are wearing white bed sheets on their heads or those new pink hats. When it gets violent, regardless of what the perp is wearing on their head, it ought to be condemned by us all. This is not that complicated a concept. :)

    ANYONE who wears a vagina on their head is a few fries short of a Happy Meal and, as such, is not worth listening to BECAUSE they are a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

    Your name calling skills are weak so I would work on that if you aspire to be "presidential." I have a ready-made slogan for your gimme cap too:

    ***** MAKE AMERICA EIGHT AGAIN *****

  189. [189] 
    michale wrote:

    I agree such a person is not "part of the solution," but nevertheless the minority of Americans has elected a POTUS

    One hundred percent of patriotic Americans elected Donald Trump to that position..

    I know that hurts, but the facts are the facts..

    who resembles that remark and whom we should all be wishing well because he's now literally got our lives and our futures in his tiny little hands.

    And the size of his hands matter... how exactly??

    You see how illiberal you have become??

    You are EXACTLY as you accuse Republicans of being...

    We have met the enemy and it is you....

    You think your "vagina" comment is rational and logical?

    Not only is it rational and logical, it is factual.. Or did you miss all the vagina hats??

    My response wasn't meant to be name calling but rather to elucidate my impression of the tone of your comment

    YOUR impression of my comment..

    But it's the impression of a person who has been WRONG at EVERY point in this campaign..

    Never forget that... :D

    When it gets violent, regardless of what the perp is wearing on their head, it ought to be condemned by us all.

    Yea?? Point to me where you EVER condemned the violence from the Left Wingery..

    You can't because NO ONE here ever has...

  190. [190] 
    michale wrote:

    When it gets violent, regardless of what the perp is wearing on their head, it ought to be condemned by us all.

    But, credit where credit is due..

    Yes, you are dead on ballz accurate...

    It *OUGHT* to be condemned by ya'all...

    The point is, when it comes to violence and destruction from the LEFT.... *IT NEVER IS*

    THAT is the irrefutable and inarguable fact...

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    http://heatst.com/politics/tom-brady-super-bowl-media/

    :D

    Ya gotta wonder when the Left Wingery and it's lapdog media will quit embarrassing itself.. :D

  192. [192] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "One hundred percent of patriotic Americans elected Donald Trump to that position.."

    SO, the rest of US who did NOT vote for Trump are somehow NOT patriotic Americans???? What are we, living in the OLD Soviet Union now????

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    patriotic Americans

    Michale's definition of patriotic Americans are Americans who believe 45's lies.

    He has no idea what patriotism or being American is.

    In his America we'd still be subjects of the British Crown because dissent and free thinking are not allowed. He simply can't stand that thinking, educated people can see through the painted clown he worships so he has to pretend, along with the pathetic caesar-wannabee whose toes he desperately wants to kiss that anybody who thinks differently isn't really American.

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale's definition of patriotic Americans are Americans who believe 45's lies.

    No.. My definition of patriotic Americans is someone that DOESN'T vote for the candidate who wants open borders and wants a world order run by globalist corporations where America is simply one of the cogs in a huge wheel, no better than any other cog...

    I know it's a harsh thing to say, but the facts are the facts..

    Hillary Clinton was the candidate of the globalist corporatist status quo.. Hillary Clinton was the candidate who explicitly STATED she wanted open borders..

    How can voting for THAT be considered patriotic??

    In other words, voting for Hillary Clinton is NOT patriotic..

  195. [195] 
    Kick wrote:

    [189] michale wrote:

    One hundred percent of patriotic Americans elected Donald Trump to that position..

    This statement sounds like groupthink.

    I know that hurts, but the facts are the facts..

    Sorry, no, NOT hurting. See above for what I said about you projecting your fantasy onto my reality.
    ¯\_(?)_/¯ *LOL*

    And the size of his hands matter... how exactly??

    This is a good question, however, not likely to be answered sufficiently by me since I'm not a psychiatrist/psychologist. In layman's terms the answer is this: It shouldn't exactly matter and doesn't matter to me from the standpoint of pure size alone, but only a person with zero perception whatsoever would fail to notice that size matters to him, and therefore... from that standpoint ... I think it merits at least a wee bit of concern.

    A good deal of Trump's "charm" is dependent on how fervently an individual identifies with Trump's "group" and to what degree a person feels that Trump personifies him/her. If a person thinks they and their group are the "real Americans" and believe Trump symbolizes "real America" or "patriotic Americans"... despite all the evidence to the contrary staring them right in the face... they're likely to view Trump as a charismatic leader. Those that don't fall under that spell see the man for what he actually is: an obsessed con artist extraordinaire.

    Trump is a self-centered, self-absorbed blowhard who for whatever reason is obsessed with proving that he and/or his ilk measure up (that obsession with size) while those who don't share his beliefs and/or his worldview are somehow flawed... the dehumanization of the opponent whether it's the media, a judge, a politician, etc. Propaganda is a means to that end.

