ChrisWeigant.com

Immoral Equivalence

[ Posted Monday, February 6th, 2017 – 18:11 PST ]

President Donald Trump will doubtlessly continue to add more new phrases to the American political lexicon throughout his term in office. This weekend -- in an interview on Fox aired as part of the Super Bowl extravaganza, no less -- Trump made a downright astonishing statement, comparing America to Putin's Russia. This was not an example of moral equivalence, instead it has to be properly called making the case for immoral equivalence.

Bill O'Reilly asked Trump about Vladimir Putin, and Trump was in the midst of giving a stock answer about how it'd be great if America got along with Russia, when O'Reilly interrupted to protest: "But he's a killer. Putin's a killer." Trump's response was jaw-dropping: "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?"

Now, just imagine for one tiny second what Republicans would be saying right now if President Barack Obama had ever said anything remotely like that. Or President Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Conservative heads would currently be exploding, to put it mildly. The denunciations would be loud and feverish. "Obama hates America" would be just one of the indignant responses from outraged conservatives. So, one wonders, where is the outrage now?

This wasn't even an off-the-cuff gaffe. Trump has previously said almost exactly the same thing, in a Morning Joe interview, back in December of 2015. While praising Putin for running his country as "a leader" (unlike Obama, according to him), Trump continued: "I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so you know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, a lot of killing, a lot of stupidity."

This all runs counter to a bedrock belief among conservatives -- the idea of "American exceptionalism." According to this near-religious belief, America is the best country the world has ever been graced with, nothing America ever does is in any way wrong, and we are the greatest country in the world, by any measure. Period. Any facts to the contrary are nothing short of hatred for America, because America is so unquestionably exceptional.

To be sure, most of the American public believes this to some extent or another. Mostly this is ignorance -- simply not knowing that many other countries are, in fact, better in measurable ways that what we have here in America. This is why world travel is such an eye-opening experience for so many Americans, because they see for themselves the reality, unvarnished by the American exceptionalism veneer.

Those that have eyes to see (and the budget to afford foreign travel) can come to the realization that some things are actually better in other countries. But back at home, the very idea runs counter to the exceptionalism catechism. It is dismissed out of hand by the high priests of American exceptionalism. But what really enrages them is any suggestion that American motives and ideals might not have always been the highest and most moral on the entire planet. That is a direct attack on the exceptionalist's faith.

Remember the conservative apoplexy in response to Barack Obama quite correctly pointing out (in a speech in Cairo, Egypt) that America had overthrown a popularly-elected government in Iran and installed the Shah as our puppet? Obama was on solid historical ground, but that simply didn't matter. His speech (and others from the same time period) were derided as "an apology tour" -- which obviously ran counter to American exceptionalism on two fronts. First, America has never done anything wrong; and second, even if we had, we certainly would never apologize for anything.

So, once again, just imagine what the blowback would have sounded like if Obama had ever defended the leader of Russia by saying: "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" The reaction would have been swift, and merciless. Now? Not so much.

Vice President Mike Pence had the unenviable task of attempting to clean up after Trump. Pence made the rounds of most of the Sunday morning political chatfests (he snubbed CNN), and he tried to make the case for up being down and night being day. He's going to get a lot of practice at this over the next four years, one assumes. He rather unbelievably stated that he didn't see Trump's comments as any kind of moral equivalence, arguing in essence that it was just Trump being Trump.

Pence even had a very hard time answering a bedrock question on American exceptionalism: whether he considered the United States morally superior to Russia. Before Trump, this would have been answered by any conservative anywhere with some version of: "Of course America is morally superior to Russia." To American exceptionalists, it would be downright un-American to even contemplate any other response, in fact.

The most astonishing thing about the O'Reilly interview is that O'Reilly failed to ask any sort of followup question to Trump's statement. All O'Reilly would have had to do would have been to respond: "Wait... what did you just say?" But he dropped the ball and let it slide.

So we'll just have to wait until an actual journalist can ask Trump about his rather strange comment: "Mr. President, what do you mean when you say: 'There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?' What, exactly, are you equating in American history to Putin, for instance, killing journalists with poison when they are critical of him? What has any American president done that is on the same moral scale as that?"

Mike Pence can deny it as much as he likes, but Donald Trump clearly believes there is indeed an equivalence between America's history and what Putin is doing in Russia. He's used virtually the same answer twice, in response to similar questions on Putin. He is making the case for America's immoral equivalence with Putin's Russia, plain and simple. So somebody really needs to ask Trump -- not one of his spin doctors, but Trump himself -- exactly what he means. If Republicans weren't so terrified of Trump's base right now, they'd be the ones loudly calling for such clarification. Conservatism is supposedly built around the ideal of American exceptionalism, and in normal times if the president of the country -- on Super Bowl Sunday, no less -- had made such a statement, they'd be denouncing it (and him) to the skies as loudly as they could. Indeed, the fact that they aren't currently doing so is a kind of an immoral equivalent on its own. The rules for conservatives seem to have shifted, and now if a Republican president badmouths America, that's perfectly fine -- it's only when a Democrat does so that the outrage begins on the right. If not outright immoral equivalence, at the very least that is a rather stark double standard.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

124 Comments on “Immoral Equivalence”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I realized, after reading this over, that I should have given credit where credit is due for coining the phrase "immoral equivalence." I'm not 100% sure who said it, but I believe I heard it on ABC's Sunday morning chatfest show, from one of the liberal panel members. Just didn't want anyone to think I was taking credit for the term, even if I can't accurately remember who I heard it from.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The lack of Republican outrage could be a good sign. Maybe they actually examined the evidence and realized that any country that would elect Trump president can no longer be considered exceptional.
    If this is the beginning of a trend we might even be able to get them to take another look at climate change.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    The lack of Republican outrage could be a good sign. Maybe they actually examined the evidence and realized that any country that would elect Trump president can no longer be considered exceptional.
    If this is the beginning of a trend we might even be able to get them to take another look at climate change.

    Maybe, but sadly I think it just means that they love power more than America.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Donald Trump clearly believes there is indeed an equivalence between America's history and what Putin is doing in Russia.

    No, Trump and his staff view Putin's Russia as the goal to strive for America to become for it to truly be "GREAT!"

    Did Putin have to kill some folks to achieve this Utopia... Sure, but if that is the price that has to be paid, so be it. The wealthy corporations aren't hindered by the concerns of the people, by regulations that keep them from making as much profit as possible, or by journalists exposing their dirty little secrets... as long as Caesar gets what is due him, of course! They are free to make as much money as they possibly can as long as they support and pay tribute to the one making it all happen.

    Putin can exact revenge on anyone who dares question him. The opposition fears him, they don't openly mock him. The news media in Russia loves him! Putin is a mafia boss on steroids. All that POWER, all that RESPECT that he gets poured out on him...

    To accomplish what Putin has in Russia is the ultimate wet dream for a narcissist of Trump's magnitude! The thought of powerful business leaders -- that Trump knows he cannot compete with and who have never viewed Trump as an equal -- having to humbly thank Trump for making their successful businesses even more successful is his biggest fantasy!!! America has a long way to go before it will be for Trump what Russia is to Putin, but Trump is gonna do everything in his power to achieve that goal!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've had enough of Donald Trump. I don't care to hear or read or comment anymore about him. Period.

    Just for the record.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Donald Trump clearly believes there is indeed an equivalence between America's history and what Putin is doing in Russia.