    Poor Donald, he is delusional. He thinks that because "many people are saying it" or "many people agree" that repetition of propaganda can somehow magically turn a load of utter BS into a fact. The irony is that the more he actually obsesses over and repeats the same BS, the more ridiculous he looks and sounds to the majority of Americans.

    So I ask you: What's your obsession? That's a rhetorical question that doesn't require an answer but one you might give some thoughtful consideration. The answer oozes freely through almost every comment you make. You are so very much like your orange idol. :)

    You see how illiberal you have become??

    No.

    You are EXACTLY as you accuse Republicans of being...

    Might you direct me to a link where I accuse Republicans of being ?_______? so I'll know EXACTLY what you're obsessing about? Perhaps you are again projecting your fantasy onto my reality?
    ¯\_(?)_/¯

    We have met the enemy and it is you....

    By "we" do you mean Republicans? Because you keep claiming you are not a slave to any party whilst the party rhetoric simultaneously positively oozes from almost every comment you post. Ironic, iddn't it?

    Yea?? Point to me where you EVER condemned the violence from the Left Wingery..

    You can't because NO ONE here ever has...

    Your repetitive cut-and-paste rhetoric grows tiresome and boring. Seriously... if you're looking for someone to spew your worldview or your brand of dehumanization and/or groupthink, the rhetoric from the right-wing fringes of Alex Jones and Breitbart are merely but a few clicks away. :)

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    You're the POTUS now, PT, act like it... please instead of a 5-year-old. :D

    Yea, act like all those other POTUSES who ran this country into the ground!! :^/

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    Your repetitive cut-and-paste rhetoric grows tiresome and boring. Seriously...

    Hay, I just go with what works... :)

    It's very easy to get me to stop..

    Either provide FACTS that disprove my conclusion or concede the point..

    But, as usual, you just want to IGNORE the facts because they don't sit with your ideology-driven existence..,.

    This statement sounds like groupthink.

    As a Left Winger, you would be the expert. :D

    Sorry, no, NOT hurting. See above for what I said about you projecting your fantasy onto my reality.

    I was just going by what you said when you said how you had to recover from President Trump's election...

    This is a good question, however, not likely to be answered sufficiently by me since I'm not a psychiatrist/psychologist.

    So, you need a shrink to explain why YOU think that the size of President Trump's hands matter to you??

    How typically Left Winger.. :^/

    You see how illiberal you have become??

    No.

    Of course you don't. It's so ingrained in who you are that you can't even recognize it, let alone acknowledge it..

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay, I just go with what works... :)

    It's very easy to get me to stop..

    Either provide FACTS that disprove my conclusion or concede the point..

    But, as usual, you just want to IGNORE the facts because they don't sit with your ideology-driven existence..,.

    I mean, seriously.... If I were wrong, it would be very VERY easy to prove me wrong..

    Simply provide to me a comment from you where you condemned violence from the Left Wingery in the same manner and intensity that you have condemned violence from the Right Wingery and without any prompting from me whatsoever...

    Let me give you an example:

    While we can't be sure if they even identify as Democrats, we have to condemn the violence at University of California, Berkeley this week. A rabid right-winger was scheduled to speak and a non-violent protest against the event was hijacked by a small group who set fires, lit off fireworks (at police, reportedly), and smashed windows.

    Violence definitely gets media attention at protests, but it also is just as counterproductive, since it rarely (if ever) convinces anyone of the righteousness of your cause -- no matter how noble that cause might be.
    -CW

    That's a low key example of what I am talking about. It's milquetoast and full of extenuations and mitigations... But at least it's condemnation.. Unprompted and unsolicited brought about SOLELY to condemn reprehensible and disgusting behavior, irregardless of which Party it is...

    If I *AM* wrong, you should be able to show me something like that from you or any of the Weigantian netizens....

    The fact that ya'all simply respond with complaints on how tedious and boring the issue is PROVES that ya'all CAN'T prove me wrong..

    As I said, it's very easy to get me to stop with this tediousness and boringness....

    Prove me wrong or concede the fact that ya'all are SOLELY driven by Party Ideology and Loyalty when it comes to being against violence...

  199. [199] 
    michale wrote:

    Prove me wrong or concede the fact that ya'all are SOLELY driven by Party Ideology and Loyalty when it comes to being against violence...

    Either way, you'll never hear from me again about the issue....

    But ignoring the message and attacking the messenger will simply make me MORE prolific on the issue..

    Because your inability to actually ADDRESS the issue *PROVES* I am dead on ballz accurate...

  200. [200] 
    Kick wrote:

    [194] michale wrote:

    No.. My definition of patriotic Americans is someone that DOESN'T vote for the candidate who wants open borders and wants a world order run by globalist corporations where America is simply one of the cogs in a huge wheel, no better than any other cog...