    I think it's a stretch to say that that Orange One believes that (or anything else). Aside from his racism, his "beliefs" seem pretty shallow. It's more likely that he's been compromised by the Russians.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Benghazi!™

    When do the endless congressional investigations into this Yemen disaster begin? What about the Bowling Green Massacre?

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are the top three most concerning policies that President Trump has so far put in place or is seriously attempting to put in place?

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    When do the endless congressional investigations into this Yemen disaster begin? What about the Bowling Green Massacre?

    We'll have to wait for 2018 at the earliest to hold 45 to account unless he does so far off the rails that the courts kick in.

    This is a time to let Republicans keep digging holes for themselves - we need a new, young, charismatic leader to emerge. Somebody to point to the Republicans covered in dirt in their holes, and point to a new vision on the hill.

    Massive opportunity for the right person.

  10. [10] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [8],

    I'm concerned about the Orange Russian Puppet's policy of pointlessly antagonizing everybody but Putin.

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    We'll have to wait for 2018 at the earliest to hold 45 to account

    Disasters are cause by stupid leaders. Yemen can't be The Donald's fault. The investigation would inevitably lead to Hillary. Lock her up.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    Those are just examples of his many distractions. Which are meant to take our eyes off of the serious actions he is taking/contemplating on a number of fronts.

    Of course, the media is largely consumed by the distractions.

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Yes. I'm very concerned that his policy of distraction will be effective.

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    I think this has the potential to do major political damage. It probably won't, because Democrats won't pick up on it, because being a bunch of losers is so deeply ingrained in our party's metaphorical DNA. But the potential is there.

    The key is truth. We had policies toward Native Americans that were downright genocidal for a century or so. We were behind most of the world in abolishing slavery. We supported Pinochet and Peron. We committed plenty of atrocities in Viet Nam. We nuked two cities. At home, we have the world's highest incarceration rate.

    We've also shown great moral leadership at various times on various issues. But it's ridiculous to pretend that we're pure as the driven snow.

    And when a politician says something true that they're not supposed to, it's much more dangerous than a mere lie or error.

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    The key is truth.

    No, the key is FACTS...

    Truth is subjective.. For the vast majority of the Left Wingery, the TRUTH is that Hillary Clinton won the election...

    As to the rest, I honestly don't know what all the snit is about?

    The Left has been saying much MUCH worse things about America for my entire life..

    NOW the Left gets in a snit because someone with a '-R' after their name is saying the same things the Left has been saying for decades??

    WTF??

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    ' What, exactly, are you equating in American history to Putin, for instance, killing journalists with poison when they are critical of him?

    As opposed to say, trying to JAIL journalists that are critical of the messiah???

    You don't think there is any equivalency there??

    Mike Pence can deny it as much as he likes, but Donald Trump clearly believes there is indeed an equivalence between America's history and what Putin is doing in Russia.

    Oh puuulleeesseee...

    The Left Wingery has been making comparisons like that the entirety of my life..

    Hell, John M just made that EXACT comparison in the last commentary...

    Once again, the point here is that the Left is all apoplectic because President Trump is doing EXACTLY what the Left has been doing for decades...

    Personally, I find it very offensive and President Trump is a moron for saying such stuff... Intellectually, he is correct, but it's not something that should be expanded on...

    But, we know that President Trump is not saying it as an ideologue because, as ya have aptly proven, President Trump doesn't have any ideology...

    So, in this case, it's simply a case of President Trump being Trump..

    Much ado about nothing.. Mountain and molehill...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Aside from his racism, his "beliefs" seem pretty shallow.

    "Racism" that has absolutely NO SUPPORTING FACTS whatsoever..

    THIS is exactly why it's impossible to believe anything coming from the Left Wingery...

    They live in their own fantasy world where facts are meaningless and the ONLY thing that matters is their ideology and their Party loyalty...

    How can you have an intelligent rational and logical conversation and/or debate with someone like that??

    Answer: You can't... All you can do is roll your eyes and be amazed that they have actually mastered the art of breathing..

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    CONFUSION: Maxine Waters claims Putin ‘continuing to advance into Korea’
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/confusion-maxine-waters-claims-putin-continuing-advance-korea/

    You see, dsws???

    It's not about "truth"...

    For Maxine Waters, the "truth" is that Putin is advancing in Korea... :^/

    It's about FACTS...

    Something the Left Wingery seems to be in an astonishingly short supply of....

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    I've had enough of Donald Trump. I don't care to hear or read or comment anymore about him. Period.

    For at least an hour! :D heh

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, you know ...

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We had policies toward Native Americans that were downright genocidal for a century or so.

    Had?

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, you know ...

    I am glad you took that as the good-natured ribbing it was intended to be.. :D

    We had policies toward Native Americans that were downright genocidal for a century or so.

    Had?

    Yep, had...

    Just as there is no more institutionalized racism, there is also no more genocidal tendencies towards native Americans..

    These days, it's just plain old-fashioned greed and incompetence and being a professional victim at work...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Technical Assistance..

    Is there any way to order GOOGLE Search Results by date??

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Like most countries, the U.S. has some horrors in its past. Some countries, Germany in particular, accept and learn from them, most, Japan for example, ignore them and tell themselves they were right and/or the victims.

    But 45 didn't give any details about what he was talking about, and O'Reilly is such a lightweight he didn't drill into the money moment, so we'll probably never know if there was any particular incidents or if 45 was just being a smart Alec dick - I'd guess it was latter.

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    But 45 didn't give any details about what he was talking about, and O'Reilly is such a lightweight he didn't drill into the money moment, so we'll probably never know if there was any particular incidents or if 45 was just being a smart Alec dick - I'd guess it was latter.

    What kind of drilling would you have liked O'reilly to do??

    And why didn't you call for more drilling with Obama's anti-America statements and apology tour??

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mike Pence can deny it as much as he likes, but Donald Trump clearly believes there is indeed an equivalence between America's history and what Putin is doing in Russia.

    I think you are over estimating 45 here CW. I think Putin is 45's kryptonite and he turns into a deer-in-the-headlights ever time he is pressed on the subject, particularly on live TV and from a 'friendly' interviewer.

    This is going to be a dilemma for the regime - what happens if, at every one-on-one interview, Putin comes up again and again?

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    What kind of drilling would you have liked O'reilly to do??

    For a start:

    Q: What do you mean by "we are killers too"? Who and what are you talking about here?

    Q: Are there specific incidents of journalists or opposition leaders being killed in America you are referring to?

    Q: How long do you think American and Russia have been moral equivalents?

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Racism" that has absolutely NO SUPPORTING FACTS whatsoever..

    THIS is exactly why it's impossible to believe anything coming from the Left Wingery...

    "Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,"

    Paul Ryan, July, 2016

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    How can you have an intelligent rational and logical conversation and/or debate with someone like that??

    Don't let the door hit you ;)

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    This is going to be a dilemma for the regime - what happens if, at every one-on-one interview, Putin comes up again and again?

    It's only a dilemma for the Left Wingery because President Trump has no problems addressing it and patriotic Americans have no problem with how President Trump addresses it..

    Q: What do you mean by "we are killers too"? Who and what are you talking about here?

    Q: Are there specific incidents of journalists or opposition leaders being killed in America you are referring to?

    Q: How long do you think American and Russia have been moral equivalents?

    Fair questions, but likely not addressable in the time frame allotted...

    Now, why didn't you want that kind of drilling with Odumbo's bone headed statements and claims??