    So naturally you voted for the globalist with businesses in multiple and numerous foreign countries who wrote about the future of Europe as well as the United States depending on a cohesive global economy. This nugget was for the World Economic Forum (WEF) of global elites who annually meet in Davos:

    "What has been made clear by current events and financial upheavals since 2008 is that the global economy has become truly that -- global.

    The near meltdown we experienced a few years ago made it clear that our economic health depended on dependence on each other to do the right thing.

    We are now closer to having an economic community in the best sense of the term -- we work with each other for the benefit of all.

    I think we've all become aware of the fact that our cultures and economics are intertwined. It's a complex mosaic that cannot be approached with a simple formula for the correct pattern to emerge. In many ways, we are in unchartered waters.

    The good news, in one respect, is that what is done affects us all. There won't be any winners or losers as this is not a competition. It's a time for working together for the best of all involved. Never before has the phrase "we're all in this together" had more resonance or relevance.

    My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/

    {emphasis added}

    Oh, no. Michael has "met the enemy," and the "enemy" by his own definition is... in fact... a Trump voter! I guess it's not easy being the easy mark of a con artist extraordinaire. :D

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    So naturally you voted for the globalist with businesses in multiple and numerous foreign countries who wrote about the future of Europe as well as the United States depending on a cohesive global economy. This nugget was for the World Economic Forum (WEF) of global elites who annually meet in Davos:

    Old news... President Trump obviously evolved on that issue.

    Oh, that's right. You can't let people with '-R's after their name evolve... That's only reserved for those who toe your ideological line..

    Still can't address the FACT that you approve of violence and hatred and bigotry and intolerance when it comes from the Left, eh? :D

    Oh, no. Michael has "met the enemy," and the "enemy" by his own definition is... in fact... a Trump voter! I guess it's not easy being the easy mark of a con artist extraordinaire. :D

    And yet, this "con artist" defeated... DECIMATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    Like I said.. You have your reality... The rest of America has FACTS... :D

  202. [202] 
    Kick wrote:

    [197] michale wrote:

    It's very easy to get me to stop..

    Monkey, monkey... Tamper Monkey -- (sung to the tune of "Shock the Monkey")

    I was just going by what you said when you said how you had to recover from President Trump's election...

    Link, please. I will be interested to read where I said I had to "recover" from any election since it weren't nearly my first rodeo AND since over the years I've voted for candidates from different parties, including R's, D's, I's, and Greens. *LOL*

    So, you need a shrink to explain why YOU think that the size of President Trump's hands matter to you??

    So you have a reading comprehension problem? Let me 'splain it to you in terms you'll understand:

    "It's called disclosure, you......" My Cousin Vinny

    I disclosed I'm not a psychiatrist and why my answer to your question would be in layman's terms. I suspect a psychiatrist would diagnose Trump with a case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and expound on that theory from there.

    I mean, seriously.... If I were wrong, it would be very VERY easy to prove me wrong..

    Simply provide to me a comment from you where you condemned violence from the Left Wingery in the same manner and intensity that you have condemned violence from the Right Wingery and without any prompting from me whatsoever...

    Oh, this is a fun game. So I think you are a meat popsicle. If I am wrong, simply provide to me a comment from you where you stated, without any prompting from me whatsoever, that you aren't a meat popsicle... or better yet, provide me that link where I "condemned violence from the Right Wingery."

    The fact that ya'all simply respond with complaints on how tedious and boring the issue is PROVES that ya'all CAN'T prove me wrong..

    You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? I said your cut-and-paste rhetoric was tiresome, and then you conflated that with me saying the issue was tiresome.

    As I said, it's very easy to get me to stop with this tediousness and boringness....

    And as Peter Gabriel said: Monkey... Monkey... Monkey........ Shock the Monkey!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1ZoCJSo

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    Monkey, monkey... Tamper Monkey -- (sung to the tune of "Shock the Monkey")

    No, that won't get me to stop..

    That will just signal your capitulation and surrender which would be a de-facto acknowledgement that I *AM* dead on balls accurate..

    Not that I really need any because your inability to prove me wrong is acknowledgement enough.. :D

    Link, please. I will be interested to read where I said I had to "recover" from any election since it weren't nearly my first rodeo AND since over the years I've voted for candidates from different parties, including R's, D's, I's, and Greens. *LOL*

    It's funny you should ask.. Because I have looked and I cannot find your initial comment where you returned to Weigantia after your breakdown and subsequent recovery.. I

    Ya know, the comment where you said you want to buy a tank...

    It seems to have disappeared.... Very strange..

    Oh, this is a fun game. So I think you are a meat popsicle. If I am wrong, simply provide to me a comment from you where you stated, without any prompting from me whatsoever, that you aren't a meat popsicle... or better yet, provide me that link where I "condemned violence from the Right Wingery."

    If we were talking about me being a meat popsicle, then you would have logical argument..