    "Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,"

    That's Paul Ryan's opinion and, given the source, not worth a pile of warm spit...

    I was talking about FACTS... Not lame partisan opinions...

    You got any???

    Mark Fuhrman proved it is EASY to prove racism if racism is present...

    The fact that ya'all have nothing but BARELY qualifying dog whistles and code words shows that there is no there, there...

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    NOW the Left gets in a snit because someone with a '-R' after their name is saying the same things the Left has been saying for decades??

    WTF??

    Poor baby, those nasty journalists taking your idol's words and repeating them verbatim again?

    The fun is watching the "patriotic Americans" who nit picked everything Obama said and turned it into a "Obama hates America" storyline completely ignore a huge mountain of anti-patriotic comments from 45 because they are desperate for the power he can give them.

    We now see that when the right say "patriotic Americans" they actually mean "only people who think like me, and they get a free ride".

    Hilarious.

    If 45 wasn't going to kill 44,000 real Americans every year it would be even more funny.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, Obamacare has gone from being a "complete and utter disaster" to something 45 will get round to fixing sometime in 2018.

    "Repeal and Replace" has become "Red face so Rename".

    Watching this moronic dog catch the car and smash its face is the best entertainment I've had for years.

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's Paul Ryan's opinion and, given the source, not worth a pile of warm spit...

    Bloody left winger Ryan didn't have any evidence except 45's verbatim comments:

    Dickerson: Let me ask you about, what does the Mexican heritage of the judge in the Trump University case have to do with anything?

    Trump: I think it has a lot to do with it.

    ...

    Dickerson: No, no, for him, how do his Mexican parents have to do with him not ruling for you?

    Trump: He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias.

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    Poor baby, those nasty journalists taking your idol's words and repeating them verbatim again?

    Once again, you ignore the argument because you have no counter and make up some lame counter BS straw-man that has absolutely nothing to to with my point..

    The fun is watching the "patriotic Americans" who nit picked everything Obama said and turned it into a "Obama hates America" storyline completely ignore a huge mountain of anti-patriotic comments from 45 because they are desperate for the power he can give them.

    No, what's fun to watch is how ya'all who swooned and swapped spit with the messiah over everything and then turn around and condemn President Trump for everything ya'all gave Odumbo a pass on..

    THAT's fun.. :D

    "Ya know what?? It IS funny!! It's a hoot."
    -Tony Stark, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

    :D

    If 45 wasn't going to kill 44,000 real Americans every year it would be even more funny.

    As opposed to the many thousands/tens of thousands that Odumbo killed??

    THAT is fact...

    Your 44K is nothing but wishful thinking...

    Watching this moronic dog catch the car and smash its face is the best entertainment I've had for years.

    And yet, President Trump's job approval numbers continue to climb... At this rate, he will have surpassed Odumbo's numbers within a month.. :D

    And the ESPECIALLY awesome thing is President Trump is EARNING his approval numbers... Odumbo got his approval rating solely because he is black...

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Paul Ryan is part of the Left Wingery?

    Can I get a yes or no, or will you Pence on me?

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump's job approval numbers continue to climb...

    When you are in the deepest hole that any President has been since the start of reliable polling on approval, and the real numbers show your are going down, the desperation of fanboys just gets funnier and funnier.

    Don't worry Michale, there is an absolute limit to his approval rating of 0% and at that point you have to be right, he will be going up.

    When do you think he will crack 50% - you know the point where most Americans don't think he is a disaster.

    (Cue comparisons to Obama.)

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your 44K is nothing but wishful thinking...

    No, it is based on numbers from the New England Journal of Medicine.

    (Time for you to blame Obama for something not the same.)

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    So Paul Ryan is part of the Left Wingery?

    Of course not..

    But his opinions on President Trump are very suspect and as worthless as those from the Left Wingery..

    Even if they were his CURRENT opinions, which they are not..

    It's funny how ya'll allow Odumbo and any Left Winger to "evolve" but don't extend that courtesy to Right Wingers...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    When do you think he will crack 50% - you know the point where most Americans don't think he is a disaster.

    He's already cracked 50%...

    But I know you can't acknowledge that fact..

    You can't acknowledge ANY facts that disturb your alternative reality...

    Yer like Christopher Reeve in that movie where he saw a penny and was whisked back to his own time because the reality of the penny totally disrupted his non-reality...

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    You can read the NEJM article for yourself:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099

    Net net: for every 455 people who gained medical coverage one life was saved per year. Thus removing coverage for 20 million (a low estimate) results in 43,956 additional American lives lost per year.

    50% more than all gun violence.

    Many hundreds or thousands more than all Americans killed by middle east terrorism on American soil.

    Maybe 45 as talking about himself when he said there were killers in the U.S.

    (C'mon Michale, it has been three comments and you still aren't blaming Obama for everything 45 is doing wrong - you'll lose your RWNJ membership card at this rate ;)

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Paul Ryan is part of the Left Wingery?

    Of course not..

    So it isn't just the Left Wingery who think 45 is a racist then.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    So it isn't just the Left Wingery who think 45 is a racist then.

    You know, it is the Independents who think 45 is a racist and also join the Democrats in their disapproval of 45 which is why he is in the 30's to low 40's in neutral polls.

    (Maybe Obama is an Independent now so you can blame it on him.)

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Net net: for every 455 people who gained medical coverage one life was saved per year. Thus removing coverage for 20 million (a low estimate) results in 43,956 additional American lives lost per year.

    And, like I said, you are hoping and praying that it happens..

    How many lives were lost when people were thrown off their medical plans that Odumbo PROMISED wouldn't happen??

    Until you address that, you have absolutely NO moral leg to stand on..

    Odumbo killed thousands/tens of thousands of innocent people and you don't say BOO about that..

    You hope and pray that tens of thousands of Americans MIGHT, POSSIBLY, MAYBE die when TrainWreckCare dies of natural causes..

    No.... Moral... Foundation.... Whatsoever...

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    You can't acknowledge ANY facts that disturb your alternative reality...

    Yer like Christopher Reeve in that movie

    You do understand that using fictional fantasy movies to make your point doesn't really help your "alternative reality" high ground argument?

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    How many lives were lost when people were thrown off their medical plans that Odumbo PROMISED wouldn't happen??

    I knew you couldn't resist from blaming Obama for long. It is your "tell" - when you realize you can't defend 45 you try to claim it is Obama's fault.

    Every time the Right Wingery bring up Obama, I see blood in the water and it is fun time.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, like I said, you are hoping and praying that it happens..

    And another lie - I constantly say that this would be funny if it wasn't for 45's policy to kill 44,000 Americans every year - that is what set you off a few comments ago, remember?

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    You do understand that using fictional fantasy movies to make your point doesn't really help your "alternative reality" high ground argument?

    It not only HELPS, it decimates your argument..

    What better way to show how you are living in a fantasy world by showing what a fantasy world looks like.. :D

    And another lie - I constantly say that this would be funny if it wasn't for 45's policy to kill 44,000 Americans every year - that is what set you off a few comments ago, remember?

    So, you WANT President Trump to be successful and save those 44,000 lives that MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY might die...

    Is THAT what you are saying now??

    :D

    I knew you couldn't resist from blaming Obama for long. It is your "tell" - when you realize you can't defend 45 you try to claim it is Obama's fault.

    So, Odumbo DOESN'T deserve any blame for his blatant lies??