    But, since we're talking about your claim that you condemn ALL violence regardless of Party involved, you DON'T have a logical argument; you have nothing but lame evasions....

    You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? I said your cut-and-paste rhetoric was tiresome, and then you conflated that with me saying the issue was tiresome.

    If the issue is tiresome, put it to rest.. PROVE that you have condemned Left Wingery violence as passionately as you condemn Right Wingery violence in the manner you condemn Right Wingery violence..

    If you are tired of the issue, then put it to rest.. DUH....

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    [203] michale wrote:

    It's funny you should ask.. Because I have looked and I cannot find your initial comment where you returned to Weigantia after your breakdown and subsequent recovery.. I

    Ya know, the comment where you said you want to buy a tank...

    It's a subterfuge... *looks right*... *looks left*... okay... you see... I edited that "breakdown" comment off this very same page. Keep that on the QT and the hush-hush, m'kay soldier? *LOL*

    It seems to have disappeared.... Very strange..

    Shhhhh... *looks left*... *looks right*... lay low partner... it's a conspiracy of epic proportions... on par with Jade Helm.

    Okay... See Comment [37] above where you comment:

    Glad ta see ya back, Kick.. :D

    and then I comment:

    To be honest, I haven't really been away... just been reading and not responding. My SO bet me that I couldn't NOT respond, and he lost that bet and now owes me the vehicle of my choice. I want an M1A2. It will come in handy when PT starts World War Tweet.

    I edited out that "breakdown" paragraph and replaced it with me winning a bet with my SO that I wouldn't comment on here because he thought I couldn't NOT do it. It was some time in November when he bet me that I couldn't read and not respond from that moment right then until February 2017. I gave him an extra few days just to rub his nose in it. So he lost the bet, and I get the vehicle of my choice. I think altohone is correct about the price of gas so I'm probably going to go with a vehicle in either the Hummer or Jeep family of vehicles... still deciding.

    Oh, wait! There's no edit function here. *PAC Man dies sound*

    Well, there goes my fake edit conspiracy theory... gone in a puff of smoke. Of course, the fact that there is no edit function also blows to hell your made up BS about my "breakdown and subsequent recovery." You really should stop projecting your fantasy onto my reality.

    If the issue is tiresome, put it to rest.. PROVE that you have condemned Left Wingery violence as passionately as you condemn Right Wingery violence in the manner you condemn Right Wingery violence..

    I am still waiting for the link where I actually passionately condemned Right Wingery violence and also still waiting for the meat popsicle link. I have already proven you are full of BS by proving you made up fake news about me... you couldn't find my comment [37] on this very same page, snowflake, which you assumed had very strangely disappeared. *LOL*

    As I have said before, I suspect you know you are full of BS and are paying CW by the pound of it.

    I have a busy day so... later. :D

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, there goes my fake edit conspiracy theory... gone in a puff of smoke. Of course, the fact that there is no edit function also blows to hell your made up BS about my "breakdown and subsequent recovery." You really should stop projecting your fantasy onto my reality.

    Yer right.. I was conflating your return with Paula's because ya'all act so much alike...

    So I was wrong. I apologize..

    At least I can admit it. :D

    I am still waiting for the link where I actually passionately condemned Right Wingery violence

    So, you are saying NOW that you have never condemned any violence from the Right Wingery???

    So, since you NOW claim you have never condemned any violence from the Right Wingery and it's obvious you have never condemned any violence from the Left Wingery..

    Where is the evidence that you are against violence???

    By your own admission, there is none... Ergo, you are apparently, full of shit :D

    I have a busy day so... later. :D

    Run away.... Run away..... :D

  206. [206] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Since Michale has invoked me not less than twice in regard to the SCOTUS pick, I think some clarification is in order. I do think Gorsuch is probably the most moderate judge that Trump could conger, that is, I can't imagine Trump nominating anyone more moderate.

    I believe I also said that the Dems would probably not go nuclear on Gorsuch and save their big guns for the next pick.

    I may have been mistaken. It appears that some Dems are finally sprouting vertebrae. In particular, the argument that the Republicans shouldn't be rewarded for their very bad behavior vis-a-vis the Garland nomination has begun to win me over.

    The logic is persuasive - if the Dems allow the GOP to get away with McConnell's Obdurance Rule, that will become the norm for the next century. That's unacceptable to those who believe in a strong America. Indeed, if the Dems don't make this point at this time with a moderate like Gorsuch, the point would be lost in the face of a Bork-like nomination, and the permanent dysfunction that it promises will make the Wiemar Republic look like a legislative dream state.

    The simplest means would be by placing a Senatorial "hold" on the nomination, which would require a cloture vote (2/3) to undo.

    McConnell could respond by invoking the nuclear option, blowing up our system of government in the meantime, or attempt a one-off rule change in order to push through this particular nomination. That too, would set precedent, but could limit the damage to "if I'm enough of a prick", which I guess wouldn't stop anyone from doing it in the future.