    Color me shocked :D

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    45's attempt to let Financial Advisors cheat their clients again is going to fail. The new DOL rule would have accelerated the demise of the high-cost, conflicted advice (with undisclosed kickbacks to brokers on the side).

    But just by bringing the subject up and making it headlines, the trend to low cost funds continues.

    So 45's blatant protection of Wall St over regular Americans not only shows him in his true colors (we warned you he is a con man) but is pointless - like so much of his other racist driven policies, like the Wall and the Muslim Ban.

    (C'mon Michale, time for a fantasy "... but but Obama sticked it to the poor" story - maybe you can use another Sci-Fi story as evidence.)

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    So, you WANT President Trump to be successful and save those 44,000 lives that MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY might die...

    Is THAT what you are saying now??

    Don't bother answering, because I simply would not believe you if you said you WANT President Trump to succeed...

    :D

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another cross over point in clean energy is approaching. Now that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel plants on a long term basis, the problem was the filler plants when the sun wasn't shining (it has a habit of doing that every single day) or the wind wasn't blowing.

    In the past the cost of natural gas plants was the lowest option, but Tesla's economies of scale building Li-Ion batteries is kicking in and it is expected that when the mega-plant in Reno comes on line, battery storage will be equivalent or cheaper.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/tesla-s-battery-revolution-just-reached-critical-mass

    (Thanks to Barry Ritholz for the link).

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you WANT President Trump to be successful and save those 44,000 lives that MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY might die...

    Really? Do I have to join the dots?

    I want 45 to fail in his attempt to repeal Obamacare because there is no replacement plan and the repeal without an adequate replacement will result in 44,000 unnecessary Americans dying.

    Do you want 45 to succeed so much that 44,000 will die? Or do you have a plan that will ensure that nobody loses coverage?

  52. [52] 
    dsws wrote:

    [21] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    (quoting [14] me)We had policies toward Native Americans that were downright genocidal for a century or so.(/quote)

    Had?

    Policy can be pretty bad, without actually being genocidal. As far as I know, there is no US policy in the last few decades that's actually aimed at annihilating any Native American nation. What policies are you referring to?

    it is expected that when the mega-plant in Reno comes on line, battery storage will be equivalent or cheaper

    Wow, cool. I hope that's right. I never thought batteries and photovoltaic solar were going to improve as much as they already have. My guess, not too many years ago, was that the winning technology would be concentrating solar power (using sunlight to heat a working fluid such as oil or molten salt, and then running a steam turbine). Then I thought schedulable demand was going to be big.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you want 45 to succeed so much that 44,000 will die? Or do you have a plan that will ensure that nobody loses coverage?

    If I knew for an absolute fact that 44K people WOULD die and that it's NOT just hysterical bigotry talking, then no...

    I would NOT want President Trump to succeed..

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    My guess, not too many years ago, was that the winning technology would be concentrating solar power (using sunlight to heat a working fluid such as oil or molten salt, and then running a steam turbine). Then I thought schedulable demand was going to be big.

    Some of the new solar concentrating plants are using molten salts and heating them then cycling the hot salts into a larger pool that stays hot after the sun stops shining to allow energy to be generated - i.e. they are using a large molten salt mass as a heat inertia mechanism.

    However nobody expected the price of photo-voltaic cells to drop so quickly. The battery price drop is also going faster than expected.

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I knew for an absolute fact that 44K people WOULD die and that it's NOT just hysterical bigotry talking, then no...

    I would NOT want President Trump to succeed..

    Well I linked to the paper that shows the evidence and conclusions - all you need to do is either find a paper that refutes the New England Journal of Medicine paper or collect the data yourself and write your own.

    I predict that you will ignore the science as you always do when it doesn't meet your ideological needs.

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response from comment 172 in FTP

    I must have read a different DOJ report on Ferguson than you did.

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

    And yet, for example, white people use drugs at a slightly higher percentage than black people.
    Selective enforcement yields the starkly different arrest, prosecution and incarceration rates.
    These incidents of selective enforcement begin with things like traffic stops and how police resources are allocated by the (white) people in charge.

    "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!

    The history of Ferguson shows how the situation came about, and your guesses and assertions are factually incorrect.

    I've generally thought highly of your comments, but even with your admission of ignorance ("I seriously doubt"), that paragraph comes across as the typical nonsense trying to justify systemic racism.

    If you're interested but not interested enough to do it yourself, I will gladly track down some of the articles that explain how the system in Ferguson evolved, and how it is unfortunately far too typical all across America.

    A

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Well I linked to the paper that shows the evidence and conclusions - all you need to do is either find a paper that refutes the New England Journal of Medicine paper or collect the data yourself and write your own.

    It's still nothing but a prediction from a proven Left Wing bias'ed source...

    As such, it's meaningless...

    I predict that you will ignore the science as you always do when it doesn't meet your ideological needs.

    I ALWAYS ignore partisan/ideological based science no matter WHOSE needs it meets...

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    “We’ve seen nothing where we can where — where I can work with President Bush on…”
    -House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

    Jeeezus.. Between Waters and Pelosi, Democrats are losing their minds!!!

    Senility???

    Or just the fact that the American people have totally and completely rejected the Democrat Party and it's agenda...

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [56]:

    John Oliver had a good show highlighting the problems:

    http://time.com/3754023/john-oliver-municipal-violations/

    Basically police departments have outsourced collections and have a lot of inflexible processes that are difficult for people to adhere to - and once they get out of compliance the fines mount on fines etc.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:
  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's still nothing but a prediction from a proven Left Wing bias'ed source...

    Yeah, that New England Journal of Medicine - established in 1812 with the sole purpose of preparing the ground to refute a crazy orange right wing nutter.

    It is even their motto:

    "Aliquam insanis dextro cornu - nos sustinere femina"

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    Those devious anti-45 plotters have waited 205 years for their nefarious plan to come to bear. The first 204 years they built themselves up as one of the primary journals in the medical field, on par with The Lancet, Scientia Pharmaceutica and Prescrire to lull 45 into a false sense of security - then "Wham!" they strike with surgical precision to undermine his policies.

    Such foresight. Such cunning. It is like that Irish guy Tindell who tied CO2 to warming in 1859 to increase American taxes in 2015!

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I think dsws has it right in comment 14.

    Trump was telling the truth.
    A truth our establishment doesn't like... no, not just conservatives.

    But there is plenty to add in answer to your question-
    "What has any American president done that is on the same moral scale as that?"

    On journalism-
    Deliberate targeting of journalists by US forces in Iraq comes to mind.
    The non-lethal targeting of journalists in the US is indeed an equivalence.
    The simple exclusion of anti-establishment journalists and journalism comes to mind.

    But the "immoral equivalence" of killing journalists compared to the morality of instigating coups, illegal wars, proxy wars, droning innocents, bombing hospitals, creating refugees, selling weapons to regimes worse than Putin, etc. etc. etc. is a double standard in itself.
    The "same moral scale" indeed.
    American presidents from both parties are killers.
    Selective outrage about the plight of journalists in Russia is hypocrisy.

    But the big issue that went unmentioned is that you are talking about Trump wanting to make nice with Russia.

    The simple reality is that when the autocrats, dictators or monarchs who are our allies kill journalists, it's ignored by the establishment in both parties. They may condemn it, but our policies and alliances remain unchanged.

    ---

    That said, I fully support your effort to get Trump on the record expounding on what he meant.

    Americans do not hear such truths often enough to dispel the bogus exceptionalism claims made by politicians in both parties.