    The constitution grants the Senate both Consent and Advice. Suppose the parties were to negotiate the matter? I'd put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the negotiating squad for the Dems.

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    Since Michale has invoked me not less than twice in regard to the SCOTUS pick, I think some clarification is in order. I do think Gorsuch is probably the most moderate judge that Trump could conger, that is, I can't imagine Trump nominating anyone more moderate.

    I believe I also said that the Dems would probably not go nuclear on Gorsuch and save their big guns for the next pick.

    Which is exactly what I have been saying..

    I may have been mistaken. It appears that some Dems are finally sprouting vertebrae. In particular, the argument that the Republicans shouldn't be rewarded for their very bad behavior vis-a-vis the Garland nomination has begun to win me over.

    And, of course, the fact that you were in agreement with me had NOTHING to do with your change of heart, right? :D hehehehe

    The logic is persuasive - if the Dems allow the GOP to get away with McConnell's Obdurance Rule,

    AKA The Biden Rule

    The simplest means would be by placing a Senatorial "hold" on the nomination, which would require a cloture vote (2/3) to undo.

    That's a Senate Rule that can be easily changed by a simple majority...

    McConnell could respond by invoking the nuclear option, blowing up our system of government in the meantime, or attempt a one-off rule change in order to push through this particular nomination.

    Funny how you didn't consider it "blowing up our system of government" when Harry Reid did it..

    Your partisan hypocrisy is showing. :D

    The constitution grants the Senate both Consent and Advice.

    Which ALSO means that the Constitution grants the Senate NOT to Consent and Advise...

    I'd put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the negotiating squad for the Dems.

    Yea.. Cuz she did SO well with the Ben Carson nomination, eh? :D heh

  208. [208] 
    Kick wrote:

    [205] michale wrote:

    Yer right.. I was conflating your return with Paula's because ya'all act so much alike...

    So I was wrong. I apologize..

    At least I can admit it. :D

    You should apologize to Paula then for your behavior. I don't really mind you calling me names or insulting me. If I worried about every goober proselytizing at me from their moral high horse, glass house, or doublewide... *LOL*

    So, you are saying NOW that you have never condemned any violence from the Right Wingery???

    Oh, you twisted my words again... shocker! You asked me to condemn violence from the Left Wingery as passionately as I have condemned violence from the Right Wingery. I am simply saying that your MO and mine are different. You lump individuals into categories and demean their group. I don't generally blame an entire Party, any Party, for the actions of some... in the same way I don't blame a religion, any religion, for the actions of some. So there's really no need for me to passionately condemn either Republicans or Democrats or Independents or Greens as much as I condemn the other because I don't roll that way.

    So, since you NOW claim you have never condemned any violence from the Right Wingery and it's obvious you have never condemned any violence from the Left Wingery..

    Where is the evidence that you are against violence???

    Indeed. Where is the evidence YOU are against violence, soldier? Hanc Defendemus... This We'll Defend. Why would anyone who was employed as a trained fighting machine condemn the violence of others?

    Walk a mile in my shoes
    Just walk a mile in my shoes
    Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
    Walk a mile in my shoes

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, you twisted my words again... shocker! You asked me to condemn violence from the Left Wingery as passionately as I have condemned violence from the Right Wingery. I am simply saying that your MO and mine are different. You lump individuals into categories and demean their group. I don't generally blame an entire Party, any Party, for the actions of some...

    Now THERE is a load of horse-shit.. :D

    Indeed. Where is the evidence YOU are against violence, soldier?

    All my comments to date that condemn Party based violence.. :D

    As you have admitted, you HAVEN'T made any comments condemning Party based violence..

    Game.. Set... Match... :D

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    Walk a mile in my shoes
    Just walk a mile in my shoes
    Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
    Walk a mile in my shoes

    I'll be happy to when you walk a mile in President Trump's shoes... :D

    You don't seem to have any problem criticising, abusing or accusing others.. But ya don't like it when others do it to you...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    Walk a mile in my shoes
    Just walk a mile in my shoes
    Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
    Walk a mile in my shoes

    I'll be happy to when you walk a mile in President Trump's shoes... :D

    You don't seem to have any problem criticising, abusing or accusing others.. But ya don't like it when others do it to you...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  212. [212] 
    michale wrote:

    Indeed. Where is the evidence YOU are against violence, soldier?

    Thanks.. I haven't heard that in a while and it gave me a warm and fuzzy... :D

  213. [213] 
    Kick wrote:

    [209] michale wrote:

    Now THERE is a load of horse-shit.. :D

    So I take it you're in the bathroom buried in your own feces. Make sure you write your weight on the wall so you'll know when you're finished and log the results so you'll know how much to pay CW. :)

    As you have admitted, you HAVEN'T made any comments condemning Party based violence..