    So, let's hear what Trump has to say.

    But, don't be surprised when our establishment media refuses to pin Trump down... they're willing collaborators in maintaining the myth.

    A

  64. [64] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    59

    That's a good source for the ridiculousness of part of the situation, but not the full situation I was referring to or how the situation came about.
    (btw, Oliver's excellent bits are available on YouTube without the painful experience of the Time website)

    And, we are talking about lingering systemic racism.
    But there is actually a current example in Texas where a city council wants to keep using a law deemed unconstitutional in order to maintain a white majority on the council in a city with a Hispanic majority... so we aren't just talking about an unaddressed historical situation... these efforts are ongoing.

    For those unfamiliar, the gerrymandering issue that Dems have been so vocal about is one part of the various schemes which allow these policies to continue.

    It should be noted that supposedly liberal whites in blue states were active participants in using some of the tactics too though.

    A

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh well.. If it's in their motto, they MUST be legit, right?? :^/

    Do you even HEAR yerself?? :D

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's face reality..

    You believe what you want to believe SOLELY because your ideology says to..

    Do you know how we know this??

    Because EVERYTHING is compatible and re-enforces your ideology...

    Think about it..

    What are the odds that EVERY BIT of science, EVERYTHING that people say is 1000% totally and completely and unequivocally compatible with your partisan ideology..

    What are the odds of that happening?? That EACH and EVERY bit of your ideology is 1000% compatible with EACH and EVERY thing in the natural world...

    The idea that YOU believe this is mind-boggling...

    The fact that you believe this proves how far off the reservation you are...

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    The “Knights for Socialism” group at the University of Central Florida (UCF) held a workshop Sunday to teach left-wing students how to “BASH THE FASH” with a “Leftist Fight Club” open to everyone but Republicans.
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/campusreform/8741/FightClubFB.jpg

    There's your Democrat Party people....

    Condemnation???

    {{{chhhiirrrrpppp}}} {{{chirrrrrppppp}}}

    Yea, that's what I thought...

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh well.. If it's in their motto, they MUST be legit, right?? :^/

    Do you even HEAR yerself?? :D

    Run the motto thru Google Translate - it's amusing.

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    This is what ya'all don't get...

    They are lunatics out there that are doing things, horrible and disgusting and perverted thing, in the name of the Democrat Party, in the name of liberals and in the name of progressives..

    And if ya'all don't condemn those actions out of some misguided sense of Party Loyalty Uber Alles, that means you support and condone such actions..

    Silence does, indeed, give assent...

    And if you DON'T condemn these actions, ESPECIALLY when they are brought to your attention, then you have absolutely NO MORAL authority to condemn similar actions from the Right...

    It's THAT simple...

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Some group did something the Right Wingery are generating outrage about.

    It is really obscure, but Michale brings it to our attention.

    Now he beats us up for not condemning it.

    Basically this is the format of too many of your posts - if you think it makes us feel bad you are delusional, personally I just think, "What a snowflake!"

    Plus you expect us all to be on 24/7 alert for everything Fox News et al want to frighten already scared people with and immediately have a response ready?

    Delusional. And sad. But mostly delusional.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is what ya'all don't get...

    Nope, you don't get to play this game. I'm not apologizing for every hangnail some whiner gets on the right that is blown up into an international crisis to sell eyeballs.

    You can play that game all you want, but don't expect anything but contempt if you think you can manufacture guilt by so silly a manner.

    This sort of childishness only works on the sheep, we are wolves here.

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    You believe what you want to believe SOLELY because your ideology says to..

    No, I just find evidence that refutes your talking points and you can't refute the evidence so you try to make out that both sides are equally bias.

    The problem is, I'm quoting from the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF FUCKING MEDICINE and you are quoting from somewhere up your ass.

    Needless to say, most people would find this a false equivalence ;)

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Run the motto thru Google Translate - it's amusing.

    https://www.google.com/#q=%22Aliquam+insanis+dextro+cornu+-+nos+sustinere+femina%22

    "I don't get it.."
    "You uncultured swine!!!"

    -TOY STORY

    :D

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    No, I just find evidence that refutes your talking points and you can't refute the evidence so you try to make out that both sides are equally bias.

    But ALL the "evidence" you find supports your ideology 1000%....

    What are the odds of that happening in real life??

    And, if there is ever any facts that DISPUTE your ideology, so you alter your ideology??

    No, you ignore the facts...

    Ideology-based reality...

    THAT's what you have...

  75. [75] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [68]
    Oh well.. If it's in their motto, they MUST be legit, right?? :^/

    Do you even HEAR yerself?? :D

    Run the motto thru Google Translate - it's amusing.

    "quod erat demonstrandum, baby." "Ooooh, you speak French!"
    -- Airhead, Thomas Dolby

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    The problem is, I'm quoting from the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF FUCKING MEDICINE and you are quoting from somewhere up your ass.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/05/new-england-journal-medicine-increasingly-targeted-critics/9H3JFKzTNJpCsOQqIUNXJP/story.html

    So???

    It's biased... You might as well be quoting from the NOAA or HuffPoop or WaPoop....

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    YOU only believe it because it's compatible with your ideology..

    If the NEJOM stated something that WASN'T compatible with your ideology, you would be saying the EXACT same thing about it that I am saying...

    THAT's the point...

    You quote things that support your ideology and ignore the things that go against your ideology...

    Such as Left Winger violence...

    It's THAT simple...

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    But ALL the "evidence" you find supports your ideology 1000%....

    Because I look for source materials to double check my points before I make them - where did the 44,000 number come from? Well CW, who is a real journalist, supplied a link, which I followed. That link references an article in the NEJM, which I read. So now I've got some peer reviewed research from a respected journal, which is a pretty high gauge of veracity.

    However if you have similarly rigorous research that refutes the claims being made in the paper, I'd love to read them - in fact I even asked you for them.

    As long as you depend of Fox News and the like as reliable sources you will be an easy mark - and they aren't even trying to get you to vote at the moment, thy just want your eyeballs so they can try to sell you something (it will be their candidate in a couple of years, but for now it is probably some camo hat or a donation to a favorite cause).

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the NEJOM stated something that WASN'T compatible with your ideology, you would be saying the EXACT same thing about it that I am saying...

    Nope. I'd be learning. And that is why I find these things out, because I'm curious. And I'm more interested in finding out I'm wrong or discovering something new than re-reading something I already know.

    I'm the opposite of what you claim.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-normalizing-donald-trump-now-1486426354

    Yep...

    Democrats are getting played and, worse, they don't even know it and are following along like good little lemmings..

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Nope. I'd be learning. And that is why I find these things out, because I'm curious. And I'm more interested in finding out I'm wrong or discovering something new than re-reading something I already know.

    I'm the opposite of what you claim.

    Bullshit..

    If you were, then you would be INTERESTED when I post opposing theories of human caused global warming, rather than just dismiss them out of hand...

    If you WERE as you claim now, you would be interested in the WSJ article I just posted about how Democrats are getting played..

    If you were as you claim now, you would condemn the Left Wingery violence rather than refuse to acknowledge it even exists..

    If you were as you claim now, you would concede that you COULD be wrong about President Trump...

    EVERYTHING you comment proves beyond ANY doubt that your ideology colors everything you comment on...

    Party Uber Alles...

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's biased... You might as well be quoting from the NOAA or HuffPoop or WaPoop....

    There are always whiners - do you select doctors who rely on Fox News instead of the NEJM?

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    . So now I've got some peer reviewed research from a respected journal, which is a pretty high gauge of veracity.

    And all the peer-reviewed research from scientists that disprove the human caused global warming theory??

    You ignore it.. Because it doesn't fit your ideology...

    However if you have similarly rigorous research that refutes the claims being made in the paper, I'd love to read them - in fact I even asked you for them.

    So, are you saying you willo acknowledge as factual EVERYTHING that is printed by the NEJOM???

    EVERYTHING???

    {please say yes, please say yes, please say yes} :D

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    There are always whiners

    And, in YOUR opinion, ALL the whiners are on the Right..

    Again, what are the odds that this is factual???

    ALL the whiners are on the Right and ALL the cool, courageous and correct people are on the Left...

    What are the odds???

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, still no reliable evidence to refute the NEJM paper?

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    So, still no reliable evidence to refute the NEJM paper?

    It's Left Wing bias is enough to cast doubt on it's claims...

    So, still no concession that you could be wrong??

    Still no acknowledgment of the Left Wingery violence??

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    44,000 people are going to die every 12 months if the Republicans repeal Obamacare without a plan to make sure the 20+ million people who got coverage, plus the millions more whose pre-existing conditions who will now be eligible to be refuse further coverage.

    There is a paper in the NEJM that shows from a large study that, surprise, surprise, the mortality rate goes down in a calculated ratio when people are given medical care.

    And all you can do is claim the NEJM isn't perfect enough for you so should be ignored, and that your inability to find evidence that refutes the study implies that all science is biased because there should be science backing up your argument.

    Life doesn't work that way. Get with reality.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Still no acknowledgement of the senility of Left Wingers in Congress??

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea...

    Party loyalty colors EVERYTHING you think....

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's Left Wing bias is enough to cast doubt on it's claims...

    If it is biased then you should be able to point to the reality based science instead.

    {{{chhhiirrrrpppp}}} {{{chirrrrrppppp}}}

    Yea, that's what I thought...

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    44,000 people are going to die every 12 months if the Republicans repeal Obamacare without a plan to make sure the 20+ million people who got coverage, plus the millions more whose pre-existing conditions who will now be eligible to be refuse further coverage.

    Yes.. That's the prediction..

    But it's the prediction of an organization that has a Left Wingery bias...

    How many predictions of the Global Warming fanatics have failed to come to pass..

    EVERY ONE OF THEM...

    This prediction is simply more of the same...

    It's nothing but a Left Wingery prediction and the Left Wingery has FAILED miserably on predictions of late...

    THIS is fact.....

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    If it is biased then you should be able to point to the reality based science instead.

    It's a prediction.. I don't deal in predictions because they are ALWAYS colored by ideology..

    Since I have no ideology, I am not equipped to refute ideologically based predictions..

    You hate President Trump..

    THAT is why you buy into this prediction...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    Like I said...

    Between Global Warming predictions that have NEVER come to pass and the Left Wingery being wrong about President Trump at *EVERY* turn.....

    Ya think that THIS prediction holds water??? :D

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    You have a PREDICTION on what MAYBE, POSSIBLY MIGHT happen because of President Trump's actions and that causes you to attack President Trump..

    On the OTHER hand, you have the DEFINITIVE FACT that your President Odumbo DID in fact cause the deaths of thousands/tens of thousands of innocent people and you say absolutely NOTHING against Odumbo....

    So, the *ONLY* logical conclusion based on these FACTS is that you don't really care about who lives and who dies..

    You ONLY want to attack President Trump and will use ANY fanciful excuse to do so...

    It's an issue of credibility...

    It's obvious that it's all about Party loyalty and, as such, there is no credibility coming from ya'all...

    It's that simple....

    Ya'all have been wrong and cried WOLF too many times to be believed now..

    No matter how many psuedo-so-called facts ya'all come up with...

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    That's what it all boils down to..

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya think that THIS prediction holds water??? :D

    You really think that if you took two groups of 20 million people and gave one healthcare and told the other to fend for themselves that the outcomes would be the same?

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    You really think that if you took two groups of 20 million people and gave one healthcare and told the other to fend for themselves that the outcomes would be the same?

    I think there are a LOT of factors that can't be predicted and ANYONE who says they know for sure what's going to happen is just following Party loyalty...

    You might be right..

    But you COULD be wrong...

    And your Party loyalty won't let you concede the latter...

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Just as your Party Loyalty won't let you condemn the Left Wingery violence that is permeating society today...

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    I could be wrong about the impact of taking away healthcare from 20 million people.

    But I would not take that risk because respected scientific studies indicate that about 44,000 of them will die while I try to prove a political point. What if I'm half right, and only 22,000 die. Or doubly wrong and 88,000 die?

    Are you so sure you are right that you are willing to take that risk?

    Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that none would die?

    Does it make sense that we pay 19% of our GDP for healthcare when there is no discernible benefit?

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    I could be wrong about the impact of taking away healthcare from 20 million people.

    Odumbo took healthcare away from millions and millions of Americans...

    You didn't seem to mind then...

    But I would not take that risk because respected scientific studies indicate that about 44,000 of them will die while I try to prove a political point. What if I'm half right, and only 22,000 die. Or doubly wrong and 88,000 die?

    And what if you are wrong (as you ALWAYS have been) and leaving TrainWreckCare alone causes it to collapse, 100,000 Americans die and a sixth of our economy goes belly up...

    See?? I can fear-monger too.. :D

    Are you so sure you are right that you are willing to take that risk?

    I have been right to date on everything President Trump... So the probabilities are in my favor..

    You have been WRONG to day on everything President Trump..

    So, you tell me... :D Who does the probabilities favor??

    Does it make sense that we pay 19% of our GDP for healthcare when there is no discernible benefit?

    How is that any different than TrainWreckCare???

    It's been a disaster...

    I can't believe you STILL defend it...

    It is simply not viable... This is fact...

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    I could be wrong about the impact of taking away healthcare from 20 million people.

    Yes, you could.. Especially if the crappy Trainwreckcare is replaced with something better, more logical and rational.. Better care, less expensive..

    Yes, you COULD be wrong..

    But you don't factor that in because your ideology won't let you ..

    It's all gloom and doom because you hate President Trump.. You cannot conceive that the Trump administration might actually make it work...

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    You see, that is exactly my point about your "proof"... It doesn't factor in what TrainWreckCare will be replaced with..

    As such, it's prediction is completely and utterly meaningless and TOTALLY based on NOTHING but partisan bigotry......

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    But you don't factor that in because your ideology won't let you ..

    I don't factor that in because I've not seen any plan. Also, 45 has admitted that there won't be a replacement until 2018.

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm [59]

    That was a great piece that John did. The one thing that must be pointed out is that the police do not have any say in the collections part. They only enforce the laws of the communities they serve; they don't create the laws or have a say in the amount of the fines. The Police are always blamed for every aspect of the laws that they enforce,

    altohone [56],

    I reread my post and want to state that I support the overall changes that were recommended, but that I did take issue with the way the city was negatively cast as if the ordinances they implimented were intentionally racist in nature.

    It is incorrect to group arrests made and view them as a monolith. Every single incident is a different case with its own particular set of dynamics. It is easier to blame the police as being racist when the only people killed by the police all happen to be black than to question why the individuals all chose to commit acts that warranted the police's use of deadly force?