    No, horses ass, I have admitted I don't consider the actions of some as the actions of an entire Party so therefore find no reason to constantly play the Party blame game. Groupthink is your raison d'etre... not mine.

    Game.. Set... Match... :D

    Now, now, snowflake... put down the match or you'll blow yourself to smithereens... hoisted by your own peturd. :)

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    [211] michale wrote:

    I'll be happy to when you walk a mile in President Trump's shoes... :D

    Walk a mile in Poor Donald's special bone spur shoes... the coward who got 5 deferments from service and described dodging STDs as his personal Vietnam?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h822LPnM5uw

    Ummmmmm.... No, thanks.

    I will, however, endeavor to always speak about Trump with the same deference and respect that you've shown to HRC.

    You don't seem to have any problem criticising, abusing or accusing others.. But ya don't like it when others do it to you...

    Now, now, snowflake... put down that mirror. :)

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    No, horses ass, I have admitted I don't consider the actions of some as the actions of an entire Party so therefore find no reason to constantly play the Party blame game.

    And I say you are full of shit.. ALL of you always blame Republicans and the Right for the actions of individuals...

    I would prove it to you, but I know you always run away or back out or refuse to concede the facts, so I won't waste my time...

    Walk a mile in Poor Donald's special bone spur shoes... the coward who got 5 deferments from service and described dodging STDs as his personal Vietnam?

    You didn't mind Bubba's deferments and draft dodging.. THAT is only a bad thing with someone with a '-R' after his name...

    Once again, your hypocrisy shines thru...

    Now, now, snowflake... put down that mirror. :)

    Really?? Yer going to go with the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal??

    What are you?? 9?? 10???

  216. [216] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ALL of you always blame Republicans and the Right for the actions of individuals..

    Don't forget the aphorism: Democrats like groups, but tend to dislike individuals, Republicans like individuals, but dislike people in groups.

    It's not universal enough to be a truism, but true enough to be useful in situations like these where you are both making the same point, but seeing it from different perspectives.

    Violence is bad. Next...

    You didn't mind Bubba's deferments and draft dodging.. THAT is only a bad thing with someone with a '-R' after his name...

    Because Republicans seem to think that the military is a miracle cure for everything from immigration to dandruff.

    Clinton acted from a well-established position that the Vietnam War was bad. Trump, on the other hand, was probably acting in defense of his hairdo.

    Kerry went to war, and was trashed and lied about later by the GOP for it. You could cut that hypocrisy with a cake-knife.

    McConnell's Obdurance Rule, AKA The Biden Rule

    "You started it?" That's your defense? Now look who's in the schoolyard. Whatever Biden did once, McConnell has, as they say, turned it up to 11. For example just look at today's news.

  217. [217] 
    michale wrote:

    Violence is bad. Next...

    I'll remind you of this milquetoast lame non-condemnation of Left Wingery violence then next time yer hysterical about Right Winger violence.. :D

    Clinton acted from a well-established position that the Vietnam War was bad. Trump, on the other hand, was probably acting in defense of his hairdo.

    Clinton acted out of cowardice and a desire to screw anything in a skirt...

    Typical Democrat...

    "You started it?" That's your defense? Now look who's in the schoolyard. Whatever Biden did once, McConnell has, as they say, turned it up to 11. For example just look at today's news.

    Democrats made the rules.. And, like with Harry Reid, ya'all yell and scream and whine and cry when the Republicans use the rules the DEMOCRATS create to the Republicans own advantage..

    Like Senator Sessions being confirmed as AG :D

    Ya'all don't like it when the GOP steam rolls over Democrats??

    Quit changing the rules that all it to happen.. :D

  218. [218] 
    michale wrote:

    Anti-Milo organizer: Window-smashing Cal protest ‘stunningly successful’
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-Milo-organizer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php

    There is your "peaceful" and "tolerant" Left Wingery...

    Look at the monsters that the Democrat Party has created...

    First the Democrats created the KKK...

    Now they create THESE scumbags... :^/

  219. [219] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    This statement, posted at [181] by Michale caught my eye, especially:

    "It seems that the outcome of the last election is understood only by people like me. Frankly, I don't like Donald Trump either. He is arrogant, careless with what he says, overly competitive and insensitive.

    I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren's money."

    Really?

    Free Spenders - back to that in a moment...

    Organizers - you don't want anyone to be organized. 'Cause anarchy works out so much better for everyone.

    Race-baiters - no one should point out obvious racism, such as Jeff Sessions today appointing the guy who argued in the Supreme Court in favor of racial segregation to be a Deputy Attorney General. That happened. We shouldn't talk about it.

    Intellectuals - enjoy your fact-free existence.

    Tree-huggers - c'mon, even Exxon says Global Climate Change is a real thing. They just don't want us to blame oil. They want to blame trees.

    Professional values arbitrators - you mean, like Ted Cruz, any number of evangelist preachers, Betsy DeVos, or hell, Jeff Sessions, who can get sanctimonious about 'values' while he guts voter rights laws. Would you worship in a congregation led by Donald Trump? Then shut up, hypocrite.

    Finally, back to 'free spenders'. It's incontrovertible fact: under Bush, the deficit went up; under Obama the deficit went down. Those were the last two experiments we've run. We could compare the same numbers for the previous two presidents, and the results are - the same!

    The assertion that Democrats run up deficits is the biggest lie of them all. And there's proof.

    Did Trump filling his cabinet up with Goldman Sach's board of directors not put up any red flags for you? You talk a good anti-spending, anti-corporate game, but you don't seem to mean any of it, except the 'cut government services for the poor' part. Again, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.

    If this is an example of Trump-think among the faithful, then a significant part of this country are facing a serious Reality Crisis. Perhaps the problem is all the heroin out there in the boondocks, the pernicious news fakery on Fox, or just plain boneheaded stupidity. I don't know, but somehow I think our future depends on the answer.

  220. [220] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Look at the monsters that the Democrat Party has created...

    I forget whether it was Neil or Kick who pointed out that BAMN is neither a creation of, nor an actor working on behalf of, Democrats, or Berkeley students generally. The right may love this week-old stunt, but I've moved on.

  221. [221] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Clinton acted out of cowardice and a desire to screw anything in a skirt...

    And you still say that after backing Trump. Wow.

    Ya'all don't like it when the GOP steam rolls over Democrats?? Quit changing the rules that all it to happen.

    Yeah, see, Republicats claim to be 'originalists' and to faithfully abide by the Federalist documents, but that's all so much smoke and crap to cover raw power grabs by kleptocrats and corporate transnationals. So, if we do it, feel free to show your true colors by upping the ante..

  222. [222] 
    Kick wrote:

    [215] michale wrote:

    And I say you are full of shit.. ALL of you always blame Republicans and the Right for the actions of individuals...

    I would prove it to you, but I know you always run away or back out or refuse to concede the facts, so I won't waste my time...

    If my having a life off the Internet or not habitating 100% of the time in your neck of the web nor hanging on every word of your cut-and-paste drivel constitutes "running away," then truly I'm running a marathon.

    No one could prove that "ALL" of us "always blame Republicans and the Right for the actions of individuals," but there is overwhelming evidence that you will indeed waste your time. :)

    You didn't mind Bubba's deferments and draft dodging.. THAT is only a bad thing with someone with a '-R' after his name...

    You know precious little about what I mind, but I will say you're wrong about that. As you've stated on many occasions, your orange idol is not really a Republican so who gives a rat's tail what letter is actually after his anglicized Drumpf these days? I certainly couldn't care less since he was no less a jerk when he had a "-D" or an "-I" after his name... still just a con artiste extraordinaire looking for an angle and a way to exploit others in search of money/fame/power. A Drumpf by any other name... John Miller, John Barron... is still just a Drumpf. :)

    Once again, your hypocrisy shines thru...

    Once again, you speak of that which you know nothing.

    Really?? Yer going to go with the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal??

    No, I'm going with the "you spot it, you got it" rebuttal, which in technical terms is referred to as "projection."

    What are you?? 9?? 10???

    So... finally you accidentally stumble into a bit of truth... I am definitely a 10 -- sung to the tune of Bolero by Maurice Ravel. :D

  223. [223] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [218]

    There is your "peaceful" and "tolerant" Left Wingery...

    Look at the monsters that the Democrat Party has created...

    First the Democrats created the KKK...

    Now they create THESE scumbags... :^/

    Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.

    Balthasar [220]

    I forget whether it was Neil or Kick who pointed out that BAMN is neither a creation of, nor an actor working on behalf of, Democrats, or Berkeley students generally. The right may love this week-old stunt, but I've moved on.

    I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. :)

  224. [224] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthazar,

    Tree-huggers - c'mon, even Exxon says Global Climate Change is a real thing. They just don't want us to blame oil. They want to blame trees.

    Once again, you create a straw-man argument because you can't address the FACTS...

    NO ONE on this planet denies that the climate is changing..

    The climate on this planet has been changing for a billion years, long before humans were on the scene..

    The climate will CONTINUE to change long after humans have gone the way of the dodo...

    So, please.. Either address the REAL argument or just shut up about it..

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.

    Of course you don't know.. It's called willful ignorance..

    But the Democrat Party is the Party that created the KKK...

    This is fact..

    And, since anything in the past is applied to today (President Trump's Muslim Ban) then that means that, in the here and now, The Democrat Party is The KKK Party...

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    I forget whether it was Neil or Kick who pointed out that BAMN is neither a creation of, nor an actor working on behalf of, Democrats, or Berkeley students generally. The right may love this week-old stunt, but I've moved on.

    Of course you have moved on...