    I expect my last statement to trigger a "you are blaming the victim" reaction, but that would be the incorrect interpretation of the events that occur in justified shootings. The person shot ( in the legal definition of a justified shooting) created the situation that resulted in the officer being justified to shoot them, thus it is incorrect to label them as the "victim". Attempting to disarm an officer is viewed as a "use of deadly force" by the courts, as they recognize that 96% of all officers that lose their gun in a struggle are killed by their own guns, (98% are shot).

    I am very familiar with how small towns have survived in the last few decades financially. Citizens push for lower taxes, and in their place fines start getting used to cover the loss of income being brought in. It sounds innocent enough, as only those that violate the laws will be punished; and no one ever seems to think that is a problem. The problem comes in how those fines are collected, and I do not deny that systemic institutional racism has played a major part in the collection of those fines. I would point out, again, that the police have NO part in this.

    Here is why I said that the black community did not seem to mind being "victims", they could have forced a vote on an initiative to change things and they never did. The black community in Ferguson didn't have a say on their city council. That wasn't because black candidates lost elections, it was because none had sought to run for the office. How does systemic institutional racism prevent anyone from running? While that makes the claims that they were at the mercy of the white city government no less true on paper, it does raise the question as to why they accept that? Blaming everything on racism is just as ignorant as denying it exists, as is believing that there aren't multiple perspectives to this topic that each have their merits.

  104. [104] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    The ACA did not cause any person to lose their coverage, it was specifically written to prevent the law from causing that to happen! The insurance companies CHOSE to stop plans that they felt didn't make them enough money, the ACA had nothing to do with those actions. And I do not know of any cases where people were left without insurance, they were typically automatically enrolled in a replacement plan or were given the optional plans that they could choose from and allowed to select for themselves. The ACA prevented people from being denied acceptance, so even if they were dropped by their insurer as you claim, they were not left without options.

  105. [105] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So, are you saying you willo acknowledge as factual EVERYTHING that is printed by the NEJOM???

    So, are you saying you will acknowledge as inaccurate EVERYTHING that is printed by the NEJOM??? Is this what YOU are stating? Michale, these are the idiotic arguments that get made when you are not able to defend your original position.

    And can you please point to a site that lists out the Left's party ideology that you claim we have all agreed to place before rational thought, I want to refresh my memory as to what it is that I supposedly believe.

    And your claim that Trump proved us all wrong with our predictions that he'd lose the election is completely false. Trump didn't have anything to do with it. It was our belief that the people would never elect a person as horrible as Trump to be president that was wrong. Trump's lived up to most people's expectations of him, but not everyone's.

    Devon's parents apologized to us for not taking our view on Trump serious enough. They voted for him and now regret it.

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't factor that in because I've not seen any plan.

    Then your conclusion is meaningless and arbitrary because it doesn't take in all the data..

    Also, 45 has admitted that there won't be a replacement until 2018.

    And if TrainWreckCare dies on it's own before that, then those alleged 44,000 deaths will be on Odumbo's hands, not President Trumps..

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    The ACA did not cause any person to lose their coverage, it was specifically written to prevent the law from causing that to happen!

    That is complete and utter bullshit...

    The insurance companies CHOSE to stop plans that they felt didn't make them enough money, the ACA had nothing to do with those actions.

    More complete and utter bullshit..

    The ACA forced the insurance companies to drop plans because those plans were no longer viable...

    "We're not leaving him to drown!! We're just leaving him! Drowning's HIS decision"
    -OPERATION: PETTICOAT

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    The ACA forced the insurance companies to drop plans because those plans were no longer viable...

    To be more accurate, the ACA required that insurance company plans have certain aspects to them..

    Those plans that did not have those aspects had to be killed and new plans had to be created that met the ACA requirements... Plans that cost more because the ACA required that more junk be in them... A man HAD to buy an insurance plan that had women's reproductive care in it because the ACA required that ALL plans have women reproductive care...

    So, saying TrainWreckCare didn't kill any plans is complete and utter bullshit..

    The long and short of it is, people lost plans and lost doctors they were happy with after being EXPLICITLY told by FORMER President Odumbo that THAT would not happen...

    Spin it all you want, discuss what the definition of 'is' is til the cows come home..

    But the facts ARE the facts...

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Then your conclusion is meaningless and arbitrary because it doesn't take in all the data..

    Which, when you look at it, is the problem with practically EVERYTHING the Left Wingery spews...

    They only take in the data that supports the agenda and ignores ANY data that disputes the agenda...

    It's nothing but agenda-based evidence...

    As opposed to an evidence-based agenda...

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    Looks like President Trump's SecEd has been confirmed..

    The ONE chance that Democrats might have been able to stop the President's nominations and they blew it...

    Looks like President Trump is on course to have each and every one of his nominations confirmed... :D

    And the Democrat Party has ONLY Harry Reid to thank for it..

    If only someone had pointed out what a bad idea it would be to nuke the filibuster and pointed out that Democrats would come to regret it..

    Oh... wait.. :D

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    [39] michale wrote:

    He's already cracked 50%...

    But I know you can't acknowledge that fact..

    Can you acknowledge the fact that Trump hasn't yet cracked 50% in the poll Gallup invented in the 1930s to track presidential approval ratings? While I don't doubt there is a conservative poll out there somewhere showing otherwise, the fact is that Gallup is the poll by which every president since the 1930s has been measured, and Trump has NOT cracked 50% yet unless you're tracking his disapproval rating. Graph at link.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

    Yer like Christopher Reeve in that movie where he saw a penny and was whisked back to his own time because the reality of the penny totally disrupted his non-reality...

    Actually, the face of the penny in 1912 was the same as the penny he retrieved from his pocket. It was the reality of the date on the penny... 1979... that whisked him back to his own time in 1980. The numbers were irrefutable.

    Don't click on the link above and look at the Gallup poll by which all presidents are measured unless you'd like to get whisked back to reality in 2017. :)

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-57-percent/

    You ever get tired of being wrong, Kick?? :D

    Actually, the face of the penny in 1912 was the same as the penny he retrieved from his pocket. It was the reality of the date on the penny... 1979... that whisked him back to his own time in 1980. The numbers were irrefutable.

    That's what I said.. He was exposed to reality (1979) and it whisked him away from his fantasy world..

    I never saw the whole movie, just happened to catch that one part..

    But it's apropos considering the fantasy world ya'all live in where Hillary Clinton won the presidential election.. :D

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you acknowledge the fact that Trump hasn't yet cracked 50% in the poll Gallup invented in the 1930s to track presidential approval ratings?

    In other words, you want to cherry pick the polls you believe to "prove" your agenda..

    I would have thought you would have learned your lesson about that when I STOMPED you over yer PENNSYLVANIA BS... :D

    In polls, President Trump has cracked 50%...

    This is fact..

    Now, you can choose ALL the "alternate" facts you want, you can cherry pick yer polls until the cows come home, cuz that has served you SO WELL in the past.. :D heh

    But the FACT is, President Trump has cracked 50% in Job Approval polls..

    This is the fact.. Deal with it..

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Irregardless of all the facts, the only Poll that carries any weight around here is the RCP Poll Of Polls..

    Now, if you want to use THAT poll from here on out, then you would be correct..

    President Trump has not cracked 50% in THAT poll...

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    [113] michale wrote:

    In other words, you want to cherry pick the polls you believe to "prove" your agenda..

    No, snowflake, I used the Gallup poll that invented the presidential job approval ratings around 80 years ago and is considered nonpartisan. If I had wanted to cherry pick a poll, I would have used the Quinnipiac University poll that shows Trump's approval rating at 36%.

    Gallup: 42%
    Rasmussen: 53%
    Quinnipiac: 36%
    CBS News: 40%
    CNN/ORC: 44%

    The Quinnipiac University poll seems too low, in my opinion. Rasmussen is a right-leaning poll and the only poll... in fact... that shows Trump with a positive approval rating at the moment.

    Michale has met the cherry picker, and the cherry picker is... in fact... Michale. :)

    Irregardless of all the facts, the only Poll that carries any weight around here is the RCP Poll Of Polls..

    Now, if you want to use THAT poll from here on out, then you would be correct..

    President Trump has not cracked 50% in THAT poll...

    Congratulations. It took you awhile, but you did make it back to reality. :)

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    No, snowflake, I used the Gallup poll that invented the presidential job approval ratings around 80 years ago and is considered nonpartisan. If I had wanted to cherry pick a poll, I would have used the Quinnipiac University poll that shows Trump's approval rating at 36%.

    You used the Gallup poll because it said what you wanted to hear..

    Just like you ignored ALL the polls that said Trump was going to be elected and ONLY believed the polls that said what you wanted to hear..

    Like I said, I would have thought I would have broken you of that nasty habit, but apparently not...

    REUTERS: APPROVAL AT 50.2%...

    RASMUSSEN: 53%...

    FACT: Trump has broken 50% in Job Approval polls..

    That's all I claim and, unlike YOU, I have the facts to back it up.. :D

    All you have are alternative facts.. :D

    Congratulations. It took you awhile, but you did make it back to reality. :)

    I have always been here in reality.. Remember *I* was the one who knew Trump would be elected President..

    It was ya'all who were living in the fantasy that Hillary would sweep all 50 states... :D

    Heh

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Face it, sweet cheeks.. When it comes to FACTS, ya'all have been on the WRONG side of them for over a year..

    Every since President Trump announced his candidacy...

    Florida.... Pennsylvania.... Ohio.... North Carolina... Wisconsin.... Michigan.... I called them all... :D

    So, when it comes to reality.... Ya'all are on the wrong side...

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [116]

    You used the Gallup poll because it said what you wanted to hear..

    I used the Gallup poll, and I could have used any other poll, but I do think the Quinnipiac University poll is too low.

    Just like you ignored ALL the polls that said Trump was going to be elected and ONLY believed the polls that said what you wanted to hear..

    As I have said before, I don't ignore polls. So... regarding "ALL the polls that said Trump was going to be elected"... which ones were those? I know of 2 out of hundreds. It takes a special kind of goober to keep insisting he was smarter than ALL the polls that got it wrong whilst simultaneously insisting that somebody/anybody ignored ALL the polls showing Trump winning. Duh.

    Like I said, I would have thought I would have broken you of that nasty habit, but apparently not...

    Like I said, I don't get hung up by all the goobers proselytizing from their glass houses and doublewides. :D

    REUTERS: APPROVAL AT 50.2%...

    RASMUSSEN: 53%...

    FACT: Trump has broken 50% in Job Approval polls..

    That's all I claim and, unlike YOU, I have the facts to back it up.. :D

    You can keep spewing your "alternative facts" or you can check Reuters again. Trump, in fact, has not broken 50% in job approval ratings on Reuters... so that leaves only your cherry picked conservative leaning Rasmussen poll showing Trump above 50%. Don't click on the link to Reuters below if you don't want to be whisked back to reality. :)

    https://polling.reuters.com/#poll/CP3_2

    Trump achieved 48.3% on January 29... not quite there yet on Reuters. It it weren't for Rasmussen's conservative leaning poll, you'd have nothing.

    FACT: Trump has broken 50% in one conservative leaning job approval poll.

    Fixed that for you... but just look on the bright side, from Day 1, PT was setting historical polling records that may never be equaled in our lifetimes. *LOL* :D

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    As I have said before, I don't ignore polls. So... regarding "ALL the polls that said Trump was going to be elected"... which ones were those?

    The ones I kept posting for the entire year before the election. The ones that said that President Trump would be a reality.. The one's you ignored, laughed at and ridiculed..

    Well, guess who's laughing now?? :D

    Like I said, I don't get hung up by all the goobers proselytizing from their glass houses and doublewides. :D

    How positively elitist Democrat of you.. No wonder Democrats have been decimated in the last 6 years..

    You were wrong about President Trump. You denied reality and reality bit back... :D

    These are the facts...

    Florida.. You were wrong.. I was right..

    PENNSYLVANIA... You were wrong.. I was right..

    Ohio.. You AND Paula were wrong.. I was right..

    North Carolina.. You were wrong.. I was right..

    And so on and so on and so on..

    So, every time you pull out the totally BS claim that I am not living in reality...

    I will pull out the FACTS that prove who is living in reality and who isn't...

    It's that simple...

    FACT: Trump has broken 50% in one conservative leaning job approval poll.

    FACT: Trump has broken 50% in job approval polls that I don't like what they say.

    There... Fixed it for you... :D

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    I used the Gallup poll, and I could have used any other poll, but I do think the Quinnipiac University poll is too low.

    Apparently, you didn't think it was too low when Neil used it...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [119]

    blah, blah... blah, blah, blah

    You have this pattern where the longer your comments are generally means someone has proven you wrong. So... by the length of your comment... LOL... I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the Reuters link that proves you're wrong.

    *LOL*

    Carry on, goober! :)

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [120]

    Apparently, you didn't think it was too low when Neil used it...

    Apparently, you didn't think it was totally transparent when you made up a lie about me to advance your false narrative, goober. :D

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    You have this pattern where the longer your comments are generally means someone has proven you wrong. So... by the length of your comment... LOL... I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the Reuters link that proves you're wrong.

    You have a pattern of seeing patterns you only WANT to see.. My initial comments to CW's commentaries are usually quite lengthy...

    Once again, you prove how willfully ignorant you are.. :D

    Apparently, you didn't think it was totally transparent when you made up a lie about me to advance your false narrative, goober.

    No, but what IS totally transparent, sweet cheeks, is how you change your definition of LIE to fit your partisan bigotry... :D

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [123]

    You have a pattern of seeing patterns you only WANT to see.. My initial comments to CW's commentaries are usually quite lengthy...

    I was looking at all of your comments as my sample size when forming my opinion. If you want to narrow it down to merely your "initial comments," then surely your must realize that it is... in fact... YOU who are only seeing what you WANT to see.

    Once again, you prove how willfully ignorant you are.. :D

    You used the exact same insult in the prior discussion. Is this monotony going to become yet another discernable pattern?

    No, but what IS totally transparent, sweet cheeks, is how you change your definition of LIE to fit your partisan bigotry... :D

    Wrong. My "definition of LIE" never changes. Oh, I see what you did there; you made up a lie about me to advance your false narrative... which is exactly what I described as being "totally transparent." I won't say goober this time. :)

    So I take it that you still did not look at the link I provided proving you were wrong about Trump's approval rating breaking above 50% on Reuters?

    "You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

    https://polling.reuters.com/#poll/CP3_2

    Go on... ^^^ click ^^^ click ^^^ You might as well take the red pill since you've already drank the red Kool-Aid. It's never too late to learn the truth about how deep the approval rating goes... or I could just let you know when Trump breaks above 50% on Reuters... or any other poll NOT conservative leaning Rasmussen. :)

Comments for this article are closed.