    Because it's downright embarrassing for you to preach tolerance and love and then have THIS group of Left Wingers show the world what the Left REALLY thinks of tolerance and love..

    Put another way, if this "unaffiliated" group was protesting Odumbo during the Odumbo administration, ya'all would be painting the ENTIRETY of the Right Wingery with this group's violence..

    Don't bother denying it because you know and I know it's factual..

    So, explain how this is not hypocritical??

    You can't because it is...

  227. [227] 
    michale wrote:

    So, please.. Either address the REAL argument or just shut up about it..

    If you DO decide to actually address the REAL argument, you can start with the NOAA whistleblower who proves how the NOAA fudges and LIES about readings and data to "prove" that global warming is real...

    You can then address the fact that the global warming fanatics have to "market" their so-called "science"...

    Clue: REAL science doesn't have to be marketed or focus-group'ed. REAL science stands on it's own merits..

  228. [228] 
    Kick wrote:

    [225] michale

    Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM5kT_p4-K8

    Of course you don't know.. It's called willful ignorance..

    Yes, I agree "it's called willful ignorance," and Michale has again been "Trumped!" This concludes your learning opportunity for today. :D

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, I agree "it's called willful ignorance," and Michale has again been "Trumped!" This concludes your learning opportunity for today. :D

    So, we are in complete agreement.. You are willfully ignorant..

    Just like you were when you claimed Hillary Clinton was going to be our next President..

    Glad we could find some common ground..

  230. [230] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Speaking of willful ignorance...

    If you DO decide to actually address the REAL argument,[about climate change] you can start with the NOAA whistleblower who proves how the NOAA fudges and LIES about readings and data to "prove" that global warming is real.

    Make that alleged whistleblowers (unnamed to date), and yes, as this letter from the ranking member of the Science, Space and Technology committee explains, that's all bullshit.

    Now, I can understand when a Congressman like Lamar Smith of Texas, soaking in oil money, makes nonsensical accusations about Climate Change - he's being paid well to basically accuse thousands of reputable scientists of falsifying data.

    But why do folks who know nothing about the subject follow this lead? Politics. Nothing else can explain it: they certainly aren't qualified to assess the data, as the scientists at NOAA are.

    Then when those scientists (who haven't got the giant money-pot the oil companies provide to climate deniers) attempt to disseminate the truth, they are accused of "marketing".

    This is just one of several unjustified attacks on science promulgated by the GOP in recent years, spurred by special interests, and eagerly consumed by folks like yourself, who couldn't tell a Climate Scientist from a cable installer, but know that the crap spewed by the right MUST be correct, just because Democrats believe the opposite.

    Just remember, the scientists are the ones with the master's degrees, years of scientific data, and a vigorous system of peer review. Their opposition has buckets of money from the oil industry, industry-paid 'scientists' whose work is buried if it disagrees with their master's pre-ordained conclusions, and mysterious 'whistleblowers' quoted about things they obviously know nothing about: one 'whistleblower' allegedly described the scientists changing data for an article at a meeting months after the article had been already submitted for publication.

    With all that hot air being thrown about, no wonder the planet's warming.

  231. [231] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [229]

    So, we are in complete agreement.. You are willfully ignorant..

    Can't you just admit you got "Trumped!" again? I once again purposely used Donald Trump's words verbatim, and you called me "ignorant"... shocker!

    Just like you were when you claimed Hillary Clinton was going to be our next President..

    Did Trump win the 2016 election 3 months ago? Well, why didn't you let us know? {sarcasm off}

    So I thought HRC would win the popular vote by around 2-3% and become POTUS -- one out of two. Not my first wrong prediction since I also predicted a Gore win based on polls. To this day, I have friends who give me ribbing about Bush beating Gore in a "landslide"... so not my first rodeo by a long shot. Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 elections so I have this new theory that a million of the diehard Democrats should just volunteer to relocate to the rust belt states... among many other theories. :D

    Glad we could find some common ground..

    You twisting a comment around to fit your narrative is extremely "common ground." Donald Trump's words being described as willfully ignorant is also fairly common. :)

  232. [232] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I have this new theory that a million of the diehard Democrats should just volunteer to relocate to the rust belt states... among many other theories.

    Eastern Wisconsin or suburban Philadelphia, in particular. Suburban Pittsburgh, if you prefer mid-sized cities (I do). Eau Claire would be my WI pick: nice small city, with a college, smack in the middle of Trump's reddest zone. (I was in a full sized jet once that landed at Eau Claire's tiny airport. Exciting!) Eau Claire is also very close to Minneapolis, which has more to do than I can describe, and Madison, a few hours to the south, has a historically liberal community.

    As a matter of fact, it would help immensely if a Democrats, clustered as they are in and near cities, would just move out to the outer suburbs of whatever cities they live in. Ah hell, who wants to live in drug-infested rural areas anyway?

Comments for this article are closed.